DisgLocke, Hume, Kant, Mill, is there anyone they didn't ban

 
Attempted murder
Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1(1) Effective from: 27 July 2009 Triable on indictment
Maximum: Life imprisonment This is a serious offence for the purposes of s.224 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Specific aggravating factors
Factors indicating higher culpability
a. the fact that the victim was particularly vulnerable, for example, because of age or disability
b. mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim
c. the abuse of a position of trust
d. the use of duress or threats against another person to facilitate the commission of the offence
e. the fact that the victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty  
Certainly a, b, c and e, and probably d too. 
 
But of course the law doesn’t apply to Linch, Goldstone, Naylor et al.
 
I do assure persons known and unknown that nowhere in British law does it say that if the victim is a woman no serious crime can be held to have been committed for assuredly it is the purpose of woman to be used as a punchbag by men, women are simply children to be beaten if we disobey.
 
Beyond despicable.  Etc.   Run entirely on their own rules which connect nowhere with the reality of the society around them. 
 
Ah, the Great Penis in the Sky, is its satisfaction, sexual and otherwise for the pain of women, for injury to women, sated? Has ’god ‘ had an orgasm over crippling me, like his human slaves. Does he, like its human slaves sit sweating with ecstasy that he has succeeded in crushing intelligence, learning, reason, in breaking a woman’s body, in wrecking her life, thus they sit in an orgasmic glow at how wonderful and powerful they all are, to have achieved desecration, how clever, how inspired and inspiring to have targeted a single woman with an elderly and infirm widowed mum where I am medically vulnerable, how awesome to have succeeded in crippling me and obtained total silence on the subject, that’s real power, that is, and of course the only ‘god’ the orc respects is bestiality, force and I’m supposed to be impressed, in awe, I and all England in awe of violence, of force, of corruption,  of the Great Alpha Baboon in the Sky who crushes humanity.  If that’s ‘god’, you can keep him.   England does not want to know.  The juggernaut continues uncaring, all to be fed to Moloch.

It is to the ‘Abrahamic faiths’ the world owes the joy of return to the savannah, of being a mindless monkey, of One Book, One Truth.

If you refuse to pretend to  run at the level of the stupid, ignorant, ineducable, cunt-for-brains, illiterate, psychotic, intellectually and emotionally helpless screaming animal, you get beaten up and left for dead.  What is my value to a country that is at the forefront of demanding a vigorous and free democracy?  Invaluable.  What is my value to this country, which wants stupid, ignorant, intellectually and emotionally helpless serfs who will believe everything they’re told and do anything they’re told, just sufficiently educated to be able to work?  None.

The Sumerians invented writing around 3400 BC.  At first it kept records of law and trade.  They also by the way invented the wheel. 

The Epic of Gilgamesh hails from around 1600 BC.  An awful lot can be lost in 3500 years.  
The Library of Alexandria was not the first library of its kind.[12][3] A long tradition of libraries existed in both Greece and in the ancient Near East.[13][3] The earliest recorded archive of written materials comes from the ancient Sumerian city-state of Uruk in around 3400 BC, when writing had only just begun to develop.[14] Scholarly curation of literary texts began in around 2500 BC.[14] The later kingdoms and empires of the ancient Near East had long traditions of book collecting.[15][3] The ancient Hittites and Assyrians had massive archives containing records written in many different languages.[15] The most famous library of the ancient Near East was the Library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, founded in the seventh century BC by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (ruled 668–c. 627 BC).[14][3] A large library also existed in Babylon during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (c. 605–c. 562 BC).[15] In Greece, the Athenian tyrant Peisistratos was said to have founded the first major public library in the sixth century BC.[16] It was out of this mixed heritage of both Greek and Near Eastern book collections that the idea for the Library of Alexandria was born.[17][3]

Yup, practically the first thing humans did, having worked out how to, was write and collect writings.

The Great Library of Alexandria in Alexandria, Egypt, was one of the largest and most significant libraries of the ancient world. The Library was part of a larger research institution called the Mouseion, which was dedicated to the Muses, the nine goddesses of the arts.[10] The idea of a universal library in Alexandria may have been proposed by Demetrius of Phalerum, an exiled Athenian statesman living in Alexandria, to Ptolemy I Soter, who may have established plans for the Library, but the Library itself was probably not built until the reign of his son Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The Library quickly acquired many papyrus scrolls, due largely to the Ptolemaic kings' aggressive and well-funded policies for procuring texts. It is unknown precisely how many such scrolls were housed at any given time, but estimates range from 40,000 to 400,000 at its height.
Alexandria came to be regarded as the capital of knowledge and learning, in part because of the Great Library.[11] Many important and influential scholars worked at the Library during the third and second centuries BC, including, among many others: Zenodotus of Ephesus, who worked towards standardizing the texts of the Homeric poems; Callimachus, who wrote the Pinakes, sometimes considered to be the world's first library catalogue; Apollonius of Rhodes, who composed the epic poem the Argonautica; Eratosthenes of Cyrene, who calculated the circumference of the earth within a few hundred kilometers of accuracy; Aristophanes of Byzantium, who invented the system of Greek diacritics and was the first to divide poetic texts into lines; and Aristarchus of Samothrace, who produced the definitive texts of the Homeric poems as well as extensive commentaries on them. During the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes, a daughter library was established in the Serapeum, a temple to the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis.

Despite the widespread modern belief that the Library of Alexandria was burned once and cataclysmically destroyed, the Library actually declined gradually over the course of several centuries, starting with the purging of intellectuals from Alexandria in 145 BC during the reign of Ptolemy VIII Physcon, which resulted in Aristarchus of Samothrace, the head librarian, resigning from his position and exiling himself to Cyprus. Many other scholars, including Dionysius Thrax and Apollodorus of Athens, fled to other cities, where they continued teaching and conducting scholarship. The Library, or part of its collection, was accidentally burned by Julius Caesar during his civil war in 48 BC, but it is unclear how much was actually destroyed and it seems to have either survived or been rebuilt shortly thereafter; the geographer Strabo mentions having visited the Mouseion in around 20 BC and the prodigious scholarly output of Didymus Chalcenterus in Alexandria from this period indicates that he had access to at least some of the Library's resources.

The Library dwindled during the Roman Period, due to lack of funding and support. Its membership appears to have ceased by the 260s AD. Between 270 and 275 AD, the city of Alexandria saw a rebellion and an imperial counterattack that probably destroyed whatever remained of the Library, if it still existed at that time. The daughter library of the Serapeum may have survived after the main Library's destruction. The Serapeum was vandalized and demolished in 391 AD under a decree issued by Coptic Christian Pope Theophilus of Alexandria, but it does not seem to have housed books at the time and was mainly used as a gathering place for Neoplatonist philosophers following the teachings of Iamblichus.

Necessarily, I think, given the widely different belief-systems current in the region at the time, the content of some scrolls must have been in open contradiction with that of others.  Just fucking think, no-one burned them.

Make that to Christianity and Islam we owe the triumph of the mindless animal, of One Book, One Truth.  Jews did not run about the world trying to make everyone accept their crap.

Although women in all levels of Egypian society continued to depend largely on the males of the family for sustenance and status, Egyptian women enjoyed greater freedoms and responsibilities than women anywhere else in the known world at that time. The cosmopolitan and cultured manner of Egyptian women is often emphasized in tomb paintings and reliefs and it is worth noting that the famous pharaoh Cleopatra, though Greek, adopted Egyptian ways and was noted for her refinement and charm. Women continued to be highly respected in Egypt and have equal rights with men until the coming of Christianity (which also brought a marked decline in personal hygiene since it was thought that Jesus Christ would return at any moment and so personal appearance was irrelevant and, further, attention to the body was considered vanity) which preached the inferiority of females to males and held up the example of Eve from the biblical Book of Genesis as the duplicitous standard by which all women should be judged. When Islam was brought to Egypt by the conquering Muslim forces, women enjoyed even less freedoms than they had under Christianity and the gifts of the goddess Isis, bestowed equally on men and women, were forgotten.
http://www.ancient.eu/article/143/

See also: http://www.ancient.eu/article/623/

Which was the more primitive society?

There would seem to be a notion abroad that ‘everything’ is owed to the adherents of the Jewish tribal god Yahweh-Allah-Jehovah in his various manifestations, to monotheism, but since polytheistic societies laid the foundations of virtually everything that matters that is somewhat far from the truth, is it not.  The greatest what if in history is probably what the West would have been as a consequence of cross-pollination between Greece and Egypt with all those magnificent Roman roads to carry it to the barbarian north.  The more primitive adherents of Yahweh-Allah-Jehovah are not only surplus to the modern age, but surplus to history. 

Watch it, baboon-boys, or Thoth will have something to say about it – fittingly.

Thoth is the Egyptian god of writing, magic, wisdom, and the moon. He was one of the most important gods of ancient Egypt alternately said to be self-created or born of the seed of Horus from the forehead of Set. As the son of these two deities, who represented order and chaos respectively, he was also the god of equilibrium and balance and associated closely with both the principle of ma'at (divine balance) and the goddess Ma'at who personified this principle (and who was sometimes seen as his wife). Another of his consorts was the goddess Nehemetawy ('She Who Embraces Those In Need") a protector goddess. In his form as A'an, Thoth presided over the judgment of the dead with Osiris in the Hall of the Truth and those souls who feared they might not pass through the judgment safely were encouraged to call upon Thoth for help. The consort most often associated with Thoth was Seshat, goddess of writing, the keeper of books, and patron goddess of libraries and librarians who was alternately his wife or daughter.
Worship of Thoth began in Lower Egypt most likely in the Pre-Dynastic Period (c. 6000-3150 BCE) and continued through the Ptolemaic Period (323-30 BCE), the last dynastic era of Egyptian history, marking Thoth's veneration as among the longest of the Egyptian gods or any deity from any civilization. His name was often taken by the kings of Egypt (example, Tuthmoses - "Born of Thoth"), scribes, and priests. He is most commonly depicted as a man with the head of an ibis or a seated baboon with or without a lunar disc above his head. He was the patron god of scribes and it was said that scribes would pour out one drop of their ink in Thoth's honor before they began their daily work.

God made in man’s image and likeness.  That too is rather obvious.

Xenophanes' surviving writings display a skepticism that became more commonly expressed during the fourth century BC. He satirized traditional religious views of his time as human projections.[17] He aimed his critique at the polytheistic religious views of earlier Greek poets and of his own contemporaries: "Homer and Hesiod," one fragment states, "have attributed to the gods all sorts of things that are matters of reproach and censure among men: theft, adultery, and mutual deception." Sextus Empiricus reported that[18] such observations were appreciated by Christian apologists. Xenophanes is quoted, memorably, in Clement of Alexandria,[19] arguing against the conception of gods as fundamentally anthropomorphic:
But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
...
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed [σιμούς] and black
Thracians that they are pale and red-haired.[20]
An additional criticism of the gods is found in the quote
The gods have not, of course, revealed all things to mortals
from the beginning;
but rather, seeking in the course of time, they discover
what is better.[21]
Xenophanes could be trying to say that humans are independent of the gods with their intelligence, that discoveries in science and other areas are the result of human work and not divine favors, thus removing the gods from the role of receiving credit for human accomplishment.
Other passages quoted by Clement of Alexandria that argue against the traditional Greek conception of gods include:
"One god, greatest among gods and humans,
like mortals neither in form nor in thought."[22] "But mortals think that the gods are born
and have the mortals' own clothes and voice and form."[22]

And absolutely no-one burned him at the stake.

What was it Eliot wrote, a world that turns progressively backwards. 

CHAPTER THREE
MAN'S RESPONSE TO GOD
142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company."1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.
143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith".3
I. The Obedience of Faith
144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. the Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.
Catechism
 
Ah well, by the time they’ve taken us back to pre-human everything will be cool; pre-humans didn’t have gods.  Can’t be long now: doctors and nurses can’t speak, despise language.  

Thus the perfect human: irrational and ignorant.

Thus the Dark Lord spawns by sustained child abuse mindless zombies, ignorant, irrational, intellectually and emotionally helpless, completely self-centred, deliberately kept at a mental age of about three, screaming when countered, bestially ignorant and irrational and just bestial.  To upset such a creature they regard as and claim to be like kicking baby animals, which of course is in a sense exactly what it is, the babies of the human animal,  thus the clucking and cooing over them, but what they actually are is a nest of vipers, a tool to control the rest of us, what they actually are is adult human beings who if they are to live in the world with other adult human beings, need to grow up fast. 

But all are adamant Hysteria must rule, madness, irrationality, ignorance, bestiality must rule.  Not only must religious freaks be left to do as they like, but everyone should be like them, everyone should be a self-obsessed hysteric, incapable of accepting the equal rights of others, thus the snowflake.  It has become normal to think that words may be met by force, and words you don’t like should be suppressed, whether hitting people or bringing corrupt law to bear on them, no-platforming them.  

We are told patronizingly we don’t understand religion.  We understand religion all too well. All their sick monkey words, ‘blasphemy’, ‘heresy’, ‘apostasy’.  Meaning: you think something different.  You are not mentally caged in a given frame of reference. 

If there is one thing that should make Medicine resolute but of course has no effect whatever, it is centuries and centuries and centuries of avoidable disease suffering and death  for which religion is solely responsible.  A shaft of lightning from the sky didn’t achieve modern medicine.  The freeing of the mind from the shackles of religious maniacs did.  Many brilliant Classical Arab scientists, many brilliant Classical Greek scientists.  Nothing innate to humans that prevented progress, just filthy smelly evil men jabbering about God.

Harvey was a prominent sceptic regarding allegations of witchcraft. He was one of the examiners of four women from Lancashire accused of witchcraft in 1634, and as a consequence of his report, all of them were acquitted.
That is the Harvey, William, of circulation of the blood fame.  Just think as early as 1634 things were put in the hands of scientists – occasionally.
Or they could consider Ala-al-din abu Al-Hassan Ali ibn Abi-Hazm al-Qarshi al-Dimashqi (Arabic: علاء الدين أبو الحسن عليّ بن أبي حزم القرشي الدمشقي), known as Ibn al-Nafis (Arabic: ابن النفيس), was an Arab physician from Damascus mostly famous for being the first to describe the pulmonary circulation of the blood.   He died in 1288, and was thus  centuries before Harvey.  Or for that matter Mendel, quietly working in the monastery garden figuring out his pea-plants. 
Or this
Somewhat entertainingly, a Cardinal in 1536 felt free to display considerable enthusiasm for the findings of science, though of course the cavemen later gathered to beat up Galileo.

On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:

Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...[71]

It would be rather nice if a British Cardinal wrote such a letter to Prof Dawkins, say,, but I rather think that's not going to happen.. Come to think of it, it would be rather nice if they ever went around expressing enthusiasm for finding out rather than the certainty they know already, not least what people in this country think and believe.

This is not a question of historic time.  This is a question of the small, limited, narrow vicious little minds, that we’re now told are morally superior to us, now told to respect and defer to. 

It’s also very much a question of historic time, of intelligent life withdrawing the hems of our garments because we cannot fit life into their little box. 
The most freaking evident reality to us all, apart from day and night, is the separateness of another human being.  He or she is not-you.  He or she has had a different experience of life.  He or she has learned and thought different things, feels different things.  I don’t know what the people above or next door think.  Maybe agree on some things, disagree on others, different tastes in books, music, leisure activities, some of course determined by age/mobility, since I do know they’re a great deal younger than I.
Part of all this of course is monoculture, monosocieties ruled by Authority, where things are dictated to you.  Clearly they all come from intellectual if not physical slums, with a central mono-idea, deviation from which is frowned upon and met by force, violence, ‘everyone’ goes to church/mosque/synagogue/temple/whatever, ‘everyone’ respects ‘men of God’, ‘everyone’ respects the Pope now.

Medicine or for that matter the Industrial Revolution.  In order that people invent, create, they have to feel free to invent, create.  The jargon is to think out of the box.  Reality is that that is considered evil.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997):

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10
 
From the inauguration of Cardinal Nichols:
At the installation of the Most Rev Vincent Nichols at Westminster Cathedral, his predecessor, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, described a lack of faith as “the greatest of evils” and blamed atheism for war and destruction, implying that it was a greater evil even than sin itself.....
 
In his homily he said: “Faith in God is not, as some would portray it today, a narrowing of the human mind or spirit. It is precisely the opposite. “Faith in God is the gift that takes us beyond our limited self, with all its incessant demands . . . Some today propose that faith and reason are crudely opposed, with the fervour of faith replacing good reason. This reduction of both faith and reason inhibits not only our search for truth but also the possibility of real dialogue.”
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor went farther. Referring to the battles that will be won and lost in the effort to sustain the Christian presence in secular society, he said: “What is most crucial is the prayer that we express every day in the Our Father, when we say ‘deliver us from evil’. The evil we ask to be delivered from is not essentially the evil of sin, though that is clear, but in the mind of Jesus it is more importantly a loss of faith. For Jesus, the inability to believe in God and to live by faith is the greatest of evils.
“You see the things that result from this are an affront to human dignity, destruction of trust between peoples, the rule of egoism and the loss of peace. One can never have true justice, true peace, if God becomes meaningless to people.”
From The Times, 22nd May 2009, now behind a paywall
 
“I’m on the attack. We have to stand up to them [non-believers]. There is something not totally human if you leave out transcendent [God] and you [atheists] are not fully human. They have an impoverished understanding to what it is to be human. We are all made by God.”

Murphy-O'Connor dribbling recently on Radio 4.

But, Cardinal, denying the hearts and minds of individual humans, demanding they be obedient, less than fully human, is what you chaps are so good at. Your own Catechism propagates this Stepford Wives view of humanity:

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church

Let us say these peeps do not find the universities exciting places full of people with views of their own eager to test them out on their peers, rip opposing arguments to pieces.
 
I’m sure that evil old ape, of course an agent of a hostile fascist foreign power, examined what I had to say completely objectively, but the ape freak traitor Blair would have hung on his every word, as did of course the slave-monkeys at UCH.

But he is dead and Blair no longer has any legitimate power, so what’s the fucking problem?

To the harmless civilized atheist of course belief in God may seem the principle and explanation of all moral deviations; to many, whether Christian or not, it would seem that on the contrary faith may underpin the clamourings of the limited self, claiming the forcing of its incontinent urges on others has divine sanction; it is love that takes us beyond them. 
 
A modest Christian education recalls 1 Corinthians:
 
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
 
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
 
Perhaps at a later date Their Eminences might take this up with Paul, that same Paul?
 
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
 
Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these

I doubt actually that the question of faith occurred to Jesus, that it occurred to him people could not believe in God.

The free world is the consequence of the teachings of Jesus: liberty is a function of love; control is a function of self-will. The level on which it all fits together is not only accessible to atheists, but acceptable to atheists; God is not a necessary precursor. Then again, if we want to keep it simple, religion is two things, from one of which follows liberty and from the other fascism.

You are not self-forgetting by definition if you are forcing others to obey you.Grace is paramountly not forcing oneself on others other than to restrain them from forcing themselves on others.To love one's neighbour as oneself is not to inflict beliefs he or she finds questionable on him or her. People are and have to be free to go wherever they might be going. Society's business is limited to demanding they behave tolerably to each other and ensuring they are free to travel. We do not know.

Most of us manage the minimum loving of our neighbour as ourselves.  We accept he or she is different, distinct, separate, not-me, running on separate tracks.  These  dirty subhuman vermin into whose infected claws we are being delivered of course do not but assume all subject to them.   It's all we have to do to enable society, not inflict our filthy screaming dirty ape selves on others.  Filthy disgusting foul dirty squalid monkey vermin like Linch just assume they have the rights of property over me, as to the rest of the sickening diseased scum, assume some ape exists to control, maim, mutilate, cripple, destroy if you cross him, if you behave like a normal human being and say what you think instead of what some psycho freak thinks it can dictate you may think, they're absolute filth and sickness, all of them, dirty, foul, mad.


Believe it, Blair,  you foul obscene monkey, there is no love in bringing your club down on my spinal fusion, what do the filth vermin whine and jabber, for my own good?  Screaming monkey psycho avatars of self-will, forcing their filthy monkey selves on me.  The Catholic Church has been thrown out of England and you evil monkey brought it back.  The old apes are mad and evil.  Probably the greatest scam ever executed on humanity, the propagation of the view these evil old monkeys represent Jesus.   Not exactly just me saying that, is it.  No accident the Reformation followed as the night the day the invention of printing and so people reading the Bible for themselves. 
Logan, another walking joke, a simpering half-wit somewhere between O Level and laboratory rat. 

A pleasing fantasy: Murphy O’Connor ‘submitting his faith and intellect’ to Jesus in the after-life, while Jesus explains to the dirty old freak which fucking end is up.
 
Thou didst not come down from the Cross when they shouted to Thee, mocking and reviling Thee, "Come down from the cross and we will believe that Thou art He." Thou didst not come down, for again Thou wouldst not enslave man by a miracle, and didst crave faith given freely, not based on miracle. Thou didst crave for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has overawed him for ever...I too prized the freedom with which Thou hast blessed men, and I too was striving to stand among Thy elect, among the strong and powerful, thirsting "to make up the number." But I awakened and would not serve madness. I turned back and joined the ranks of those who have corrected Thy work. I left the proud and went back to the humble, for the happiness of the humble. What I say to Thee will come to pass, and our dominion will be built up. I repeat, to-morrow Thou shalt see that obedient flock who at a sign from me will hasten to heap up the hot cinders about the pile on which I shall burn Thee for coming to hinder us. For if anyone has ever deserved our fires, it is Thou. To-morrow I shall burn Thee. Dixi.'"
Dostoevsky: The Grand Inquisitor

Truth nailed upon the cross compels nobody, oppresses no one; it must be accepted and confessed freely; its appeal is addressed to free spirits...A divine Truth panoplied in power, triumphant over the world and conquering souls, would not be consonant with the freedom of man's spirit, and in the mystery of Golgotha is the mystery of liberty….Every time in history that man has tried to turn crucified Truth into coercive truth he has betrayed the fundamental principle of Christ.
Nicholas Berdyaev

No, they really don’t’ like people who come to hinder them.

Witch hunts
Burning was used by Christians during the witch-hunts of Europe. The penal code known as the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina (1532) decreed that sorcery throughout the Holy Roman Empire should be treated as a criminal offence, and if it purported to inflict injury upon any person the witch was to be burnt at the stake. In 1572, Augustus, Elector of Saxony imposed the penalty of burning for witchcraft of every kind, including simple fortunetelling.[60] From the latter half of the 18th century, the number of "9 million witches burned in Europe" has been bandied about in popular accounts/media, but has never had a following among specialist researchers.[61] Today, based on meticulous study of trial records, ecclesiastical and inquisitorial registers and so on, as well as on the utilization of modern statistical methods, the specialist research community on witchcraft has reached an agreement for roughly 40,000-50,000 people executed for witchcraft in Europe in total,[62] and by no means all of them executed by being burned alive. Furthermore, it is solidly established that the peak period of witch-hunts was the century 1550-1650, with a slow increase preceding it, from the 15th century onwards, as well a sharp drop postceding it, witch hunts having basically fizzled out by the first half of the 18th century.[63]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning
 
You think the fucks who burned witches liked being told they couldn’t burn witches any more?  It is not accidental the fizzling out of witch hunts coincided with the Enlightenment.  How fortunate for women that rational men achieved governance rather than damaged animals; today’s damaged animals of the fascist fake Left would of course have drooled: But it’s their culture!  You can’t interfere with religion!  It’s what the Bible tells them to do!  Imagine McDonnell's outrage.  Royal Commission set up to condemn 'Christophobia'.  Not that Christ has anything to do it.  It's their religion!
 
It is indeed: ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’ Exodus 22:18
 
Well, I mean, God said.  God’s Word, innit.
 
Nowadays of course instead of first burning books, they destroy the witch who upholds the books.

I know perfectly well what is happening to me.  I am being burned at the stake, modern style, slowly, for the greater pleasure of sub-human vermin, surrounded by a jeering mob with firebrands, as indeed historically was the fate of many women.

The movement for ordination of women as priests in the Roman Catholic Church understands the sexual sickness that pollutes it.
In a preface to the book written on October the 7th 1946 (!!) Fr. Montague Summers has some amazing things to say. After asserting that the writings of the two authors, "are well approved by many learned men, Pontiffs, Saints, and Theologians alike’’, he praises the virtues of the "Hammer of Witches":
“One turns to it again and again with edification (!) and interest. From the point of view of psychology (!), from the point of view of jurisprudence, from the point of view of history, it is supreme. What is most surprising is the modernity of the book. There is hardly a problem, a complex, a difficulty, which they have not foreseen, and discussed, and resolved...with the greatest clarity, with unflinching logic with scrupulous impartiality (!)(Ibid,1948 Preface, pg. ix-x).
 Yet, this is the book which describes in the most lurid details imaginary sexual orgies between penis-toting devils and human witches (all proved from Scripture, of course). This is the book that sanctioned limitless torture to extract confessions from the accused. It is a book full of superstitious belief, sadistic cruelty, bigotry and hatred for women.
 It is sad to reflect that while so many harmless books were put on the "Index" of forbidden books, a book of this nature was continuously reprinted with an approving Bull of Innocent VIII (1484 AD) to give it ecclesiastical authority.
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/hammer1.asp

The second branch of the woman question, which of necessity follows directly after that of gaining a livelihood, is that of a suitable education. The Catholic Church places here no barriers that have not already been established by nature. Fénelon expresses this necessary limitation thus: "The learning of women like that of men must be limited to the study of those things which belong to their calling; The difference in their activities must also give a different direction to their studies." The entrance of women as students in the universities, which has of late years spread in all countries, is to be judged according to these principles. Far from obstructing such a course in itself, Catholics encourage it. This has led in Germany to the founding of the "Hildegardisverein" for the aid of Catholic women students of higher branches of learning. Moreover,nature also shows here her undeniable regulating power. There is no need to fear the overcrowding of the academic professions by women.In the medical calling, which next to teaching is the first to be considered in discussing the professions of women, there are at the present time in Germany about 100 women to 30,000 men. For the studious woman as for others who earn a livelihood the academic calling is only a temporary position. The sexes can never be on an equality as regards studies pursued at a university.Catholic Encyclopaedia: Women (1912)

In fact anyone who can read understands it@ http://www.dillsplace.com/tertullian-women-in-canon-law-1912-and-mulieris-dignitatem-1988.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Bacon, Montaigne, Descartes, Hume, Loicke, Kant, Mill, is there anyone the dirty old apes didn’t ban.  The Index of Forbidden Books was abolished in 1966.

All the senile old freaks in the Vatican therefore grew up with the idea people could be told what they may read.   Dictating to others is automatic to them.  Civilized people were appalled by Nazis burning books.  You think it worried the dirty old apes in Rome?