Wednesday, 13 May 2009

Apparently I'm a Nazi

I'm quite used to Neil Craig using that word about me and my Lib Dem colleagues, but apparently from a pulpit at Kirkmuirhill Kirk in Lanark I was branded one on Sunday. Rev Ian Watson used his sermon to combine those who support Scott Rennie with the power behind the Third Reich. He said:

"[Hitler] guessed correctly that the French had no stomach for a fight. If
only they had, then the tragedy of a Second World War might have been

"To claim that the homosexual lifestyle is worthy of a child of God; to
demand that a same-sex partnership be recognised as on a footing with marriage;
to commend such a lifestyle to others is to deny that Jesus Christ is our only
Sovereign and Lord. It is to turn the grace of God into a licence for

"Such people will not inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor.6:10)*. And
therefore they must be resisted . . . Let me assure you, neither I nor
like-minded minsters enjoy conflict . . . But have we learned nothing from

"Remember Hitler and the retaking of the Rhineland. He got away with
it. No one stopped him. So next it was Austria, then Czechoslovakia, and then
Poland and only then world war."

Now from my 20th Century History it was those that were deemed unworthy of being part of the Aryan race that the Nazis sought to cast out of eye shot, persecute, hide away, ignore and eventually try an extinguish. If Rev Watson is going to cite history let him not forget that the Jews, disabled and homosexuals were three major groups that were deemed unworthy of being children of God, and look were that got the World.

The comparison between the two can therefore hardly have been more poorly drawn.

*Possibly a misprint as verse 10 refers to the thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. Which though equally topical is a whole other debate. Although in verse 9 why Paul did not use the word paiderasste (the popular word in texts at the time to cover homosexual practise) but rather arsenokoitai which is the stem man (arsen) and beds (kotai) is an interesting debate. Coming as it does in a list after male prostitutes may relate to the Temple male prostitutes who lay on beds in Temple precincts in the first century.


  1. I'm always amazed how some wish to build a religious superstructure that is totally devoid of love..
    possibly the reason i don't go to church although would consider my self a Christian.

    My limited experience of church goers
    is they see it as a social rather than a religious gathering.

  2. I do it for the rather more serious reason that you lot have been actively involved in war crimes, massacres, genocide, ethnic cleansing, child rape & dissecting living people to promote the policies of Adolf.

  3. None of which I have 'actively' been involved with (there is a whole dictionary out there and you used the wrong adverb). Nor do I promote an Aryian policy or else I'd have myself shipped off to the nearest concentration camp right now.

    But as I said Neil I expect it from you not from a minister of the denomination I was brought up in.

  4. PS not to mention the wrong verb

  5. You are not actively involved in promoting the policies of the LibDems? When did this happen?

  6. Neil you said I had been 'actively involved in war crimes, massacres, genocide, ethnic cleansing, child rape & dissecting living people' checking my CV I have not been actively involved in carrying out any of those functions. Hence you seem to be using the wrong verb and/or adverb to promote your dillusions.

  7. No. Since the party has been actively promoting this & you have actively assisted them then you are actively doing it at 2 removes. Hitler was actively engagef in genocide at 1 remove but he was still actively engaged.

  8. Neil I'm not going to get drawn into the semantic of linguisitics over this, especially as you are yet again trying to highjack a thread you were mentioned in in passing for negative reasons. However, you are assuming:

    1) That I wasn't actively opposing genocide in the Balkans in the 90s.

    2) That the party which I support was somehow 'actively' involved in those things.

    3) That your worldview of things is the correct one even though it ignores the eyewitness evidence that the side you claim over and over to be beyond reproach was the ACTIVE participant.

    You've also ignored the fact that Hitler gave the orders. His action was definitely there. You like referring to Nurenburg read the bloody transcripts.

  9. So
    1) Were you?
    2) Not an assumption - a statement of fact.
    3) Yes. "Eyewitness" claims, when many of those eyewitnesses, such as Ashdown, have been proven to have perjured themselves, are worthless. Forensic & factual evidence (maps, printed laws & treaties, nore bodies, DNA, destroyed buildings etc are solid evidence.

    And our Parliament gave the orders for a criminal war to assist in what was known to be genocide. Read bloody Hansard. This is guilt at 1st remove, as I said.