[Closed] The Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser (R4 content)

Not heard him, but when I used to drive to work of a morning and Chris Evans had 'Pause for Thought' on his breakfast show, the two speakers who made the most sense to me were the two Rabbis - Pete Tobias being the one name I remember.

All of the other major denominations pushed God, Jesus, their holy book etc - it was always a story that had to circle back to what Jesus would do, how that reminded them of God, how that related to the parable of blah-blah-blah, etc. The Rabbis just seemed to relate things to being better to other people, without that having to be anchored by a deity or by a faith. Just humans being a bit nicer to each other because, well, just because. That sort of thinking I can relate to.

He has a way of "preaching" without the Preaching.

I like him.

And there are plenty of people like him around, you just don't mix with them or they're too busy helping others.

What??? Self satisfied tosser, general up-himself pillock, and Dr of applied baloney. Hear him on moral maze... Amongst the worst of the meeja priests.

Well, there you go, different strokes for different folks.

What's a 'meeja' priest?

...okay more positively, today's TftD gave me good reassurance why my wife's unlikely to sack or at least replace me any time soon. The sound of TRDGF's amused tones smarming into our kitchen was met with a simultaneous "**** off tosser". Happily embittered together...

Oh right. Are there many of those, then? I know Richard Coles and Giles Fraser, but that's it.

recently listened to the RHLSTP podcast with Francesca Stavrakopoulou, an (atheist) biblical scholar. It was extremely interesting, but it did leave me with the impression that anyone who actually takes this stuff at face value must be a certifiable lunatic 😂

…okay more positively, today’s TftD gave me good reassurance why my wife’s unlikely to sack or at least replace me any time soon. The sound of TRDGF’s amused tones smarming into our kitchen was met with a simultaneous “**** off tosser”. Happily embittered together…

Genuinely, to have that response surprises me, I can't believe we were listening to the same thing.

But, again, DSFDF.

anyone who actually takes this stuff at face value must be a certifiable lunatic

I'm sure the Rev. Fraser, and many other men and women of practising faith, would agree.

I’m sure the Rev. Fraser, and many other men and women of practising faith, would agree.

There must be two men of the cloth with the same name.

I’m sure the Rev. Fraser, and many other men and women of practising faith, would agree.

But what follows from this? Moderate believers agree the Good Books are not to be taken entirely at face value. So which bits can be relied on? Which bits cannot? Who decides? If some bits are unreliable, is the whole canon unreliable? Do we just accept the bits that are feely/touchy (as the choirboy said to the bishop) and leave out the stuff that's a bit killy/slavey?

for those who didn't hear it

does beg the question why do educated priests need to told by bishops how to treat LGBT members of their congregation.

So which bits can be relied on?

The 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' bit.

But what follows from this? Moderate believers agree the Good Books are not to be taken entirely at face value. So which bits can be relied on? Which bits cannot? Who decides? If some bits are unreliable, is the whole canon unreliable? Do we just accept the bits that are feely/touchy (as the choirboy said to the bishop) and leave out the stuff that’s a bit killy/slavey?

I do believe we may have addressed this before. Probably quite recently.

does beg the question why do educated priests need to told by bishops how to treat LGBT members of their congregation.

They're not. At least not in the way being suggested.

I do believe we may have addressed this before. Probably quite recently.

"the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

it offers no pastoral advice on what a parish priest like myself might say to the gay or lesbian members of my congregation

(or words to that effect)

again why does he need to be told what to say ?

Not heard him, but when I used to drive to work of a morning and Chris Evans had ‘Pause for Thought’ on his breakfast show, the two speakers who made the most sense to me were the two Rabbis – Pete Tobias being the one name I remember.

Yep, they were the only ones who ever sounded 'normal'.

again why does he need to be told what to say ?

He doesn't, but he is a liberal, in terms of politics, and I imagine he was keen that the new pastoral advice which was issued as a result of heterosexual couples being able to enter into civil partnerships would take the opportunity to move on from the existing advice on sex outside marriage that was reiterated therein.

Whilst still not shy about his political beliefs, he seems to be more of a churchman these days and less of a political animal, which I think suits him better. His Confessions podcasts, where he acts as an interviewer, are often very good.

But what follows from this? Moderate believers agree the Good Books are not to be taken entirely at face value. So which bits can be relied on? Which bits cannot? Who decides? If some bits are unreliable, is the whole canon unreliable? Do we just accept the bits that are feely/touchy (as the choirboy said to the bishop) and leave out the stuff that’s a bit killy/slavey?

None of it, in the terms you're phrasing it - it's not written to be "taken at face value" in the way I think you mean so the idea of bits of it being "reliable" or "unreliable" aren't really the relevant questions to ask.

The point is, the Bible wasn't written (I could stop there, the Bible wasn't written, it was compiled from lots of things written by lots of people over lots of centuries) and it's a theological piece. Trying to read it as a Natural History textbook or an objective work of history or a Haynes Manual for Behaviour is to miss the point. For those who believe, the significance of the resurrection isn't in the resuscitation of a corpse, a "Ta Daa" moment worthy of Paul Daniels. Neither is the loaves and fishes story included as a guide for how to cater for an unexpectedly large gathering when you've not done the weekly shop. That casting the net on the other side story isn't to show that Jesus was awesome at fishing. Well, not literal fishing, for fishes anyway.

This is the downside of the spread of literacy and the church stopping doing everything in Latin. Back in the day, only the priests (and some nobility) could read and services were conducted in Latin so the peasants had to take their theology from the clergy who could add meaning and context to all that guff about oxen and wine and deserts. The downsides of this are fairly obvious - those in power could (and did) twist the meaning to suit their needs, and, well, the history of the last 2,000 years or so throw up enough examples of people doing things in the name of the church that one strongly suspect Jesus would have frowned on, to show that investing the power of God into the hands of a privileged few might not be always for the best.

However, the other side of the coin is that now most people can read and you can get modern English translations of the Bible (and lets not get started on the power of the translator) the peasants can read the stuff for themselves but without the scholarship / learning that the clergy bring. So people read it, not as a philosophical piece of theology, because they don't have the training or knowledge to do that, but as they would the instructions for a ready meal. Put it in the oven for 25 minutes at 190 (180 fan) and pray continually.

I would draw a parallel (wait for it, it's coming, and I think you all know what it is) between those who consume the Bible "at face value" with their creationist museums and so on, with those Brexit voters (see, I've done it, yes I have) who took literally everything they were told by Boris and Nigel and were nonplussed on the 24th June 2016 when that Polish family down the street were still there - there were plenty who genuinely believed that, as soon as the votes were counted, the immigration enforcement vans would be out and our fisherman would be casting their nets quota free (on whichever side of the boat worked best).

It's not the fault of the gammonhood that they didn't understand international treaties, trade agreements, tariffs, Article 50 and Schengen. It was never explained to them. Same with the Bible, I guess you can go and study theology / Biblical Studies, or you can accept that you don't have the time, capacity or desire and take your interpretation from someone who has put in the hours (priests) or, I suppose, you can point at it in ignorance and either go "it says here to do this and that's that" or "it says this superficially really silly or scientifically disprovable thing so it's all just a load of rubbish."

Sometimes the hardest but right thing to do (regarding both complex theological writing and complex political decisions) is probably to go, you know what, I don't have the background knowledge or understanding to appraise this, so I'll back away and put some trust in people that have done the hard yards and do understand the issue.

This a very long way of outlining why I have little respect for people who point at a lengthy, complex and deep document concerned mainly with spirituality and moral philosophy that has moved and inspired some of the greatest intellectuals and artists known to (Western) human history and go "Worthless garbage because astrophysics" but equally little time for those who read it and go "This bit means kill the gays, it's God's will"

@klunk, I would need to know the precise context for your quote, and as I haven't listened to the broadcast referred to, can't comment specifically. I suspect that what @mefty said in his first paragraph, above, is correct though.

I still assert, however, that priests don't need to be 'told' what to say in the sense that you're suggesting. I'll try to elaborate as to why when I get an extra few minutes to post.

@edlong: Wow. Well said.

Great post, edlong. Thanks for taking the time to write that.

it’s not written to be “taken at face value” in the way I think you mean so the idea of bits of it being “reliable” or “unreliable” aren’t really the relevant questions to ask.

Isn't this somewhat revisionist though? Genuine question. It's (arguably perhaps) true now, but could you have said the same thing a millennium ago? As recently as my RE lessons at school I don't recall the teacher ever alluding to the fact that the entire thing was supposed to be allegorical, it was presented as fact.

It’s not the fault of the gammonhood that they didn’t understand international treaties, trade agreements, tariffs, Article 50 and Schengen. It was never explained to them.

I'd totally agree with this, back in 2016 (which is why "we knew what we were voting for" is a complete fiction - they might have known what they wanted but that's a very different animal). Very few people, leave and remain alike, understood a fraction of that.

Today though, it's absolutely their fault. Sorry. We've spent four years impotently trying to explain how complicated this all is and they don't want to know. Project fear, price worth paying, something about fish. They've gone from naively ignorant to wilfully ignorant and that's on them.

FWIW, as an unmarried shagger, two CofE Churches totally welcomed me and my partner. At the time I was regularly committing the sin of gluttony as well and that didn't seem to be a problem either. (The fact we aren't especially relegious didn't bother them either!)

I'd go as far as to say that I don't believe him when he said he had regulars who failed to turn up over this and if he did he probably could have given them a ring in advance to tell them they were welcome and would be missed.

So IME the CofE is fine AFAIC, they're totally welcoming pretty much regardless. Yes, they have to say (for instance) that coveting your neighbours Ox is wrong because that's part of their faith, but that doesn't mean they dislike Ox covetors or don't welcome them.

SWMBO works for a Catholic School and they have unmarried teachers who co-habit and gay teachers.

The point is, the Bible wasn’t written (I could stop there, the Bible wasn’t written, it was compiled from lots of things written by lots of people over lots of centuries)

it’s not written to be “taken at face value” in the way I think you mean

Isn’t this somewhat revisionist though? Genuine question. It’s (arguably perhaps) true now, but could you have said the same thing a millennium ago? As recently as my RE lessons at school I don’t recall the teacher ever alluding to the fact that the entire thing was supposed to be allegorical, it was presented as fact.

@Cougar, if there is just one thing I could convince you of and have you both remember and believe it, it would be the answer to this question. Because I promise you with all the scholarship, goodwill, faith, or whatever in the world, the answer is 'no'. Biblical fundamentalism as you know it today is largely a 19th century construct, born among anabaptist Protestants in the United States, as a response to the growth of Western liberalism and the challenge it supposedly presented to Christianity.

Indeed, in antiquity, there were two dominant hermeneutical schools: the Alexandrian - which was almost entirely metaphorical - and the Antiochene - which was more historical-literal and analogical. Greek philosophy was almost always brought to bear on the reading and interpretation of Scripture, and this was an enterprise that took place within the school of the Church.

Okay, as Brexit had been raised on a thread about the provocateur (fancy word for troll) Giles Fraser, why not try this?

https://unherd.com/2019/02/why-wont-remainers-talk-about-family/

What was left out is just as interesting. Like the bits where a young Jesus murders children

WTF are you talking about?

Sure about that?

I am. Absolutely.

How many people do you think have been put to death over the years because what has been written in the bibles & other religious texts?

Fewer than have been put to death over what has been written in various, otherwise quite innocuous, political manifestos. That is to say probably quite a few. And there isn't a single sane person who would assert that the problem was political manifestos, but rather the extremist outliers who use them for their own destructive ends.

Okay, as Brexit had been raised on a thread about the provocateur (fancy word for troll) Giles Fraser, why not try this?

https://unherd.com/2019/02/why-wont-remainers-talk-about-family/Next paras:

Last week the Evening Standard – now, of course, a propaganda rag for George Osborne’s Remain-inspired end-of-the-world fearmongering – led with the following front-page headline: “Who’ll look after our elderly post Brexit, ask care chiefs”.

I’m still spitting blood at the arrogance and callousness of that question. It summed up all that I have against the Osborne neoliberal (yes, that’s what it is) world-view. And why I am longing for a full-on Brexit – No Deal, please – to come along and smash the living daylights out of the assumptions behind that question.

He's not a liberal. More of a back to a more traditional society type of socialist, who likes annoying people, and pleased with himself. I probably tick a few of those boxes, but hey...

WTF are you talking about?

if you have an interest

Understatement of the century there....

Okay, as Brexit had been raised on a thread about the provocateur (fancy word for troll) Giles Fraser, why not try this?

That looks like a well-balanced and unbiased article, but allow me.

Last week the Evening Standard – now, of course, a propaganda rag for George Osborne’s Remain-inspired end-of-the-world fearmongering – led with the following front-page headline: “Who’ll look after our elderly post Brexit, ask care chiefs”.

First, let me answer the question. Children have a responsibility to look after their parents. Even better, care should be embedded within the context of the wider family and community. It is the daughter of the elderly gentleman that should be wiping his bottom. This sort of thing is not something to subcontract.

I don't have children. I don't want children, many people cannot have children and many people really just shouldn't have children. So now what, Einstein?

"Assumptions" indeed. What a cretin.

if there is just one thing I could convince you of and have you both remember and believe it, it would be the answer to this question

So, wait... you're saying that when the Gospels et al were written, they were never intended to be historical account of the life of Jesus and his mates (and never interpreted as such at the time) but rather just a bunch of stories, and it's only in the last couple of centuries that we've started taking it literally?

Man, that book really needs a disclaimer at the front, it could've saved a lot of bother.

Isn’t this somewhat revisionist though? Genuine question. It’s (arguably perhaps) true now, but could you have said the same thing a millennium ago? As recently as my RE lessons at school I don’t recall the teacher ever alluding to the fact that the entire thing was supposed to be allegorical, it was presented as fact.Isn’t this somewhat revisionist though? Genuine question. It’s (arguably perhaps) true now, but could you have said the same thing a millennium ago? As recently as my RE lessons at school I don’t recall the teacher ever alluding to the fact that the entire thing was supposed to be allegorical, it was presented as fact.

I had the same. Actually I went to a somewhat "traditional" prep school where our RE lessons were called "Scripture" and taught exactly like they did history - and maybe that's the point: When we were very young, history was taught as a set of immutable facts to be learnt - this king defeated that king at the Battle of Whatever in such and such a year. As we got older, those that stuck with it found that the study of history isn't quite like that - sources are evaluated, need to be understood in the context in which they arose, "history is written by the victor" and all that.

But, by and large we've all dropped serious RE by then so we don't get to the same stage - at GCSE we were, yes, needing to know what was said in Mark's gospel, but also the historical context in which it was written, how the way it was written indeed helps to understand what the historical context is etc. Not just what was said, but why.

Something as simple as understanding that much of what became the New Testament was written under a Roman Empire that considered the nascent church to be a potentially dangerous, politically radical Jewish sect (which to some extent it probably was) increases our ability to understand those words, but it's not an easy teach to seven year olds.

The irony is that the parables, as reported, were Jesus' attempt to cut through and make moral philosophy understandable by the non-theologically trained, but separate from that world by 2,000 years and you need someone to explain the relationship between Palestinians and Samaritans in order to make sense of it, something that would have been obvious to the original audience.

To be fair, one with faith (not me, btw) could make an argument that, as you framed it, there is no inconsistency between recognising that the Bible isn't "Planet Earth: User Manual" and "presenting it as fact" - depending on how philosophical you want to go with this. Personally I like the Cartesian starting point that the only thing you can be absolutely certain of is the existence of your own mind and every other "fact" you recognise is an inference / assumption predicated on that. (Apologies to Descartes for a somewhat cack handed precis). Can I be certain that the desk in front of me is the colour I think it is? No, but I proceed on the assumption that it is. For those who think that's a daft one, consider what "colour" actually is and then ask me again if the office is completely dark. What colour is the desk now? Has it changed colour? (Apologies also due to Bertrand Russell, opinionated I may be, an expert on modern Western Philosophy I am not.)

Presenting the resurrection of Christ as being a "fact" doesn't, imho require some Paul Daniels style trickery at work. Unless we're fixated on reviving corpses.... in which case we're back into Creationist museum territory again.

BTW and FWIW I'm generally in favour of Giles Fraser, acknowledging that I disagree with him completely on a number of issues. Clerics getting actively engaged in politics isn't one of our areas of disagreement.

so anyway we have closure re Fraser is a ****er?

So now what, Einstein?

I am sure he would say the state would provide care - not really very difficult - but illustrative of the intolerance of so many of anyone who dares think Brexit might be a good idea.

If there is a huge change of heart by politicians (and the public who seem to be increasingly buying into the small state narrative) then the state may well “provide the care”, but it’ll need staff to do it, which was the point being raised by “care chiefs”. Whoever pays for and provides care, it needs workers… the Rev excitingly hoping for a “full-on Brexit - No Deal” to smash things apart isn’t going to help the staffing issue, is it… and why it would shake up funding and state involvement is any one’s guess. Brexit cheerleaders hoping for damage, thinking that better things will have to follow from that damage, is oh so common, sadly… and I fear misguided and dangerous.

Not so much Brexit a good idea, more a

" a full-on Brexit – No Deal, please – to come along and smash the living daylights out of the assumptions behind that question."

So, wait… you’re saying that when the Gospels et al were written, they were never intended to be historical account of the life of Jesus and his mates (and never interpreted as such) but rather just a bunch of stories, and it’s only in the last couple of centuries that we’ve started taking it literally?
Man, that book really needs a disclaimer at the front, it could’ve saved a lot of bother.

Not quite as stark as that, but to an extent yes - Biblical literalism as we know it today is a relatively recent arrival. It doesn't exactly read as "Jesus: The Biography" does it?

Have you read John's Gospel? (If not, you'll have heard some bits at Carol services down the years: that logos stuff - "and the word was with god and the word was God ...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us" I mean, it's pretty psychedelic is that. Words walking around, WTF?) How do you even try to take that "literally" as "fact" "at face value" - some big alphabet blocks on legs strolling around the place with the spirit of God within them?

So yes, there's some narrative stuff there that ties things together like with all those generations of "begats" - written to provide a context of a linear and direct relationship of the chosen people right from creation down through Abraham and Jacob which is a nice point about those people's place in the world and their relationship with their God and the continuity of it for all time, or you can use it add up the generations to "prove" that the universe is only 6,000 years old.

But some of it? There literally is no coherent "literal" reading you can put to it.

Have you read John’s Gospel? (If not, you’ll have heard some bits at Carol services down the years: that logos stuff – “and the word was with god and the word was God …and the word became flesh and dwelt among us” I mean, it’s pretty psychedelic is that. Words walking around, WTF?) How do you even try to take that “literally” as “fact” “at face value” – some big alphabet blocks on legs strolling around the place with the spirit of God within them?

I am sure he would say the state would provide care

He says literally the exact opposite in that passage I quoted. "This sort of thing is not something to subcontract" and he's "still spitting blood" at someone even suggesting otherwise. That's not exactly a vague statement which is open to interpretation now, is it.

The one concession he makes is "Even better, care should be embedded within the context of the wider family and community." Well the only blood family I have other than distant cousins whom I've not seen in decades (if ever) is my mother and I'm rather hoping to outlast her, and any local community I could take part in where I live would involve me growing a big beard and turning my bed round to face East.

I haven’t read it. I bet you haven’t either. Hint: it’s not written in English.

I'm rather afraid you've just left yourself an open goal there, mate.

Aaaaaah, I see what I did. I started a religion thread *slaps forehead*

I’m rather afraid you’ve just left yourself an open goal there, mate.

Hint: it’s not written in English

The version I've read is 😉

if you have an interest I suggest listening to the podcast I mentioned earlier concerning the Hebrew bible. As mentioned, it’s just a collection of stories rather than one book that a single person sat down and wrote. There’s plenty of material that didn’t make the final cut. (A quick google reveals one of these was the Infancy Gospel of Thomas).

I kind of do have an interest, and I kind of know that already.

I haven’t read it. I bet you haven’t either. Hint: it’s not written in English.

I’ve read it. In English, in its original Greek, in Latin, and in a few MFLs as well.

When Lionel Blue started to irritate me I knew it was time to give up on TFTD.

The version I’ve read is 😉

I’ve read it. In English, in its original Greek, in Latin, and in a few MFLs as well.

I kind of do have an interest, and I kind of know that already.

in its original Greek

Not got any love for the hypothesis that it was originally Aramaic, translated into Greek, SaxonRider?

' I’ll back away and put some trust in people that have done the hard yards and do understand the issue' is a rather deferential position to take given that academics have a patchy record of getting it right, witness the banking crisis which none of them predicted. Fraser is an ex-public schoolboy who votes Tory, no surprises there, so why would you trust his interpretation of things over your own? I certainly wouldn't. Religious academics would be even harder to pin down on empirical data/events, secret friends, angels and bogeymen abound.
Senior church leaders have recently pronounced no sex before marriage and people in civil partnerships should remain celibate (does that include the hetero civil partnerships too?). Should we really be taking these people seriously?

Senior church leaders have recently pronounced no sex before marriage and people in civil partnerships should remain celibate (does that include the hetero civil partnerships too?). Should we really be taking these people seriously?

This was the subject of the Rev Dr's piece on TFTD this morning. He disagreed with said pronouncement.

ok, so you're clearly trolling now, but what the hell..

can you be certain then of the meanings of an almost 2000 year old document

Nope, isn't that brilliant?

the intentions of its authors

Also nope. Wonderful isn't it, having to bring your own mind to things? Almost as though that itself was intended.

a (likely inaccurate) 400 year old translation

no "likely" about it - all translations are imperfect, any age you want to choose.

Is the phrase/metaphor that you’ve mentioned exactly as it appears it the original?

In order for that question to be valid, presupposes that "the original" is a thing that exists, or has existed. Best scholarly evidence suggests several distinct and earlier drafts from the one that appears in The Bible so your question is meaningless.

If not you can’t really use it to prove or disprove anything!

Whether "so" or "not" you can't really use it to prove anything other than its own existence, and even that is a stretch that requires a load of supposition and assumption beyond the existence of your own mind, so on this one we agree: you definitely can't really use it to prove or disprove anything. On a side note, I can't find anyone trying to use it to prove or disprove anything, although that might be because I'm not 100% certain what the "it" is to which you refer. The Gospel? The existence of the Gospel? The existence of an "original" version? A version written in the original language? You could be clearer on this point perhaps.

@BillMC

It's a fair point well made. In my defence I had just flagged in general terms that the previous regime of keeping the peasants in ignorance hadn't proved so completely awesome either.

My take is that somewhere in between "Don't think for yourself peasant, do what you're told" and "we've had enough of experts" is a sweet middle ground where we can avoid the worst excesses at both ends.

Sure, there are plenty of examples of people ending up in the shit from trusting experts / authority, but on the other side of that coin I give you: Anti-Vaxx

You could be clearer on this point perhaps.

you’re saying that when the Gospels et al were written, they were never intended to be historical account of the life of Jesus and his mates (and never interpreted as such) but rather just a bunch of stories

to an extent yes

given all your successive waffle above about uncertainty, the phrase you need to acquaint yourself with is "in my opinion" 😂

So which bits can be relied on?

These two:

Judge not lest you be judged &

Love thy neighbour as thyself. (Note no exclusions or qualifications).

Our religious leaders of all colours fail miserably on one or both of these requirements.

I'm having a chuckle at Saxonrider being lectured on religion given his background, profession and calling! Well done sir for remaining objective and courteous.

Well done sir for remaining objective and courteous.

I'm assuming Saxonrider is sharpening his stake before coming back for the kill....😄

killed this thread anyway

It's OK, it'll rise again in three days.

Sandwich
Judge not lest you be judged &

Love thy neighbour as thyself.

Good advice even for atheists like me. 🙂

I am sure he would say the state would provide care – not really very difficult – but illustrative of the intolerance of so many of anyone who dares think Brexit might be a good idea.

Since brexit makes it even less likely that the state will provide care, their is, at best, an odd thing to say.

Since brexit was also a howl of cowardly selfishness, it's also rather odd to try and paint remainers as callous uncaring people with no sense of family. Just because your identity is based on something other than a sense of place, or tribal loyalty, it doesn't mean that you have no empathy or compassion. Or love. That article was disgusting, and reminded me forcefully of why my opinion of the Reverend Fraser is diametrically opposite to that expressed by the OP. The man wouldn't recognize Christianity if it bit him on the arse.

Great another ****ing ****ing Brexit thread,

I've managed to combine Brexit and religion in one thread. Can I ban myself?

I’ve managed to combine Brexit and religion in one thread. Can I ban myself?

Not until Jesus buys an e-bike

This sort of thing is not something to subcontract”

But in your case there would be noone to sub-contract your care and therefore one needs to look at community solutions, so no he doesn't say the opposite. His article is essentially a critique of neo-liberalism, which he sees the EU as an agent of, and it impact on our society, especially the role of the family therein. There is nothing particularly new in it and it is shares many themes with those who argued for Brexit from the left. Ernielynch's views on it would be very interesting, but sadly his return was brief - probably saw what a barren land this site had become.

I heard the broadcast, I thought it was quite fair and agreed with the message.

I disagree with that Brexit article.

It is quite possible and indeed normal to be able to agree and disagree with the same person over different issues. Who'd have thought it?

So, perhaps getting back to a vaguely connected to the thread topic point I was making earlier about reading stuff without understanding the context due to being remote from that original context, especially with added assumptions that come with translation between languages, an example, not from the Bible:

You'll be familiar from the news that when "the West" has done something that annoys crowds of people in the middle East (such as bombing their homes) those crowds chant things, and often the translation that is given is "Death to America" (or "Death to Britain"). People hear that, and react to it in the way you might expect when people seem to be calling for your death.

But here's the thing: in a lot of these places, the "Death to..." idiom, is just an idiom. An example I was given was someone who's uncle stubbed their toe on an Ottoman, and exclaimed in pain "Death to this ottoman."

Same words, somewhat different meaning, when you layer on the cultural context. Suddenly the "literal" interpretation seems as smart as thinking that when someone says in frustration "damn this laptop" they are actually calling on their God to condemn the hardware to an eternity of pain and suffering in the bowels of hell.

And that's about understanding contemporary cultural language misunderstandings a few yours flight away. Now add a few thousand years of history...

But here’s the thing: in a lot of these places, the “Death to…” idiom, is just an idiom. An example I was given was someone who’s uncle stubbed their toe on an Ottoman, and exclaimed in pain “Death to this ottoman.”

Same words, somewhat different meaning, when you layer on the cultural context. Suddenly the “literal” interpretation seems as smart as thinking that when someone says in frustration “damn this laptop” they are actually calling on their God to condemn the hardware to an eternity of pain and suffering in the bowels of hell.

I've been on this planet a very long time and never even considered that. Thanks for pointing it out. (And I have never trusted an Ottoman, especially the square ones.)