Bigots Run Santa Monica City Hall

After yesterday, I didn’t think I’d be running another story about Santa Monica any time soon. But here’s another one:

SANTA MONICA COMPLETELY BANS NATIVITY (AND ANTI-NATIVITY) SCENES

La1st, 6/13/12

For more than 60 years, the city of Santa Monica has allowed Christians to put up a nativity scene in the walkway along Ocean Avenue every December. But this week the city voted to ban nativity scenes altogether.

This ban by Santa Monica council seems to have been voted through on the very same day the council voted for smokers’ homes to be identified.

I’m not a church-goer. I’ve only been twice in the last 20 years. First for my father’s funeral. And then for my mother’s. So I can’t claim to be Christian or anything, even though I was raised as one. But I can see that Christians are now being ‘denormalised’ just like smokers. Smokers like me.

It’s one reason why my sympathy for Christians has been mounting over the past few years:  because, along with the drinkers and the fat people, and anyone else who doesn’t conform to the Aryan ‘healthy’ ideal, we’re both unwelcome in the Brave New World. And we form a sort of de facto Coalition of the Unwelcome. We’re all in the same boat. Or maybe I should say, we’re all in the same gas chamber.

Perhaps it’s only right. I seem to remember that Jesus hung out with the poor and the downtrodden and the smokers and drinkers and hookers. I also seem to remember that he had a lot of harsh things to say about rich Pharisees. “Whited sepulchres,” I think he called them. I don’t think he’d have too much trouble identifying who the Pharisees are these days. Santa Monica town council seems to be comprised of nothing else.

What is it that they’ve got against Christianity? Probably it’s that they’re not Christians. And, unlike me, probably never were. Their religion is probably some flavour of Environmentalism, although they probably wouldn’t say that it was a religion. They’d say that what they believed was modern and up-to-date, and that it was state-of-the-art, cutting-edge, scientific knowledge. They’ve probably read all the magazines and the books, and discussed it all at great length in their Santa Monica homes at dinner parties. And because of this, they see themselves as better-educated and better-informed and better-all-round than most other people. And this results in growing contempt for the ill-educated mass of humanity. And once that contempt has become set in concrete, they have no qualms whatsoever about acting on it, and banning smoking and Christian nativities, and anything else which doesn’t accord with their superior wisdom.

And they’re probably in love with anything that’s new. Because new is modern and up-to-date, and they must always have the latest gadgets, particularly the intellectual gadgets. And Christianity is very old. And therefore it is old-fashioned. And so also is smoking. Anything that is in the least bit traditional is almost by definition old-fashioned and out-of-date. So it’s probably very easy for them to identify what’s new and hip, and what’s old and unfashionable. They do the same thing whenever they buy new clothes, which they do all the time. You don’t want to be seen wearing last year’s Peruvian sandals, do you? No, of course you don’t.

How do you know what’s new and fashionable? Well, there’s a sort of consensus that emerges, of what’s In and what’s Out. That’s how fashion works. So you wear fashionable clothes and you eat fashionable foods and you adhere to the latest set of fashionable doctrines that you’ve read about in fashionable magazine articles written by fashionable writers. And what’s In and what’s Out can change overnight.

Global warming/climate change is a fashionable doctrine (and one that may be beginning to become unfashionable). Antismoking is another fashionable doctrine. People don’t believe in this stuff because they’ve been rationally convinced about it. No. They believe it because everybody else believes it, and to not believe it would be like… well, it would be like being caught wearing one of last year’s Peruvian sandals. So when you’re at one of these select Santa Monica parties, nibbling cheese and sipping Pinot Grigio, you nod sagely in agreement with the vegan environmentalist who’s telling you how global warming will result in a new ice age. Because you know that, if you don’t, you’ll never be invited again.

Global warming will probably just become unfashionable one day. It’s already had to be rebranded as Climate Change. The end will come when some fashion leader – like Tom Cruise or something – says in a Vogue magazine interview that he always had profound doubts about it. And then there’ll be a rush to get off the sinking ship as quickly as possible. And everyone will be saying that, yes, they too nursed deep doubts about it all. It will suddenly be fashionable to be sceptical.

And the same will happen, rather later, with antismoking. It’s very fashionable right now, and everybody (everybody who’s anybody, that is) wants to lead the world in daring and imaginative new bans. And Santa Monica council wants to be a world leader. You don’t want to leave all the glory to NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg, after all, do you? Of course not. But, just like with those Peruvian sandals, the lustre will soon wear off (it was painted on by child slave labour). And then smoking bans will become Very Last Year. Particularly when some fashion leader, writing in Mayfair, airs a little of their Nazi history, and expresses some reservations about the ‘science’, and everyone starts heading for the exit.

Nazism was very fashionable in its time. Well, those uniforms were very chic, weren’t they? And such an arresting logo too. And those goose-stepping Nazi marches were a form of ballet. And it was all new! And scientific! Who wouldn’t want to dye their hair blonde, and join the Party, and get their very own free take-away Messerschmitt 109?

But it’s not very fashionable now. You wouldn’t want to be seen dead in one of those things.

Me? I’m completely indifferent to fashion. I’ve got rid of all my If-You’re-Going-To-San-Francisco-Please-Wear-A-Flower-In-Your-Hair flower power shirts. And now my Peruvian sandals too. I kinda knew from the outset that they’d been painted in dungeons by manacled slave girls. But I didn’t want to rock the boat. Or the gas chamber.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Bigots Run Santa Monica City Hall

  1. reinholdfrombavaria says:

    Nailed it again, Frank.
    Great post, very strong.

  2. Tom says:

    I am not making a comment yet, but may later on on the vile evil spirit that dwells in Santa Monica and other parts of California. I am commenting mainly so I can check off to “Notify me of follow-up comments via email”. Although I can subscribe to new posts, and am already subscribed, is there no way to subscribe to all comments on new posts w/o having to actually post a comment in order to subscribe?

    • Frank Davis says:

      I can’t help you there, Tom. I don’t subscribe to anything. When I want to re-read what people are saying, I hit the Refresh button.

      Sad, isn’t it?

      • Tom says:

        What is sad – the fact one has to hit the refresh button to reload new comments instead of having them arrive in the mailbox – or the fact that California is occupied by many vile and evil people who, left to their own devices and with full power and control over everyone else, will again resurrect the same murderous scourge upon anyone and everyone not “perfect” they way they think they are and the world should be – or maybe both are sad, just in different degrees.

  3. Walt says:

    I’d imagine that most of them are at least nominally Christian (except Bloom, the mayor– and it always gets me how Jewish people are often among the first to do unto smokers and to toy with eugenics) but first and foremost they’re politically correct. They ban things like nativity scenes to cater to the “sensitivities” of the few noisy non-Christians and even noisier atheists who claim to be offended by signs and symbols of other peoples’ religions. We’ve had cases of 100 year old crosses removed from cemeteries because they’re visible from a highway and somebody complained that (en passant) while driving he was horribly “offended.” We’re becoming the most offended people on earth. The rationale the banners and complainers wield is the alleged doctrine of “separation of church and state” which first of all isn’t a doctrine, and second, meant only that the state would not establish a national religion. I also think the deeper purpose is to remove religion (that opiate of the masses) from all public life, so that the state can be primary and the only Higher Power. I say this as an agnostic who is only offended by religious symbols such as No Smoking signs.

    OT: Hyde Park concert– Springsteen and McCartney– closed down by cops for reasons of Health and Safety because it threatened to run as unhealthily and unsafely late as 11 PM.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/9401129/Hard-Rock-Calling-2012-England-a-police-state-says-Bruce-Springsteen-guitarist.html

    • Marie says:

      Hi Walt, I am sure you are a really nice person, but
      “and it always gets me how Jewish people are often among the first to do unto smokers and to toy with eugenics)”
      Maybe you should take a good long look at what you have written here and as someone supposedly battling prejudice in the form of the anti tobacco brigade ask yourself if you really wanted to write that.

  4. jaxthefirst says:

    Isn’t there something in the US Constitution about free expression, or free speech, or freedom to express one’s belief openly and without persecution etc which people could use to challenge this ruling? Not being from the US I’m not as familiar with the Constitution as your readers from across the pond – the only parts of it which I hear about often enough to know they are in there are the ones which regularly get cited, like the right to bear arms or the Fifth Amendment. But I can’t believe that such an important document, designed specifically to enshrine the most fundamental freedoms of the American people wouldn’t have covered freedom of expression in some way or another.

    In fact, come to think of it, wouldn’t the same apply to the “marking” of smokers’ private homes? Again, I don’t know what protections the Constitution gives in respect of people’s right to live safely and without persecution in their homes, but again I can’t believe that there wouldn’t be something to that effect in there. It is, after all, a pretty fundamental view in the UK that “An Englishman’s home is his castle,” (and Scottish and Irish and Welsh, as well, of course), and as the original Founding Fathers’ families came from over here, I can’t believe that this wasn’t up there at the top of their priority list when they were drafting the Constitution.

    And am I right in thinking that if something can be shown to be “unconstitutional” in the US then it cannot be imposed as a rule of law, or indeed as a local regulation, as in Santa Monica? If so, then maybe drawing the higher authorities’ (State level, national level? Not sure) attention to the fact that Santa Monica are acting unconstitutionally might (a) highlight how extremist these fanatics have become and (b) bring the Santa Monica council-zealots up with a short, sharp, shock.

    Just a thought. I’ve often thought that it was only once little tinpot dictators like the SM councillors, or indeed Healthists the world over, started spreading their nastiness into other areas than smoking that there’d be an opportunity to draw attention to what they’ve been doing all this time – because it would seem like a “new” approach and would thus appear to have raised some “new” questions and concerns. Then, once having established some wrongdoing in the “new” area, it would be damned-nigh impossible for the authorities not to support backdated arguments against the persecution of smokers for the exact same reasons.

    Perhaps using the anti-smoking template might be useful for us here – as in using their own cunning trick of forcing the gullible public into accepting the principles behind smoking bans, without pointing out to them beforehand that, of course, this stance would render them unable to argue against restrictions in other areas based on the same principles, without being seen as hypocritical or NIMBY-ish. Well, it worked for them, so …

    • Tom says:

      One problem though in California is that it is at ALL levels, including the state government level, in ALL positions of authority, including Attorney General, they have been taken over by blatant proud pagan God, truth and freedom hating bigoted communist-progressives. So for example, if one complained to the California Attorney General, who is Kamala Harris from San Francisco, the former District Attorney there and chief fund raiser for Obama by way of her executive directorship of the corrupt ACORN group and the one who instituted strict Sanctuary City policing here, which means in SF, criminals are not brought to trial and cannot be arrested if they are non-citizens and are given a Get Out of Jail Free card – and the same Kamala Harris who took over Jerry Brown’s AG spot when Moonbeam Brown moved up to become governor – so you have progressive-communists of “the one party” at all levels in all positions – then complaining to the state that a constitutional breach has occurred will simply be ignored or laughed at at worse. Even the state of California and progressive-communist cities and counties breach the constitution constantly all the time – and couldn’t give a sh*t about US Constitutional rights or sovereign rights of its own people. The ruling class is more concerned about kow-towing to an international UN dictatorship hoping they will receive eventual nomination to controlling positions once the new non-constitutional worldwide government of “the one party” gets set up, should they have their way and win. And anti-smoking is going to be the major number one prime directive for 99.99% of any politician in Sacramento at state government if they are of “the one party”, which like Pelosi in the 1980’s, anti-smoking was actually a much trumpeted campaign speech topic that helped get her into the position she is in today. So yes, there may be unconstitutional things happening at local levels in these progressive-communist held coastal cities and some inland, which have been taken over by “the one party” that “hates smokers” and will do anything in its power to treat that as the number one most important “problem” – as that’s the horse they rode in on – but with them at state level, then there is nobody to complain to who is going to act upon any of it. And like with the recent request to have Prop 29 partially recounted, in order to make the current “No” outcome become a “Yes” outcome, magically, overnight one day soon, the people in Sacramento, they are all going to be on the same side as the anti-smoking anti-constitutional-rights people as they are all of the same feather and stick up for one another, quite stubbornly I might add too. Complain too much, in California, and as punishment they will just make a smoking ban worse, then worse, then worse again, with each complaint they hear, which is another issue working against trying to complain, plus a complacent press that pushes an anti-smoking agenda, no matter who says what.

      • jaxthefirst says:

        I hear what you say about them all singing from the same old songbook, and I don’t dispute that there’d be a joining of ranks if there were any complaints about the persecution of smokers in their own homes being unconstitutional (says I, not actually knowing if it is or not – can you confirm or otherwise?). But what I was thinking was that this latest ban on religious symbolism of all types, favouring as it does – as you point out below – those with no religion at all, being about a subject totally unrelated to smoking, might be an “in” in terms of simply testing the case for unconstitutionalism, and again – because it’s not about that political hot-potato of smoking – just might meet with a slightly less united response. Even one or two dissenting voices within their ranks – notably absent in the smoking “debate” (Debate? Did I actually use that word? What a joke!) – might at least start them thinking that there are lines which they shouldn’t cross and that, even if they get away with it this time, increasing numbers of normal people are watching them carefully and are prepared to act accordingly if they are ever arrogant enough to step over it …

        But again, I say, I speak from a position of supreme ignorance in terms of how the Constitution is designed to be “used” and how it applies in real terms. Can a law/rule be overturned if it is found to be unconstitutional; or can it simply be ignored with no penalty?? Has there ever been a case where a law has been challenged successfully for being unconstitutional? Has anyone ever tried in all these little places that you mention which daily pass unconstitutional rules and regulations and get away with it? Do they get away with it because people don’t challenge them in the courts about it, or do they get away with it because they are challenged, but they win? Not sure – any enlightenment you can provide about the “practical application” of the Constitution would greatly clarify my own thinking on the matter!

  5. Margo says:

    Hang on a minute. I’ve just been checking this Santa Monica thing on the Internet (having never heard of it before). It seems that this ‘tradition’ of having nativity scenes displayed in December on Palisades Park (a public place, consisting of two blocks overlooking the sea) was started in 1953 by the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce to attract visitors (yes, that seems to have been the motive, according to a site called http://www.jewishjournal,com/los_angeles). That puts a bit of a different complexion on it all, for me. (I haven’t found anything about Christians complaining in 1953 that their religion was being used to create a tourist money-spinner, but there we are).

    Anyway, last year (or so, it seems), because of non-Christian objections, the Chamber set up a lottery system for allocating the 14 Palisades public display spaces. Eleven of them were won by atheists, one by a synagogue and the remaining two by Christian churches (who used to display in all 14 spaces).
    Now, because of all the ensuing bad feeling among the warriing religious groups, they’ve decided to ban displays of ALL religious symbols. It’s not just the Christian nativity scenes – no Chanukahs either, or anything else. (Thinks: maybe it had stopped being profitable as a tourist trap?)
    They can all still display whatever they want in their own churches, homes, etc.
    Don’t know what to think, really, except the same as I always do when people get nasty at each other because of differences in religious beliefs, and the same as I did when the anti-smoking hype got going: aren’t there more important things in the world to make a fuss about?

    • Tom says:

      One interesting observation though, if 11 out of 14 were “won” by atheists (in a “fair” lottery – something that makes me question the fairness, given the lopsided win for atheists, a different issue) – but then after the bad feelings that would obviously generate (the lopsidedness of it) – so they went ahead and banned ALL religious symbols – then in essence, did not the atheists (who believe in NO religious symbols) actually win permanently – and isn’t it odd that 11/14 lopsided wins all went to them in the first lottery round (as if planned/thrown that way, on purpose, to create disharmony, as a “problem”, which then needed the “solution”, which was ban ALL religion, thus give to the atheists what they – and government – wanted to begin with). Also, with religion and God, this idea of someone higher than man, any man, even the king, queen, president, prime minister, whoever is in charge, and God being someone also representative of ultimate truth, no lies and total freedom and liberty for individuals, not for the state having full power and control – then getting that concept out of everyone’s minds and a few generations of it down the road, then this pagan idea of making a centralized government with some man or men at the core of it as “gods” instead just becomes that much easier. So it ties in with that too – has a pagan root and is geared toward more of this idea of placing a worldly government as “god” over others, giving it legitimacy and thus resulting in the draconian smoking bans and other illiberal takings of freedom being done in broad daylight worldwide – because they are also working overtime to remove this concept of a real God out of the picture, anyway they can. It goes along well with the rest of what they are trying to do, it helps with the indoctrination, of leading people to believe in government dictates, not some silly little God which is the idea of no matter who in the flesh tries to rule as dictator and say they are God, in fact they are just another god and have no more right to steal freedoms and liberties from others than does a commoner. Them doing that and requiring smokers be registered then eventually grandfathered out of housing altogether just reeks of them making everyone turn from this idea of God as truth higher than the city council and putting city council in the place of God, as gods, pagan ones, to be obeyed instead of what one knows in ones heart, soul and guts is unfair discrimination against smokers, in the case of this ban.

      • Margo says:

        I take your point about the suspiciously lop-sided lottery result.

      • churchmouse says:

        ‘… a pagan root and is geared toward more of this idea of placing a worldly government as “god” over others, giving it legitimacy and thus resulting in the draconian smoking bans and other illiberal takings of freedom being done in broad daylight worldwide – because they are also working overtime to remove this concept of a real God out of the picture, anyway they can.’

        Thank you, Tom — perfect.

        I might borrow this for an upcoming post (with credit to you).

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Big Government is their religion mine is destroying it!

  7. garyk30 says:

    Fashion comes and goes;but, idealogies can last much longer.
    I fear that these ‘crusades’ against smokers or whomever are indicative of the fact that there are people looking for new idealogies to suit their egos.

    Santa Monica gives builders the permits to build rental units and probably, under public health regulations, has the power to stipulate what it considers healthful renting.

    The banning of religious displays from public property is also within their power. The beautiful people of the city are probably much in favor of this course of action.

    Most folks seem to not know that the Constitution of the United States is not about the Rights of the people.
    It is all about the govt and its’ Rights as to what it can and can not do.

    For instance; the !st Amendment starts by saying:
    “Congress shall make no law”

    However, it starts out by saying:
    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    What is meant by ‘promote the general welfare’ has been interpreted to mean a great many ideas that might have astounded and dismayed the ‘Founding Fathers’.

    Santa Monica’s city leaders would claim that they are promoting ‘the general welfare’ of their city with their actions.

    The pledge of ‘securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity’ is usually ignored.

  8. garyk30 says:

    AMENDMENT XIV
    Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

    Due process of law is up to the local elected officials and brings about a great many vile laws.

    • jaxthefirst says:

      Many thanks for that clarification, Gary. Darn it! I thought I was on to something there.

      Oh well. “Back to the drawing board,” as they say on this side of the pond!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Due process of law is up to the local elected officials and brings about a great many vile laws.

      Nanny always creates an out for herself…………..That on bit about due process basically nullifys the entire 14th amendment all by itself!

    • Tom says:

      “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

      They will soon attempt to amend that amendment by adding additional words to it, such as maybe:

      “… except in the case of health, safey and security, in which government dictatorial powers trump truth, freedom, liberty and justice entirely and especially in the case of anything to do with tobacco, in which case smokers shall be deprived of all life, liberty and property whenever and where-ever possible”.

      I would firstly imagine delegates from California and composed of progressive-communists of “the one party”, which is also radically anti-smoking, the horse they rode in on on many an election now for the last 20 years, coming in from Santa Monica to the south and SF, Berkeley and Santa Cruz to the north to be the ones to introduce it into Congress, similar to how Pelosi introduced the 3,000 page already pre-written when she got it health-care reform that put government rights over those of the citizens – and they will say you have to vote for it in order to know what’s in it, the same as they already did with the health-care dictatorship law.

      And Americans will dance in the streets for joy that health, safety and security, the marks of a dictatorship, have finally trumped freedom, liberty, truth and justice, the hallmarks of a free nation – just so they and their children never have to see another person smoking again in their lives and they are vindicated to go around foul mouthing, intimidating and beating anyone who dares smoke in their precious presence.

      That is pretty much the direction I see Constitutional law and rights taking in the US eventually, but in California first, as Santa Monica has just proudly demonstrated.

  9. Walt says:

    Yes, Marie. I really wanted to write that. and there’s not a lick of anti-semitism in it.

    We talk repeatedly, and accurately, about the parallels between what’s being done to smokers now in supposedly enlightened democracies, and what was done to Jews back then, back there (and the there’s and the then’s go back through history and haven’t ended yet). So yes, it surprises and greatly disappoints me (in terms of the perfectability of man or his ability to learn from history) that guys like Bloomberg and Thomas Frieden (Bloomberg’s once upon a time Health Minister and now head of the federal CDC) would not be the first to understand at a very personal gut level that they’re doing the same things. And both of those guys are setting national policy. And sponsoring commercials against smokers that are uncannily like the films Goebbels did against Jews.

    If you want to continue the conversation, I’m game.

    On the constitution. Most of it’s been said. But. Yes, a law (even a state law) can be overturned if it violates the Constitution. Technically. But, as we just saw when the health care law was upheld, every court, including the Supreme, gives extreme deference to the legislatures and will bend over backwards to preserve what they’ve enacted, often stretching the clear meaning of the Constitution beyond mortal recognition. And so, we’ve had SCOTUS (supremes) say, in the 1920s and based on junk science, that sterilizing people against their will was perfectly constitutional, or that (1930’s) a farmer growing wheat on his own farm for his own use was violating principles of interstate commerce.

    Then, too, according to federal law, smokers are not a “protected class” and therefore can be legally subjected to any kind of whimsical discrimination. Finally, every state has its own independent police powers which allows it to regulate matters of health, safety and (get this) morals and whatever they enact will only be judged in court on what’s officially known as a “rational basis.” Which means that if a rational person could reasonably believe the premise of a law, no matter how wrong, even laughable, that premise might be, then the law is allowed to stand. So when the government says there’s “no safe level of ETS” or that cigarette smoke can penetrate lead sheeting then a rational person is rational to believe it. Case closed.

    • Frank Davis says:

      So yes, it surprises and greatly disappoints me (in terms of the perfectability of man or his ability to learn from history) that guys like Bloomberg and Thomas Frieden (Bloomberg’s once upon a time Health Minister and now head of the federal CDC) would not be the first to understand at a very personal gut level that they’re doing the same things.

      Me too. Why are they so blind?

      It’s something I’ve touched on in the essay I wrote last night: One Of Us. It’s always seemed to me that Jews above all should be able to recognise when social groups of one sort or other are being demonised and excluded. But it seems they can’t. And I find that puzzling.

      Perhaps it’s just that they’re only sensitive to antisemitism, and don’t notice anything else. It could be as simple as that.

      But, to be quite honest, I’m perhaps even more deeply disappointed with the Christian church hierarchies. Not a peep out of them either.

      • Tom says:

        There wasn’t a peep out of the Pope against Hitler either back then. However, Hitler also sent a message through the back door of the Vatican, to the Pope, letting him know, that if they did oppose Hitler in any way, shape or form, then all of the Catholic churches in Europe would be shut down. And I believe he told whoever headed the Protestant denominations in Europe the same thing, why they didn’t dare utter a word against him either and signed their pact with the devil, in this case, Hitler. So the Pope was more concerned about his ephemeral worldly material wealth and glory than he was about the more eternal God derived higher ideals of truth, liberty, justice, etc. for those who were about to be persecuted. And so with the smoking bans, not a peep out of them. Perhaps there was some back door threats or deals made in today’s reincarnation of evil represented by the Anti-Smoker Industry with or against the religious authorities – or else too, maybe the religious authorities have become so material oriented and so non-Godly committed, so whorishly Bablyonian, that they too have put immediate short-term political and economic gain for themselves as individuals above that of representing higher more Godly ideals or sense of moral values that places all people on equal footing, including “the smokers”, who have rights, under God at least they do.

        • Frank Davis says:

          I’ve read that the Vatican was the first state to recognise Nazi Germany. They signed a Concordat. And celebrated it in a swastika-covered cathedral in Hamburg (I think. I’m speaking from memory).

        • Tom says:

          “And celebrated it in a swastika-covered cathedral in Hamburg …”

          Sort of like today’s churches with no-smoking-covered signs adorning the front doors and all around them, showing they approve more highly of the dictatorial unGodly worldy/material/pagan nature of today’s anti-smoking hate-industry than they do of the nature of the real God who would have no problem accepting “the smokers” and would see them as loving, caring, worthy souls, not deserving of discrimination.

          I also think that churches should have smoking rooms or smoking sections, maybe up in the balcony for those who wish to pray and smoke at the same time {; \)

          (Well, just kidding on that last part.)

      • Rose says:

        Smokefree England
        Signage Guidance for Churches, Places of Worship and Church/Parish Halls

        Click to access churches-signage-factsheet.pdf

        Church no smoking signs condemned

        “Rules requiring churches to display no smoking signs when a ban comes into force in England in July have been criticised by a senior London cleric.
        The Dean of Southwark the Very Rev Colin Slee said the sign regulations were “daft” and that historic religious buildings should be exempt.

        A ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces begins on 1 July.

        The Department of Health previously said providing an exemption “would have created a dangerous precedent.”

        Heritage entrances

        Mr Slee claimed one church had been threatened with closure by the council if it failed to comply.

        Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme he said: “All Deans have received a very formal letter and been instructed that it’s mandatory to put up these signs, even on wonderful Grade I listed heritage entrances.”

        The Archdeacon of Down in Ireland, the Ven Phillip Patters, has previously raised similar concerns describing the rules as “overkill” and “unnecessary”.

        In response to this the Department of Health spokesman said: “I accept, without reservation, that there is a long tradition not to smoke in churches but, as I am sure people will appreciate, to have provided an exemption would have created a dangerous precedent.”

        Mr Slee also insisted that smoking was not a common problem in church.”
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6652997.stm

        The Department of Health previously said providing an exemption “would have created a dangerous precedent.” ?

        I thought it was more about the previous government telling the Church exactly where they stood now. Powerless.

        • Frank Davis says:

          It hadn’t occurred to me before, but by getting their nasty little signs put up in churches, they were in effect saying, “We are more important than God.” And by extension, we are more important than anything or anyone.

        • Tom says:

          “… The Department of Health previously said providing an exemption “would have created a dangerous precedent.” ? …”

          I am guessing that had the government permitted genuine separation of church and state, instead of demanding that the church facilitate and abet the state in implementing and policing the immoral smoker-discrimination laws, then that would have meant an exemption existed, such that church, separate from state because of the immorality of festering anti-smoker hatred, could create its own set of rules derived from tradition and along religious guidelines which might say to love and accept all.

          And then, if that be the case, a “dangerous precedent” would have been set, namely separation of church and state – and the resulting “danger” would be that someone, somewhere, would officially call themselves the Church Of Smoking, set up two Holy-Cigarettes in the form of a great big cross outside the front door to signify worship-by-cigarette goes on here-in – and then smokers, after abandoning the pubs, would have flocked en-masse to these newly founded churches and celebrated ceremonies long into the evening, which would have defeated total government control and the immoral anti-smoking hate campaigns.

          (Somehow today I keep going back to this vision of seeing “smoking churches” as replacement for pubs, had they been exempted as they probably should have been. Wine, beer and whisky could have been for communion and smoking could have added the heavenly atmosphere of incense – a perfect pairing.)

        • Tom says:

          Yes, they are saying they ARE God, there is NO God, they ARE God, and they rule. That is the essence of this sort of thing.

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.