Fifty public figures condemn me in letter to Guardian

Actually, it is the Pope they condemn.

More than 50 public figures have added their names to a letter in the Guardian newspaper saying the Pope should not be given the “honour” of a UK state visit.

Authors Terry Pratchett and Philip Pullman and actor Stephen Fry are among those critical of the Vatican record on birth control, gay rights and abortion.

But as my own record on these things is similar to the Vatican’s, they are also criticising me: not a Catholic; not even a fan of Rome. Quite the opposite, actually!

This is the letter in the Guardian that these few dozen right-on, C to Z list celebs cobbled together,

We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion  with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:

Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.

Promoting segregated education.

Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.

Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.

The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties (“concordats”) with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican.

Stephen Fry, Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman, Ed Byrne, Baroness Blackstone, Ken Follett, Professor AC Grayling, Stewart Lee, Baroness Massey, Claire Rayner, Adele Anderson, John Austin MP, Lord Avebury, Sian Berry, Professor Simon Blackburn, Sir David Blatherwick, Sir Tom Blundell, Dr Helena Cronin, Dylan Evans, Hermione Eyre, Lord Foulkes, Professor Chris French, Natalie Haynes, Johann Hari, Jon Holmes, Lord Hughes, Robin Ince, Dr Michael Irwin, Professor Steve Jones, Sir Harold Kroto, Professor John Lee, Zoe Margolis, Jonathan Meades, Sir Jonathan Miller, Diane Munday, Maryam Namazie, David Nobbs, Professor Richard Norman, Lord O’Neill, Simon Price, Paul Rose, Martin Rowson, Michael Rubenstein, Joan Smith, Dr Harry Stopes-Roe, Professor Raymond Tallis, Lord Taverne, Peter Tatchell, Baroness Turner, Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC FBA, Ann Marie Waters, Professor Wolpert, Jane Wynne Willson

What are these public figures actually saying? The BBC website calls them luminaries; a strange word to describe people who are shrouded in darkness.

“Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.”

And don’t humanists just hate large families? Some of them even hate the fact that people are legally allowed more than one or two children. I bet Marie Stopes is one of their heroines. She who adored Hitler and located her abortion clinics in poorer areas so as to reduce the numbers of black people and lower class white folk.

Humanists love abortion. Because they have nothing on which to base their new “values,” their warped thinking, which is completely lacking in wisdom and genuine humanism, means that quality of life has more value to them than life itself. So, if a child is going to be born with a disability or the parents “don’t want it” humanists dictate that the child would be better off being obliterated from history rather than being allowed its one chance to live.

And they talk about child abuse by priests! What sickening hypocrites humanists are.

And regarding the spread of AIDS, if you believe this information, the humanist “solution” is the one causing more AIDS and more deaths due to so-called charities whose priority is condom distribution and not actual medical treatment or promotion of celibacy.

The article also contains this very interesting assertion from Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies,

There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates.

I know we are talking about different cultures, but this makes sense when we consider how the increase in sexually-transmitted diseases of all kinds in the UK has gone hand-in-hand with the increased availability and promotion of contraception. Sadly, some major so-called Christian charities like TearFund and Christian Aid are guilty of involvement in the humanist/atheist agenda of flooding the Third World with contraception.

“Promoting segregated education.”

Humanists hate the fact that some children are still being taught according to any ethos that is outside of their control. Simple as that. They want a “state education” based on their own made-up “values” so that children grow up loving promiscuity, abortion and homosexuality.

And they say that the churches seem primarily concerned with people’s sex lives these days. Hypocritical humanists once again.

“Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.”

Of course, the humanist’s definition of “most vulnerable” is not going to be the same as you will find in a dictionary. Notice how they try and sell the idea of abortion by using this phrase “most vulnerable”. It is a cheap trick.

As I have already said, life is cheap to humanists. So cheap that they believe they should hold the power to kill at both the start of life and the end.

“Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

Humanists love “equal rights” because they legitimise the sort of behaviour they themselves find acceptable and few other people do. It furthers their objective of building a society around their own valueless values.

“Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.”

At last, a valid argument. The hushing up of serious crimes against children is despicable. The insistence that clergymen remain unmarried and celibate is unwise and unscriptural.

That said, the abuse humanists wish to impose upon children is far more widespread than the Roman Catholic church could achieve even if that was its objective! The abortions; the “free” condoms which invite promiscuity and leave young lives in ruins; the youngsters trapped in homosexual/bisexual lifestyles; the hopelessness of living in a society where sex and materialism are considered all that matter.

Recently, I have noticed how humanists want to be recognised for giving to charity. They don’t want to give to one of the thousands of religious-based organisations, so they invent their own, like Non-believers Giving Aid.

They want to be seen to be nice. They are not.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Fifty public figures condemn me in letter to Guardian

  1. Charlie says:

    As a humanist myself, of course I don’t recognise myself in your words. Yes I am pro-abortion, euthanasia and birth control BUT I believe a the worth of people. If you choose not use contraceptives, that’s fine by me. It’s your life, your choices. But my life, my choices.

    If you want 11 children, fine. I just don’t want to pay for all 11.

    But also: humanism isn’t new: it’s been around since the 13th century and gave us (amongst other things) Human Rights. You don’t think that’s a catholic invention, do you? If you’re really interested, read By the way: I was raised a Catholic so yes, I do now what I’m talking about.

  2. Pingback: Atheists are Nazis and promoting health and prosperity is more evil than child abuse? Papally inspired stupidity

  3. len says:

    Cannot but help notice the amount of professors in the list.So much education but so little wisdom.

    Humanism is derived from the satanic lie which is as old as mankind itself “You can be as God”

  4. Cannot but help notice the amount of professors in the list. So much education . . .

    Indeed. These people have had educational advantages that Terry Jones never had, and yet . . .

  5. Stewart Cowan says:


    Thank you for your comments. You have shown that humanists don’t value life as having an intrinsic worth.

    Parents should be financially responsible for their children, but sadly, these days, and partly thanks to feminism and other social engineering mechanisms, the father isn’t always in a position to provide for them.

    Indeed, humanism isn’t new, but the definition seems to have changed.

    It seems to me that many humanists (in the modern sense) were raised as Roman Catholics. You were probably not exposed to genuine Christianity!

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thank you for writing about me again, Ian. I think. Fortunately, others see the intelligent and coherent points I have made :)

  7. Stewart Cowan says:


    “So much education but so little wisdom.”

    That sums up these educated people. I don’t know much about most of them, but I know about Dawkins and I would argue that he is not even that well educated.

  8. Stewart Cowan says:


    Do you support Terry Jones a) planning to burn Korans or b) chickening out/coming to his senses?

  9. English Viking says:

    Hardly celebrities, are they?

    Just because the Pope is a liar and an (not THE) anti-Christ does not mean that he is always wrong. In fact, as Popes go, he seems not half bad. He’s not afraid to speak his mind and doesn’t seem to concerned with being ‘PC’ either.

    He’s wrong on contraception though. Allowing people who can’t look after themselves to produce untold numbers of dependents that they can’t look after either is insanity. Very expensive insanity.

  10. English Viking says:


    Very disappointed that Terry Jones didn’t have the courage of his convictions and burn the wretched thing.

  11. Stewart Cowan says:


    Not many genuine celebrities in the list. I was surprised to see Peter Tatchell near the bottom (oh, matron!).

    Isn’t this the pope who went into a mosque and prayed towards Mecca? Yes, I think he is anti-Christ. I expected him to be trying harder to achieve the one world religion, but he seems to be sticking to his guns. Maybe a union with Islam is more important than a reunion with other Christian sects like Anglicanism.

    I say he’s right on contraception, because the Almighty’s instructions were to go forth and fill the earth, not bag your seed and chuck it away. This is one of the arguments I have with Protestantism. Why is it suddenly okay to ignore this instruction? Because the social engineers say there are too many people in the world? That’s nonsense and I intend writing one of my Myths in 21st Century Britain on the subject.

    The Koran is a wretched thing, but would burning them have made any discernable difference? So-called moderate Muslims seem few and far between in some places outside of the socially-engineered West and Christians are paying the price. Okay, we have to pay a price, sometimes, but when it’s through the actions of one man who may not be doing something sensible it’s a shame, I think.

    Maybe he should have burned a whole range of other pornography at the same time, like Playboy, Hollywood films and Richard Dawkins’s scribblings?

  12. Aleksandra says:

    The problem with many prominent people (intellectuals)is that if they are good in one thing (science, wrting novels, staring in films, etc.) they think they are good in other things, too and they have right to “teach” the society about moral values. If you look at the letter you will find that they are against the freedom of expresssion. They want to make the Pope’s visit private, because the Pope represents the views they do not share. But would this be the case if any other head of states arrives? There might be more European or world’s leaders not sharing the views of intellectuals. Would their visits be also opposed by these intelectuals? As for the intellectuals the letter contains logical mistakes.

  13. YMB, Do you support Terry Jones a) planning to burn Korans or b) chickening out/coming to his senses?

    Stewart, it seems to me that burning Korans is not appropriate behaviour for Christians who wish to be Biblical.

    I realise that Acts 19:19 may provide superficial support for such behaviour, but the point there is that converts were showing their repentance and burning things that they had once loved.

    The relevant verse is Acts 19:37 which indicates that Christians did not insult false religions, even though such religions were the product of the evil one.

  14. Stewart Cowan says:


    Welcome. You make a good point. Many people think they know everything, but these “intellectuals” actually believe they have the right to force everyone else to behave as they do.

    Yes, their letter is crazy. Logic evades the humanist.

  15. Stewart Cowan says:


    Thank you for clarifying this and I agree with you. I do, however, believe that the growing influence of Islam must be resisted in the West.

    Ha! If only the humanists were as clever as they think they are and humbled themselves enough to accept that their beliefs are based on this country’s Judeo-Christian culture then they might see the real danger to their freedom. They are so obsessed with a clutch of issues involving sex that they are blinded to the truth.

  16. English Viking says:


    Acts 19 v 36 is not an injunction against insulting false religion. It is part of a narrative concerning a near riot started by the fears of local craftsmen that their healthy income gained by selling idols and trinkets would be harmed by the preaching of St Paul and his associates. The person speaking is an non-Christian, a follower of Diana of Ephesus, attempting to still the riotous crowd by speaking favourably about (in his mind) the self-evident truth of Dianaism, ‘which things cannot be spoken against’.

    Paul is spoken of, in the same chapter, ‘disputing daily…by the space of two years’ with those which followed false religion.


    The Earth is full enough now. I point to the ludicrous doubling of the population of Ethiopia since Live Aid in the ’80’s as evidence of the West’s insanity, creating a situation where millions of people now exist that either cannot or will not feed themselves.

  17. English Viking says:


    Forgot to add, verse 37 is the same follower of Diana speaking about Christians.

  18. English Viking,

    You are quite correct that Acts 19:37 is not an injunction, and also that the speaker is a pagan who has a vested interest in his statement being true. Hence my choice of the word “indicates”.

    The implication of the passage, it seems to me, is that his statement was true, since if it were known to be false, there would have been plenty of people to shout him down. The fact that Luke mentions it implies (though does not prove), that Luke believed it to be true, and considered refraining from insulting to be commendable. The practice of Paul and the other Apostles, as far as we can see from Acts, is that they did not set out to insult the beliefs of pagans. And the writings of the apostles (e.g. I Peter 2:12) imply that they expected Christians to act in a way which pagans considered to be good.

  19. As for “disputing daily” (Acts 19:9), the word used (dialegomai) means to discuss or debate. It does not carry overtones of insulting.

  20. English Viking says:


    I take your point.

    It strikes me as impossible to say anything about Islam, however mildly expressed, that is in the slightest bit critical, without it being used as an excuse by thousands to start a riot or burn down a church, both of which happened in Pakistan recently over the non-burning of a Koran.

    I prefer the other approach, as demonstrated by Elijah on Mt Carmel. 1 Kings 18 v 27

  21. English Viking says:


    Didi the Pope pray in mosque? I didn’t know that. Link?

  22. English Viking,

    The approach of Elijah is correct in its place. One could debate endlessly on when the approach of Elijah is the correct one, and in what circumstances in our own day it would be appropriate.

    One answer is that if you or I were to be able to replicate the action of Elijah in verses 37 and 38, we would have carte blanche to do as Elijah did, not just in verse 27, but also in verse 40.

    I tend to take the view that verse 19 suggests that the meeting on Mount Carmel was not about settling differences within the Lord’s people, not between the Lord’s people and outsiders. Where there are prophets of Baal within the church, we are justified in taking fairly decisive action against them. But when it comes to the prophets of Baal among the heathen, it is a different matter. If I am correct in my surmise, then the words of Elijah in verse 27 were not for the mocking of outsiders, but so that the Lord’s own people might see that their apostasy was foolish.

  23. English Viking says:

    I am of the opinion that the OT, whilst containing vast quantities of priceless wisdom, useful, nay indispensable to Christian living, it is more an instruction book on how to run a nation under a theocracy. Large parts of the OT are the historical records of the theocracy of Israel. The NT is the Christian’s instruction book. Christians are forbidden to follow Elijah’s tactics in verse 40, but the Governments of the West are not. We have reached a point in this nation where Islam represents a terrible threat to civilisation, Christian or not, and our Governments are failing to protect us from an invading, colonising force. Action must be taken to protect ourselves as a nation, before it is too late, if it isn’t already. If a muslim thinks it’s OK to burn an effigy of the PM, or the US President, along with British flags and the Stars and Stripes, they should accept that some people will wish to behave in the same manner with the things that they hold dear.

    I have NO doubt, whatsoever, that there will be enormous bloodshed in the coming years because of this dreadful cult and its dreadful book and if the burning of one of them is enough to awaken the West from its stupor, give me a box of matches.

  24. I’ll agree with your first four sentences.

  25. English Viking says:


    I feel so much better knowing that.

  26. Stewart Cowan says:


    There are too many people in certain areas, but the world isn’t full of people. Quite the opposite.

    Pope prays in Blue Mosque.

Leave a Reply to Young Mr. Brown Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>