Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Saturday, 9 May 2009

Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat

I don't really do God on this blog. My Christianity is quite personal, and I'd no more wish to share it than I would details of my bowel movements. Many of you are athiest or agnostic, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that. I don't really do monarchy, either; many of you are also republicans, and I wouldn't argue the principles. However, my personal comfort zone includes a Christian monarch on the throne of England, but I regard this as really a matter for private belief rather than public debate. I also like cats. And dogs.

However, I feel compelled to post in support of Cranmer's view on the decision of the Privy Council to modify the Trinity Cross honour because it offends Muslims and Hindus.

Take a look at the crown below. At its apex is a ball, representing the world. Above that is a cross. The motif is repeated in the Orb of State. The message is clear enough; Christ reigns above the temporal authority of the sovereign. The crown, and the cross, are ubiquitous in our society; on postboxes, in courts of law, on the helmet plates of police officers, on the rank insignia of officers of field rank or above, on regimental and naval crests, on our debased coinage. Our gallantry awards are crosses. The flag of England is Christ's cross. The symbolism is anchored deep in our national psyche, but hardly anyone notices it. And that's the way I'm happy for things to stay.

OK I'll shut up now.


William Gruff said...

I'm one of your republican atheists but I share your concerns. It's simply another step in the dhimmification of our land and culture and frightening evidence of how deeply the corruption of 'mulitculturalism' has eaten into the minds of those who govern us.

Chrysippus said...

I note that amongst many honours, Prince Charles has received the 'Grand Cross of the Order of King Abdul Aziz' from the Saudis in 1987. It would appear that our Mohammeden brothers do not suffer from the P.C. crap that the Privy Council thinks they do.

Anonymous said...

Another issue here is that the "Trinity" part of the Trinity Cross isn't actually religious. Trinidad is actually the Spanish word for Trinity - so calling their highest honour "the Trinity Cross" is simply the same as us having a medal called "The Britannia Cross".

There is no offence here. There is no assault on the religious liberties of Hindus, Muslims or those fuckers who yell 'Gouranga!'. I speak, incidentally, as an atheist who really cannot fathom why otherwise intelligent people would bow down to a fictional sky fairy or why they would live their lives according to the imbecilic diktats of a bunch of inbred Bronze Age goatherders.

What we are witnessing is not a religious issue but an assault by the forces of Political Correctness and Multi-Culturalism on our history. Today, they rape Trinidad. Tomorrow, they rape this country. Bid adieu to the Victoria Cross (soon to become the Star-and-Crescent of Courage); say goodbye to the Order of St Michael and St George (soon to become the Exalted Order of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH); and it's a fond farewell to the Military Cross, the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross (they will become the Military Chakra, the Distinguished Flying Chakra and the Conspicuous Multiculturalism Derka-Derka Muhammad Jihad Medal).

Chris said...

How did a Jewish member of the comentariat put it recently? Something along the lines of:

"I don't consciously think of myself as being 'the Jew' until I hear anti-Semitic sentiments being expressed."

Yeah, this applies. I don't think much about the centuried traditions of our culture until someone goes about trying to extirpate them.

For the record: Monarchist. Agnostic. Unionist. Dog person.

Anonymous said...

Dogs are revolting sycophantic creatures. A cat has elegance, independence, grace and an attitude.

Dogs have owners. Cats have pet humans.

Young Mr. Brown said...

I an not a lawyer, but I understand, after reading the comments on Cranmer's blog, that the decision was based on the law of Trinidad and Tobago.

The decision itself seems pretty daft to me, but if Trinidad and Tobago has daft laws, then daft decisions would seem to be legally correct.

I know that the law in this country is moving in the same direction, but it is not there yet.

Guthrum said...

Away with these baubles- Cromwell

Give me enough medals, and I'll win any war - Napoleon

I think that gives you the cynical use our rulers put these trinkets.

sign-signifier-myth Barthes

Grison said...

to anonymous 16:08
cats hide in rooms til the door gets closed then rip the carpet when no-one is there. they piss on books. they hide if you need to put them in a cat box before going on holidays, with a skill in concealement which is proportionate to the urgency of the finding. they gloat if you hit your thumb with a hammer. they are not pets but a plague, a blight, and an affront to nature. their eyes are windows into a savage remorseless hell. they were the inspiration behind the invention of the blunderbuss. they are foul. the big stripey and spotted ones kill people, the small ones en masse depopulate our songbirds by tens of millions per year. they take food from us but are wild animals assuming a facade. they are a steel fist in a velvet glove. they love our homes, but not us. if we were small (or they were big) they would skin us like fieldmice.
dogs are the noble, selfless freinds of man. they gave us the edge over H. neanderthalis. they find bombs and drugs and pre-cancerous cells. they guide the blind and help the deaf, and bring us brandy in the snow. they guard the house and protect their human pack-mates. they tow sleds and find lost mountaineers. they catch criminals. they are our friends. they see cats for what they are; the natural enemy of man and beast.
there's a cat on the fence. where's my crossbow?

Anonymous said...


I hope you die soon, you enormous cunt.

-a cat

Grison said...

woof woof

Grison said...

oh, and thanks for the compliment and best wishes, anon (a cat)
by the way, don't jump to conclusions.
cat on the fence is the one which has parasitised my wife and is tolerated by me despite the above mentioned observations, some of which depict the results of this feline's infestation of our house.
the crossbow is in a box in the attic, has been for years, and is/was never pointed at animals. you made the inference! cats are cruel and sadistic; Grison isn't.

Henry North London said...

As a Hindu I have no problems with crosses and crucifixes,

I dont know what has got into Trinidadians Maybe they should change the name of the Island as well because it refers to the Holy Trinity

Anonymous said...

The love and respect of a cat must be earned. The love of a dog is simply given out willy-nilly.

Cats are for people who are secure in themselves, independent people, strong people who rely on themselves and don't expect a handout.

Dogs are for the insecure, for people who need constant affirmation and approval. Dogs are for weak individuals who crave affection but lack the social skills to acquire it. The daily histrionics demonstrated by a dog when its owner returns home is probably the only validation most dog-owners ever acquire in their lives.

A dog will love you even if you kick him and whip him, because a dog's "love" is merely a kind of slave-like devotion to a stronger animal. A cat will rip your face off if you kick him and whip him, because a cat stands on his own two feet (well, actually it's four feet but let's not quibble). If a cat loves you, it's because you've earned it. If a cat hates you, it's probably because you've earned that too.

My cat doesn't bark and run around and make an ass of itself when I come home. My cat looks at me, blinks, nods a barely perceptible little nod and goes back to doing its cat business. My cat and I respect each other. Our relationship is one of two intelligent animals who've found a modus vivandi.

Dogs: desperate animals for desperate people.

Henry North London said...


Grison said...

this is commensalism in a spirit of tolerance at best. daily blinks and nods doesn't begin to pay for 20 million dead birds and toxoplasmosis. if cold and aloof equals admirable independance in the eyes of some - so be it.
the inadequate type, owning a dog, will indeed get more to satisfy their pathetic wants. they exploit the dog's sociable nature. an abused cat would get the hell out - a dog's loyalty is exploitable by cruel, inadequate people. but this abuse of the dog's finest quality merely shames the bad people. not the dog!
still, a cat can be a rewarding pet for those of a certain cynical independant mien, or (since cats are easy to look after) little old ladies.
however, a cat person has one clear moral advantage - cats are cats, and have not been (by cat breeders) bastardised and deformed into hideous monstrous travesties such as basset hounds and others, which can scarcely drag themselves along. in this respect a salute is forthcoming. my dogs are dogs, big mongrels in fine health and physique. they are not toys, or patches for a deficient personality.
anyway, good luck with your animal Anon 12:21