Good for them.
And of course, they are 100% correct.
Banish the old bigot to the archives.
“Bachelor of Divinity (BD) degree”
Bachelor of b0ll0cks more like.
How can you have a degree in superstition!
A degree in superstition?
Works by Thomas Aquinas, Stephen Davis, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Norman Geisler, Georg Hegel, Soren Kierkegaard, Alvin Plantinga, Friedrech Schelling, Michael Polyani to name less than ten – to describe them as having no merit is bigoted and cultural and intellectual philistinism.
Those people you mention are important historical figures.
But in the year 2012 to claim that their beliefs and books about ‘god’ are of relevance is being ignorant.
‘God’ is a superstition – there is zero evidence for its existence, and their works should now be read in the context that they believed in a mythical figure, for which there is zero evidence existence.
Any educated person who chooses to believe in a deity when there is zero evidence for its existence is being wilfully ignorant.
They are not all historic – Davis, Gesiler, Plantinga, Schelling are recent.
There cannot be any scientific evidence for the existence of god – to suppose otherwise is to imagine god as a physical being like a human. There are, however, artistic proofs which must be felt and experienced rather than demonstrated.
I agree. There is so much anger on these comments about religion. I understand why and I’m not religious. But I do know that the beginnings of humanity can be clearly aligned with the beginnings of worship – even though they were different gods back then. The greatest human cultural achievements come from our pursuit to know something for which there is ‘zero evidence’. No search for god – no good music, painting, literature, films.
“No search for god – no good music, painting, literature, films.” That is rubbish. I disagree entirely with your post. Go look at an exhibition of religious art and its all the same images endlessly and tediously repeated, the death of christ, the birth of christ, christ ascending into heaven, and on and on and on. It’s only art that moves away from anything to do with religion that’s worth anything. The rest is syncophantic garbage.
Not all paintings/sculpture that are inspired by someone who is spiritual are about jesus. Picasso, matisse, yves klein, anish kappoor, warhol, mathew barney, the list is endless. As for music, from classical music like mozart, philip glass, verdi, wagner, through to pop music like madonna, lady gaga, coldplay, beyonce. Again the list is endless. And then literature, well do I really need to make another list to prove you are wrong……. you mistake religion and the search for god – they’re two different things.
You are absolutely correct. In the pursuit of vile religions and nonsensical beliefs human beings have indeed produced extraordinary art, architecture, music, literature, and so forth . . . as well as idiocy, cruelty, and inhumanity.
We will see who wins this one. The university will resist getting involved in a political statement but Carey’s recent homophobic comments absolutely warrant the removal of his picture. I hope the campaign by students brings, at the very least, embarrassment to the nasty old relic.
He will go to Hell…God hates bigots!
No it doesn’t.
‘God’ does not exist.
While I understand their dislike of Carey, and agree that he is a scumbag bigot with a mental illness (thanks to his belief in the sky fairy) I don’t really understand their motivations for removing his picture.
Carey is an alumnus of the college, he is well known, so despite his opposition to equal civil rights, he seems to merit a picture on a ‘Famous Alumni’ wall.
All that will be achieved by removing his picture is that the students will feel better; the religious will regard it as being denial of some ‘freedom’.
Maybe they would be better campaigning for equal marriage laws instead of campaigning against a dusty old picture.
Presumably because the students see a difference between ‘Famous’ and ‘Infamous’ in this context.
There is a difference between striking all record of the idiot from the archives, and simply choosing NOT to celebrate this individual over other alumni. If being an attention seeking god botherer was worth celebrating, we’d all have posters of Nadine Dorries or Richard Drax up on our walls.
This action just seems petty and irrelevant, and won’t actually achieve anything worthwhile – all it will mean if it is successful is that the jeebus-freaks will start whining about how they are being silenced.
Carey is an idiot true, but his picture in a gallery is really of no consequence to anyone.
The fact we are even having this discussion arises because some students feel it is of consequence to them.
Damnatio memoriae isn’t exactly a new concept, and this is a much more moderate instance.
Britain does not have marriage equality.
Britain gives aid to genocidally homophobic African countries like Uganda.
GLBT students are more likely to suffer from bullying because of who they are.
I really don’t see why these students think that the removal of a dusty old picture of a bigot is of benefit to anyone.
Clearly you don’t understand, however a long tradition of similar actions over thousands of years speaks to the fact that others do.
Conflating this with other issues is irrelevant. You don’t ignore petty theft simply because there are murderers out there. Students taking a stand on this issue doesn’t preclude them taking a stand on other issues that you might happen to approve of.
OK – but it’s such a waste of energy on their part.
How is life going to improve for anyone because a university removes a dusty picture from its walls?
And stating that you don’t ignore petty theft because there are murders is really quite a stretch.
Carey is a bigot, but being a bigot is not a crime. Both petty theft and murder are crimes, so I fail to see why any time and effort is being spent on this.
How many people actually even notice his picture anyway?
There is always a risk when you take a stand that you don’t achieve your goal, but that is not a reason for apathy and inaction.
As to how life improves, it is an acknowledgement that this figure is not one who is universally celebrated, and whose views offend a great many. By leaving it up it tacitly condones such things. For this reason throughout history dishonoured heroes and outdated icons have been defaced and destroyed as times change. You only have to look at the Jimmy Saville case currently to see this in action.
Yes, my analogy being ‘stretch’ was precisely to illustrate that your original conflation was a ‘stretch’ in the first place. You are now muddling the issue by making a strawman argument linking this analogy in a way I never intended. My point was that a small action here didn’t prevent bigger actions elsewhere, not to suggest any links with criminality.
dAVID, it’s a gesture. It may turn out to be an effective one, as removing his picture would be considered a gross insult. Of course it won’t solve all the problems but let’s not seek to criticise or weaken the arguments of our supporters. I agree with what the students are trying to do. I applaud them and thanks them for it.
The University highlights these people to try and make a positive statement about itself – most of them are highly regarded in the sciences, the arts, business, etc. Carey is mostly known for seriously damaging his church’s reputation during his time as Archbishop of Canterbury, trying to sow resentment against his successor (and as a result being condemned and even barred from speaking in churches by various Anglican groups), and taking all kinds of extremist political stances, and not just on sexuality – he has said he is proud of the British arms industry, said that Christians should be treated preferentially by immigration laws, and then there was his intervention in a tribunal over a relationship counsellor who refused to provide counselling to same-sex couples (despite that being part of his contract), in which Carey insisted that the case should be heard by a special court made up of Christian judges. Who do KCL think they are impressing by pointing out their links with him?
He is a hate preacher, and he is a spokesperson for Anglican Mainstream who on their website feature prominent links to resource (propaganda) material produced by listed anti-gay hate group the Family Research Council, namely “Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality” among other resource material by various bogus gay cure outfits.
Take the picture down.
Of course, they’re right, it will be offensive to many people, it’s as bad as having a picture of Fred Phelps on display at the college.
Well that statue of Oliver Cromwell in London is offensive to many people also (because of the massacres he perpetrated – in Ireland for example.)
I don’t think anyone really regards campaigning for its removal of any real consequence.
This just seems like an unnecessary action.
Wouldn’t the students be better occupied campaigning for the removal of all aid to Uganda for example?
We do campaign… for a lot of things – you can put energy into being against more than one thing at once you know… Petitions have been signed for the pictures removal and we lobby the union to act on it, while many students have been protesting outside the Ugandan embassy – I don’t see your point. The fact this image is huge on the front wall of my Uni facing the Strand I find offensive, so I’m doing something about it. Seems like common logic to me, unless you can’t multitask.
dAVID, Oliver Cromwell has been dead for quite a while. He will not feel rebuked by the removal of his statue. He does not continue to make anti social comments. Bad argument. Stop digging your heels in. It’s silly.
I think the Picture should be replaced with this Picture : http://tinyurl.com/cqcmln9
Amazing that he believes same-sex marriage has induced a man in Brazil to apply for an illegal civil union with two women. Isn’t he aware that Brazil does not even allow same-sex marriage. A civil union or partnership as we call them with more than one partner is not permitted in any country where such unions are available for straight and gay couples. How desperate do people like Carey have to be to use that as a feeble illustration of his bigotry and stupidity? People like him are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if they can’t come up with one piece of factual evidence. Why does he need to cite Brazil. What about Holland, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico City, 9 American states where equal marriage is actually legal? Pitiful!
He deserves to have his photo removed. Well done to King’s College students.
This seems to authoritarian – to suppress the image of individuals because of a disagreement with them. I would expect that in Russia or China, not the UK.
It’s not so much disagreement, it’s the hateful rhetoric Carey has used and continues to use, denigrating our relationships for starters, saying that CPd couples legal unions are less than that of married couples as well as suggesting that polygamy, incest and bestiality could unfold if equal marriage were legalised without any factual evidence. His statements enable hatred and foment homophobia and intolerance in the process. Not the sort of thing a genuine christian should be doing.
Margaret Thatcher disagreed with the IRA who were using the airwaves to promote their propaganda and banned them. It’s not much different with Carey and that disgusting reference to the holocaust recently.
It is, really. It’s authoritarian and fascist.
The IRA were terrorists who sought the destruction of the government and who murdered innocent English people and Northern Irish people, so the comparison is not apt.
Given his unchristian attitudes I hope we see as little of him as possible, and I can quite understand the students being ashamed of him, and I suspect actually most of the country are.
These students want to remove his picture because it will make them feel better about themselves.
Which is a trivial but valid reason I suppose.
But they need to realise that aside from protection of their own delicate sensibilities, the removal of his picture will serve no practical benefit.
If they want to address Church of England bigotry they would be better off supporting a campaign for the separation of church and state (ie the expulsion of all the unelected C of E bishops festering in the House of Lords.)
A silly and illiberal proposal. I’m sure the uni’s rogues’ gallery is full of less than savoury characters. Aren’t they all?
The point is to keep pointing out the old fool’s hyperbolic and bigoted stupidity. Or better yet, just let him keep talking.
Students at King’s, insist! Persevere! Force your administration to at least compromise. Cause enough BOTHER and you will succeed!
He only got a 2.1 and he became archbishop.
I would fully support anyone who decides to remove it for the university.
Is it in a glass frame? Maybe it could be broken!
It should be defaced.
It’s not like it’s of any historical or cultural importance – it’s just a picture of a stupid old man who is motivated by hatred.
How gay marriage is supposed to lead automatically to polygamy escapes me. Why doesn’t he throw in paedophilia as well for good measure?
I’ve never been able to take this man seriously since the days of Spitting Image and his puppet singing Kumbaya whilst playing a tambourine. Think he should go back to his tambourine!
Another creepy old fool spitting out the old biggoted thinking..trying to convince everyone else they are wrong….should be a pill for that…
Although the old duffer sounds almost Ugandan in some of his opinions, this action is just daft and vindictive, and does nothing to help gay people fight bigotry.
Well done to Kings College students for taking a stand on this, it gives hope, especially after the earlier article about the invitation of a hate preacher to the inferior brunel polyversity, technical ,college dump.