Reader comments · Christian Concern cancels rally, conceding that God does not have the power to halt equal marriage bill · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Christian Concern cancels rally, conceding that God does not have the power to halt equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Laughing at them.

    After all, we can all clearly see the staggering power of prayer every time we look at the pile of abandoned crutches and wheelchairs at Lourdes…

    As meaningful as a roomful of pant-wetting pre-schoolers deciding not to write a letter to Santa this year.

    1. The difference being of course that the children are innocent, and are not wishing harm for anyone else.

      I wonder why these people – being as they can’t kick their dark religious habit – don’t see this as their God wanting to bestow rights and happiness upon their fellow human beings.

      1. Actually, superstitious people believe children aren’t innocent. They actually believe a newborn baby has original sin.


        1. Yes indeed. And how ironic is that? The only time a body is pure and acceptable is when it’s dead. What a vile dogma – one shared by most major religions, I’m afraid, Mr Cynic.

          1. Well catholicism is just a simple death cult like islam, so don’t be too surprised.

            They might as well have agreed to meet on a hill to be collected by an alien spaceship, it is probably more likely to happen than there being a god.

            Just a bunch of foolish mammals, too arrogant and deluded to be embarrassed about their absolute failure.

  2. I’m confused. So is the world coming to an end on Monday or not? I wish they’d make up there mind. I like Colin Hart’s commitment to keep defending marriage and that C4M will contact their followers with exciting news some time soon. This is the classic default position of a PR amateur when his organisation hasn’t got a clue what do to next. Am pleased to see there are no wrecking amendments tabled for Monday. I think even Lord Dear won’t bother to turn up.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jul 2013, 2:59pm

      Exciting news? Hart coming out of the closet? Or does he put store in Tory MP loon Peter Bone(head’s) Early Day Motion for a referendum in the autumn? They’re all in denial trying to save face.

  3. These people fail to realise that Jesus’s will is probably not what they think

    1. After all I read he was a hirsute man in sandals who cruised around Jerusalem with 12 other hirsute men – mmmmmmm could it be…?

    2. Thumbs down for asserting the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy, nothing but pure apologism for the demonstrable and ongoing harm done to LGBT people by trying to off-load blame.

      1. I think you have seriously mis-read clm1990’s post.

    3. There is NO Jesus’s will because there is no, never has been and never will be Jesus.

  4. using black people to stage their discrimination. jack ass say the earth is level.

    1. They are not “using” black people. The black people are their of their own free will. Such arrogance.

      1. bobbleobble 13 Jul 2013, 8:58pm

        They may be there of their own free will but you’re incredibly naive if you think that the black people aren’t being pushed front and centre as part of your side’s PR.

        1. I’m not on their “side” and I don’t even know who Christian Concern are.

          But the attitudes of white liberals towards black Britons sometimes beggar belief. Whether we like it or not, black people are generally more socially conservative that the average person, and many are opposed to homosexuality and don’t approve of gay marriage. The attitude of many homosexuals is that they are being manipulated, have “colonial” attitudes, are easily led, etc. It’s inconceivable to some that maybe they’ve thought about the issues and reached conclusions we may not like.

          And, yes, that is arrogance, bordering on racism.

          1. Im not sure what point you are trying to make. Whether they have been manipulated or are, after careful thought, choosing to be bigots, shame on them. It’s sad their own history has taught them nothing.

          2. bobbleobble 14 Jul 2013, 10:42am

            And yet none of those things did I imply. The point I’m making is that for PR purposes black people who are anti gay marriage are being thrust front and centre to make a political point. That in itself is arrogant and potentially racist, ‘look we’ve got black people on our side’.

            And when I say your side I’m talking about Chrisitans who seem determined to ruin gay people’s happiness rather than Christian Concern itself.

  5. ‘HE’ doesn’t have the power to hail anything – becauce ‘HE’ does NOT Exist!

    1. Sacre bleu 13 Jul 2013, 4:04pm

      I agree with your sentiment but differ on whether ‘HE’ exists. There is no evidence that he exists or that he does not exist.

      The question can never be proven one way or the other and I find it extraordinary that so much time, energy and resources are applied on such a issues – just imagine if the same resources were applied to do some practical good, like finding a cure/prevention for a whole host of diseases/social problems, just imagine what could be done with all the wasted resources spent on religious wars.

      The existence of god is a complete waste of a question. We should all just get on with life trying to improve our own lot, the lot of those less fortunate than ourselves and the continued health/functioning of the environment.

      1. I beg to differ.
        In a trial, a person goes to jail if there’s enough evidente to prove he’s guilty, not because there’s lack of evidence proving he’s innocent. Ergo, you can’t say god exists, just because there’s no evidence he doesn’t exist. It goes the other way round.

        And, if there were no religious people, there wouldn’t be any religious wars.

        1. But what about the atheist dictators who have killed millions of their own people over the last hundred years. Do you think we should get rid of atheism to stop any atheist wars or genocides in the future?

          Here’s a list of numbers of the people these atheists have killed……

          Mao Tse Tung – 60 million
          Napolean – 2.5 million
          Stalin – 60 million
          Pol Pot – 2 million
          Mussolini – 300,000
          Kim Jong 2 – 1.5 million

          And Hitler did not fight a religious war – other than he was trying to wipe out one particular religion – and he led to 60 million people being killed.

          The first world war was not caused by religion, and caused about 40 million deaths.

          The greatest genocides in the last few hundred years have not been caused by religious people, they have been caused by atheists. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

          I don’t like religion, but I just wish some of you would read a few history books to base your opinions on.

          1. Midnighter 13 Jul 2013, 5:23pm

            Mark we went over this before, and your insistence on denying the existence of religion as a cause of conflict is starting to make you seem as unreasonable as a holocaust denier. Hitler was not an atheist and he *was* responsible for one of the greatest genocides in history, so your claim “they have been caused by atheists” is FAR from being factually sound.

            I already listed out a bunch of religious wars for you elsewhere that were responsible for millions of deaths. It doesn’t matter how many other reasons there are to have wars or kill people, it remains that religion is considered by career historians to be both the direct and contributory cause of a great many conflicts. And that *is* a fact, unlike your claim.

            Another fact is that studies correlate higher murder and poverty rates with higher religiosity around the world, and conversely the safest, happiest, and most prosperous and altruistic cities are the least religious.

            No one is claiming religion is the only cause.

          2. That There Other David 13 Jul 2013, 5:26pm

            I read this idiotic argument time and again across the Internet. Not one of those people killed in the name of atheism, they killed in the name of alternative ideologies to religion. Only strong belief in a cause will motivate people to take another’s life in its name. Religion is one such cause. Communism was another.

            Atheism is not an ideology. It’s just a lack of religion. Stalin, for example, didn’t commit the purges because he was an atheist, he did it because he wanted his Glorious Revolution to succeed.

            Maybe whist reading all your history books you might try and understand the context behind these things eh?

          3. Yes but these athiests did not kill these millions of people BECAUSE they were athiests. That’s like saying since Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all had moustaches, that was the reason why they killed all the people they did. I.e. irrelevant point.

          4. Midnighter, I’m not saying there are not religious wars – I know there are – I am not defending religion – I don’t like religion – I have read history – but I am not the one who thinks that when we get rid of religion there won’t be any wars. And the proof is in the point I make. The facts are that the worst genocides in the last hundred years have been caused by those who have no religion. It’s a hard fact for everyone on pink news to accept I know, but its true. Sorry, I wish it were another way, and you could justify your hatred of religion by saying something different, but unfortunately, atheists are as bad as theists when it comes to war and hatred and homophobia.

            And David, that’s my point exactly. It doesn’t matter what the belief system is, killers/dictators will find any excuse to defend what they believe – islam, christianity, communism, capitalism – it doesn’t matter what the belief system is. Religious belief not cause war, anymore than any other belief system.

          5. And also, America has spent more on war than any other country – ever – should we get rid of capitalism as well?

          6. Midnighter 13 Jul 2013, 6:27pm

            Mark you clearly didn’t do as I suggested and look up what is meant by the nirvana fallacy I previously explained you were committing when you last raised this same point. Rejecting a proposed solution because it is does not lead to perfection is frankly a stupid reason for not at least attempting to fix a problem.

            You appear to wish to whitewash history as being all about atheism in spite of the illogic of this claim as has been pointed out to you, and you continue to completely ignore the evidence.

            What justifies you disagreeing with those eminent historians who believe that the French wars of the 16th century were about religion? Do you not think the Taliban believe they are engaged in a Jihad bil Saif, a religious war? What was the Thirty Years war about if not religion? Were the Crusades just a bit of a holiday?

            Again you finish by conflating a different issue which I only just stated was a moot and irrelevant point, so even this point of logic escapes you.

          7. Midnighter, I will repeat again, and hopefully you will read it this time – I accept that terrible wars and atrocities have been committed by religious countries, I have never claimed any different. I am NOT defending religion. I don’t like religion. I agree with you that theism can be terrible.

            But do you accept that the 130 million people I listed were killed by atheist countries? Yes or No?

            And if you do, I’d like you to write that “I admit atheist countries have killed 130 million people in the last 100 years”.

            And if you don’t than you trying to whitewash and deny the fact that atheists have killed 130+ million people and are as bad as theists. Which is like a holocaust denier.

            I keep going over this with you, but you keep denying the facts of the atheist genocides as if they never happened. It’s quite sick. It’s like you are so passionate about hating religion that its blinded you into justifying the atrocities that atheist leaders have committed on their people.

          8. Midnighter 13 Jul 2013, 8:42pm

            I clearly have read your claims and about other wars since I have repeatedly pointed out that they are irrelevant to the point about whether or not religion is a cause of conflict.

            Others have also explained to you how you cannot make the sweeping claim for atheism as the cause for war – again you have just ignored that point. If you have no rebuttal, then you have no rational basis to keep claiming it.

            In my very first reply I drew your attention to the fact that “No one is claiming religion is the only cause.” I struggle to see how you managed to read this and conclude the opposite meaning, let alone see why you felt it helpful to construct a silly ad hominem which only draws attention to your own lack of comprehension.

            Now not only are you playing silly games and fallaciously claiming I’m ignoring points which I have clearly and repeatedly addressed, but you didn’t answer any of my questions about specific examples of religious war in my 3rd paragraph.

          9. Midnighter, you’re like stuck record. I’ll also repeat myself because you’re still not reading my comments – I fully accept that religious wars exist and religious people have contributed to millions of deaths (as stated in ‘clause 3’ of your paragraph). I’ve never claimed otherwise. Why can’t you read my words?

            It must be the same reason why you still can’t bring yourself to answer my question –

            Do you accept that atheist people have killed 130+ million people in the last 100 years? It’s a simple question. Yes or No?

            You just need to accept the fact that non religious people are just as bad human beings as religious people. It’s a hard bleak truth for you. The facts speak for themselves.

            And btw, the lowest crime rates are not recorded in predominantly atheist countries like you say, other than Japan (but I’m sure you’re not going to use japan as your barometer with its enthusiasm for the death penalty and barbaric prison system)

          10. I’m glad you’ve finally accepted this point. In our previous discussion on this topic you repeatedly made claims such as “But if its not religion, it would have been something else” If you recall, my entire reason for debating you was that were completely discounting religion as a cause of war.

            If I sound like a stuck record, it is because you seem to need things repeated; two other people have already told you that the premise of your question is fallacious. Atheism is no more proven a cause than any other random attribute, to echo Dawkins you might as well blame it on moustaches!

            No, I prefer to accept “truths” based on fact. Here’s a link to some research.
            “Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread.”
            “Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries.”

          11. @Mark Y – Oh Will you Shut up you backward fool

          12. Midnighter, you’re still denying the genocides in atheist countries. Sick.

          13. Don’t be silly Mark, that hasn’t been claimed by me or anyone else who disagrees with you. It’s blatantly obvious these things happened, and you are being childishly insulting to suggest anyone here believes otherwise.

            What we’ve “denied” is your claim about the cause being atheistic belief. You’ve suggested that other people to read history books, but I can find no support for your views from any reputable historians, let alone a consensus opinion.

            You’re also missing the point that should you even find someone to support your claims, this wouldn’t alter the fact there is great consensus about religion as a cause of conflict.

            If you are genuinely interested in changing people’s minds, then creating strawman arguments and twisting them into personal slurs isn’t going make anyone take you seriously.

        2. “Ergo, you can’t say god exists, just because there’s no evidence he doesn’t exist. It goes the other way round.”

          Did you read and understand what was written? There is no evidence the he exists or doesn’t exist, it is therefore a pointless debate/question.

          ‘And, if there were no religious people, there wouldn’t be any religious wars.”

          Isn’t that the point? Just imagine what could have been achieved if the money spent on wars was spent on more productive human endeavours.

      2. .....Paddyswurds 13 Jul 2013, 7:54pm

        ……….. neither is there any proof that leprechauns do or don’t exist. What is your point?

        1. Sacre bleu 14 Jul 2013, 1:24am

          My point exactly, there is no difference between believing in whether god or leprechauns exist.

          Who would listen and/or take notice of anyone who believes in leprechauns. So why should we pay attention to, or take any notice of what the Church leaders have to say. Using God as the positor of ‘truth’ is disingenuous because we cannot interrogate God to justify or explain his/her beliefs.

          The existence of God is a great device that the Churches have used for millennia, but it only works if God’s existence is accepted as being incontrovertible and that whatever is said in his/her name is above being questioned. In the modern era where ideas/concepts are required to be provable and the Churches have failed to meet this requirement. Therefore the only basis on which any community should engage with the Churches is if they debate on rational ideology that can be subjected to vigorous enquiry based provable proofs in the scientific sense/method.

      3. Hey Sacre bleu – Shut up with your agnostic ideology – There is no such thing as GOD – ‘He’ is the creation of religious orders who wrote a book of fiction to control the masses – Evolve your backward fool!

  6. Contrary to what they imply, there WILL be a vote on Monday (has to be, to allow 3rd reading and on the motion “that this Bill do now pass”). It is just that they will lose!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jul 2013, 2:54pm


    2. Commander Thor 13 Jul 2013, 4:00pm

      They probably mean there won’t be a division.

      The question is that the bill be given a third reading. As many as there are of that opinion say content…CONTENT!….on the contrary not content? (*silence*). The contents have it.

      As opposed to: “not content”…”division, clear the lobby”.

  7. These stupid freaks finally realized how idiotic it would make them look if they publicly prayed and then failed to achieve any effects.
    So pathetic, aren’t they?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jul 2013, 2:52pm

      Well, they didn’t learn from second and third reading in the Commons and second reading in the Lords, stupid loons.

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jul 2013, 2:50pm

    So are we to assume that their God has already told them to back of or is it a sign that ‘he, it or she’ supports the bill? Which is it Christian Concern? Come on, Andrea Minichiello Williams, do tell us? It seems that the power of prayer hasn’t derailed the Bill has it? Care to comment?

    “Continuing to stand for marriage is the compassionate thing to do?” Where is the compassion in demonstrating and discriminating against gay people marrying? Sick deluded bastards!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jul 2013, 2:53pm

      …to back off…

  9. So he could supposedly make a universe with no trouble, but this was beyond the realms of his capabilities.

    It’s almost as though he’s ignoring them.

    One can only wonder why.

  10. That There Other David 13 Jul 2013, 3:03pm

    I say congratulations to them on finally realising the futility of their actions in the face of what is ethically correct. Equality triumphs.

  11. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jul 2013, 3:47pm

    Of course, what they are saying and what they dont realise is that they are admitting their God isn’t all that powerful after all. If they were so sure and convinced of the power of prayer, they’d be outside Parliament on Monday,. regardless. What loons!

  12. Colin Andrew 1966 13 Jul 2013, 4:07pm

    The next time there’s a hurricane in America or an earthquake somewhere it’ll be blamed on God’s anger at equal marriage anyway. If God was all that angry he could have stopped Andy Murray from winning Wimbledon – that would have shown us !!!

  13. God doesn’t have any power, period.
    No more power than any concept. Because there is no god outside their tiny heads.

  14. So, finally some christians have come to their senses, and realized that praying solves nothing.
    It’s a good first step.
    Next should be to accept his god does not exist at all, and stop being bigots based on a fantasy book ;)

    1. Sacre bleu 14 Jul 2013, 1:56am

      I agree with you that praying solves/achieves nothing.

      However I only partially agree that ‘god does not exist’. Nobody can prove whether he exists NOR whether s/he doesn’t exist – in other words the concept of God is a ‘null hypothesis’ is scientific terms. Given this ‘null hypothesis’, any hypothesis/position/argument using God cannot be invoked with any credibility in any rational, proof/fact based debate. Therefore, anyone who argues using ‘God’ as the pivotal proof/point of their argument should be ignored.

      So FerB, we come to the same position with an added exposition to strengthen our argument.

  15. Helge Vladimir Tiller 13 Jul 2013, 4:31pm


  16. So passive-aggressive. Only in Britain.

  17. Tom (Winnipeg) 13 Jul 2013, 4:35pm

    The only “tribulation” in their world is caused by themselves through their own stupidity and ignorance. It does irk me to hear them continually speak for “god”, as if.

  18. Having spent a lot of time studying the bible [2 mins googlin] I find that jesus said no such thing about marriage. In fact he hardly mentions it atall. I have to conclude that christian concern are either lying to suit their campaign or havent read it . Not very christian either way

  19. GingerlyColors 13 Jul 2013, 4:59pm

    LOL! God managed to create the Earth in six days but he cannot stop the Equal Marriage Bill from getting through Parliament!
    I am agnostic myself and I am pretty sure that God (if he does exist) wouldn’t want to stop the Bill even if he was able to.

  20. Beelzeebub 13 Jul 2013, 5:00pm

    The situation I would surmise is that despite their “deep held beliefs” they now understand that given the inevitability of the legislation, their idiotic “prayer ship” and its inevitable failure would only serve to show the impotency of their alleged deity.

    In other words.

    “They do not want to be SEEN to fail” as it only shows them up as the hocus pocus merchants that they are and always have been.

    1. Beelzeebub 13 Jul 2013, 5:25pm

      And as an addendum to that, I find it quite shocking that GOD almighty, the creator of everything, the omnipotent and all seer and arbiter of what marriage is supposed to be have just gave up.

      From this very act it is clear that these people have no faith in there alleged almighty and have only used it as an excuse to be bigoted discriminating sh!ts.

      My previous comment states why.

      Snake Oil.

  21. I think it’s useful to separate out their Lordships (even the ones who oppose the bill) from the loonies outside of parliament and on the web. It was clear once Lord McKay’s amendment was floored on Monday that things were not going the way of the anti-brigade. I’m assuming that (except for hereditary peers) to be appointed to the house of lords you have to be either clever or politically astute, maybe both, but a least one. The lordships aren’t going to make themselves look foolish by continuing a hopeless opposition just cause the loonies on the grass want them too.

    1. Sorry – when I said that their Lordships had to be at least clever or politically astute I was forgetting the Noble Lord Dear – he’s neither. My mistake.

  22. Frank Boulton 13 Jul 2013, 7:38pm

    Lo and behold, yet another paradox, which I can’t get my feeble, godless mind around! Those, who are most bent on preventing others from enjoying marriage, always seem to claim that they are “making a stand for marriage.”

  23. .....Paddyswurds 13 Jul 2013, 7:53pm

    Sacre bleu…………
    ……….. neither is there any proof that leprechauns do or don’t exist. What is your point?

  24. How useless and ineffective their ‘god’ is.

  25. Why does Christian Concern automatically assume that Jesus is so enthusiastic about marriage anyway? Most of the unmarried Jewish males over the age of 30 that I know are actually and absolutely fed up to the back teeth already at the mere mention of marriage – and worse still, people asking them things like when are you going to find yourself a nice Jewish girl, boy etc….:)?!

  26. So this means that God is either NOT omnipotent or not on their side.
    I’m happy they are calling it quits.

  27. Harry Underwood 13 Jul 2013, 9:30pm

    This is after Welby announced that the CoE were in over their heads when they debated the bill in the Lords.

    Less Christian pomposity is good for society.

    1. Not so much, didnt stop one of the Bishops trying for a power grab with a “son of section 28”.
      Thankfully their Lordships mostly, saw through it, and so was rejected.
      Another try at “us poor persecuted christians”.

    2. I think it’s time to admit that less Christianity, and superstition, in general, is not only good, but imperative, for a generous, inclusive, tolerant, flourishing society.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Jul 2013, 2:36pm

      I don’t think they quite envisaged such strong support in the Lords after the second reading vote which was huge and seeing every one of their wrecking amendments shot down in flames. I really believe some of them, Lord Dear in particular, thought that it would have been ‘massacred’ as many of the opposition were predicting before the first vote in the Commons. The Daily Mail and Telegraph were convinced it wouldn’t succeed. Revenge can sometimes be very sweet indeed! They won’t give up though long after the Bill becomes law. They’ll traduce it every which way.

  28. Am I missing something but why does there need to be a special public ‘gathering’ for them to pray? Does a cluster-prayer rocketed from one location have more power than CC members just sending them from their individual homes at different times?

    1. Yes, in the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster prayer is super effective when done in a communal setting. Just look at all the prayers that have been answered in this way. Oh wait there is none. I don’t get why they think prayer will work, never has done, never will.

  29. … perish the thought that it is more about media coverage.

  30. Ok, the article title made me smile, but the picture made me lol.
    Whoever put the big balloon heart thing in that position is a damn genius.

    1. Well, they do their best to style themselves as a patriarchal fertility cult!
      First rule of good photography – check the background, recheck the background.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Jul 2013, 2:32pm

      Too funny, although I would never have equated it with what your are alluding to, lol! I wonder if the loons realised it? Probably not although there constant obsession with our sex lives does make one wonder.

  31. paul clevett 14 Jul 2013, 6:47am


    Perhaps God actually doesn’t WANT to stop it…. as the Bible says “There is no law against Love”.

  32. I don’t understand the article..
    Why do they say “(the Bill) is not coming for a vote…”? Won’t the Lords vote on it?

    1. Hi, i think another comment above suggests it means the opponents to the bill won’t bother to press for a formal division through the lobbies as they know they’ll lose and it’ll just waste time. The vote only has to take place if there’s a lack of consensus. Hence the question will be asked – Does this bill receive it’s 3rd reading? The pro bill will cheer “content” and while the opponents won’t bother to cheer “non content”. The silence from the latter means the bill will go through. There are no wrecking amendments and the deadline to put these down has passed. Also the list of speakers is pretty short. Am not sure – but that’s my interpretation??? Hope that helps?

      1. Thanks VERY VERY MUCH, CG !! ..As you already know, I’m not fron the UK and I don’t speak English neither, so your explanation was great for me.
        I didn’t know that those Lords who are “Non content” can just remain silent. That’s cool, maybe it’s faster this way, but on the other hand, it’s probably more useful for the supporters to know the way each Lord voted. It’s also very important that the deadline to put amendments has passed.
        I send you my best wishes and good luck from here! Thanks again!

  33. “Please keep praying for our politicians, our church and for our nation,…”
    Yeah do that. Quietly at home.

  34. Weather forecast for central London is great for tomorrow. Maybe God wants a party to celebrate the passing of the bill?

  35. Think of all the soldiers whose last resort is to pray and then they die horrible deaths, over the years by the tens if not hundreds of millions

    Sri to the right wingers but your sky fairy is totally deaf – especially to your kind.

  36. I can only conclude that God is OK with marriage equality!

  37. Re: “conceding that God does not have the power to …”

    WOW! That’s a HUGE ‘concession’ from “Christians”. I mean, isn’t omnipotence a fundamental of fundamentalism?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.