Marchessini Blog & Forum

Reply To The Daily Telegraph

As you made a personal attack on me in your editions on Saturday, I hope that you will allow me space to reply. Your article accused me of being “controversial” …

In view of the personal attack on me by the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, I have replied to them as follows:

Dear Sir,

As you made a personal attack on me in your editions on Saturday, I hope that you will allow me space to reply. Your article accused me of being “controversial”.  Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with being controversial, but as it happens my views are not at all controversial. They are traditional, which is the opposite. If one believes in Christianity, that is not controversial, but if one supports same-sex marriages, that is very controversial, as the recent riots in Paris have shown.

You bring up the fact that I do not approve of women wearing trousers. But what you do not say (although I explained it to your reporter) is that the Bible says (in the very beginning) that anyone who wears the clothes of the opposite sex is “an abomination”.  Is it controversial to accept the Bible?  Indeed, for thousands of years, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex was considered a crime throughout the civilised world, with severe penalties.  Several years ago, the Pope said in a speech, “The blurring of the genders is more dangerous to the world than the destruction of the all rain forests.” In short nothing has changed. Is it controversial to agree with the Pope?

You also mention that I consider unwed mothers as “naughty girls”. Of course I do — have they not been so considered since time immemorial? Furthermore, today they are much more naughty than in the past.  We live in an era where contraception is easy and cheap, and most of the unwed mothers today have become pregnant deliberately, in order to get their own house, and not to have to live with their parents.  But today they are even naughtier than that, because they are also cheating the Government. According to the law, they are only entitled to benefits if they are living alone. But few of them are alone, they all have a man living with them, who disappears the one day a month when the social worker comes. Is it controversial to consider them “naughty”?

Finally what I said about rape was that the rules are the same wherever it happens. There are no special rules for a “date”, so there is no such thing as a “date rape”. There is only rape.

My ideas are traditional ideas over thousands of years. No one is obliged to agree with me, but what is certain is that, by definition, my ideas cannot be controversial – they are the traditional views that have prevailed since time immemorial.  It is those who oppose traditional ideas whose views are controversial.

 

Top

24 Comments

  • Well said. I found your blog via the DT article and I must say what a fresh breath of air it is.

    Keep the writing going, I very much enjoy reading your blog. Let’s hope common sense prevails!

  • Hi there

    You are a DICK and a pathetic excuse for a human and a greek. I curse you

  • i’ll bet you get turned down a lot by woman. Hahaha. Not surprising i’ve seen your face. And this is how you deal with it…Good luck loser

  • is it because your mum didn’t love you? Awww didums!

  • i thought you were an intellectual. But you believe in the bible??? hahahahahha. A book about ‘god’ written by some other men. Do you also believe that the world is flat and in the unicorn and tooth fairy

  • btw a ‘forum’ is a place where subjects can be debated. Not a place to filter out what you don’t want to hear.

  • please keep speaking your mind, this country needs people like you with the courage to say what the majority are thinking, now more than ever

  • Please find a list of other abominations as defined by the Bible.
    I’m not sure if eating bacon and sacrificing my daughter in fire are equally abominable- but best avoid both just in case.
    http://jesusalive.cc/ques235.htm

    • Dear Georgina, You clearly are not knowledgeable about religious matters. The ban on eating pork had a very practical reason, namely that pork was unclean in those days. In my opinion, this is no longer applicable.

      • And I quote. “The ban on eating pork had a very practical reason, namely that pork was unclean in those days. In my opinion, this is no longer applicable.”

        So now it’s acceptable to ignore the bits of the bible that you no longer think are applicable ? What if somebody else decides that other parts, parts that you agree with, are no longer applicable ? Seems to me that there’s room for some very serious disagreements in what you have said there. Who has the final say in what’s applicable, or not ?

        • Eating pork is an Old Testament prohibition, it does not apply to Christians. I’ll not bother to explain further because to do so I’m casting my pearls before swine. It’s pointless to argue/debate with a fool.
          Great blog, keep speaking your piece.

  • I thought I was out on a limb as the media, where homosexuals are over-represented, have presented a distorted version of the true public reaction to ‘gay marriage’ and especially ‘gay adoption’ in the press. Your summary is certainly not controversial from my point of view.
    By the way, isn’t your name Italian as the letter k (kappa) is not used in Italy where ‘ch’ is used?

  • God bless you mate; you’re hilarious. I thought you were a comic construct but it seems you really do exist.

    You strike me as an aristocratic Karl Pilkington, with only a tenuous grasp of the world around you and just a child’s logic to see you through…

    Is it controversial to accept the Bible? Perhaps not. Ever since it was taken out of the hands of the scholars for whom it was written, and disseminated to the wider less educated public, there have been plenty of fools who have ‘accepted’ the Bible. But is was not ever intended to be simply accepted, and certainly not to be taken literally, by the men who wrote it (yes, men – it was not actually written by God you know – or did you…).

    If you were to take the Bible literally – in its entirety that is, rather than cherry-picking those items that fit your argument at any given time – you would quickly find yourself tied up in knots by the inconsistencies and opposing views that run through the text. You would also be adopting the views of the many individuals who have twisted the meanings therein through countless misinterpretations, ambiguities and deliberate mis-translations through the centuries.

    This is not the way an intelligent free-thinking individual justifies his views. To truly believe that Women wearing trousers is an ‘abomination’ is on an intellectual par with those other religious nutcases who allow themselves to become radicalised and perform genuine abominations in the name of some holy text or other.

    You said “most of the unwed mothers today have become pregnant deliberately… …they all have a man living with them…” Preposterous. That’s just fantastical conjecture stated as fact. How can you possibly think you know that? Are you the Highlander?

    Furthermore, I’m curious as to how you feel about the unwed fathers of these children born out of wedlock (shudders). Are they as naughty as the mothers? If so, I guess they’re just lucky that as they’re not dragging bastards around with them, we don’t know who they are so they get away with not being branded as such…

    Benefit fraud is naughty though, you’re right there.

    • Dear Nick,
      If you knew me better, you would know that I never say anything unless I know it to be a fact, but I was sure that some fool would challenge what I said about unwed mothers, and say “How can you possibly think you know that?”, and you are the fool.
      If you knew anything about welfare, you would know that investigators are sent to check on these unwed mothers from time to time, and when they visit them unexpectedly, as they do, they see the man there, and not only that, the man often threatens them with breaking their heads if they ever try to come back. So these poor investigators are unhappy with their job, and often look around for other jobs. As it happens, twice one of these investigators came to my office, looking for a job, and they told me what goes on. So, you see, you have made a fool of yourself and I am sure it is not for the first time.
      I would also suggest that you do not give people advice about religious views or the Bible, as you are clearly not a religious person. You are not obliged to be, but do not try and stop others from being religious and accepting the Bible.

      • Dear Demetri,

        thanks for your response. I don’t intend to bicker with you, but really – to pull me up on my suggestion that you don’t know the thoughts and intent of every unwed mother on benefit by essentially stating that you base your certainty on what a couple of guys told you? Come on, you’ve only confirmed the weakness of the foundations upon which you build your flimsy rhetoric.

        Then you berate me for trying to ‘stop others from being religious’ – I did no such thing and wouldn’t dream of it. I was merely explaining that the Bible should not be accepted word-for-word; it should not be taken literally (for who is to know if they are understanding the language as intended by the writer), but it should be studied and explored with a great deal of attention given to context, both historical and otherwise. I’m sure most religious scholars would agree. The Bible was not written for the masses, after all.

        For instance; you say that the ban on eating pork was more relevant at the time than it is now? Well perhaps you enjoy a little slow roasted pork belly from time to time so that interpretation suits you. You are making a decision to take that part of the Bible and say “that bit doesn’t count – we can ignore it”. That is *your* interpretation (as opposed to God’s Holy Word) and I wholeheartedly agree, but I think you’ll find that times have changed in other areas too. Did you think that God sent AIDS to punish the homosexuals? Well, if so, he seems to have helped mankind find really effective ways of treating it since the ’80s so I guess he must be fine with it now.

        I’m kidding of course – which is fine with my God because he understands humour and that I mean no disrespect. My God wants to be debated, satirized and discussed because issues of spirituality and morality are alive in the minds of those who choose to keep them alive by questioning and articulating them. Far better that than to leave these ideas static and dead, as unbending diktats to be trotted out by the narrow of mind whenever it suits their purpose. You see, contrary to the assertion in your reply, I am religious – but then you don’t say anything unless you know it to be a fact? Oops.

        • Dear Nick,
          Your comment is a waste of time. You simply are unable to accept the facts that I have told you that I learned from talking to two different investigators, employed by the Social Security, who spend every day with unwed mothers. You try to push them away, calling them “a couple of guys”. You really are not interested in the truth.
          You talk about “My God”. You are free to have any god you want, but DO NOT TRY TO IMPOSE HIM ON THE REST OF US, or your interpretation of the Bible – no one is interested. What is interesting is why traditional views make you so angry.

  • Thank you Mr. Marchessini for giving a voice to the people. We desperately need your erudite voice to wake up the sleeping P.C. clones… Who is the hardest kind of man to wake up? The one who is pretending to be asleep!

  • “In the first quarter of this year, Ukip raised £74,150. In contrast, the Tories and Labour got around £3.7 million each. ”

    LOL – well that’s what happens when you try and get donations from Greeks (whose parents are dead).

    Good riddance, bad rubbish and all that.

    Send me your daughters Demetri. I wanna fulfil my human desire to please.

  • Isnt it ironic that the Pope, priests and many other people of a religious ordination who are male dont wear trousers. The Pope has been cross-dressing in public for some time.


Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.


Top

If any issues on this site affect you, please leave a comment.

All comments will be responded to appropriately.