Reticent

112 posts

Reticent banner
Reticent

Reticent

@quidity

Christian, Science Prof, UK There, but for the grace of God, go I

가입일 Ekim 2025
103 팔로잉12 팔로워
고정된 트윗
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
Love is that liqueur sweet and most divine, Which my God feels as blood; but I, as wine. George Herbert, The Agonie
English
0
0
0
42
Reticent 리트윗함
Rastakhiz 🇮🇷 🇺🇸
You think this nation will descend into civil war if the criminal mullahs lose their grip on power?
English
60
469
3.2K
218K
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Hussain Abdul-Hussain@hahussain·
Every non-Muslim and non-Arab community in the Middle East must have its own state, or it will vanish. This is Bethlehem, the city where Jesus was born. Its population was once 100 percent Christian and remained around 90 percent until 1950. Since the Palestinian Authority took control in 1993, the Christian share has fallen to just 16 percent and continues to decline. Christians cite these reasons for leaving Jesus’ birthplace: violence and coercion to convert to Islam, religious and legal discrimination, desecration of holy sites, and social exclusion. A Palestinian state, if established, would mark the end for Christians, Jews, Druze, and all other non-Muslim and non-Arab communities.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain tweet media
English
137
905
3.1K
156.5K
Yasir al-Haqq
Yasir al-Haqq@TawhidTakes·
Wrong. Nobody’s disputing Jews buried their dead. The question is what happened after. Josephus confirms burial customs. Philo confirms burial customs. Neither one confirms a dead man walked out three days later. You proved the body was buried, not that it rose. Those are two very different claims and you treated them like they’re the same. The tomb being empty doesn’t prove resurrection. It proves the body isn’t there. A thousand explanations exist between “he’s still in the ground” and “he conquered death and ascended to heaven.” You skipped all of them.
English
20
0
1
1.1K
BladeoftheSun
BladeoftheSun@BladeoftheS·
Does anybody in the UK support this? The answer is no.
BladeoftheSun tweet media
English
1.1K
1K
3.6K
72.4K
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
@Stephenmevans1 Its a bit more complicated though. As Larry Seidentop, Tom Holland etc argue, Christianity has a concept of the secular (indeed secular liberalism was born out of it). Islam does not.
English
0
0
2
80
Stephen Evans
Stephen Evans@Stephenmevans1·
People like Kruger defend Christian prayers in Parliament, council chambers and schools – then complain when others use shared civic spaces to pray. A secular state would mean no religion gets special treatment. It's the best guarantee of freedom, fairness and tolerance for all.
Danny Kruger@danny__kruger

Nick Timothy and Nigel Farage are right, and Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer are wrong. Small groups of people, of whatever religion, praying in public places is fine. And as a Christian country we should allow a special privilege for churches to lead services in our national spaces, like the Palm Sunday celebration that happens in Trafalgar Square. What we don't want is mass ritual observances intended to claim the civic realm for another religion, or assert the domination of another culture over our own Christian traditions. What happens in our national spaces is not neutral. People use Trafalgar Square, for celebrations and demonstrations, to make a point about the kind of country they want us to be. The Palm Sunday pageant reminds us of who we are - not as individuals (many or most of us don't identify as Christians at all) but as a national community, with the roots of our institutions in the ground of the Bible and our most solemn communal moments, from coronations to funerals, mediated through the liturgies of the Church. A mass Adhan held there, or in any town square, is making a different point: that Britain is not a Christian country, and that - inshallah - one day it shall be Muslim. This is unacceptable to the British public and indeed incompatible with our constitution. As ever with these debates, the issue is partly one of kind and partly one of degree. There is an issue with Islam itself as a religion which in most interpretations does not admit of pluralism or freedom of conscience, and therefore is inherently aggrandising, including over territory. But with a bit of confidence and a bit of toleration we could handle that - if it were not for the issue of degree. It is the scale of Islam in Britain, and the ambition of its leaders for greater scale, that makes the problem. The numbers of people who assembled for the adhan in Trafalgar Square, clearly and openly claiming the territory for a faith with no connection (indeed, with strong doctrinal disagreement) with the model of Western liberal democracy that Britain has developed and exported to the world - that is the problem. The numbers, whether everyone there understood it this way or not (and I suspect many did), convey an explicit threat to the foundations of our country. Being relaxed about other people's religion is a good thing, a very British thing. I don't mind modern druids dancing around Stonehenge in my constituency (arguably, though the historicity is tenuous, they have a claim to the place). I don't mind small groups of Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims demonstrating the reality of Britain's religious toleration by worshiping in Trafalgar Square. But let's not kid ourselves about this adhan, or pretend that we're just seeing another harmless expression of Britain's religious diversity. We are seeing an abuse of liberalism, led by people who are not themselves liberal; or - let us imagine they are acting in good faith - who are themselves deceived about what they are doing. It should not happen again. And it would be good to hear the Church of England say so.

English
31
16
44
2.9K
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
@hol40900 @SangitaMyska The term "Judeo-Christian" was first used in the early 19th century. Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1827) used it to refer to Jewish converts to Christianity or early followers of Jesus. It evolved from a theological description into a political term in the 1930s/40s to oppose Nazism.
English
0
0
0
10
Candice Holmes
Candice Holmes@hol40900·
@SangitaMyska @SangitaMyska is right: “Judeo-Christian” is a US import for hard-right evangelicals and Israeli hawks. Plastic patriots like Farage borrow slogans because they have nothing real to offer.
English
3
2
26
430
Sangita Myska
Sangita Myska@SangitaMyska·
The term ‘Judeo-Christian’ is principally a political slogan created in, and imported from, the US. It’s used by hard right Evangelical Christians who’ve aligned themselves with hard right Israeli politicians. Given Nigel Farage is America First (not Britain First) it’s of no surprise he’s using it. It’s what plastic patriots do.
English
188
1K
3.6K
74.7K
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
@CatoThistlewood @SangitaMyska The term "Judeo-Christian" was first used in the early 19th century. Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1827) used it to refer to Jewish converts to Christianity or early followers of Jesus. It evolved from a theological description into a political term in the 1930s/40s to oppose Nazism.
English
0
0
0
27
CatoThistlewood
CatoThistlewood@CatoThistlewood·
@SangitaMyska The Judeo bit is ahistorical revisionist NewSpeak. Good on you for calling it out.
CatoThistlewood tweet media
English
2
0
14
565
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
@SangitaMyska The term "Judeo-Christian" was first used in the early 19th century. Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1827) used it to refer to Jewish converts to Christianity or early followers of Jesus. It evolved from a theological description into a political term in the 1930s/40s to oppose Nazism.
English
0
0
0
201
Peter Oborne
Peter Oborne@OborneTweets·
Kemi Badenoch's decision to throw her weight behind Nick Timothy is a defining moment. The Tory party under her leadership is a cesspit of Islamophobic hatred and racist bigotry. My new column for Middle East Eye: middleeasteye.net/opinion/nick-t…
English
1.4K
1.2K
3.3K
88.5K
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
@jfoster2019 @OborneTweets "Most reasonable people would see this as a moving and deeply peaceful moment of respect and togetherness." says Peter Oborne as Allahu Akbar is proclaimed over loud speakers in Trafalgar Square.
English
1
0
1
60
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
@OborneTweets "Most reasonable people would see this as a moving and deeply peaceful moment of respect and togetherness." says Peter Oborne as Allahu Akbar is shouted over loud speakers in trafalgar square.
English
0
0
0
23
Laura Trott MP
Laura Trott MP@LauraTrottMP·
Instead of simply disagreeing with Nick, these MPs are calling for him to be “investigated”. This is exactly why an Islamophobia definition is so dangerous. People need to be able to disagree and debate without the authorities weighing in.
Nick Timothy MP@NJ_Timothy

This Labour MP wants me investigated and silenced. He makes my case for me. Labour’s rebranded “Islamophobia” definition is designed to censor us. So Mr Khan, here’s my reply: Get lost.

English
478
2.8K
12.6K
299.8K
Frances 'Cassandra' Coppola
Frances 'Cassandra' Coppola@Frances_Coppola·
The Church of England does not control Trafalgar Square, Danny.
Danny Kruger@danny__kruger

Nick Timothy and Nigel Farage are right, and Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer are wrong. Small groups of people, of whatever religion, praying in public places is fine. And as a Christian country we should allow a special privilege for churches to lead services in our national spaces, like the Palm Sunday celebration that happens in Trafalgar Square. What we don't want is mass ritual observances intended to claim the civic realm for another religion, or assert the domination of another culture over our own Christian traditions. What happens in our national spaces is not neutral. People use Trafalgar Square, for celebrations and demonstrations, to make a point about the kind of country they want us to be. The Palm Sunday pageant reminds us of who we are - not as individuals (many or most of us don't identify as Christians at all) but as a national community, with the roots of our institutions in the ground of the Bible and our most solemn communal moments, from coronations to funerals, mediated through the liturgies of the Church. A mass Adhan held there, or in any town square, is making a different point: that Britain is not a Christian country, and that - inshallah - one day it shall be Muslim. This is unacceptable to the British public and indeed incompatible with our constitution. As ever with these debates, the issue is partly one of kind and partly one of degree. There is an issue with Islam itself as a religion which in most interpretations does not admit of pluralism or freedom of conscience, and therefore is inherently aggrandising, including over territory. But with a bit of confidence and a bit of toleration we could handle that - if it were not for the issue of degree. It is the scale of Islam in Britain, and the ambition of its leaders for greater scale, that makes the problem. The numbers of people who assembled for the adhan in Trafalgar Square, clearly and openly claiming the territory for a faith with no connection (indeed, with strong doctrinal disagreement) with the model of Western liberal democracy that Britain has developed and exported to the world - that is the problem. The numbers, whether everyone there understood it this way or not (and I suspect many did), convey an explicit threat to the foundations of our country. Being relaxed about other people's religion is a good thing, a very British thing. I don't mind modern druids dancing around Stonehenge in my constituency (arguably, though the historicity is tenuous, they have a claim to the place). I don't mind small groups of Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims demonstrating the reality of Britain's religious toleration by worshiping in Trafalgar Square. But let's not kid ourselves about this adhan, or pretend that we're just seeing another harmless expression of Britain's religious diversity. We are seeing an abuse of liberalism, led by people who are not themselves liberal; or - let us imagine they are acting in good faith - who are themselves deceived about what they are doing. It should not happen again. And it would be good to hear the Church of England say so.

English
8
31
258
6.9K
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
This is well put. Not all beliefs are equal.
Danny Kruger@danny__kruger

Nick Timothy and Nigel Farage are right, and Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer are wrong. Small groups of people, of whatever religion, praying in public places is fine. And as a Christian country we should allow a special privilege for churches to lead services in our national spaces, like the Palm Sunday celebration that happens in Trafalgar Square. What we don't want is mass ritual observances intended to claim the civic realm for another religion, or assert the domination of another culture over our own Christian traditions. What happens in our national spaces is not neutral. People use Trafalgar Square, for celebrations and demonstrations, to make a point about the kind of country they want us to be. The Palm Sunday pageant reminds us of who we are - not as individuals (many or most of us don't identify as Christians at all) but as a national community, with the roots of our institutions in the ground of the Bible and our most solemn communal moments, from coronations to funerals, mediated through the liturgies of the Church. A mass Adhan held there, or in any town square, is making a different point: that Britain is not a Christian country, and that - inshallah - one day it shall be Muslim. This is unacceptable to the British public and indeed incompatible with our constitution. As ever with these debates, the issue is partly one of kind and partly one of degree. There is an issue with Islam itself as a religion which in most interpretations does not admit of pluralism or freedom of conscience, and therefore is inherently aggrandising, including over territory. But with a bit of confidence and a bit of toleration we could handle that - if it were not for the issue of degree. It is the scale of Islam in Britain, and the ambition of its leaders for greater scale, that makes the problem. The numbers of people who assembled for the adhan in Trafalgar Square, clearly and openly claiming the territory for a faith with no connection (indeed, with strong doctrinal disagreement) with the model of Western liberal democracy that Britain has developed and exported to the world - that is the problem. The numbers, whether everyone there understood it this way or not (and I suspect many did), convey an explicit threat to the foundations of our country. Being relaxed about other people's religion is a good thing, a very British thing. I don't mind modern druids dancing around Stonehenge in my constituency (arguably, though the historicity is tenuous, they have a claim to the place). I don't mind small groups of Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims demonstrating the reality of Britain's religious toleration by worshiping in Trafalgar Square. But let's not kid ourselves about this adhan, or pretend that we're just seeing another harmless expression of Britain's religious diversity. We are seeing an abuse of liberalism, led by people who are not themselves liberal; or - let us imagine they are acting in good faith - who are themselves deceived about what they are doing. It should not happen again. And it would be good to hear the Church of England say so.

English
0
0
0
9
Danny Kruger
Danny Kruger@danny__kruger·
Nick Timothy and Nigel Farage are right, and Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer are wrong. Small groups of people, of whatever religion, praying in public places is fine. And as a Christian country we should allow a special privilege for churches to lead services in our national spaces, like the Palm Sunday celebration that happens in Trafalgar Square. What we don't want is mass ritual observances intended to claim the civic realm for another religion, or assert the domination of another culture over our own Christian traditions. What happens in our national spaces is not neutral. People use Trafalgar Square, for celebrations and demonstrations, to make a point about the kind of country they want us to be. The Palm Sunday pageant reminds us of who we are - not as individuals (many or most of us don't identify as Christians at all) but as a national community, with the roots of our institutions in the ground of the Bible and our most solemn communal moments, from coronations to funerals, mediated through the liturgies of the Church. A mass Adhan held there, or in any town square, is making a different point: that Britain is not a Christian country, and that - inshallah - one day it shall be Muslim. This is unacceptable to the British public and indeed incompatible with our constitution. As ever with these debates, the issue is partly one of kind and partly one of degree. There is an issue with Islam itself as a religion which in most interpretations does not admit of pluralism or freedom of conscience, and therefore is inherently aggrandising, including over territory. But with a bit of confidence and a bit of toleration we could handle that - if it were not for the issue of degree. It is the scale of Islam in Britain, and the ambition of its leaders for greater scale, that makes the problem. The numbers of people who assembled for the adhan in Trafalgar Square, clearly and openly claiming the territory for a faith with no connection (indeed, with strong doctrinal disagreement) with the model of Western liberal democracy that Britain has developed and exported to the world - that is the problem. The numbers, whether everyone there understood it this way or not (and I suspect many did), convey an explicit threat to the foundations of our country. Being relaxed about other people's religion is a good thing, a very British thing. I don't mind modern druids dancing around Stonehenge in my constituency (arguably, though the historicity is tenuous, they have a claim to the place). I don't mind small groups of Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims demonstrating the reality of Britain's religious toleration by worshiping in Trafalgar Square. But let's not kid ourselves about this adhan, or pretend that we're just seeing another harmless expression of Britain's religious diversity. We are seeing an abuse of liberalism, led by people who are not themselves liberal; or - let us imagine they are acting in good faith - who are themselves deceived about what they are doing. It should not happen again. And it would be good to hear the Church of England say so.
English
1.1K
1.9K
8.8K
838.9K
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
@MatthewStadlen @danny__kruger Oh come on - try to engage just a little bit with someone who thinks different to you without resorting to name calling. Or else engage in a little self-reflection.
English
0
0
11
232
Reticent
Reticent@quidity·
Not all beliefs are equally valid. Prove me wrong.
English
0
0
0
1
Saul Staniforth
Saul Staniforth@SaulStaniforth·
Dominic Waghorn is reporting from Iran But Israel blocks him from doing the same in Gaza. Don't forget folks, Israel is a liberal western democracy.
English
48
988
3.1K
62.2K