Those Lovely Liberals

A selection of quotes from the Changing Attitude facebook page, discussing Andrea Minichiello-Williams.

New Changing Attitude LogoOld swivel eyes

She’s mad. let’s pray for her.

Leave her alone with her horrid God and see who shrivels first.

What a horrid small minded woman – I am glad of the ‘many mansions ‘ we are promised in heaven, because I don’t want to be anywhere near her

Now, I’ve criticised Andrea on this blog for her reported comments from Jamaica, but I would never just insult someone I disagreed with rather than engage with their viewpoint.

By their fruits…

29 Comments on “Those Lovely Liberals

  1. Rather poor show, I say.
    But it was good to see the restraint and gentleness in other comments along with a corrective aimed at “swivel eyes”.
    Also good to see that nobody suggested a life term in prison, though there were hints at reparative therapy ………..

    • Pictures of Ms Williams suggest that she may have ‘strabismus’, a condition where one’s eyes look in different directions. The person who used the expression ‘swivel eyes’ retracted that comment on the CA thread as they meant it in the figurative sense of ‘swivel eyed loon’ and not in reference to any medical condition she may have.

      • It really isn’t acceptable in either context. Interesting piece on the radio today where someone was talking about how “Mongol” is no longer acceptable as a derogatory term. Calling someone a swivel-eyed loon and only retracting when the medical condition is explained is like calling someone a Mong and then retracting when it’s pointed out the person has Downs. Calling someone a Mong isnt acceptable period and calling someone a swivel-eyed loon isn’t either. We need to stop justifying our mistakes and rather just apologise for them.

        Congratulations by the way. Was it a good day?

      • yes, I noted your corrective,
        After two gin and tonics my “lazy eye” wanders around on its own, at least that’s what I tell my other half!
        As to the headline for this thread ……
        We are lovely!
        Blame the sub-editor ……….

          • Peter – despite being another liberal, I’d like to think that you and I have also got along well enough both in cyberspace and the couple of occasions when we have met. Does it perhaps come down to a willingness to listen as well as speak?

            • I think so. The people who get annoyed with me seem to think they *have* to be heard and aren’t actually interested in listening to other stories. I actually rather like hearing other stories and understanding other perspectives, regardless of what others might think. I also think that it is vital to be self-critical, to always question assumptions and to call your own “side” to high standards.

              All I’ve ever tried to do here is have a proper conversation about human sexuality and sexual identity. Thing is, some people on both sides don’t want to have that conversation because it means opening yourself up to the possibility you might be wrong.

              Oh and there’s also the curse of being a prophet in my home town…

              • You are someone I care for, a fellow Christian, a fellow priest someone who clearly rejoices in their family who along with OLJC have saved him – me too. I think you are slightly less irritating than me.
                I cannot believe any true liberal would hate you with or without passion! We are compelled to love one another, your easy!

  2. It goes beyond mere disagreement. To my knowledge, she still hasn’t explained the Jamaican comments. All she had to say was, “I was misquoted, while I hold a traditional position on sexuality, I don’t for a moment believe that gay people should be criminalized,” and it would’ve blown over. If she does think that gay people should be locked up for expressing their sexuality with consenting adults, she could’ve owned and explained the opinion.

    Instead, nothing.

    So yes, comments about her appearance are out of line, but plenty understandable, and given how she’s acted, plenty forgivable.

    • I agree that AMW still has to explain Jamaica. But that is never an excuse for the abuse she is getting. Abuse and insults just undermine any argument against her. Period.

      • Re-reading this thread inspired me to check out some videos on this Andrea woman. I’m even more shocked than I was before. I don’t know whether to despise her or pity her. She is clearly not intelligent. On a Channel four dispatches program she states from her own mouth that the world is 4000 years old and makes inflammatory comments about Islam. What a vile woman. I agree she can’t help the way she looks and so comments about her appearance are inexcusable. But still a vile woman

        • She is clearly very intelligent (being a barrister). Do not confuse holding different views to you as being the same as having a low IQ. That’s just being bigoted.

          • Peter I’m certainly not bigoted. Thank you. I’m a City solicitor and have passed the same exams as Andrea actually. Maybe she is intelligent but she is clearly stupid. There is a difference . I have met a lot of intelligent but stupid people in my life. Different views?!?! Well yes Peter – I actually do understand that the world is unquestionably more than 4000 years old, and as an atheist Peter I do respect the rights of Muslims to their religion. This is a vile woman. Full stop. If you look at some of the You Tube footage of this woman -it’s very disingenuous – on one hand in discussions on Sky TV she complains how ‘gay rights’ (whatever they are) always seem to trump Christian rights, and how all that is needed is for both to accommodate and live together. And yet going to Jamaica and advocating for gays to be imprisoned us hardly a ‘ live and live’ approach. I’m outraged that such a vile individual is given so much UK airtime on TV and very shocked why more Christians do not distance themselves from this vile woman. All of the Bishops I have contacted certainly distance themselves from her comments in Jamaica. Peter – please tell me you believe the earth to be more than 4000 years old??

            • As an aside- in the program I watched there are also Christians in Bristol teaching children than the world was made in 7 days and that God turned people into pillar of salt. This is nothing more than abuse to teach children such rubbish

  3. Glad you read Changing Attitude, and I hope your readers will too. It could be very illuminating for you all. As it’s an open group, and very diverse, and not heavily “moderated”, there are going to be a variety of viewpoints there, and not all will be as courteous or well reasoned as the best. You seem to have deliberately chosen very selectively with a view to undermining the group, and then gone on to suggest that it is representative of all liberals. That’s unfair, just as it would be if people were to liump you together with Andrea M-W or indeed with the last Fred Phelps as “conservatives” or “traditionalists”. You also seem to be falling into the trap you accuse others of; attacking the people rather than discussing the substantive issue. It doesn’t look good whoever does it.

    • “and then gone on to suggest that it is representative of all liberals”
      I didn’t do that. You are assuming that is what I intended but you assume too much.

      Words mean what they say, nothing more, nothing less. It’s often when we read motives into people’s words that we cause, not salve, conflict.

      • The headline “Those lovely liberals” clearly implies that the quotes are typical of liberals (and indeed are posted by “liberals”).

        I also think your ideas about the meaning of language are a little unsophistictaed. Words and sentences carry resonances and implications and values and figures of speech assumptions and a whole lot of other baggage. If I ask someone “Has anyone ever told you that you’re smelly, vulgar, half-witted and unloved by all, and half the street have been to bed with your wife” they might reasonably take offence. If I were to defend myself by saying that I’d only asked a question about what people may have told him, and hadn’t implied any of the suggestions were true, because “words only mean what they say” I think that would be an unconvincing defence.

  4. I agree, petty name calling is pointless and abusive. However, I agree with Don- calling the article ‘Lovely Liberals’ gave me the impression that you were inferring that it was ‘typical’ of liberals- and that was before I read Don’s post.

    Peter should be commended for holding Andrea to account for her reported comments in Jamaica, however scrolling through the posts from that time I’m reminded how he only did this as a last resort after implying that the gay journalist may have an axe to grind

    I would like to ask Peter, Don or anyone else- what exactly is the church doing to deal with her? I’m not familiar with church procedures but if she refuses to clarify then we can only assume she made these calls in Jamaica. How can she possibly be allowed to remain on the Synod

    Whilst of course everyone should have their opinion heard, it bothers and worries me very much that news media allow her to express her opinion on SSM, but the context of her views (supporting imprisonment) remains hidden from mainstream viewers

    Why aren’t more Christians taking an approach like Peter and demanding answers from her?

    • The reason people don’t hold her to account is because we believe supporting “our side” is more important than holding “our side” to account and requiring integrity.

      Yes, I was a bit late to the game on calling out AMW re Jamaica, but I still believe my first post made some valid points. The ONLY negative report of the conference came from a guy journalist who writes lots of stories criticising conservatives. It was right to ask him pertinent questions and it was right to ask Andrea to deny the report or explain it.
      In my mind the failure of Andrea to respond to this simple question is very disturbing.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.