Skippy R's picture
06.04.2008 | Comments(10)

Beastie: Bonfire of the Anglicans

An alarming report from across the pond--a motion calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England has been listed in the House of Commons as No. 666, the Number of the Beast.

As we all know from watching The Tudors, the Church of England was created so those in charge could suppress their enemies and justify their actions by using religion in order to control their own political destiny. Sort of like Church-State relations in America today, except without the torture. Well, OK, it's pretty much exactly like today.

Wrapped up in personal business as I've been, toiling like a Hebrew slave at my day job, I was shocked out of blogging slumber by this report, and decided to investigate.

It seems the proposal was registered just as Parliament debated scrapping Britain’s blasphemy laws.

Bob Russell, Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester and one of the signatories, said: “It is is incredible that a motion like this should have, by chance, acquired this significant number. This number is supposed to be the mark of the Devil. It looks as though God or the Devil have been moving in mysterious ways."

I've visited Britain and surrounding areas, and I can assure you that the whole place is ripe for demonic mischief.

I was constantly feeding strange coins into their odd telephone boxes. I visited their pile of New Age rocks at Stonehenge and became extremely wired after drinking about 20 cups of their tea. The language makes them particularly susceptible to devilish deception. I tried to get someone to accurately repeat, "In Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen" without success.

Or take this example from the BBC's sports desk: "It is the first time since 1884/5 that England have named the same line-up for five successive Test matches." England "have"? If they can't distinguish singular from plural, how will they fare in a test of wills against the Prince of Darkness?

I wheeled out the Beastie Machine and carefully wiped dust from its delicate gears as it's battery warmed up for the task.

I typed in "Jolly Old England." Calculating from my patented mix of Gematria and random quotes from NYT puzzle master Will Shorts, Beastie immediately spat out the number 251. I then tried "United Kingdom." That came to only 206. "Great Britain" only to 493. "British Empire" was too much at 866.

With trepidation I entered a word said to be the longest in the English language, and somehow seemed to apply now: "antidedistablishmentarianism." But it was way over the top at 1,683.

Many mysteries in the scriptures are said to be "sealed up" even to the prophets themselves. Could this be a secret that had no interpretation?

Worried, I mixed a cocktail of ginseng, caffeine, taurine, guarana, maca and Tang, took a nap and awoke refreshed, but still with no clear direction.

Maybe I should focus on the Church of England itself. "Church of England" came up as 633. Bingo!

"Anglican Church"--659. Getting closer. Ol' Beastie was emitting a whine not unlike the call of a lovesick wallaby as it struggled to crunch the flood of numbers.

"Unholy Anglicanism" came out as 694, over the mark.

Darn! So close-- within a boar's whisker of exposing the plan of the Evil One. Now what?

I made the sign of infinity in the air over the shuddering and smoking Beastie Machine, and typed in my very last idea: "Bad Anglican Church."

The machine squealed and lost several bolts and washers out its intake valve before the numerals appeared on the screen: 665.

665 is practically 666, if you take into account Greenwich Mean Time. So take that on your stiff upper lip, Old Scratch!

FurlStumbleUponTechnorati Tags: Anglicans 666, Christian humor, satire, humor


that calvinist doug | 02:42 pm on 6/05/2008

Did you try "English Dentist"? The irony alone has gotta getcha up around 640.

SRebbe | 03:18 pm on 6/16/2008

benevolent Republican

that calvinist doug | 02:22 pm on 6/17/2008

SRebbe, I AM a benevolent conservative (not really Republican). As such, let me just ask you to get off your ass, go to work, contribute to society, and stop blaming others for your misfortunes.

Benevolent enough for you?

SRebbe | 03:24 pm on 6/18/2008

I specifically said 'Republican,' not conservative. I'm independent with conservative leanings and liberality in my faith. I've been to many a Republican party (literally) where all talk leans toward 'my' money and what 'they' are doing with it. money. that's it. seriously. many of my friends are in the political scene -- right side -- and there is too much talk with no action. tight fists in tight pockets.

not from conservatives by any stretch.

that calvinist doug | 03:43 pm on 6/18/2008

I have to keep reminding myself that my tongue-in-cheek tone really doesn't translate well over the internet. Sorry if you thought I was seriously jabbing you.

Personally, neither the R's or D's cut it for me. I'll generally vote R as the lesser of two evils, but for this election I'm seriously thinking of voting Libertarian, even though I know I'm throwing my vote away, just to send a message to the R's that they can't just take white male votes for granted. Keep nominating Rhinos (Republican in name only), keep talking conservative values but governing as big government socialists, keep ignoring the base, and pretty soon, they'll be wondering where their base went.

I believe you're referring to the old country-club Republicans. Believe me, I ain' that. I am, however, sick to death of everyone being a "victim" and striving to live off the public dole. There are legitimate needy people, who through no fault of their own need assistance. I'm all for helping those people. However, imho, there are far more lazy people, raised by lazy parents (and too often, raised by lazy school systems because the parents can't be bothered), who feel they are entitled to other people's money. Besides that, no "program" is going to eliminate poverty. Everyone doesn't have equal talents and abilities; that may sound harsh, but it's just true. However, in this country, unless you're seriously disabled, there's just no reason you can't provide for yourself and your family. What we call "poor" here is rich by most standards. That "everyone is equal" socialism's been tried. It failed.

Droslovinia | 12:27 pm on 6/19/2008


When exactly did we try that "'everyone is equal' socialism thing?" I've lived in America all my life, and my ancestors arrived here to steal the natives' land back in the 1600's, and I still have no idea when we actually tried it.

And while we're confessing to being "sick to death," I'm sick to death of people singling out a few lazy and/or shiftless individuals among millions and conflating that with a so-called "welfare state."

While I can't argue with the whole "lazy parents" thing, but other than that, you paint with too wide and uncharitable a brush. There are a lot of people in America who cannot provide adequately for their families, especially if they get sick, and to assume that they all have the ability to rectify this on their own is hopefully naive at best.

Of course, God foreknew I would tell you this. You had me at "Total Depravity."

budda | 02:20 pm on 6/19/2008

It's a values thing. Socialism actually works in a smallish fairly well-to-do nation were the people value security over opportunity. (Switzerland, Scandinavia, Finland, etc..) In America we value the opportunity to become wealthy more than the even distribution of resources. We focus on the individual instead of the group. That has some benefits and some draw backs. One is not any more "moral" than the other unless you go to the extremes of Soviet-style Communism or pure Capitalism. Then you have some sticky issues. Mostly though, just a different value system.

that calvinist doug | 10:27 am on 6/20/2008

Yes, I was probably a bit harsh. My contention is that Americans in general (rich, middle, poor) are too quick to look for the "government" (which, of course, gets money from you and me) to provide for their every need. I can't say it any better than Alexander Tytler did around the time of our Revolution:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

If he's right, then we're already past our expiration date. BTW, the socialism experiments I referenced were not in this country. Budda's answer below summarizes that well. However, certainly aspects of our social policy since the days of FDR are pure socialism. While many of those policies, such as Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, have undeniably helped many people, my contention is that there have been many unintended consequences which have at the very least contributed to the breakdown of the family, the weakening of our national work ethic, and the encouragement of a victim mentality. Also, I think it leads to a lessening of the charitable spirit because people just assume "the government needs to help those people."

SRebbe | 01:04 pm on 6/20/2008

ah, no worries there. there has always been the mentality of "someone needs to do something" without the thought that the someone could be ourselves. personal responsibility, some social awareness of what's going on. the government can't do it all because society becomes heartless and apathetic. and if we are left to rely on ourselves, we won't have the resources to provide for it all, nor will we because we will only look out for ourselves. so we are left with a catch-22.

the policies you speak of have done great things for people and are meant to be short-term solutions. when they are relied upon for a livelihood, that's where the problem comes in -- those who abuse the system. while my political friends complain on the one side about taxes and how they can't get a break, I have friends on the other who abuse the system on the other, who say they can't get a break or a job or health care, yet don't try to help themselves out of bad, yet changeable situations.

as I keep repeating to myself, the lightbulb has to want to change.

PeteAtomic | 07:09 am on 6/17/2008

Let's replace the Church of England with sharia law. Oh, goody.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.