CHRISTIAN Voice lunatic Stephen “Birdshit” Green has finally responded to a recent article in the Daily Mail, which exposed him as violent, dictatorial wife-beater.
Stephen Green
“No, no, no. They got it all wrong. She was violent one”, is the gist of a piece he has just posted on his recently-launched blog.
Firstly, I never once had sexual relations with my former wife against her clearly expressed wish. Secondly, in connection with the published allegations that I assaulted her, the truth, sadly, is the complete opposite. I had to obtain a harassment order against her to stop a campaign of intimidation and on one of the occasions when she assaulted me, I reported the matter to the police and she received a police caution.
Green also asserts that he also a victim of “defamatory” journalism:
The article [in the Mail] was a catalogue of smears and distortions stitched together by a tabloid journalist [Frances Hardy] who specialises in TV, celebrities, women’s features and gossip. She also has an anti-Christian agenda. Just over a year ago, she wrote a sycophantic piece exalting the pro-paedophilia campaigner Peter Tatchell. In April this year, she gushed over the first two lesbians who have jointly put their names on the birth certificate of the baby born to one of them.
Then he whines:
None of us is perfect, we are all sinners saved by grace, but I sincerely tried to lead my marriage and household in a loving and responsible way, and one which was faithful to the Lord. There are things I dearly wish I could have done differently, but sadly none of us can ever start from somewhere different from where we are.
Andy Armitage, of the Pink Triangle blog, posted the following comment on Green’s blog.
It seems the bad publicity for Mr Green, like the genie let out of the lamp, the toothpaste squeezed from the tube, can’t be put back. It’s out there. Perhaps fewer people would be rubbing their hands gloatingly (although I am not doing so, because my secular humanist principles allow me a large dose of decency) if Mr G had not spent several years hating just about everyone who was not as rabid a Christian as he is. I don’t fly a flag for Christianity, but, goodness, he’s done it no favours, and it’s hardly surprising that so many people see him as a nutcase … Perhaps there’s time for him to repent. Not give up his Christianity, necessarily (I do believe in freedom of religion, as most secular humanists do), but repent of his unalloyed hatred of, among others, gays …
So repent ye, Stephen. It’s not too late to take back all the hatred you’ve scattered among the undeserving of your wrath. You really are a wally, and I suppose we must be thankful that you have never been taken seriously except by the likes of lazy journos who like to wheel out anyone who will create a controversy and, of course, readers of the Daily Mail.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
February 13th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
It’s amazing how unaware of himself Mr. Green appears to be. His complaints about the Mail could be made by anyone he has targeted in his vile utterings that are usually so happily repeated by that very same paper. If he, or his wife, have any evidence to back up their side of the story it might be a good idea to let it be known, but I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here since this man’s faith logically leads him to be a vicious, violent partner and his attitudes in public suggest a lot of latent rage to go along with his continual dishonesty. Peter Tatchell, pro-pedophilia campaigner? For goodness sake, you’re just digging yourself in deeper.
And note the rather sinister implication that to be happy for a same-sex couple to have a child is to be entirely anti-Christian, according to his logic.
February 13th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Sadly, these appear to be only allegations on both sides!
February 13th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
This reminds me so much of Green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Dad
February 13th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Nowhere in the post does he deny beating his children with a strap and a wooden object so severely that they have been left with scars. In fact he denies very little of the specific claims except for the part which implied that he used to berate his wife into sex, citing his ‘rights’. Perhaps if he were not proudly in favour of there being no such thing as marital rape, the allegation wouldn’t seem to fit him so well.
Oh, and conservative, pro-Christian paper interviewing his ex-wife of over twenty years and painting a terrible picture is ultimately down to tolerance of The Gays. Were you expecting anything else?
February 13th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Surely Green has committed a grave libel in calling Peter Tatchell ‘ a pro-paedophilia campaigner’? I know jerks like Green don’t merit the oxygen of publicity, but if I was Tatchell, I’d be suing him for such a slander.
February 13th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
If Green took out some sort of restraining order against his wife, then where is the proof. And where is the proof the Police cautioned her. There has to be a paper trail. Typically, Green hasn’t provided one. Surely all this would have made if not national news, then at least local news where he lives in Wales.
Seems to me that Green, like the rest of his stable mates, don’t mind the occasional outright lie or distortion of the truth as long as it suits him.
February 13th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
The man is an idiot, and it’s unwise to argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level, then beat you with their considerable experience. Sigh. Best left well alone me thinks. If we must engage with him, let it be poking him with a stick, and laughing.
February 13th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Is this a case of the abuser claiming to be the victim? Wonder where i’ve seen that before……
February 13th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
I’ve read the reading list on Stephen Green’s blog, and am surprised he left out the following misogynous verse:
“Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales”
(1 Timothy 4:7)
February 13th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Lying for Jesus again.
I am surprised he left his rebuttal for so long if he is as innocent as he claims.
February 13th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Damn, BDuke really hates this guy, huh?
Let me start by saying there is nothing as disgusting to me as a self appointed spiritual leader. Having said that, I want to quote JWhite:
“but I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here since this man’s faith logically leads him to be a vicious, violent partner and his attitudes in public suggest a lot of latent rage to go along with his continual dishonesty”
In America, in any population center, there are “centers for battered women”. To my knowledge, there is not a single center for battered men.
In the late 70′s, my first wife and I had an argument over breakfast. The time came, and I said, “I have to go to work”. As I went out the door, she hit me so hard with a copper bottom frying pan that it bent it to the point of being unusable. I dodged as she swung, she hit me in the shoulder, if she had hit me in the head, where she was aiming, I would not be writing this post.
My point is that, as JWhite did, the woman is traditionally given the benefit of any doubt. But, there really are battered husbands, and they usually don’t file charges, because of the stigma of being a guy who got beat up by a girl.
And I recommend caution on drawing a conclusion here, because the most unreliable source you can find is an exspouse. A seperate agenda with a lifetime supply of vitreol.
NeoWolfe
February 13th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
“‘The article [in the Mail] was a catalogue of smears and distortions stitched together by a tabloid journalist [Frances Hardy] who specialises in TV, celebrities, women’s features and gossip. She also has an anti-Christian agenda.”
An anti-xtian agenda? Really? Seems to me that everybody and anybody who disagrees with the views of religious lunatics like Birdshit must, de facto, have an anti-xtian agenda. Bet he didn’t think so when the ever-lovely Daily Mail was happily passing his Victorian views off as being good old British family values.
What a thoroughly repugnant, hateful tosser the man is.
February 13th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
This is so weird that it is LOL stupid.
He is a batschite crazy fundie & his holey book say ‘be a man and be in control, and beat the woman if she does not behave. Then has the gall to say he can’t be man enough by his own definition to keep her under control and had to get help.
So he either isn’t a real man by his holey book, or a lying, abusive sack of schite.
He looses both ways.
February 13th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Dave Gilbert: I suppose these things take a bit of time to think up. Time and again these holier than though merchants end up with their zipper unzipped.
His missed his best ploy much used by USA Fundies. I was led astray by the devil and I succumbed. However, I am now a wiser, better and more holy man now that I have been rescued by my Lord and Saviour.
February 13th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Even if the spousal abuse never reaches court, this is a very open and shut case. If his wife chooses to she can sue him for libel and unless he can produce the record of this caution he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
February 13th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Of course he’s playing the victim…he’s a Christian.
February 13th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
@NeoWolfe – I quite clearly did not give Mrs Green the benefit of the doubt because she is the woman. I expressed exactly why I thought she was more likely to be telling the truth, and it had nothing to do with her ovaries. While I feel bad you were abused, your story is irrelevant here, and I see no reason why you felt the need to use my comment as a launching pad for your own rant about how terrible it is that people are more likely to believe a woman is the victim in an abusive relationship. I would like to be nicer and more sympathetic, but you have a history of trolling and you are accusing me of saying something as absurd as there are no abused husbands when I never even approached saying that.
Let me just say that I know perfectly well there are abused husbands. I know one. You are showing a Greenesque persecution complex here. No one is forgetting abused husbands exist, we are simply not trusting of Mr Green in the slightest.
February 13th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
By their fruits ye shall know them. This article just confirms my experience that many christians are just hypocrites and despite being confronted with the truth still lie no matter the evidence.
February 14th, 2011 at 2:12 am
No matter what colour these religious moral bigots come in, it seems without doubt that they all get caught. Mostly the gay haters get caught being errr…gay. They deserve it though. We owe the press some gratitude.
February 14th, 2011 at 9:48 am
It’s not inconceivable that a complaint was made to the police that she assaulted him.
But did she?
I knew a bully who made a complaint in the event he could use the police report against his wife should the victim ever make a complaint against him.
However, in this situation I seem to remember there being other witnesses and additional victims.
February 14th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
I’ve just read these glorious comments on his blog!
(1) God Bless you Stephen, for so they persecuted Christ and other Christians, including even the Disciples of our Lord. Your reward in heaven is assured, no doubt much to the chagrin of those who persecute you for living a fully Christian life and spreading the Good news about God’s Kingdom, Jesus’s reign to be in the very fullest Glory, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
(2) 1 Peter 5 v 8, the Devil is like a roaring lion, well Stephen, no wonder he is baring his teeth at you, because you keep attacking his stronghold! Keep up the good work brother in Christ, and thank you for all that you do.
I had Christian friends who thought precisely the same!!
February 14th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Frances Hardy has an ‘anti-Christian agenda’ huh?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....cross.html
Furthermore, her ‘gushing’ article about the lesbian mothers doesn’t ignore the elephant in the room at all:
‘But what of Lily-May? How will she fare without a father? It is the issue that exercises Christian groups and campaigners for traditional family values, and one every single-sex couple or lone mother must address.‘
‘Without doubt her parents will always be devoted to her. But will the lack of a father cause her regret, embarrassment or sorrow? Only time and Lily-May herself will be able to answer that one.‘
Try again, Green.
February 14th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Green is completely correct with the question…
‘But will the lack of a father cause her regret, embarrassment or sorrow? ‘
The answer is NO, because there will not be a male there to sexually abuse her, beat her, or make feel worthless!
Yes MOST families do not have the abusive father thing, but as far as I know, when it does happen, it is only in hetero-families.
Can anyone out there show a lesbian based family where the boy/girl were abused in a similar fashion?? I have not heard of any.
And in the hetero-family where it does occur and is brought to light, there is always some form of belief involved.
February 14th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Well, L.Long, I haven’t heard of any specific examples of lesbian couples where one or both abuse their children, but I see no reason why them being lesbians would prevent that from happening. Child abuse has nothing to do with sexuality or gender and a lot to do with the warped mind of the abuser, and that damage can be done through all manner of means. Still, I did read of a study demonstrating that children raised by lesbian parents were better adjusted than those raised by heterosexual parents (and male homosexual parents didn’t fare badly either, being at least par with their hetero peers). Without an authoritarian, judgmental belief system dominating the life of the parents, it seems vastly less likely that abusive behaviours would spill out and hit the children.
February 14th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I see that this intellectual giant has now answered what he terms “the silly Dr Laura questions” – ie side-stepped each one and attempted to defuse criticism with his sparkling wit! Read and be amazed:
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/laura.html
February 14th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
L Long –
just to be clear, that quote wasn’t Stephen Green’s, it was from an article by Frances Hardy that Green would have you believe exposes the journalist’s ‘anti-Christian agenda’. It is in fact a fairly neutral piece in contrast to the more favourably biased one about the BA employee and the ‘cross’ row. Green seems to think that shooting down the messenger with false accusations of being anti-Christian is credible retaliation despite most of the article about him being in his wife’s words. I don’t think he will be chasing the media spotlight as much from now on.
February 14th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Perhaps we should give Mr Green the benefit of the doubt. Just as he does in judging the behaviour of homosexuals.
February 14th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
I would like to note an error of punctuation in the first quote from Mr. Green’s blog entry:
“Firstly, I never once had sexual relations with my former wife against her clearly expressed wish.”
Presumably there is a missing comma, after the word wife.
I will shortly direct Mr. Green’s webmaster towards rectifying this omission. Thank you.
February 15th, 2011 at 12:00 am
JWhite said:
“I quite clearly did not give Mrs Green the benefit of the doubt because she is the woman. I expressed exactly why I thought she was more likely to be telling the truth.”
I understand why you don’t like Birdshit, I don’t like him either. But, why would you assume that a woman who would marry and have children with such an obvious wacko, would be any more trustworthy? And without sworn testimony, nor presentation of evidence, you decide who to believe. Personally, I choose to believe neither of them. Reality is probably somewhere between.
But you also said:
“You are showing a Greenesque persecution complex here.”
Well, that’s fucking over the top!!!! Just because I relate an anecdote to illustrate that there is reason not to rush to judgement, you accuse me of resembling a fundy and paranoid delusions that the world is abusing me.
How much egg are you going to have on your face if the kids show up in court and tell the judge that, “mom was drunk all day, and hit dad when he came home.”
Yet another example of an atheist adopting a belief because it seems likely. Or is convenient. Not because it’s proven.
NeoWolfe
February 15th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
NeoWolfe – seriously, stop trolling. I already explained why I am more inclined to give Mrs Green the benefit of the doubt and I already told you that I explained that. You are either magically capable of writing but not reading or you are deliberately ignoring what has been said just to stir things up by accusing me of something I simply have not done.
Go back and read my first post and understand it this time, but you are completely missing the point. I have never said I am convinced one side is right over the other, I have simply said one story seems more likely to me than the other, and I have said why I think so. That is entirely different from believing in something without proof (I cited my reasons for my admitted assumption without ever claiming it was cast iron proof, and I also said I would like to see some evidence from both sides), but in your world you seem incapable of understanding nuance and instead are grasping any opportunity, however irrelevant, to continue to whine that atheists don’t all think the way you do while you continue to utterly mischaracterise them. You clearly do have some kind of persecution complex because any story, no matter how unrelated, somehow seems capable of sparking a little fit from you where you complain about those dastardly atheists that only seem to exist in your head.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:03 am
JWhite said:
“NeoWolfe – seriously, stop trolling.”
More flaming. I am not very impressed with your powers of observation, either. First I was fundyesque, now I’m a troll.
You said:
“I already explained why I am more inclined to give Mrs Green the benefit of the doubt and I already told you that I explained that.”
But, what you didn’t do is answer my question, quoting myself:
“But, why would you assume that a woman who would marry and have children with such an obvious wacko, would be any more trustworthy?”
Instead of flaming, why didn’t you answer the key question. Is it because the answer makes you the troll? I.E.- She’s as much a fundy wacko as he is, the only difference being, she’s not famous?
You said:
“I have simply said one story seems more likely to me than the other”
Wrong, and I did read your first post. You said:
“but I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here since this man’s faith logically leads him to be a vicious, violent partner and his attitudes in public suggest a lot of latent rage to go along with his continual dishonesty.”
Benefit of the doubt. Why? My favorite part: ” this man’s faith logically leads him to be a vicious, violent partner”. Where’s your evidence for that crap? Are you saying that all fundies are vicious and violent with their spouses? And you dare call ME a troll?
Your final flame:
“somehow seems capable of sparking a little fit from you where you complain about those dastardly atheists that only seem to exist in your head.”
Atheists are not dastardly, even the bigots. It’s the closest thing to a peer group that I have. The only reason I don’t call myself an atheist, as well, is because, as I understand, an assumption that the universe is an accident is part of the philosophy. I don’t claim that’s incorrect, I just refuse to adopt it as a belief until science explains how such an accident could have occurred.
Now, maybe if you fire up those neurons, you can find a connection between my policy of assuming nothing until the evidence is in, and how it connects with our discussion. Think hard!!!
So, don’t call me a troll. You only embarrass yourself.
NeoWolfe
February 16th, 2011 at 1:15 am
Simple clarification, since you insist on continuing to accuse me of saying things and holding positions that I have not:
I was saying that, given Mr Green is a fundie who claims to believe quite wholly in the bible, and since that book does give its permission and instruction to beat wives and children, and given that we have seen numerous demonstrations of Mr Green’s vicious character, it seems reasonable to me to believe the wife’s tale until any other evidence is presented. I did say, twice already, that I would like to see evidence for the claims, and I am not exactly convicting the guy by jury here. You somehow took one word from a brief comment and blew it up out of all proportion while claiming it was all about gender, simply because you saw it pertaining to yourself in your narrow, self-centred world. Enough. You were wrong about what I said, you were wrong about my motivation for saying it. I won’t play any more games with you, the explanation cannot be made any plainer, so take it or leave it, and stop derailing us.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:57 am
JWhite said:
“I won’t play any more games with you, the explanation cannot be made any plainer, so take it or leave it, and stop derailing us.”
I don’t recall playing any games with you, I thought we were having a debate where you went ballistic and called me a lot of negative shit. I defended myself. That’s all.
But, I am going to quote you one more time. You said:
” and stop derailing us.”
I respectfully demand you quantify who the fuck you think “us” is.
NeoWolfe
February 16th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
My guess is not you!