EDO 2
Civil Liberties

Anti-terror legislation will be used against teachers who oppose same-sex marriage

 

The Extremism Bill seeks to extend the powers of government and law enforcement agencies to confront and neuter what they perceive to constitute ‘extremism’. One of its provisions is ‘Extremism Disruption Orders’, which are designed to prevent individuals engaging in extremist behaviour – violent or non-violent.

There have been a number of concerns raised about the rather nebulous definition of ‘non-violent extremism’; after all, wasn’t Jesus something of an extremist? Aren’t all prophets of God extremist? Aren’t all Christians called to be so? An Extremism Disruption Order which embraces non-violence would criminalise all Jains, Hindus and Buddhists who oppose animal testing in accordance with the precepts of ahimsa, should their non-harming principle be judged by the government to be ‘extremist’. They might even muzzle Dr Brian May and Ricky Gervais, for, rather like beauty, ‘non-violent extremism’ is in the eye of the beholder. What of the Islamic belief in Khilafa, or the Christian yearning to build the New Jerusalem on England’s green and pleasant land? One man’s pursuit of justice, peace and freedom is manifestly another man’s nutty religious extremism.

This blog has been consistent in sounding the alarm, yet each blast of the trumpet has been met with an antiphon of denials; that EDOs present no threat to the democracy-loving and law-abiding, despite Theresa May declaring: “I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay within the law but still spread poisonous hatred..”; and despite David Cameron confirming: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone’..”

Obeying the law is no longer to be a guarantee of freedom from government surveillance or police harassment.

And now Conservative MP Mark Spencer has written to a constituent:

I believe that everybody in society has a right to free speech and to express their views without fear of persecution. The EDOs will not serve to limit but rather to guarantee it: it is those who seek to stop other people expressing their beliefs who will be targeted. Let me give you an example, one which lots of constituents have been writing about – talking about gay marriage in schools.

The new legislation specifically targets hate speech, so teachers will still be free to express their understanding of the term ‘marriage’, and their moral opposition to its use in some situations without breaking the new laws. The EDOs, in this case, would apply to a situation where a teacher was specifically teaching that gay marriage is wrong.

If that is the understanding on the backbenches of the provisions of the Extremism Bill, we should be fearful – very fearful – of the Government’s intentions. John Bingham’s Telegraph piece quotes Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of the Christian Institute, who says:

“I am genuinely shocked that we have an MP supporting the idea of teachers being branded extremists for teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is exactly the kind of thing we’ve been warning about. The Government says we’ve got nothing to worry about from their new extremism laws, but here is one of its own MPs writing to a constituent saying EDOs would stop teachers teaching mainstream Christian beliefs.. EDOs will be a gross infringement of free speech and undermine the very British values they claim to protect.”

And Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society:

“If EDOs really could be used to prevent teachers from talking about same-sex marriage, unless they are inciting violence, they are an even greater threat to freedom of expression than I had feared. To suggest that EDOs guarantee freedom of expression (as Mark Spencer suggests) is not just inaccurate, it is the opposite of the truth; they are the largest threat to freedom of expression I have ever seen in Britain.”

It is ironic that a Prime Minister who has become acutely sensitive to the outrage felt and oppression caused by Section 28 should be so keen to legislate for a Christian equivalent. If Section 28 – designed, as it was, to ban the promotion of homosexuality in schools – became a debate-stifling instrument of teacher intimidation and student stigmatisation, then by what reasoning does the Government believe that EDOs won’t have a comparable effect on Christian teachers and students? If it is to become a crime to teach that same-sex marriage is “wrong”, what debates may had about the ontology of marriage, the coherence of natural law, the virtues of divine purpose, the ethics of sexual morality or the history of religious orthodoxy? Must all teachers now qualify Aquinas with an act of Parliament? Are they obliged – on pain of EDO – to teach that the Summa is wrong about semen?

If, as has long been reported, teachers “were confused about what they could and could not say and do, and whether they could help pupils dealing with homophobic bullying and abuse”, won’t teachers be equally confused about what they can and cannot say about marriage, and whether they are able to help pupils dealing with Christianophobic bullying and abuse? To paraphrase Sir Ian McKellen: “If Extremism Disruption Orders and the attitudes behind them are established by statute, then society will come to believe that Christian teachers are extremist and that it is right that they should be treated as extremists.”

And why do you suppose this debate is being framed around specifically Christian teachers? How many Muslim teachers does Mark Spencer believe will be classed as ‘extremist’ for teaching that marriage is between one man and (at least) one woman?

  • IanCad

    “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone’..”

    I’m steaming – No! More than that! I want the treasonous wretch Cameron confined to The Tower. Along with “Keys” May and most of the cabinet. Hammond as well – for sheer stupidity.

    This country has degenerated into a cowardly, passive and utterly despicable land.

    Spies everywhere. To snitch is a virtue. Conformity is the creed. Entertainment our guide. Perversion our aspiration. Safety is our motto.

    I’m going to take up drinking.

    • Darter Noster

      “I’m going to take up drinking.”

      I didn’t realise there was any other way of coping with modern British life…

      • James60498 .

        Neither did I. I took it up a while ago.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Prayer, of course, but that doesn’t always give the human comfort of “a little wine'”.

      • IanCad

        TV and sports seem to be enough for most.

      • avi barzel

        I’m in Canada, but I’ve been drinking in solidarity with you guys for years now. It’s the least I can do.

        • Royinsouthwest

          I’m sure the Government Inspector will approve – when he gets back from the pub!

        • William Lewis

          You are a true mensch, Avi.

    • Anton

      Veritas in vino?

      • IanCad

        If the truth be known the Good Book does recommend a snort now and again for those in anguish.
        Right now I’m angry. The anguish will come later.

    • Orwell Ian

      Bad people no longer fear the police, but good people are increasingly afraid of being prosecuted for saying the wrong thing. Freedom of speech, for those who don’t accept multiculturalism or the sexual revolution, is increasingly limited, mainly by threats to the jobs of those who speak out of turn. Cameron’s British Values are nothing of the kind. They are the values of a surveillance society. The values of the EUSSR.

      • A cursory knowledge of our history should make it plain that British values cannot be divorced from Biblical Christianity. Back in 1940 the King called two national days of prayer at the time of Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain. The Lord mercifully rescued us. What ingratitude we now show Him.

      • Good people should no longer fear the police.

    • Dreadnaught

      Along with “Keys” May and most of the cabinet. Hammond as well – for sheer stupidity.

      Jeremy Clarkson ‘Keys’? suppose you mean car keys then …Top Gear right?

      • IanCad

        No! “Keys” as in “Lock ’em up.”

  • Anton

    Exactly as I predicted in a short talk to our congregation two Sundays ago, and exhorted them to write to their MP expressing grave concern. This is because the Prime Minister did not have the guts to specify Islamists as the challenge he wished to meet.

    It doesn’t seem to matter that the Labour party is dying. Tory is the new Labour.

    • Now this legislation for the introduction of EDOs for non-violent extremism IS totalitarian government and goes too far.
      You’re right Cameron is a coward. Christians are not extremists,

  • magnolia

    Surely the tide must turn to a more reasonable assessment given the crimes Heath is now accused and suspected of. Guilty or innocent these rumours have been so long around that it is well overdue that we had the national debate as to whether government was infiltrated by a minority of activist paedophiles all looking after each others backs and persistently pressing for the tide of the law to be turned back in order to protect their urges while more innocent colleagues sometimes supported them as they had little or no clue as to what it was really about.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      “Surely the tide must turn to a more reasonable assessment…”

      Of whom or of what?

  • James60498 .

    A couple of weeks ago, I was listening on the radio to a teacher discussing what happens when a Muslim becomes an extremist.

    Apparently they are often people who previously didn’t hold particularly strong views. They then start to become “very religious” and start to tell others what they should do and believe and “start talking about Hell” etc. This usually happens over a relatively short space of time.

    Everyone has to believe what they themselves only started believing (or at least only seriously) five minutes ago.

    In May 2010, Cameron announced that he would not be legislating for “gay marriage”. Then within a short space of time he announced that he supported them and then the Government of which he was leader introduced a Bill to legalise them.
    Now whenever anyone who voted against becomes a Minister they are first required to go to “Pink News” to apologise. And his Government is threatening to prosecute anyone who openly opposes them.

    And then of course, the Education Secretary, Morgan, voted against “gay marriage” and having changed her mind, within a much shorter period of time than Cameron even, is now threatening that any child who says homosexuality is wrong could be considered an extremist, and then there is this threat to teachers.

    Tell me. Do Cameron and Morgan sound like that description of an extremist? They do to me. Perhaps the police should pay them a visit.

    • Albert

      Even Stonewall only started to campaign for the innovation in late 2010. Not so very long ago there was gay lobby which was intent on destroying marriage. One minute we’re told to believe one thing, the next another. Now, I just don’t know what I’m supposed to believe. It’s all so confusing.

  • Jon Sorensen

    Rebel Saint said the Christian view:
    “The law as it stands is perfectly clear. it is those who advocate that the law should be changed who are “pushing”.” Please don’t push the changing of the EDO. Christian view is that this would be “pushing your views on others”

    • Pubcrawler

      The Extremism Bill is not yet law (the clue’s in the word ‘Bill’), so the EDO is the change being pushed.

  • The Explorer

    I suppose future discussion will have to be along this sort of line:
    A society that does not propagate itself does not survive.
    Historically, societies that wanted to survive have found that some sex acts lead to propagation, and others don’t.
    Historically, therefore, societies have favoured a union between a man and a woman (or a man and a limited number of women), and encouraged marriage to give the union stability.
    An alternative is not to produce children yourself and to import the citizens who don’t exist from elsewhere, but over time your culture will disappear and be replaced by the culture of those who have immigrated.

  • Shadrach Fire

    MP Mark Spencer. Born 1970, now 45 and no mention of any family on Wikipedia. Does this tell us something about him and his antagonism towards supporters of traditional marriage?

    • Jon Sorensen

      What is this “traditional marriage”?

      • The Explorer

        Between one man and one woman. As opposed to a woman marrying her fridge, SSM, co-habitation, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, incest, bestiality etc. That sort of thing.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Why is polygamy excluded? It has longer tradition that Christian marriage and it is Biblical?

          Is interracial marriage a traditional Christian marriage?

          • Albert

            You are on to something here. Polygamy is much easier to defend than same-sex marriage.

          • Linus

            Who needs to defend same-sex marriage? It’s an acquired right and is not under any credible threat, at least not from any group capable of mounting any kind of serious challenge.

            The recent massive victory of same-sex marriage in the Irish referendum shows just how accepted the concept is even in socially conservative countries. So no defence is necessary. Not in the face of such weak and pitiful opposition.

            Polygamy on the other hand is difficult to defend because it disadvantages women, so the feminist lobby won’t let it happen.

            Let’s face it, straight white men and their hangers-on are no match for the power of girls and poofters.

          • Albert

            Who needs to defend same-sex marriage?

            I was talking intellectually and morally Linus. I recognize that no one needs to defend same-sex marriage intellectually and morally, since the discussion was never in that neighbourhood anyway.

            Polygamy on the other hand is difficult to defend because it disadvantages women

            You can’t say that! That’s just a nasty prejudice that has no place in the modern world. If two women wish to be married to the same man who are you to judge that it disadvantages them? You entirely miss the problem caused in our society: because women have to go out to work, many women have to go to work even though they don’t want to, or doesn’t suit their family. This results in more strain on those families, inadequate childcare, more family break down and the attendant suffering for children and the rest of us.

            In polygamy, you get a situation in which, say, one woman may want a career but also wants proper child-care for her children But another woman wishes to stay at home and look after the children. Now if these woman, love the same man, and they are happy with the arrangement, who are a bunch of retro-feminists and homosexuals to judge it disadvantages them? For a woman who is single because there are not enough men to go around, do you have any idea how much suffering is involved for many women when they are childless? Why not let one man have two wives, and let the childcare work out for everyone? Who are you to judge that to be wrong, and on what grounds?

            And what if one woman wishes to be married to two men? Your assumption that it would be the other way around is just sexist.

            But as for two men or two women marrying each other, I cannot see any grounds for that.

          • Linus

            What will decide whether polygamy is legalised in the future will be political support backed up by a definitive swing in public opinion.

            Feminists and the LGBT community have a pretty good track record when it comes to influencing both polticians and public opinion. Christians and polygamists do not.

            But by all means lobby for polygamy, which you don’t really want to see, but are apparently willing to countenance in the vain hope that it will elicit some kind of conservative backlash that will result in same-sex marriage being outlawed.

            It’s a rather Machiavelian plan. Or it would be if it weren’t quite so short-sighted. Firstly, there just isn’t a groundswell of public opinion in favour of polygamy, so no government will waste precious legislative time on measures to legalise it. And secondly, as you don’t give a damn about those who may have genuine reasons for wanting a polygamous marriage, but only want to use them as a weapon against the gay community, the hatred and animus behind your plan is plain for all to see.

            If I wanted polygamous marriage legalised, I’d be staying well away from you and your cold-hearted and insincere support. Imagine instrumentalising real human beings and their hopes and dreams just to use them as tools to get back at those you hate because they refuse to br bound by your superstitious nonsense. Now there’s a pretty convincing definition of pure evil!

          • Albert

            What will decide whether polygamy is legalised in the future will be political support backed up by a definitive swing in public opinion.

            Absolutely. In a sense, that is my point. If logic, morality and reason were in the driving seat, it would come about because the principles behind it already exist (thanks to same-sex marriage). But as I said, such things are not the driving force behind our laws.

            Christians and polygamists do not.

            Because excepting people like Luther and Milton, they don’t exist. I’m not in favour of polygamy. I simply think it is easier to argue for than same-sex marriage. Easier in a moral and intellectual sense, I mean.

            but are apparently willing to countenance in the vain hope that it will elicit some kind of conservative backlash that will result in same-sex marriage being outlawed.

            No, I’m just pointing out where the logic goes and that it does not go in a direction anyone accepts. That’s a normal way of showing something lacks intellectual credibility.

            It’s a rather Machiavelian plan.

            It’s neither Machiavellian nor a plan. It’s just pointing out the absurdity of the SSM position.

            And secondly, as you don’t give a damn about those who may have genuine reasons for wanting a polygamous marriage, but only want to use them as a weapon against the gay community, the hatred and animus behind your plan is plain for all to see.

            The pricniple of parsimony should prevent you from making such statements. I have good reason to oppose SSM. I think it makes no sense. I think it logically entails polygamy. You don’t need to bring in any hatred and animus, the facts are explained without that. And as I say, there is no plan. I am merely commenting on the intellectual absurdity of the situation.

            If I wanted polygamous marriage legalised, I’d be staying well away from you and your cold-hearted and insincere support. Imagine instrumentalising real human beings and their hopes and dreams just to use them as tools to get back at those you hate because they refuse to br bound by your superstitious nonsense. Now there’s a pretty convincing definition of pure evil!

            I am not offering support, sincere or otherwise. I am following logic – and I note that you have said nothing to refute that logic – except to point out that it will not be followed of course (equality, isn’t quite so equally distributed, you see). Is pointing out the logical conclusions of something superstitious? Is it evil, in itself? I really don’t see how.

            But if you think your position is so watertight and anyone who opposes it is (what have you called me) evil, motivated by animus, insincere, superstitious etc., then it should be easy for you to show both how one can support SSM and oppose polygamy.

          • Linus

            There is no logic in your position because it is based on a dogmatic belief that the stories told in ancient manuscripts are real and that marriage was instituted by an invisible sky fairy, to remain unchanging and inviolable for all time, because you say so.

            If you can show me this invisible sky fairy or provide reasonable proofs of his existence, AND he confirms that the Bible is his written word and must be obeyed, then your logic might stand. But as it is, the entire edifice is built, not so much on foundations of sand, as no foundations at all. Fresh air, in fact. Or rather stale air, endlessly breathed and rebreathed until completely depleted of oxygen.

            Marriage is a purely social institution that has varied in nature over time. Our society has redefined it to include same-sex couples. Future societies may redefine it again to include polygamous relationships once again. Anthropological evidence backs this up. Where’s your evidence for marriage as a divine institution? No, let me guess … the Bible … and Tradition … and the ludicrous and completely discredited pseudo-science you call “natural law”.

            With evidence for that you’ll never want for moonshine. Indeed that seems to be all you need.

          • Albert

            Well, this is what I asked you:

            if you think your position is so watertight and anyone who opposes it is (what have you called me) evil, motivated by animus, insincere, superstitious etc., it should be easy for you to show both how one can support SSM and oppose polygamy.

            And your reply?

            There is no logic in your position because it is based on a dogmatic belief that the stories told in ancient manuscripts are real and that marriage was instituted by an invisible sky fairy, to remain unchanging and inviolable for all time, because you say so.

            That being so, my point stands:

            if you think your position is so watertight and anyone who opposes it is (what have you called me) evil, motivated by animus, insincere, superstitious etc., it should be easy for you to show both how one can support SSM and oppose polygamy.

            I can only marvel that you have not answered the point under the circumstances.

            As for the rest of my beliefs, I can give reason for them, but I think on this occasion, I’ll wait to see if you can answer my above challenge and also show me why I should only believe things if I can provide reasonable proofs for them.

          • Linus

            I too can give reasons for my beliefs, but at the end of the day, I don’t have to, because my beliefs prevail. I don’t have to justify them to anyone.

            The victor is under no obligation to explain himself to the vanquished. I’m under no obligation to justify my marriage to anyone.

            No matter how fake you believe it to be, the fact remains that it’s legally valid. No amount of ire and invective and faulty logic depending on far-fetched dogmatic beliefs about imaginary spiritual beings can change that.

          • Albert

            There are different kinds of victories aren’t there? There is the victory of power and there is the victory of the intellect. I was hoping that your undoubted victory of power would be matched by your victory of the intellect. But you have foregone even trying for the latter.

            Perhaps that’s a kindness to me. Or perhaps it’s because you can’t provide a coherent answer to my question.

            And BTW, if Communism can fall, almost over night, so can SSM, and if people who support the latter cannot provide a coherent defence of it, I wouldn’t hold out much confidence for its longevity.

          • Linus

            When victory has already been secured and the vast majority of the population convinced by clear and cogent arguments, there’s no need to provide further explanations to those who willfully refuse to understand the causes of their defeat. It’s best to let them continue to think of themselves as better and more intelligent than everyone else, but defeated only because the rest of Mankind is stupid and evil.

            If I don’t leave your narcissistic superiority complex intact, who knows what you might do? I don’t want to be responsible for causing you to snap and take out your local chapter of PFLAG, or go postal in church like a certain Christian fascist did a few months back when he shot himself in the head in front of the altar of Notre-Dame de Paris in response to the passage of the equal marriage laws here in France. One less opponent and disarray in the ranks of the extreme right meant the next Manif pour tous was just that little bit smaller than the previous one. If they carry on like this we’ll be rid of them all in 50 years or so…

            Losers can be very volatile and much as their disappearance from the scene is welcome, if it comes at the price of human life, I can only deplore it. So if claiming that they’ve snatched intellectual victory from the jaws of every other kind of defeat calms them down and prevents the kind of violence and mayhem that religious obsessives backed into a corner can and do cause, I can live with that.

            And I can also live with their bitter and tremulous refusal to recognize my marriage. It makes no difference to me because everyone who needs to recognize it does, and the opposition of a few religious whack-jobs doesn’t change that.

            It’s called being magnanimous in victory. Pity the other side can’t be noble in defeat.

          • Albert

            When victory has already been secured and the vast majority of the population convinced by clear and cogent arguments, there’s no need to provide further explanations to those who willfully refuse to understand the causes of their defeat.

            And yet you’ve taken the time to write such a long ad hominem reply, full of such faux concern for my welfare. Strange, that you didn’t think to write a shorter answer to the question.

          • Linus

            Poor chap, you really don’t cope well with defeat, do you? I see my concern for your welfare is well-founded. Think of it as “faux” if you like, but I assure you, I have no desire to see Christians committing melodramatic and theatrical suicide. I’m happy enough for them to stamp their feet and scweam and scweam and scweam until their faces turn blue. But suicide seems like an extreme response even for the most spoiled of children.

            Of course, my primary concern is for the effect it has on innocent bystanders. I’m told that a group of Japanese tourists was traumatised for life by the unfortunate incident at Notre-Dame de Paris. We can’t have deranged Christians wandering about the place blowing their brains out every time they lose an argument! It’ll play havoc with the tourist trade.

            Which is not to say that I don’t feel some compassion for the froot loop who topped himself. The poor man must have been very sick in the head to go to such lengths on a point of principle. Perhaps if the mainstream press hadn’t been quite so triumphant when the equal marriage law passed, he might not have been pushed over the edge. I don’t blame the press of course. It was a great victory and they had every right to celebrate it. But in victory we must always spare a thought for the vanquished, who if they’re pushed too far may lose control of themselves.

            Leaving Christians to gnaw on the bones of their defeat without engaging in too much triumphalism is the best way of ensuring they’re not pushed beyond endurance into futile but nonetheless dangerous acts of vengeance. That’s my policy with most of them, although I do make exceptions for the more coldly calculating, malevolent and homophobic individuals.

            Those for whom faith is merely a convenient means of imposing their will and power on others aren’t going to slit their wrists in a fit of pique just because they lost one argument. They’ll keep on fighting and the only way of putting them out of action definitively is to cage them. Metaphorically of course, with a network of laws designed to limit their freedom to impose their beliefs on others.

            We’re just about there in the sense that the courts are currently dealing with the last feeble attempts of Christians to challenge the law by the judicial route. As decision after decision goes against them, even the most stubborn Christian will have to admit defeat. Hopefully the gradual nature of the judicial process will give them the time they need to come to terms with their loss and move on. There will of course still be “martyrs to the cause”, but with every madman who tops himself, and every cake shop owner who demands the right to discriminate against gays, Christianity makes itself more and more ridiculous, and less and less dangerous.

            It’s all proceeding quite nicely, as evidenced by the increasingly shrill and strident nature of your accusations. Feeling a little hemmed in, are you? Claustrophobic? Like the walls are closing in? They are, although hopefully you’ll come to the realization that being prevented from imposing your faith on others is not the same as being in prison. It’s called “living in society”, which is something we must all do.

          • Albert

            This is very long. I don’t feel minded to read it.

          • Linus

            Probably for the best. Ignorance is bliss.

          • Albert

            I asked you a simple question and you haven’t answered it . Now you can hardly say it is because you have not had time because you have written very lengthy posts. Nor can it seriously be maintained because you do not wish to be triumphalist, for you are triumphalist to the point of being abusive.

            So I’m left wondering why you haven’t answered my question.

            Is it perhaps, because you can’t?

          • Linus

            Or is it perhaps because I can, but choose not to?

            Hang on tight to your delusions and dogmatic certainties. They’re all you’ve got left.

          • Albert

            But in the light of all the other evidence, why would you choose not to? Go on, go for the killer blow – if you can.

          • Linus

            The killer blow has already been landed, but unfortunately you don’t seem to be aware of it.

            If such things existed, I might be tempted to say you were one of those ghosts who doesn’t realize it’s a ghost, because destruction hit it so unexpectedly that it just doesn’t realize it’s dead. Ever seen that Nicole Kidman film “The Others”? There isn’t a strange mist around your house, is there? Curtains don’t mysteriously open of their own accord and you don’t hear strange voices in the room next door, do you? Stupid question, that last one. Of course you hear voices! You’re a Christian…

          • Albert

            Fine. What was the killer blow? All you need to cut and paste it, and then you won’t need to write such posts. Don’t be shy.

          • Linus

            Who said that I landed the killer blow personally?

            There are many cogent and clear expositions of the case for equal marriage available on the Internet. Go find them for yourself. I’m not going to do all the work for you. I mean, don’t Christians condemn sloth as a sin?

            Why do you expect me to give you everything on a plate? I have no interest in convincing you because I don’t need to. Whether you understand the reasons for your defeat or not, you’re still defeated. It’s your responsibility to understand why. Those who cannot learn from their mistakes are destined to keep on repeating them.

          • Albert

            Who said that I landed the killer blow personally?

            You mean you aren’t able to defend SSM without also entailing polygamy? You seem content to write very long posts, but strangely not to address the issues.

            Remember the fall of Communism.

          • Linus

            The issues are determined by society as a whole, not by a small minority of Christians who control nothing, yet seem to think they have a divine right to set the agenda for the rest of us.

            Bleat on all you like about polygamy. It’s a non-issue that I won’t waste my time discussing.

          • Albert

            The issues are determined by society as a whole,

            So this knock out blow was an ad populum?

            Bleat on all you like about polygamy. It’s a non-issue that I won’t waste my time discussing.

            Quite so. What you’ve done is waste your time avoiding discussing it.

          • Linus

            There is nothing to discuss. The “slippery slope” argument is a diversionary tactic dreamed up by Christians with the aim of frightening us into rejecting any change to their vision of marriage for fear of unleashing hell on earth. Polygamy is the bogeyman of choice because of its association with Islam.

            Such theories are beneath contempt and certainly not worth legitimizing with serious discussion. They’re evidence of one thing only: Christianity’s utter moral bankruptcy and the desperation of Christians to hold onto power by any means, no matter how low and despicable. Not to mention laughably implausible.

          • Albert

            I hadn’t even associated polygamy with Islam, but now that you mention it, why aren’t you in favour of having your logic applied equally to Muslims? Are you Islamophobic? Or do you have a general disdain for the equality of those with whom you disagree?

            Such theories are beneath contempt

            Beneath contempt or above your arguments? Now here you are caught. For you have made two claims:

            1. Here you have said my arguments are not worth legitimizing with serious discussion.

            But earlier you were saying:

            2. You do not need to answer the case about polygamy because the killer blow had already been landed – these can easily be found on the internet.

            Now if 1 is true, why would 2 be true? and why would you recommend that I Go find them for yourself if you do not wish to legitimize such discussions and they do not exist anyway? After all, if 1 is true then such arguments would seem not to exist and should not exist. On the other hand, if you commend such discussions to me as you did under 2. then surely they do exist, and by your commendation, you would seem to be legitimating them. In which case, 1. appears to be false, and I am left wondering again, why you don’t just answer the argument yourself.

            Do you see how puzzling it all is for the poor benighted, irrational and ignorant Christian? One minute you say one thing, the next you say another, after that you say a third thing and all this, while you support one thing which logically entails support for another thing, but which you do not accept, despite claiming the whole thing is about equality. Can you see why it’s a little difficult for me to just take your word for it that there are good answers to this logical problem?

            You see, I’m looking for a logically coherent answer.

          • The Explorer

            Is interracial marriage traditional Christian? No in the Deep South, but yes in Europe, if the couple are a man and woman. Polygamy is true of the Old Testament, but not of the New. Christ held up one man/one woman as the ideal model. “One flesh.”

          • Jon Sorensen

            Should we call “one man and one woman” marriage a fad as polygamy goes way further as 1 Corinthians 7? Polygamy is the traditional marriage.

            Tradition was and still is in many places that the marriage contract done by parents. Modern western marriage is fairly new. And what about marital rape? Wasn’t that legal in western Christian world? That was the Christian tradition.

          • William Lewis

            “Polygamy is the traditional marriage.”

            Not in this country.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You should read history. The Celts had polygamy. The second wives and concubines were common.

          • The Explorer

            The Celts had polygamy. They also left severed heads at the site of scared wells etc. The polygamy, and the severed heads, died out when the Celts got Christianity. Now they’ve lost it again, polygamy (without actual marriage) and the heads may be expected to return.

          • Sam

            Dude

            Frankly one woman is enough to cope with….

          • The Explorer

            Agreed Zuma in South Africa found it very expensive running four. He had to divert the funds allocated for road repairs to fund the palace for his fourth wife. But imagine the aggro she’d have given him if she didn’t have her own palace and the other three did? Doesn’t bear thinking about.

            And Ibrahim II of Turkey drowned all 280 of his harem. Imagine trying to keep all that lot satisfied: even if you did have (as he claimed to have) the stamina of a stallion. .

          • Sam

            Dude

            I’ve always wondered about the practicality of polygamy, so to speak. I think Mormons do polygamy so if I see one I’ll ask them. They’re always doing missionary works, in competition with Jehovah’s witnesses and Jews for Jesus, so I just ask if they’ve got something for me to read so I’m not bogged down in long conversations. I have 3 different versions of their bibles, plus I got the book of Mormon and other parts of their “Canon”.

          • The Explorer

            Polygamy’s a real disadvantage if you’re royalty. With the British system, say, there’s a gap of a year between princes. But if you were a Sultan with four wives all impregnated at the same time, the age gap between princes could be a matter of days, or even hours. Hence the first task of any new Sultan was to strangle his brothers in case they disputed the title.

          • …. more than enough.

          • Pubcrawler

            You should read some more history: neither the Greeks nor the Romans, nor the Germanic tribes, were polygamous.

          • William Lewis

            You should probably update your history. The UK isn’t a traditional Celtic culture.

          • Royinsouthwest

            The Celts have not had polygamy since the spread of Christianity through Wales, Southwest England, Ireland and Cumbria in the couple of centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Didn’t you read what Anton wrote in reply to you? From the very beginning the ideal was monogamy, one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve). Polygamy came in after the Fall.

          • Jon Sorensen

            There was never Adam and Eve, so there goes this hypothesis…

          • Royinsouthwest

            On the contrary, the story of Adam and Eve shows that from the very beginning the Jewish (and hence also Christian) ideal was monogamy, so there goes your hypothesis.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I guess marrying your sister and brother was ok also as Adam and Eve’s kids needed to multiply.

            BTW. I don’t see the “ideal” in Adam and Eve story. Where did you get that?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Adam (1 man) + Eve (1 woman) = a couple.

          • The Explorer

            Polygamy has not been sanctioned in European societies under Christian influence. Those are the ones we’re discussing here; British in particular.

            I Corinthians 7 is about either not marrying at all, or one man to one woman. A marriage contract arranged by parents (as in ‘Romeo and Juliet’) was still about arranging the marriage of one male to one female. Marital rape as a concept came in with second-wave feminism, displacing the old concept of ‘Decretum Gratiani’. But marital rape is still about one husband raping one wife.

            Polygamy (or at least multiple co-habitation) may be expected to increase as Christian influence on the indigenous population declines, and is already an issue with the new Muslim population when it comes to welfare payments. But fr all the time that Britain was a Christian-influenced nation, man-woman monogamy was the ideal.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Polygamy has not been sanctioned in European societies under Christian influence.”

            Christians changed the meaning of traditional marriage and now claim that they have a traditional marriage.

          • The Explorer

            True, and as paganism returns, so will pagan sexual practices. (And other practices: we’ll probably be drinking beer out of the skulls of our enemies). But, for a long while, while Christianity influenced society, monogamy was the norm.

          • Pubcrawler

            Monogamy was also the norm for the pagan Greeks and Romans, and (according to Tacitus) the German tribes as well. So it’s not just a Christian thing.

          • The Explorer

            Tacitus only praised the Germans in order to annoy the Romans. But, yes, I agree polygamy has been a minority practice worldwide.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Even in polygamous societies unless a minority of men possessed possessed the majority of women, most marriages would have been monogamous.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Yeah, paganism is raising. Well at least society has improved a lot lately and seems to be getting better. But who know the future…

          • Pubcrawler

            “Polygamy is the traditional marriage”

            If it’s not been practised for two millennia, then it’s not traditional, it’s recidivist.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Christianity had existed for about 1,500 years before there were any whites in the Deep South. Therefore past attitudes to inter-racial marriage in the Deep South have nothing to do with Christianity.

          • Anton

            Interracial – yes, the biblical view is that all are children of Adam.

            Polygamy – not outlawed in the Old Testament, and arose historically when a wealthy man could afford to support more than one wife-and-her-children. But the original plan was for monogamy (Genesis 2), the entire Bible says not a good word about polygamy, and in the New Testament Paul is clear that Christians should be monogamous (1 Corinthians 7). We do not, however, live in a society in which most people profess Christianity…

    • Jill

      No mention of family on his website either. He did not vote on gay marriage, though.

    • An unedifying and inappropriate comment, based on the most cursory survey of the internet.
      “No matter what the
      result reveals in the next few hours, Mr Spencer has promised to take his wife
      of 19 years, Claire, away for the weekend for a well-earned break.”
      http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/general-election-2015-mark-spencer-arrives-at-sherwood-count-in-ollerton-1-7250547
      Your causal conjecture is undignified.

      • Anton

        I disagree with “well-earned”.

        • Royinsouthwest

          What have you got against Mrs Spencer? Why shouldn’t she have a holiday?

          • Claire, Mark’s wife, and his parents, help him run a Garden Centre. It has a Maize Maze and a Coffee Shop. Busy lady.

      • Shadrach Fire

        My apologies. Wiki normally have these things correct.

        • Wiki isn’t incorrect on his marital status, just silent.

  • preacher

    Excellent, Dr Cranmer.
    A testing time indeed, but Cameron has been defeated in the past & he will be in the future. Whether this will be a defeat or a victory is of little consequence in the short term.
    The gauntlet has been thrown down, the question is, will we pick it up & if so, how many ? Thankfully, Mark Spencer has accidentally blown Cameron’s cover & shown his hand.
    The things that are the greatest trials are the things that strengthen us most if viewed & handled correctly.

    We must stand up for what or who we believe in. The struggle for power has always been a shadow World of dodgy deals & mutually beneficial agreements.
    We must not make the mistake of taking our eyes of the ball & getting dragged into a pointless squabble with a group that are being set up as a target & a diversion, even if they don’t recognise it at the moment.

    The real question is one of freedom of choice, belief, will & speech. To equate these with radical terrorism is simply a very unsubtle attempt to use fear to grab more power & reduce all of us to faceless voiceless drones. Orwell was ahead of his time it seems, but on target with his vision, even if he got the date slightly wrong.

  • Albert

    Surely Dr C, if Cameron does not force his MP to withdraw his offensive, hate-filled attack on freedom, you ought to resign your membership of the Conservative Party (assuming you have one).

  • Little Black Censored

    Section 28 certainly caused “outrage” (as common-sense measures always do) but how did it cause “oppression”?

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    It is ironic that a Prime Minister acutely sensitive to the outrage felt by Section 28 should be so keen to legislate for a Christian equivalent

    If Cameron didn’t suck up to Big Gay, he’d be a moral pariah, as explained in this article on the Occidental Observer website:

    ‘Two Harvard-educated (non-Jewish) homosexuals, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, authored what can only be described as an incredibly successful blueprint for marketing the radical homosexual agenda in the United States. In their 1990 book entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, they advocated the demonization of those opposed to homosexuality, painting them as evil as possible until the general public comes to view such people as moral pariahs and avoids them. The authors suggested that Christians and others opposed to homosexuality should be labelled Klansmen, Nazis, racists or unbalanced freaks.’

    Cameron can live with the anti-Christian label (which, in any case, is becoming a badge of honour) but it would be political suicide to be perceived as anti-gay.

    By the way, in its examination of media influence, the article cites a column by Jonathan Chait, ‘The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy Is on Your Screen’:

    ‘think of it from the conservative point of view. Imagine that large chunks of your entertainment mocked your values and even transformed once-uncontroversial beliefs of yours into a kind of bigotry that might be greeted with revulsion. You’d probably be angry, too.’

  • Orwell Ian

    To use anti-terror powers against Christian teachers who say same sex marriage is wrong is discriminatory. Christian objection to SSM is non-violent and relies on persuasion, unlike Islam with its brutal remedies. The press seem convinced that only Christian teachers are being threatened with EDO’s. Blessed are the Muslims for they can continue say whatever they like?

  • If I am 1,000 miles from you, I am an extreme distance from you. And, since that distance is between US, YOU are an extreme distance from me. Extremism now means ‘a long way from the new State religion of Nihilism’. As the State moves ever further away from Reality, so the citizens of Reality become ever more extreme in the eyes of the State.

    • Albert

      If I am 1,000 miles from you, I am an extreme distance from you. And, since that distance is between US, YOU are an extreme distance from me.

      Excellent point. So when Spencer calls us extremists, he is, from our perspective an extremist!

  • CliveM

    Is this another example of the slippery slope in the application of the law?

    Can’t be that never happens.

  • We can have either the law of the Holy Scriptures or mans law

    • Royinsouthwest

      Jesus who, despite your adopted name, was a Jew, said “render unto Caesar …” That does not mean however, that we should not try and influence the law in a democratic society.

      • The Holy Scriptures do not say Jesus was a Jew.

        You did not quote the whole verse:

        Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

        What was Caesar’s? The money. What is Gods? Our submission:

        James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

        Why not proclaim the law of the Holy Scriptures? Mans law is corrupt.

        • Albert

          The Holy Scriptures do not say Jesus was a Jew.

          I love sola scriptura!

          • The Explorer

            It’s not the scriptura that’s the problem; it’s the people reading it. The problem isn’t confined to scripture.

          • CliveM

            It would be difficult to argue from Scripture that he isn’t a Jew, but vey easy to argue that he is. The Messiah after all had to come from the line of David! Matthew 1 gives the genealogy.

          • The Explorer

            Yes, I’ll be interested in seeing the scriptural evidence to the contrary. As of moment of typing, it hasn’t been forthcoming.

          • Albert

            How about this: “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me.”

          • The Explorer

            Yes, he’s a good argument against the validity of Sola Scriptura. But his scriptura (this ‘honest’ version of KJV) seems unusual, as well as his interpretations.

          • Albert

            Certainly, and although his position doesn’t stand up, the fact that he can make it at all is telling. It’s a common experience for me of course to find someone telling me that my position isn’t biblical, that my Church is just human tradition etc. I’m quite enjoying watching someone make the same comments of Protestants!

          • Well, it was protestants that started the practice of publishing unauthorised translations and changing the odd word here and there to suit their own theological inklings and interpretations.

          • The Explorer

            Yes if your doctrine does not fit the wording of Scripture, there are two solutions: change your doctrine, or change the wording of Scripture. The JW’s are particularly bad in this respect: one always needs to counter their Bible with a standard version.

          • This?

            John 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

            Here Jew is translated from Ioudaios – Judaean. Pilate was the Governor of Judea. He even tells you it is a geographical term: “Thine own nation”.

          • Pubcrawler

            The word used, ethnos, is not a geographical term. Nor, strictly speaking, is ‘nation’.

          • It requires study. If say 95% of a particular group of people are racially homogeneous and live in the same area it is easy to understand how race and geography became interconnected in that term over time.

            Pilot did not know what what was going on and was unable to differentiate at level below Judea, the Nation. This is shown in John 18:35.

          • Pubcrawler

            It requires study, yes: of Greek. The rest of your comment is pure speculation, not based in any way on the actual text of the Scripture that you assert is your touchstone.

            Here and elsewhere you contort (to be polite) the interpretation of the text to fit your a priori claim that Jesus wasn’t a Jew. That won’t do. That won’t do at all.

            Out.

          • Study of Greek does not trump study of the Holy Scriptures. Scripture defines Scripture. Two or more witnesses?

            I understand your approach, focusing on the Greek and do not wish to denigrate that but it I am not unnerved by appeals to authority.

            I know that ethnos, is not STRICTLY a geographical term. Nor, strictly speaking, is ‘nation’. Tell that to the KJV translators.

            There was a majority ethnos in Judea at the time of “Thine own nation” John 18:35. When there is a majority ethnos in a geographical region then that ethnos are often called a nation. The meanings fuse together. Do you know of a counter example?

            For others who might be interested read this:

            http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1484&t=KJV

          • Albert

            Good point. The trouble is, that term, as a Geographical one refers to to area around Jerusalem. But Jesus was from Galilee – as Pilate knew. So Pilate was clearly not referring to Jesus as a Jew in a geographical sense. In any case, I don’t think this distinction would have made much sense in the culture.

          • What verse would you offer for:But Jesus was from Galilee – as Pilate knew. I know of one but maybe you have more.

            Yes. Jesus was from Galilee. After he was activated he spent a lot of time in Judea and that is where the real drama happened. Judea was the center of the dominant religious power as far as Pilate was concerned not Galilee. When he says “Am I a Judean”? It is rhetorical. He is saying that the dominant religious power in Judea has kicked up such a stink and brought you here but how do you expect me to know what is going on? I am a Roman! You tell me what you have done!

            What did Pilate care about the local religion?

            He did not say “Am I a Galilean”?

            The distinction would have made a lot of sense in the culture. John 1:46

          • Albert

            Luke 23.5-6.

            It is rhetorical.

            Clearly it is rhetorical, but it is the whole passage that matters, that his own people have handed him over. Moreover, I think your exegesis is unconvincing, how do you expect me to know what is going on? If “Jew” means simply a geographical/political term, then Pilate’s words make no sense. For in that case, this is not a question of “religious power” but of political jurisdiction, and Pilate most certainly is the political power. He is in the dark about it all because it is a religious issue, something between Jews. He is saying “Your a Jew, and even your own people, the Jews have handed you over, you’ve got some questions to answer.”

            What did Pilate care about the local religion?

            Nothing, but he cares about the people in his power, and if this Jesus is so troubling that even his own people hand him over, he has to take notice.

            I cannot see the significance of John 1.46.

            I have a couple of questions: firstly, do you disagree that Mary was a Jew? Secondly, why does it matter to you that Jesus was not a Jew?

          • Luke 23.5-6.
            Great. Thanks for that.

            The English word Jew in the Gospels can mean:

            1)any resident of Judaea
            2)a descendant of Judah resident in Judaea
            3) an Israelite resident in Judaea
            4) a member of the dominant religious power of Judaea
            resident in Judaea
            5) probably some others!

            the context supplies the additional meaning.

            I need to stop you very early on. You say that his own people have handed him over. Who, logically, handed him over to Pilate?

          • Albert

            I just don’t see that any of this gets us to doubting Jesus was indeed Jewish. Pilate knows Jesus is from Galilee, but he calls Jesus a Jew. Given that, none of the points suggests to me anything other than that Pilate spoke of Jesus as a Ἰουδαῖός, in any sense other than he was Jewish (a meaning that you don’t quite seem to have included in your list). This would also seem to be the meaning of John 4.9.

            You say that his own people have handed him over. Who, logically, handed him over to Pilate?

            Not sure where you’re going with this. “If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.” The “they” here is the chief priests and pharisees. Logically, then those who handed him over were Jews.

            But let me repeat the questions you have not answered:

            firstly, do you disagree that Mary was a Jew? Secondly, why does it matter to you that Jesus was not a Jew?

          • Pilate calls Jesus a Judean. That is where the commotion was. If it had happened in Samaria then he would have said :Am I a Samarian?

            That is the area of his domain. Pilot is a Roman and is not interested in the dominant religion. He thinks in terms of geographical dominion.

            It is a red herring to focus on the fact that Pilate knew Jesus was from Galilee. Why would he care about Galilee?

            Pilate’s political jurisdiction trumps the Pharisees “religious power”. It is just temporal power and it is all exercised in Judea by a Roman and then over Judeans over other Judeans.

            When you introduce that term Jewish what do you mean:

            combinations of:

            1 racially Jewish
            2 religiously Jewish
            3 culturally Jewish

            You look back in time and attach meanings to words that meant something else when they were first written down.

            Where does Jesus say the chief priests and pharisees are his own?

          • Albert

            I’m happy to carry on this discussion with you, but I do think it is now time that courtesy as much as anything else required you to answer my questions. I ask them for the third time:

            firstly, do you disagree that Mary was a Jew? Secondly, why does it matter to you that Jesus was not a Jew?

          • firstly, do you disagree that Mary was a Jew?
            Mary was an Israelite.

            Secondly, why does it matter to you that Jesus was not a Jew?
            I am interested in the truth.

            Where does Jesus say the chief priests and pharisees are his own?

          • Albert

            If you are interested in the truth, then please answer this: if Mary was an Israelite, was she not therefore a Jew?

            Where does Jesus say the chief priests and pharisees are his own?

            According to the passage, they are the ones who hand him over. Therefore, logically, that it who Pilate is referring to.

          • Do you have chapter and verse for where Jesus says the chief priests and pharisees are his own?

          • Albert

            No. To be fair it is Pilate who says it.

          • Just be honest. No need to use phrases like “to be fair”? This is about truth not winning an argument. I learned a lot by discussing these things with you. Thank you.

            You have made an idol of mans teachings. When the Holy Scriptures define who is Israel and who is not it won’t make any difference to you.

          • Albert

            Just be honest. No need to use phrases like “to be fair”?

            Steady on. I was generously conceding the point to you!

            <i.You have made an idol of mans teachings. When the Holy Scriptures define who is Israel and who is not it won't make any difference to you.

            This is why sola scriptura just doesn’t work. Down here, as a Catholic, I am often criticised for my beliefs. This is done always on the basis of what scripture is claimed to teach. The trouble is that there is so much disagreement. Some people down here are sure we are saved by faith alone, others might argue we should worship on a Saturday, not a Sunday, others that the Church should this or that polity, others that God changes, some argue against the Trinity and so on. In each case, people will tell me that I am not following the scriptures but man’s teachings. But I can’t help noticing that many of these commentators disagree with each other.

            I should say that you have argued what I had presumed would be an impossible case, rather well – better than I expect and certainly better than most people here manage to argue for more mainstream Protestant positions. But I’m not going to be tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine. All this manifold disagreement and certainty about scripture teaches me is that sola scriptura is false. After all, it isn’t in the Bible and therefore fails on its own terms.

          • Thank you for the detailed the reply. I look at it the other way 40,000+ denominations but one Holy Scripture.

            All the points you raised can be settled by scripture but the world hates the truth.

            John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

            But I can’t help noticing that many of these commentators disagree with each other.
            –They will all agree in disagreeing with me.

            I am here to learn from you all. Not convert you. That is up to the Father. How are we to pray? “Our Father” Luke11:2

          • Albert

            But 40 000 denominations all claiming to be faithfully interpreting scripture!

            Certainly, everyone agrees in disagreeing with you, just as you all agree in disagreeing with me and the Catholic Church. And so I draw the conclusion of the scripture that says:

            no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God…There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

            And every Protestant agrees with me in applying those words to every other Protestant.

          • As an example lets start with

            1) the trinity is not in the Holy Scriptures
            2) churches are not buildings in the Holy Scriptures
            3) the Holy Scriptures are above mans religions
            4) buildings are not places of worship in the Holy Scriptures

            How many denominations are left by now 400? 40?

            I could raise many more objections all based in Scripture to Christian doctrine and then those 40 would be angry. However you would agree with Protestants on the above and many other points.

          • Albert

            I don’t think you will find any Christians disagreeing with you on 3. With regard to 4, I wonder what you think of the OT Temple. As to 1. The word does not appear there, and I would argue that on Protestant grounds, the Trinity is not obviously taught in the scriptures, but the Trinity is the God who is disclosed in the scriptures.

            I would want to add:

            5) Sola scriptura is not taught in scripture.
            6) The perspicuity of scripture is not perspicuously taught in scripture
            7) The canon of scripture is not found in scripture.

            and
            8) Sola scriptura is plainly contradicted by scripture
            9) The perspicuity of scripture is plainly contradicted by scripture.

            And that means that I do not feel bound to prove everything from scripture, to every man’s agreement.

            Now it seems to me that the question of scripture, sola scriptura, church and tradition is far more important than the ethnicity of Jesus. Until someone can show me that I must believe sola scroiptura, then I am happy to conversations about scripture, but I cannot be bound by it.

          • Of course Christians disagree with me on 3) They believe whatever the Chief Priest tells them even if Holy Scripture contradicts it.

          • Albert

            Not quite, they believe that the interpretation given by the Pope/Church/their pastor/their conscience (delete as appropriate) is what scripture teaches. And that, of course, is true for you.

            But I’m puzzled, if you are so concerned for truth that you are so concerned about the ethnicity of Jesus, that you call yourself JesusWasNotAJew, and that you base that claim on sola scriptura, why will you not attend to my objections to sola scriptura. Here they are again:

            5) Sola scriptura is not taught in scripture.
            6) The perspicuity of scripture is not perspicuously taught in scripture
            7) The canon of scripture is not found in scripture.

            and
            8) Sola scriptura is plainly contradicted by scripture
            9) The perspicuity of scripture is plainly contradicted by scripture.

            It seems to me that if anyone of these points is true, then the whole position you defend, in common with most Protestants, simply fails and faithfulness and truth demands you look elsewhere.

          • Some things in the Holy Scriptures are clear and do not need interpretation.

            Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

            I believe what that SAYS. Christians do not.

            Anyway. If you like we can move on to discuss 5). What scriptures would you offer for it?

          • Albert

            Some things in the Holy Scriptures are clear and do not need interpretation.

            Which would seem to mean that some things aren’t. And the problem is that some things appear to be clear, but aren’t. How do you know which is which.

            Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. I believe what that SAYS. Christians do not.

            I don’t follow you there.

            If you like we can move on to discuss 5). What scriptures would you offer for it?

            Here’s 5: Sola scriptura is not taught in scripture.

            Now what that is claiming is that the doctrine isn’t there. Thus it’s not for me to provide scripture to show it isn’t there, but for supporters of the doctrine to show that it is there.

          • If Mary was an Israelite, was she not therefore a Jew?
            You tell me. Where does it say that in the Holy Scriptures?

            Do you even know what a Jew is?

            You said yourself earlier:

            Albert carl jacobs • a day ago

            It sounds like you’re agreeing with him: Jesus was a Jew isn’t the in Bible! 🙂

          • Albert

            I wasn’t actually saying that, I was saying that’s what it sounded like Carl was saying.

            As to Mary, what evidence is there that she was an Israelite, and how, by your definition, is that different from being a Jew?

          • Matthew 1:16 is the genealogy of Joseph.

          • Albert

            How about this: “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me.”

          • “It’s not the scriptura that’s the problem; it’s the people reading it.”
            Yep, joining Albert in scoring cheap apologetic points, that’s why there is an authoritative Church.

          • carl jacobs

            Strange. I was the one who recognized him and I didn’t need an authoritative church to do so.

          • No, “we” left you to it. You did well, though.

          • carl jacobs

            This ISN’T Sola Scriptura. This is Christian Identity. Or one of its first cousins.

          • Albert

            It sounds like you’re agreeing with him: Jesus was a Jew isn’t the in Bible! 🙂

          • carl jacobs

            A little help here, Albert? Not a time to score cheap apologetic points.

          • Albert

            Not a time to score cheap apologetic points.

            You are of course, entirely right – it is totally inappropriate for me to score cheap apologetic points.

            But I’m so enjoying it anyway! 🙂

          • Albert

            As you may notice above, I’ve now lent a hand.

          • carl jacobs

            Yeah, but I didn’t want “help.” I wanted help – to quarantine and isolate. You two … If there was such a thing as purgatory, you would have racked 500 additional years between you.

          • Albert

            Well then you’re in luck. There is such a thing as purgatory!

          • No. I am not Christian Identity.

            I want no part of that Christian term.

          • What is sola scriptura?

          • Albert

            Sola scriptura is the doctrine on which you are basing your defence. It claims to mean that the only authority for a Christian is scripture alone, and that what cannot be proved therein either isn’t true or doesn’t have to be believed. Hence your argument that the Bible never says Jesus was a Jew is an example of sola scriptura. It would make no difference to we Catholics, since we are not bound by sola scriptura (the doctrine, unfortunately, not being found in scripture). But even so, it seems to me to be the case that scripture discloses Jesus to be a Jew.

          • Thanks. I guess that is why I am not Christian but a follower of the Holy Scriptures.

          • Albert

            Interesting. When you say “that is why…” what do you mean by “that”? Honest question. I just don’t see the logic at the moment.

          • Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

          • Albert

            No, I don’t follow why that doesn’t make you a Christian. I can see why it might make you reject a Christian community that you think rejects the commandment of God in favour of their own tradition, but I cannot see why that would make you reject Christianity itself. Do you see what I mean?

          • Christianity prefers its traditions over the Holy Scriptures.

          • Albert

            Okay, that’s now just definitional. However, I’m intrigued that arguments that are used against Catholics are now being used against those who use those arguments against Catholics!

          • Then why not follow it?

          • Albert

            I meant that ironically! I love it in the sense that leads to strange conclusions. I don’t follow sola scriptura for many reasons. Among them the fact that it isn’t in the Bible!

        • The Explorer

          What race was Christ, according to the Holy Scriptures?

          • Jesus is a son of God. So he is Spirit rather than any particular race because God is spirit.

            He inhabited an Israelite body via Mary.

          • The Explorer

            I see. Do you define yourself as a Docetist?

          • An early Christian doctrine that the sufferings of Christ were apparent and not real and that after the crucifixion he appeared in a spiritual body?

            That would contradict John 20:27, John21:15.

          • Pubcrawler

            I was thinking more monophysite.

          • this: The Christological position called monophysitism asserted that in the person of Jesus Christ there was only one, divine nature rather than two natures, divine and human, as asserted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.?
            No. Jesus Christ was and always will be Spirit: John 1.

            He did enter a body.

          • The Explorer

            I think you’re right. Certainly, his definition of a Docetist showed we were talking at cross purposes. Carl Jacobs asked us not to engage with this chap on theological issues, so I didn’t investigate further.

          • Pubcrawler

            I’m with you. I think I’ve had my fill of his idiosynratic ‘exegesis’ as well.

          • Pubcrawler

            Oooh, I’ve just noticed:

            “Jesus is a son of God.”

            Interesting…

          • The Explorer

            I noticed that too? Typo? I think not. Because of Carl’s request, I didn’t query it.

          • The Explorer

            I’ve just been reading his exchange with you and Albert. I always wondered what sort of arguments the Nazi church must have used to say Jesus was not a Jew. Now I see.

          • Pubcrawler

            That ‘Khazar’ poppycock comes into it as well. Just wait and see.

        • Anton

          If you read the genealogies of Jesus given in Luke 3 and Matthew 1 you will find that Jesus was a Jew.

          • The Explorer

            I think he’s arguing Jesus wasn’t really human: just God inhabiting a body.

          • Anton

            OK, let’s ask him how come Jesus died on the cross.

          • Luke 13:32, Hebrews 5:8

          • Anton

            Which prove what, please – and how?

          • I am not here to proselytize.

          • Anton

            Nor to answer straight questions?

          • If I keep replying to these issues the thread will derail. Look at it all ready. I do not want that. Don’t take it personally.

            My main point is that mans law will wax worse and worse and we should be proclaiming the laws of the Holy Scriptures.

          • Anton

            I don’t take it personally. If the blog administrator wishes to curtail a subthread then he may descend from on high and do so. Until then, I consider that you are ducking a question relevant to your very name.

          • carl jacobs

            You do understand you are trying to have a reasonable conversation with the equivalent of the Klan, right?

          • Anton

            Yep. But thanks.

          • Luke 3:23-38, Matthew 1:1-16 are both of Joseph.

          • Anton

            OK, let’s take a step back. If you don’t believe that Jesus was human then you can deny that he was of any human tribe. Where do you stand on that?

          • Anton

            John 4:22: Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. “Ye” refers in context to Samaritan gentiles; “we” can refer to nothing but the Jews, of whom Jesus therefore counts himself as one.

          • That is a great verse. Must you use that word gentile?

            Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two Gentiles are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

            You see what they did there?

            Get a concordance and read for yourselves.

            KJV translates H1471 gowy one way when it suits them and another way when it doesn’t.

            The woman cannot be a gentile in the sense you mean because she says:

            John 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

            Who says “we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews”? the woman or Jesus?

            Also here Jews = Ioudaios in a geographical context. See John 4:23 where Jesus makes that clear.

          • Anton

            When Jesus says, in John 4:22, “we worship what we know” (and I have an English-Greek interlinear before me), to whom is he referring when he says “we”?

          • The context and previous verse tells you the woman says
            “we worship what we know”.

          • Anton

            Verse 21 opens: “Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, a time is coming…”. In verse 23 the speaker tells of the day when true worshippers will worship God in spirit and truth. these are evidently words of Jesus, who always speaks of spiritual matters with total authority. So verse 22, in between verses 21 and 23, is Jesus too. If you disagree then please indicate exactly where you think the changes between speaker take place in this passage.

          • Jesus says:
            “Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when you all shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. You all know not what you all worship”

            She says:
            ” we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews”

            Jesus says:
            “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

          • Pubcrawler

            On what linguistic grounds and indicators within the (Greek) text do you divide the speakers so?

          • You do not need that. Read the context.

            “we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews” this the woman talking about herself and the people in Sychar.

            If not then why immediately afterwards in 4:23 do we have Jesus saying “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth…” i.e. location is no longer important, Spirit and truth have replaced ordinances.

            4:23 contradicts “we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews” when is it is properly rendered “we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Judeans”.

            If a Catholic wrote it and said “we know what we worship: for salvation is of Rome” everyone at that time, when the gospels were written would understand exactly what was meant.

          • CliveM

            Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jew (Judaism being inherited on his mothers side), he was circumcised as a Jew, he worshiped as a Jew, he was crucified as a Jew, the Jewish authorities accused of blasphemy as a Jew, his mission was to Jews. The only people who don’t accept his Judaism are anti semitics with an agenda. There is no dispassionate reading of the Old or New Testament that says Jesus, the Messiah is or was anything other then Jewish.

          • Lots of points there. Pick one and we can debate it.

          • Anton

            If that is correct, why did John did not make it clear that she was speaking that line?

            And what of the opening of John’s gospel, “He came to his own; and his own received him not”? Who were “his own”?

          • Ask John.

            You tell me.

          • Anton

            After you…

          • Pubcrawler

            ‘Ioudaioi’ (in that verse in the genitive plural) is an ethnonym. What ‘geographical context’?

          • That word ethnic does not help. It conflates race, geography and culture.

          • Pubcrawler

            That’s not an answer.

          • The Judahites settled in Judea and became known as Judaeans. There are also the Edomites and others to consider.

            The woman is talking about the Temple and priests in Jerusalem: ” we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”.

            Its like a Catholic talking about Rome as the focal point for their religion with the Pope and St Peters.

            That is apparent given the response of Jesus in 4:23

            That word ethnic does not help. It conflates race, geography and culture.

    • carl jacobs

      Good Grief! You comment at Daily Stormer? My Dad was almost killed fighting people like you. In France. In “44. Take your brown shirts and your stench somewhere else.

      • Thats ad hominem not logical debate. Did the Nazis ad hominem the Jews?
        Are you sure you want to be a hypocrite?

        • carl jacobs

          I’m not a Jew. You would call me a race traitor because my ancestry is as “Aryan” as the night is long. And you don’t deserve logical debate. You think I don’t know what the Daily Stormer is?

          • I did not call you a race traitor. What is the point in fighting Nazis who ad hominemed Jews only to then employ ad hominem yourself. If you did that you would be a hypocrite.

          • carl jacobs

            Look, Julius, I know who and what you are. You didn’t come here by accident. You didn’t choose that nick by accident. You aren’t spouting the doctrines of Christian Ayranism by accident. You put that nick out there like a big red flag to draw attention, and divert this thread onto exactly your pet subject. Don’t bullsh*t me.

            I implore my fellow commenters not to debate theology with this individual. You are playing into his hand and giving him credibility he does not deserve. You are only legitimizing him by answering him.

          • My point is we can have either the law of the Holy Scriptures or mans law. Same thing happened to Israel. They said “Give us a King”. Now we have them and look at the mess we are in.

          • carl jacobs

            No, your point was to come here and start this argument in order to buy some legitimacy for your wretched little heresy.

          • When did debate turn into argument? You are still only able to offer ad hominem.

            I read about this horrible ”Extremism Disruption Orders” business and came across this site looking for commentary on it. Then I felt compelled to say:

            We can have either the law of the Holy Scriptures or mans law.

            The Holy Scriptures are legitimate. Mans law will wax worse and worse as it always has.

            You can have the last word on this exchange between us if you like for the sake of brevity of the entire thread.

          • The Explorer

            I disagree with you re debating with Linus, but here I can see you have a point.

        • Sam

          No. The Nazis were worse than ad hominem Jews on a blog comments section, as they wanted to exterminate us from the face of this earth.

    • Sam

      You mean like a Christian version of IS?

      • What is IS?

        • Sam

          Dude

          IS : Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant

          I can tell a fruitcake when I see I fruitcake. . I bet you’d be chopping off hands and gouging eyes because Jesus told you to do that if they cause to sin.

          • Ok. Thanks. Sometimes the Bible is literal. Sometimes it is not.

    • IanCad

      There are no Gentile gates in the New Jerusalem.

      • Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two Gentiles are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

        You see what they did there?

        • IanCad

          “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.”
          John 1:11

        • Pubcrawler

          What translation is that?

          • The (Honest) KJV. Get a concordance and check out the word gentile.

          • The Explorer

            There’s a dishonest KJV?

          • Last comment on this from me.

            Get a concordance and read for yourselves.

            KJV translates H1471 gowy one way when it suits them and another way when it doesn’t. Anyone interested whose time has come will investigate.

  • Philip___

    “And why do you suppose this debate is being framed around specifically Christian teachers?” It is entirely reasonable to suppose that. (Because the “British Values” in schools rules were actually designed to target Christian schools more than the Islamic extremist problem in some schools)

    “How many Muslim teachers does Mark Spencer believe will be classed as ‘extremist’ for teaching that marriage is between one man and (at least) one woman?” If he was honest, probably none. Given the evidence on how the “British Vales” in schools regulations were used against Christian schools, it is obviously reasonable to suppose the EDOs are primarily designed against Christians – at least Christian teachers, as Mark Spencer MP has admitted.

    Before the General Election, in drawing up its plans for this Parliament, I recall the government asked the homosexual lobby what they require the government to do for them next. One answer was to extinguish religious views that are not in line with what the homosexual lobby tells us we should think. Clearly measures claimed to be designed to tackle Islamic extremism are a convenient vehicle…

  • Royinsouthwest

    If Mark Spencer’s parents are still alive I wonder what they really think about gay “marriage”? Perhaps they would feel obliged to follow the PC line, but his grandparents and all previous generations of his ancestors would almost certainly have been utterly repelled by the idea. Does that mean that Mark Spencer comes from a long line of “extremists”?

    What about David Cameron? Does he think his ancestors, and those of his wife too, were all a bunch of extremists? Of course not. It is pretty obvious that the real extremists are the people who are so vehemently opposed to the view of marriage that was virtually universal in all all previous generations.

    What we can be certain about is that the PC types are itching to use Islamic terrorism as an excuse for cracking down on everyone opposed to PC views. We have already seen how Ofsted, an organisation founded to raise educational standards, has been perverted into an organisation for enforcing PC opinions in schools. Earlier laws against terrorism have been abused by local authorities to crack down on all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, e.g. people who do not clear up the mess left by their dogs.

    Our much vaunted legal system (at least it is “much vaunted” in the eyes of lawyers!) has permitted such abuses of the law. We also know that despite our so-called “human rights” laws, freedom of thought and freedom of religion have been under attack as never before, except in the case of followers of the “Religion of Peace”.

    Therefore we can be reasonably sure that laws against “extremism” will be used not so much against supporters of terrorism as against people who are guilty of “thought crime” for holding views that would have been regarded as mainstream just 10 years ago.

  • carl jacobs

    This law is supposed to be religiously neutral. The only way to prove that neutrality is to apply it to non-Muslims. Minor religions (in terms of nembership and cultural influence) don’t count in this equstion. You won’t prove neutrality by going after Hindus. It is therefore essential that the law be seen to address Christian “extremism” for the law to maintain its bona fides. The problem becomes one of finding Christian extremists. There aren’t a lot of options. The absence of violent opposition means it has to be based upon doctrinal “extremism” and rejection of homosexual marriage is a good option. It has few defenders in the culture and there exist plenty of Liberal Christians to vaccinate the enforcers against charges of discrimination.

    The irony is that it will only be used against Christians because there won’t exist the courage to apply it to Muslims. We aren’t Charlie after all.

  • IanCad

    JesusWasNotaJew is a buddy of Cameron’s.
    We should be scheming about how to reform the CP. Reclaim our lost rights and to return our country to the toleration and oddness that it was once so famed for.
    Now we are being distracted from our mission.
    Get rid of Cameron. We need new leadership now!!
    We must rise up and raise some Ned!

    • No. Isaiah 64:6.

      I just posted to make the point:

      We can have either the law of the Holy Scriptures or mans law.

    • Ivan M

      You “conservative” guys in the UK and US are really up a shit creek. The way I see it the system in both the countries, is gamed in such a way that so long as Holy Israel’s needs are taken care of, any libertarian or homosexual supporter can clam to be a conservative. Try this, let Cameron go full Monty on Israel and see how long he lasts.

      I mean who cares what happens in the US or UK as long as Israel is OK right?

      Let my right hand wither if I forget thee O Zion

      • IanCad

        Ivan,
        I really fail to see where Israel comes into this debate.

        • Ivan M

          Israel is the consolation for all the failures of the conservatives. As in we can’t do anything about Planned Parenthood, can’t hold the line on homosexual marriage, can’t do anything for the Boys Scout, can’t defend the liberty of a cake baker, and at present form will yield on polygamy and pedophilia, but hey as long as we have Israel we have tomorrow. See the phenomenon of the “cuck”servative for a striking meme.

          And behind all this stands the money of rich Jews always looking for a philanthropic angle to undermine morals.

  • grandpa1940

    I contacted my MP on this issue, and received a (for a change) fairly sensible reply.

    She stated, “The changing nature of international security threats mean that we must change the way we respond to those threats. More than ever this reflects how the threats we face are truly global in their nature and how integral things like social media are to the spread of certain ideas and ideologies.

    Whilst we are clear in the aims of the Government with this Bill, to limit and control the spread of extremism in our society, a goal which can be shared by all those in Parliament, we must ensure that the law is reflective of and appropriate to that goal.

    In relation to your comment regarding offering an opinion that may not be shared by the majority of the UK, I think that there is a clear difference between expressions of a view that is perhaps in the minority and efforts to wilfully incite hatred that would prompt other people to take violent action based on that opinion. But it is not enough to just be aware of that difference, that difference must also be clearly reflected between in any legal measures set out to tackle extremism.

    This is an issue that requires extremely careful handling and, in my opinion, needs constant and consistent review to make sure that actions and laws are balanced and not persecuting those with opinions that conflict with the majority.

    Please be assured that if I feel that the Government are trying to pass legislation that is fundamentally undermining the civil liberties and freedoms of the British people I will speak out against it.”

    The only part opf her reply which I personally would take issue with is the bit which states I am in a minority when opposed to homosexual so-called marriage. I reckon that I, and the mass of ordinary people who have not been seduced by the blandishments of the ‘gay-regiment’, are by far in the majority!

    • Thanks for posting that reply. It is interesting.

      What happens when the Government tries to pass legislation that fundamentally undermines the civil liberties and freedoms of the British people and she speaks out against it but no one else does?

  • Mungling

    I wonder how this would apply to New Atheists and “anti-theists”? I mean, there are no shortage of individuals who believe all theists are “sheeple”, extremists, and a public menace. Surely that’s about as inflammatory as anything most mainstream Churches would say about same-sex marriage. Actually, the efforts of most Evangelical/Catholic/Orthodox Churches to address the LGBT community charitably, I suspect that New Atheist rhetoric will be in greater danger of censure.

  • DanJ0

    This is indeed the equivalent of the iniquitous Section 28 thing, and it really doesn’t look at all good for freedom of speech in the long run. The problem is that the Government is trying to legislate against imams and Muslim teachers promoting anti-British values and this sort of stuff has been caught in the crossfire. I’d have thought if a teacher was teaching that same-sex marriage was morally wrong, rather than teaching that same-sex marriage is considered to be morally wrong by mainstream Christianity, the teacher ought to be clipped around the ear within the profession for being a bit crap instead of falling foul of the law.

    • Roger Sponge

      “the teacher ought to be clipped around the ear within the profession for being a bit crap”

      Why exactly?

      As Albert reminds us, Stonewall only started its campaign in 2010 and that it’s not so long ago that there was a gay lobby which was intent on destroying marriage. As he says, it’s all very confusing.

      Plus, of course, it’s not only “religious” people who are against SSM. This includes me.

      • DanJ0

        Why? you ask. Teachers surely should be teaching facts and approaches over their personal opinions.

        • Read the facts and statistics on the homosexual lifestyle.

          • DanJ0

            I’ll stick to the contents of the story, thanks. Go find someone else to be weird with.

          • More hypocrisy.

          • DanJ0

            Off you go. Shoo.

        • Inspector General

          DanJ0, what about a class outing to a gay sauna. They’ll be walking in the ‘facts and approaches’, what!

          • Ever read about the Swedish priest that the homosexuals targeted?
            Now we have the Scouts in America admitting homosexuals.

          • Inspector General

            They feel they have to, the BSA. If a so called discrimination suit reaches the Supreme Court, the damages will put them out of business. A sad end to a noble institution…

          • Best if the BSA voluntarily shuts down now. Its only going to get worse.

            Scoutmaster accused of sexual assault same day BSA lifts ban on gay leaders

            The 68-year-old was charged with aggravated sexual contact, luring/enticing a child, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

            http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/after.bsa.lifts.ban.on.gay.leaders.scoutmaster.accused.of.sexual.assault/49310.htm

          • Inspector General

            That will be working towards the pederasty badge then…

          • DanJ0

            Keep your wet dream material to yourself, there’s a good fellow.

          • Inspector General

            We just want the facts, dear fruit. Just the facts…

          • DanJ0

            Inspector, have you met JesusWasNotAJew yet? You’ll get along famously, I reckon.

          • Inspector General

            The fact finding outing then set off to a gay cruising haunt, a former public park, before ending the afternoon at a well known cinema chain where gay pornography was viewed on the big screen. On returning to the school, the children were issued with packets of extra strong condoms and vials of amyl nitrite.

          • DanJ0

            Have you considered changing your moniker to TheInspectorIsNotARepressedHomosexual for the duration? The two of you could pair up and see if you can convince people.

          • Inspector General

            Heh Heh! You’re rattled again. The Inspector feels on fine form tonight – what else will he come out with regarding that squalid lifestyle which is taking the country, nay, the Western world, by storm…

          • DanJ0

            Yes, rattled. That’s exactly what I am. Of course.

          • Inspector General

            Yes you are, hon. Repressed homosexual indeed! Your last throw of the dice…

          • DanJ0

            It’s usually my first response when you have another one of your episodes, isn’t it? You’ll be over to Pink News later on, no doubt, and perhaps even indulge in a furious walk past that pub on the high street. To “keep an eye on the blighters” or some such. 😉

          • Inspector General

            The gay bar in Gloucester is no more. Not enough custom. It’s open again but that blasted paedo flag isn’t flying anymore.

          • DanJ0

            Actually, to be fair, I’ve heard the Pink News lot declare that “of course the Inspector isn’t really gay. He’s just happy to help us out when there’s a rush on.”

          • Inspector General

            Rainbows are for children. Definitely not for men sexually interested in male examples. Grooming, the Inspector calls it.

        • This is true … Let’s sot the facts out, shall we?
          The facts are:
          God made men and women as complementary sexual beings – male and female. His purpose is to populate the earth with people open to His invitation to know Him and spend eternity with Him. This purpose of populating the earth is achieved through the natural gift of sex which, in man, has to be morally directed. Thus, it’s expression is confined to lifelong marriage between a man and a women, who are physically and psychologically designed for one another. And, within this “one flesh”, the conjugal act is directed towards selfless acts of love, giving and receiving, and is open to life.

          That’s the way God planned it. And all of this is directed towards raising children in families where they learn about the love of God and His ways.

          Of course, all the above is considered to be an extreme and fundamentalist heresy from less enlightened times.

          • DanJ0

            If only the existence of the gods of various religions could be shown to be fact or fiction. As I’ve said in the past to the more loony religionists here, I’d be happy with the same choice as the angels (whose existence is not a known fact either of course). That’d be a true rebellion to walk away from a god who you know exists [1], and one actually worthy of punishment for doing so.

            [1] That’s not an invitation to that Calvinist fraud to pop up and play his broken record to me yet again.

    • And if the teacher is in a Catholic school giving instruction in sexual morality? He might want to teach that, according to the Word of God, homosexuality is immoral and intrinsically evil and that same sex marriage legislation is a law that should be resisted by conscientious objection and non cooperation. What then?

      • DanJ0

        As you know, I’d get rid of faith schools and be done with it. I’d rather schools taught academic subjects rather than indoctrinate children. I don’t want people like (say) Harun Yahya teaching his opinions in science classes under the cover of faith-based education.

        • So Catholic education on sexual morals would qualify as “extreme” and should be banned?

          • DanJ0

            Ah, welcome back again Dodo. If that’s how you want to, erm, reinterpret what I’ve actually said then feel free. I don’t need to be part of that.

          • Dodging Danjo?

            So, let’s see if Jack has got this.

            it’s okay to teach children that same sex ‘marriage’ is fine, healthy and legally available (and all the mechanics of ‘safe’ same sex acts). But teaching them a Christian understanding of God’s moral laws constitutes “indoctrination” and you’d “get rid of faith schools and be done with it”.

          • DanJ0

            I’ve simply refused to be part of your bog-standard Dodo reinterpretation thing. I’ll write my own words, thanks all the same.

          • Happy Jack loves it when you call him “Dodo”. So endearingly affectionate … You are a sweet, sentimental old Fruit …

          • DanJ0

            There’s nothing affectionate about it. Dodo is who you actually are, Happy Jack is merely your glove-puppet. I’m very aware of your homophobic history here, and your strategic changes of ID over time. So I just speak to the puppeteer.

        • Ivan M
    • Albert

      the teacher ought to be clipped around the ear within the profession for being a bit crap instead of falling foul of the law.

      A bit crap at what?

      • carl jacobs

        Now that’s an interesting question. If teachers are supposed to teach “facts and approaches over their personal opinions” then what is a teacher teaching if she says “Same sex marriage is morally right.” That strictly speaking is also a personal opinion. Or perhaps it represents more of a consensus. It certainly cannot be a fact since the existence of moral facts are excluded a priori. How then could it be taught within the specified bounds? Well, the existence of the consensus is a fact. So the neutral teaching would be “There is a present moral consensus that same sex marriage is right but these groups disagree.”

        Of course that is not what will be taught. The teaching will be “Same sex marriage is right, and these groups disagree.” The unspoken (or perhaps spoken) conclusion will be “And those groups are wrong.” But this is not a fact juxtaposed with a fact. It is a moral assertion and the logical conclusion of that moral assertion. We might call it an axiom and the conclusion its corollary. We have therefore departed the realm of teaching and moved into the realm of indoctrination. That’s a perfectly legitimate function of education but let’s at least admit it is being done.

        The teacher in question is not “a crap teacher.” She is simply not teaching the new axiom. She has defied the consensus of the age. and taught the opposing axiom. She has (in a word) refused the tasking of established indoctrination. And that for all intents and purposes is heresy.

        • DanJ0

          If the teacher teaches that same-sex marriage is morally right then my comment about being a bit crap as a teacher also applies, of course. None of what I’ve said is about extremism or anti-terror legilsation, it’s simply about what is appropriate in a classroom for a particular subject. For example, it’s not unreasonable to expect (say) Marxist analyses and perspectives to be taught in sociology, even by a dinosaur from the LSE, without indoctrinating the children into an anti-capitalist mindset or hiding one’s own personal Marxist leanings. Similarly, the existence and explanation of feckwittery such as young earth creationism is still something that is appropriate to be taught in RE (but obvious not in science) as an alternative view. Teaching about same-sex marriage and homosexuality is appropriate too. In RE it could be raised in relation to Christian and Muslim perspectives on morality, and in whatever class sex and relationships is taught now it could be raised as a sidebar to the mainstream without ‘promoting’ it. Reslly, how hard can all of this be?

          • The Explorer

            You’ve outlined the liberal ideal of education. It’s humane, enlightened, and I agree with it. I think it was the method used by St Paul in Athens. He put his viewpoint, but was quite happy for the Stoics and Epicureans to do so as well. Here’s the evidence: you decide.

            I think that approach died with Marcuse, who used ‘Repressive Tolerance’ to turn education into indoctrination. Censor reading lists, skew staff appointments; deny access to non-Marxist-approved viewpoints. Present what’s left as the only option available. That mind set, I think, is dominant today: particularly among those whose own higher education was shaped by it. Of course education is about indoctrination: what other purpose could it have?

          • I went to the LSE and I am a young earth creationist! 🙂

          • DanJ0

            I thought that all LSE alumni, every single one, were dialectical materialists!?

          • carl jacobs

            It isn’t hard at all. The position you outlined is both consistent and coherent. In fact, I had enough faith in your consistency to expect you to give that answer. But it is also a hopelessly naive answer. Education isn’t primarily about teaching facts and figures and approaches. Its first and foremost task is to shape the worldview. Which means this statement …

            If the teacher teaches that same-sex marriage is morally right then my comment about being a bit crap as a teacher also applies

            … although consistent is moot. Because that is exactly what the teacher will be expected to do. She will be expected to teach as truth the moral axioms that underpin the worldview implicit to the education. She will (in this case) assert them from an unspecified authority because she has no other way to establish them. And she will attack as immoral all those who oppose those axioms. So what does that sound like?

            She isn’t “crap.” She is doing the job expected of her. You can say “She shouldn’t do that job.” That may be your opinion but that opinion is irrelevant to the task of education – which has always been and and always will be the process of indoctrination. It is not just faith schools that indoctrinate after all.

          • grutchyngfysch

            Personally, I would outline the broad strokes of the different opinions, outline what the law of the land was, and then try to engender a discussion with the children which asked them to think about whether morality and the law are synonymous.

            I would use the “approved” exemplum of trans-atlantic slavery as an example where something which we think morally wrong today was once completely legal – but also as an indication that cultural morality changes as fashions do. That what our culture says is ethical today may well be unthinkable tomorrow.

            I can’t say I would see it as my duty to convince them of the sinfulness of gay sex – I’d put that as the responsibility of parents, and I know several parents who would be very unhappy about their offspring being taught that. I already think the pendulum has swung far too far away from parents in education, so as much as I would want to teach children what I believe is truth, I would be very hesitant to violate that bond. I do recognise, though, that this is a self-imposed handicap which liberal and secularist teachers will largely not observe.

            In church – in Sunday School, for instance – I do see it as my duty to prepare children to live as strangers in a foreign land, to equip them with Scripture to refute lies and hold fast to the truth. If children’s right to hold various beliefs has to ultimately be respected in the classroom, you might as well send in a generation of Samuels. Heck, Christianity might even be cool when it becomes apparent that it’s held in defiance of authority(!)

          • DanJ0

            The purpose of schools is primarily to create functional and useful members of society, I’d have thought. So, school children need to absorb facts and figures and techniques to enable them to interact with others and to understand how the world appears to work. So, most of them need to be numerate and literate to some minimum level and beyond. In our more enlightened times, being a functional and useful member of society also involves some combination of being able to use critical thinking, to think of innovative solutions to problems, to think outside the box, to be creative, to have manual skills, and so on. We live in a capitalist-like society these days and we tend to think of human nature in terms of personal fulfilment afterall. In less enlightened times, when Christianity was at its peak in England for example, perhaps being illiterate and unquestioning and subservient was useful for society but we’ve moved on from that now. You could call all that indoctrination if you like, and I’d agree to some limited extent. However, I’m more concerned with the proselytising and regeneration of specific religions in State schools irrespective of being a functional and useful member of society when I talk about such things. Let those things take place in the home, or Sunday school, or madrassa if parents want to indoctrinate their children.

        • Very helpful comments. This is all about which values a society adopts. There is no such thing as neutral education. If children are not taught a Christian worldview, they will be taught a God-rejecting worldview. The secular establishment should also remember that the very concept of universal education in Britain owes an enormous debt to the input of the Christian churches.

      • Anton

        Albert, I noted your comment that the thread on which we were having an exchange about divine immutability and the Trinity was closed. That would have done for a reason so I am not reopening that subject, but I’d like to revisit another comment of yours, about the Redeemer causing no hurt to the redeemed, specifically Jesus to Mary during His birth. Isn’t there a counterexample to this principle? By choosing to be crucified – and He said it was His choice – Jesus caused Mary three days of emotional pain, prior to his Resurrection, so extreme that it was described in scripture as a sword piercing her heart. I believe the principle upon which you base your assertion that his birth was painless to her is false.

        • Albert

          I think it was closed because it had been opened for a month.

          In terms of causing pain to Mary, I think it depends on what you mean by “causing”. A man can cause pain to his mother in two ways: he can do it directly, e.g. by attacking her, but he also cause pain indirectly. A young doctor for example, will cause pain by volunteering to go to some far off dangerous place to heal the sick, running huge risks for himself. But here it is indirect, and if, as a result of that mission, he ends up being murdered, he will, in a sense have caused her further pain. But no one would say it was the kind of pain that a son causes by attacking his mother. And it seems to me that Jesus’ case is most like that of doctor. He did not of course attack Mary, he did not even cause his death directly, he was simply faithful to God (which will have given Mary joy), and the pain she suffered was because of the evil of others.

          • Anton

            It is s step towards it.

          • Albert

            I just don’t get this logic. Saying “Jesus is the Saviour of Mary and therefore Jesus does not harm Mary” does not entail or give a step towards “Therefore, Mary is to be worshipped.” Surely the logic goes the other way: she who is saved, is not divine and cannot be worshipped?

          • Anton

            It’s a consequence of the idolatrous ascription of one of Jesus’ unique properties to her: that she is an exception to the Genesis 3 curse of painful labour because she is supposedly sinless.

          • Albert

            Actually, that’s not the rationale I gave, so I find it odd that you pull that out. But it just does not make sense that because we say that Mary is totally redeemed and sanctified by the grace of Christ from the first moment of her conception that therefore we are giving an idolatrous ascription of one of Jesus’ unique properties to her. It actually means the opposite. Or do you think Jesus saved by the grace of another?

          • Anton

            You know my answer to that. And your evidence for the assertion that “Mary is totally redeemed and sanctified by the grace of Christ from the first moment of her conception” is…?

          • Albert

            I don’ know your answer to that. I simply do not know how think Jesus was sinless, your argument against Mary being sinless, rather suggests that you think he was saved by the grace of another.

            As for my evidence, I would say that that is the interpretation of the Church, and that, as I have explained in considerable detail, there is plenty in scripture to support it. Now since you do not require a syllogism, I really cannot see how you can make the case you do. Of course, you can disagree with the interpretation, but you must see it is based on biblical reasoning. Moreover, since the doctrine is precisely that Mary is saved by grace, that necessarily excludes any ascription of divinity to her.

          • Anton

            “I would say that that is the interpretation of the Church”

            Your church. Not mine.

            “I don’ know your answer to that. I simply do not know how think Jesus was sinless, your argument against Mary being sinless, rather suggests that you think he was saved by the grace of another.”

            I don’t believe you think I reckon Jesus was saved by grace of someone else.

          • Albert

            I don’t believe you think I reckon Jesus was saved by grace of someone else.

            No I don’t believe that, but you have said some slightly strange Christological things, and so I was wondering. But as you don’t, that seems defeat your argument against the sinlessness of Mary. Not that I’m saying you should now hold she is sinless, but any suggestion that somehow we worship her or regard her a divine etc. no longer makes any sense.

          • Anton

            I don’t think you think you worship her (and I’m sorry if I gave that impression). It is a de facto thing.

          • Albert

            Okay, that’s great. But I don’t get the “de facto” bit, and I wonder what our argument was about!

  • len

    The anti terror laws supposed to control Muslim extremists are to be used against….wait for it ….Christians ….How strange?.
    The crime of Christians (well some Christians) is to point out that the God of the Bible condemns homosexuality. Well so does the god of the Muslims…so lets see how many MP`s speak out about imposing’ terror laws’ on Muslims.

  • Inspector General

    Come on chaps! You didn’t think LBGT bedazzled Cameron would leave it at gay marriage did you?

    But this time he really is up against it. Don’t expect too many MPs jumping on this latest Big Gay bandwagon. The ‘reaching out’ to children. They’ve been waiting for this opportunity for years, the activists. Here’s how it works. The reason people refuse to embrace homosexuality and homosexuals, if they are not of that way themselves, is that said people haven’t been ‘educated’ to embrace said condition, so they say. The theory is thus, if teachers lay it on thick at the desks, then everyone will be gay happy. Oh, yes, nearly forgot, this would be hand in hand with expelling the big sky fairy from school premises. Ground based fairies aren’t too keen on him hanging around threating to pervert young minds in thinking normally. What you get then is a new golden age of liberation, atheism, state sponsored buggery, and a revival of pederasty. All done for love, don’t you know, and anything done for love is good, good, good!

    Saints preserve us…

    Now, there shouldn’t be too much parliamentary support here. Aside from the very unpleasant (yet another) social engineering attempt by a perfidious Conservative PM, of all people, we should remember we have career politicians. And why not. They say the pay is very good these days. And career politicians keep their heads down. All it takes is one aroused mother or grandmother on the campaign, and their career could be wrecked. So this isn’t going to be a re-run of the gay marriage fiasco, that’s for sure.

    • Ground based fairies …” – like it.

    • avi barzel

      This you might find interesting, Inspector. Back in the eary 80s, when this madness began gathering momentum, a Canadian mainstream press journalist came up with a half page-long chart showing comparisons between the grooming techniques of pedophiles as listed by the FBI, and the Kinsey-inspired and the then proposed (now activated) modern sex ed curricula in primary and high schools. Back then, he could keep his job after writing the article and there were no human rights tribunals.

      Quite an astounding list of comparisons, right down to the optimal “order of operations.” I go on memory, so these include desensitization of kids to sex through texts, lessons, conversations, endless talk of birth control with passing out and showing how to use condoms and anatomical pics. Normalization of extramarital and underage sex by pushing Kinsey’s fraudulent studies about how everything is normal, how “normal and healthy” children are “sexual beings” with lusts and orgasms starting mere months after birth, how they are “naturally curious” and should never be “damaged” by having their “exploration” curtailed and so on. Parental authority was undermined by mocking parents as distant and uncaring or comical fuddie-duddies and contrasting them to off-beat, odd, “creative” characters (if not mentally ill types) who just loved hanging around and “mentoring” lonely kids to “reach their potential” and to “experience the joys of life.” What the author found interesting is that all the assumptions about children and sex could be sourced to Kinsey’s “data” assembled from criminals and pedophiles, and that pedophile grooming methods existed long before modern sex ed curricula, which they uncannily resemble.

      • Shame you can’t provide a source, Avi.

      • Inspector General

        Greetings Avi. Kinsey is rarely mentioned on PN these days. Trying to distance themselves from the all too obvious taint of paedophilia gay men carry with them. That and the fact that the gay thugs who post there haven’t heard of him…

      • Ivan M

        Yeah Alfred Kinsey, for whom no abomination is too far out. The master, and quite possibly the originator of the method whereby any perversion can be normalised, so long as it can be shown that X percentage of the population indulges in it. That the percentages are more often than not doctored or massaged, is just a service to the cause.

  • So an MP thinks that EDOs could be applied against a teacher who teaches that gay marriage is wrong.

    One of the reasons such a situation has arisen is because the politicians do not fear the voice of the churches, and this is because many churches have been so weak in their adherance to Scripture. Their opposition to the secularist gay rights agenda has frequently been muted, to say the least.

    Even many churches which uphold traditional marriage will nevertheless studiously avoid reference to homosexuality being sinful. Nor will they speak of God’s judgement upon sin.

    In addition to this, we have the widespread acceptance in the churches of civil partnerships, even though they are marriage in all but name, as if giving a different name to the union can somehow justify the breaking of God’s moral law.

    In the House of Lords in 2013, when the same sex marriage legislation was being debated, the leader of the national church stated,

    “It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should … be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage”.

    I attack no individual, but with the greatest courtesy and deference, this statement is a Bible-rejecting concession to the spirit of the age.

    In the light of such concessions we should not be surprised if the secular establishment has no qualms about mopping up via EDOs the tiny remnant of ‘madcap fundamentalists’ who happen to believe God’s infallible word concerning homosexuality and the seriousness of sin.

    What a stark contrast is the situation today to that of the 19th century, when the politicians would not dare act without first consulting the nonconformist conscience, imbued as it was by the authority of the Bible.

    • Anton

      There is no need to condemn any individual; they condemn themselves by their statements opposite to the Bible. Rowan Williams bears a heavy responsibility as well as his successor.

    • David

      Well put !
      I agree wholeheartedly.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      “Even many churches which uphold traditional marriage will nevertheless studiously avoid reference to homosexuality being sinful. … In addition to this, we have the widespread acceptance in the churches of civil partnerships…”

      When it comes to enlightenment, the secular world does sometimes get there first, as in this instance. It is good, however, that many churches are catching up.

      • carl jacobs

        What exactly is “enlightenment” and how do you know when you “get there”?

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          According to Chambers Dictionary, “enlightened” means “having or showing awareness and understanding and a freedom from prejudice and superstition”, and “enlightenment” means “the state of being enlightened; freedom from ignorance or superstition”.

          What exactly constitutes a state of enlightenment is, I suppose, largely and inevitably a matter of subjective judgment. In this specific context, I would say that it will certainly include the rejection of primitive beliefs about homosexuality and of psychologically and spiritually abusive attitudes to gay people and their sexual relationships. In my view, churches which studiously avoid reference to homosexuality being sinful, and in which, while traditional marriage is rightly upheld, there is widespread acceptance of civil partnerships are undoubtedly “getting there”.

        • derekbuxton

          You get a job as an MP!

  • Shadrach Fire

    Your Grace,
    I must assume you have a sharper search engine than most as the reference you quoted seems unique in the blogosphere.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    So Cameron’s assurances about freedom of conscience have turned out to be worthless. Not that it is a great surprise to anybody on this blog. I also wrote to my newly elected “Conservative” MP about EDOs, but it seems it was too much trouble for him to reply.

    So what now? Teachers have to teach that 2 + 2 = 5, or that Britain was never invaded by the Romans? You can only peddle so many lies before people stop taking you seriously. Just ask the ex-Soviet Russians. They were taught similar fictions about “equality” and man’s supremacy over God. That all worked out well, didn’t it? I don’t believe the majority of people in this country are quite as stupid as Cameron thinks they are. They only vote for him in May as an alternative to the horrors of tartan socialist takeover. Many people, religious and atheist, know that silencing the view that marriage is between one man and woman is fundamentally wrong, even though they probably dare not say it.

    According to an article on Anglican Mainstream, since the Supreme court bulldozed through the legalisation of gay “marriage” across all US states, there has been a significant nationwide decline in support for it. It’s a bit late of course, but it seems ordinary people are starting to grasp the totalitarian menace the LGBT community poses for free speech and freedom of conscience.

    • James60498 .

      I agree with all that.

      Just one minor point though. “they” didn’t really vote for him. Only 24% of registered voters were actually that stupid/crooked/ evil. He won the election because they carefully targeted their efforts and made the unfit system work in their favour.

  • len

    Christians (well some of them) need to ‘come out of the closet’ and stand up for what they believe in (The Bible mostly which is after all the Word of God they profess to believe in ) otherwise this vindictive manipulative all controlling secular humanist governing body will trample them and their beliefs into the ground (and God will say to luke -warm Christians that is all they deserve)
    Meanwhile to all those who dare to oppose all that is wrong in this present corrupt world system and to those who profess the Gospel of Jesus Christ… more power to you!.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I’m going off on a slight tangent here, but it’s still relevant. On this morning’s BBC Today programme there was a feature about why Chinese Schools are more successful than British ones. John Humphreys interviewed a Chinese teacher who had spent some time teaching in British classrooms as part of an exercise to see what the Chinese do better than us. The teacher explained she was surprised how chidrens education here had little to do with meeting the needs of society and was more about fulfilling personal desires. She was surprised too at the lack of respect for teachers, which she insisted should be absolute. She also stressed the importance of family values, and that the school should play an important role in this. Mr Humphreys and his British guest gasped in horror at the words “respect” and “family values”. She didn’t mention anything about the British sex education programme, but one would not have to be telepathic to guess her thoughts on it.

    Instead, his male guest (sorry I didn’t catch his name thouogh he was connected with education) said school should be about being “rebellious” and not about assimilating information. The culture contrast was very stark, and spoke volumes about why we are becoming a broken and nihilistic society.

    • Ivan M

      There was a time when fulfillment meant something different, it meant the kids study at their own pace, subjects that they love instead of being forced into a rigid schedule. But the teaching establishment took that to mean that teachers can just goof off claiming that the kids are seeking fulfillment like the Einsteins they are. The truth is most students are only of average ability or less. They need a foundation in core subjects, before that can tackle more difficulties. This can be obtained better by the maligned method of rote learning and intensive homework which Chinese and Indian schools excel in.

  • The Explorer

    If in Britain now, Christ and Muhammad would both be in prison for the seven-year (or whatever it is) maximum for innumerable examples of hate speech. And, of course, for extremist behaviour: non-violent in the case of Christ, violent in the case of Muhammad.

    That Christ would be in prison can mean one of two things:

    1. Christ was wrong.
    2. The laws on hate speech (and their EDO successor) are wrong.

    But to state no 2 explicitly (rather than hypothetically, as here) would itself be an example of hate speech, and make the perpetrator liable for punishment.

    • Linus

      Christ would be serving time for committing acts of vandalism in a place of worship. He would not be imprisoned for preaching what he is supposed to have preached, because nothing he preached is in breach of civil law. Even all that nonsense about men leaving their parents and becoming “one flesh” with their wives is perfectly permissible under the laws governing free speech. He never uttered any directly homophobic hate speech, at least none was recorded, although his remarks about other ethnicities might have garnered him a fine for incitement to racial hatred.

      Of course a messiah in prison for crimes against property doesn’t quite have the impact of a crucifixion, but I’m afraid that if he were here today, that would be the extent of his martyrdom. One wonders what the great Christian symbol would then be … Christ in an orange jumpsuit on a bunk bed, perhaps?

      • Oh, in any age, there would be people so driven by a demonic hatred of Him, despite whatever claims of tolerance were made, that would find a way to kill Him. They’d have to.

        • Ivan M

          I suppose you mean scum like the Linus creature. Sure, I can just see the fucker’s black leer.

          • He does display an excessive amount of hatred towards the Church and is full of contempt for Christians. And all because …..

          • Ivan M

            Boss, it was the homosexuals and the “objectively disordered” in the US Army or National Guard, who made the Iraqis strip and simulate sex acts even in front of the camera at Abu Gharib. Sad to say, I felt some satisfaction when I saw them, Muslim hater that I was then. But I have since become ashamed of it. It wasn’t mainstream US forces behaviour and there is a video of a stricken Donald Rumsfeld trying to come to terms with it.

            So to hear a shameless homosexual speak of orange jump suits featuring Jesus, really sticks in the craw.

          • Mike Stallard

            It is good when someone sees the error of their ways. Comrade, you still have some way to go. We are watching your progress.
            -Ministry of Truth.

          • Ivan M
          • Hate towards any nation, people or individual is a mark of the enemy.

          • Ivan M

            I cannot gainsay this.

          • Pubcrawler

            He’s an unpleasant character who is here to goad and bait. You bit, and see above how he vaunts.

          • Ivan M

            The fellow is too far gone for rational debate.

          • Pubcrawler

            Be that as it may, best not to fall into his obvious snares, thereby starving him of what he craves.

          • Mike Stallard

            Your words have been noted.
            -Ministry of Truth.

          • Linus

            It’s edifying to see the true face of Christianity reveal itself. The mindless gibbering hatred that lurks under all that fakery and lies about love and compassion should always give us pause for thought as we reflect on what the world would be like if Christians still ran it.

            But you don’t. So reading your violent and abusive diatribes is the Internet equivalent of looking at a mad dog in a secure cage. You can pity the poor beast, but only when it’s safely locked up.

          • Ivan M

            Sad but the truth is hateful.

        • Linus

          They’d have to … otherwise your religion would be meaningless.

          Christ not crucified would leave you without a god. So whatever the circumstances or the age, he has to die, doesn’t he?

          Have fun imagining all the ways your god could die…

          • Ivan M

            You are the base moron who has already imagined it for us with your orange glow jump suit.

      • The Explorer

        Christianity would agree that some things are hate speech. Christ didn’t mock the disabled; he healed them. (You may not believe it happened, but you must concede the recorded compassion.) Christ interacted with the Samaritans, and said all nations were eligible for salvation. A racist would not have done/said that.

        On the other hand, Christ upheld the Mosaic law: which is an endorsement of Leviticus 18. I disagree that his words on one man and one woman are perfectly permissible: isn’t that the whole point of this particular thread? He would be guilty of condemning both SSM and polygamy.

        The most damning statements are his claims to exclusivity – what does that say about other religions? – and his contention that some people are destined for Hell.. What’s that, if not hate speech?

    • Mike Stallard

      Comrade, I must ask you to learn how to spell the name of the Final Prophet. Your behaviours have been noted and this time there will be no action taken. It is also usual to place the letters pbuh after the Prophet’s name to show the respect which I am sure you feel for him.

    • It’s not always wrong to be imprisoned. Paul and Silas in Philippi were banged up in the inner prison, bound in chains after having their backs cut to shreds by their tormentors, they could have saved themselves the suffering and indignation by playing their “We are Roman citizens” card but chose rather to submit to the will of God for them which led to the salvation of the other prisoners and the jailer and his household.

      God one, devil none.

  • prompteetsincere

    Extreme Disruption Orders:
    whereby Colin Coward’s ‘mission’ for an ‘out’ HOB (2014:23 pro-ssm;22 ‘absent’; 1 dissent) is about to be canonized by Parliament;
    while Khameni’s ‘Plan for (an effaced) Israel and (Judenrein) Palestine’ gets a nuclear pass by the same House.
    As go both Houses, so goes the Nation – extreme disruption.

  • Mike Stallard

    Comrade, the government has only your good at heart. If you hold views which are hurtful in any way to others, your behaviours are unacceptable.
    – Ministry of Truth.

    • In WWI the government said the Germans were chopping off babies hands.

  • michaelkx

    my only comment is below
    For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    (Rom 1:16-32)

    • len

      It takes courage to speak the Truth in times of Universal deceit (quite revolutionary as Mr Orwell stated)

  • I am no Christian, but am appalled at this proposed misuse of anti-terror laws.