Cameron on extremism 2
Civil Liberties

Cameron can no more "destroy the Caliphate" than he can abolish the New Jerusalem

 

David Cameron’s long-awaited speech on Islamic extremism (aka Islamism) was sort of worth waiting for. As he expounded his ‘One Nation’ vision to defeat the “poison” of extremism, he peppered the strategy with important Conservative themes of “shared community”, “cohesive society” and “British values”. He spoke of the United Kingdom as “a successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy”; not, it must be noted, as a successful multicultural one. But he was concerningly vacuous in his grasp (or lack thereof) of a basic understanding of religion. Either he eschews his spiritual advisers, or he never had any.

In a section entitled ‘Roots of the Problem’, he explained:

It begins – it must begin – by understanding the threat we face and why we face it. What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim – mostly violence against fellow Muslims – who don’t subscribe to its sick worldview.

That’s all cogent stuff. But then we get:

But you don’t have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish. Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality. Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation. Ideas – like those of the despicable far right – which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others. And ideas also based on conspiracy – that Jews exercise malevolent power, or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam..

To segue from Islamism to the Far Right so swiftly is philosophically naive. But the Prime Minister is persuaded that “the extremist world view is the gateway, and violence is the ultimate destination”. This is patently untrue: violence is not the necessary end of extremist means.

We are told that in the autumn, the Government will publish a(nother) Counter-Extremism Strategy, “setting out in detail what we will do to counter this threat”. Its principles will include a challenge to their “cultish worldview (and) conspiracy theories”; a contrast of their “bigotry, aggression and theocracy” with liberal values; and the more confident promotion of “a very clear creed”.

This creed is set out as:

We respect democracy and the rule of law.

We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith.

We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life.

These, the Prime Minister says, are “British values.. underpinned by distinct British institutions”. He omitted freedom of religion, though it is doubtful that he understands how it differs from freedom of worship. The “British way of life” is to be inculcated via the state education system, which will henceforth have a statutory duty to spot extremism while they’re marking essays. God help you if you decide to write about Muhammad Ali Jinnah, or find virtue in Malcolm X, or seek to justify the armed struggle of Nelson Mandela. But we are assured that:

…our new Prevent duty for schools is not about criminalising or spying on Muslim children. This is paranoia in the extreme. In fact that duty will empower parents and teachers to protect children from all forms of extremism – whether Islamist or neo-Nazi.

There are some who label the racist BNP ‘neo-Nazi’. Others apply the term to the ultra-nationalist EDL. Still others apply it to Nigel Farage and Ukip. ‘Neo-Nazism’ is a slippery ideology, and one doubts that teachers are the best equipped to discern it. After all, the Nazis were also what we may now term ‘homophobic’. Is it ‘neo-Nazi’ to object to the liberal assertion that all sexual behaviour between consenting adults is equal? In order to identify the extremists, they’ll be monitoring the Internet:

And we need our internet companies to go further in helping us identify potential terrorists online. Many of their commercial models are built around monitoring platforms for personal data, packaging it up and selling it on to third parties. And when it comes to doing what’s right for their business, they are happy to engineer technologies to track our likes and dislikes. But when it comes to doing what’s right in the fight against terrorism, we too often hear that it’s all too difficult. Well I’m sorry – I just don’t buy that.

..We need everyone – Government, local authorities, police, schools, all of us – to enforce our values right across the spectrum.

One cannot enforce values. The seeds of virtue are planted, watered and tended. Values are imparted, demonstrated and nurtured. When the authoritarian state declares its intention to enforce its values – with recourse, it must be noted, to the agencies of law enforcement – we take another step toward the police state.

For David Cameron, there are two parts to extremist ideology: non-violent and violent.

This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence – but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative. We’ve got to show that if you say “yes I condemn terror – but the Kuffar are inferior”; or “violence in London isn’t justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter”, then you too are part of the problem.

This is interesting. The status of the non-Muslim to a Muslim is a point of theological debate. Certainly it can (and does) have socio-political consequences in certain cultures, but it is not simply a matter of being ‘inferior’. Is it extremist to read aloud from the Qur’an that the kuffar (ie infidels) are “cattle of no intelligence”? Is it really extremist to apprehend a difference between the suicide bomber in London and the suicide bomber in Jerusalem? As offensive as the views of Baroness Tonge and David Ward may be, are they themselves extremist in the same sense as the Islamist? Is understanding and empathy necessarily the first step toward murdering and maiming? Is Tim Farron extremist? How can a creed that includes freedom of speech deny the articulation of views that some may find abhorrent? Who judges the extent of offence? Indeed, who defines ‘offence’?

We must demand that people also condemn the wild conspiracy theories, the anti-Semitism, and the sectarianism too.

But some “wild conspiracy theories” are proven to be true, are they not? Or is it “wild” that will be used to distinguish the extreme and unacceptable conspiracy theory from the moderate and acceptable one? Surely if you wish to believe that the atrocities of September 11th 2001 were a conspiracy between Mossad and the CIA you ought to be free to believe that? If not, what if you wished to believe that the Hillsborough tragedy was “the biggest cover-up in history“, before, of course, it became fashionable to say so? Isn’t ‘conspiracy theorist’ rather like ‘bigot’ – a conceit often hurled by those who are devoid of argument in order to dismiss a hypothesis they would rather not address? And then we get:

We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for. These people aren’t just extremists. There are despicable far right groups too. And what links them all is their aim to groom young people and brainwash their minds. And again let’s be clear who benefits most from us being tough on these non-violent extremists…

Is it to become unlawful to operate “just inside the law”? What are the thresholds of illegality within the parameters of lawful behaviour? Who is to determine this? The police? The courts? Who is identifying the “non-violent extremists” who “groom young people and brainwash their minds”? Is a Roman Catholic school ‘grooming’ and ‘brainwashing’ young people? The National Secular Society and British Humanist Association would say so, as they would opine about all schools with a religious foundation. Mr Cameron continues:

..as part of our Extremism Bill, we are going to introduce new narrowly targeted powers to enable us to deal with these facilitators and cult leaders, and stop them peddling their hatred. And we will also work to strengthen Ofcom’s role to enable us to take action against foreign channels that broadcast hate preachers and extremist content.

Cult leaders? What is a cult, Prime Minister? How does it differ from a sect? Who is determining and defining the extents of deviation from orthodoxy? Is the state defining that orthodoxy? Is a ‘hate preacher’ one who teaches that there is more to life than the liberal democratic heaven on earth? What is ‘hate’? Is it ‘hate’ to teach that there are sheep and there are goats, and that not all will enter paradise? Is it ‘extremist’ to preach that some behaviour is immoral or that some religions are idolatrous and evil?

The local environment, their families, their peers, their communities, are among the key influencers in any young person’s life. So if they hear parts of the extremist worldview in their home, or their wider community, it will help legitimise it in their minds.

In their home? So if parents wish to bring up their children with an awareness of the holy precepts of God, and those precepts do not accord with the inviolable state orthodoxy, those parents are ‘extremist’? Are we about to start removing children from their parents because those parents do not accord with ‘British values’, as defined? The Prime Minister explains:

Just as we do not engage with extremist groups and individuals, we’re now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices..

In order to actively encourage ‘moderate’ Islam, its theology must be clearly defined and its creed codified. Is the Government really going to nail its liberal democratic 95 theses to the door of every mosque? Who is to teach this ‘reformed’ and ‘moderate’ Islam’ that embraces abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage if, as one presumes, this ‘moderate’ Islam must espouse “equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith”?

But the Prime Minister has seen the light in one respect. He takes the Blairite view that “this extremist ideology is not true Islam”, but he demurs from the mantra of Baroness Warsi that it is nothing to do with Islam.

..simply denying any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists doesn’t work because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims. The fact is from Woolwich to Tunisia, from Ottawa to Bali, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith. Now it is an exercise in futility to deny that. And more than that, it can be dangerous. To deny it has anything to do with Islam means you disempower the critical reforming voices…

This is progress, for the Wahhabi-Salafist strain of politico-theology is indeed an expression of Sunni Islam. It may be ‘cultic’, but they are self-identifying as Muslims. It is futile to say they are not so when they believe so. The most fruitful response is not dismissive denial, but theological, historical and sociological exposition in order to determine whether, if and how they depart from the teachings of Mohammed or abrogate the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. There are indeed worthwhile debates to be had on the fusion of religion and politics, but there are blatant contradictions:

But as well as tackling isolation, there is one other area we must look at if we are to build a truly cohesive society – and that is segregation. It cannot be right, for example, that people can grow up and go to school and hardly ever come into meaningful contact with people from other backgrounds and faiths. That doesn’t foster a sense of shared belonging and understanding – it can drive people apart. Now let’s be clear that these patterns of segregation in schools or housing are not the fault or responsibility of any particular community..

How, exactly, is the proliferation of ‘faith schools’ consistent with the desire to tackle segregation when those schools are, by definition, segregating children by faith? Certainly students at many of those schools come into contact with children of other faiths, but in what sense is it “meaningful” if they are not sitting side-by-side working out their simultaneous equations or playing in the same football team? Who determines “meaningful” in this context? Who measures “shared belonging and understanding”? Ofsted? God help us.

The concept of the Caliphate is as intrinsic to Islamic theology as the New Jerusalem is to Christian eschatology. Certainly, the political foundations and moral precepts of the Caliph are disputed across and within the divergent strains of sharia, but you cannot challenge the variably apprehended values of the Caliphate by enforcing ‘British values’ any more than you can abolish divergent understandings of holiness, justice and mercy from the New Jerusalem. Indeed, to aim to “enforce” a state orthodoxy of ‘moderate Islam’ is as futile as seeking to impose Anglicanism on the Roman Catholic Church.

If ‘British values’ are to contend against the Faith, all orthodox Christians become extremist, and so all must be subject to Internet surveillance and monitored for ‘hate preaching’, for to focus on Islam and Muslims alone would be ‘Islamophobic’. If the Prime Minister is intent on destroying the Caliphate by cracking down on non-violent extremism at home, he will criminalise Christians in the process, for the ‘ideology’ of the New Jerusalem is also insidious and subversive: it is the effectual, fervent prayer for God’s reign on earth, and that will be neither liberal nor democratic. David Cameron may have a sound grasp of the need to pursue a political resolution, but he seemingly has no grasp at all of the spiritual battles and theological complexities inherent in the process of resisting radicalisation. Prophets of God are radical, and preachers of the gospel are extremist. You simply cannot enforce peace, equality, reconciliation or respect without imposing the liberal ideology of the state. How radical, illiberal or extremist is that?

  • The Explorer

    A jihadist has recently shot dead five marines. in Tennessee. Only, he can’t have been a jihadist. The American MSM is tying itself in knots trying to find an explanation: racism, poverty, lack of education? Whatever could have made him do it?

    Cameron’s use of ‘Islamist’ strikes me as courageous. Even if you say that Islamic terrorism is a misreading of Islam, you are still conceding the source of the terorism. That seems to me a huge advance on saying that terrorism is a reaction to racism etc.

    • Dominic Stockford

      The BBC TV news managed to avoid mentioning it at all. 🙁

      • The Explorer

        Quite. If he’d shot five gay pride marchers…

    • Pubcrawler

      If he’d posed with a Confederate flag, on the other hand…

    • Little Black Censored

      He must have been a member of that great pack of lone wolves.

  • Russell Brown

    Cameron is being advised by the pope and the Jesuits, Obama has appointed the same as head of religious tolerance (yes you could not make it up) and the idea is to use Islam to prevent Protestants pointing to the errors of Rome. If Cameron has his way the Protestant reformation could never have happened.

    • Anton

      Could you give a source for the Obama connection please?

      • Russell Brown

        Obama appointed Jesuit Thomas Reese, S.J. to Commission On International Religious Freedom.

        • Anton

          Thank you.

    • Coniston

      So Cameron is a secret papist, intent on imposing popery on this country? Fancy that! Who would ever believe it?

  • Anton

    Cameron is going to persecute evangelical Christians.

    • Russell Brown

      Didn’t he say he was going to “enforce Liberal values”? This is scary Orwellian stuff. Yet again the political elite prove they are more of a threat to us than political Islam. If such things were possible.

      • Anton

        They are more of a short term threat. And actually it is what they have reduced this country to that is responsible for the failure of Muslims to integrate. Muslim immigrants originally came here with no thought of taking over but to seek a better life than in Islamic lands. Then they saw the moral devastation to which the liberal humanist project has reduced this country and vowed “not in our community”; hence their sons are less integrated, not more, and are more radical.

  • alternative_perspective

    So those agitating for change and social improvement will likely be extremists also. The chartists, universal suffrage and abolition of the slave trade were all extremist beliefs at one point in time relative to the status quo and accepted British Values.

    No doubt these laws will be passed but the only groups PC civil servants will apply them to will be soft touch Christian faith schools. I’m already starting to get depressed by the thought.

    • Russell Brown

      It is very much looking like the political elite need Islam to advance their agenda of us all worshiping them as our gods and protectors. Of course there is still time Cameron could prove otherwise but it is not looking good is it.

  • The Explorer

    If you are a British Christian where does your first loyalty lie: to being British, or to being Christian (if British values include embracing ‘abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage’)?

    • Anton

      British values now include the right to get drunk and vomit in the streets on Friday and Saturday nights, the right to have sex with whoever you want whenever you want, and the right to have the State pick up the tab.

      • The Explorer

        Quite. My question was actually rhetorical to highlight the sort of reality you describe.

    • Russell Brown

      Our loyalty is to God of course. The State is not God.

      • The Explorer

        Tell that to the State.

    • Martin

      TE

      Jesus answered this a long time ago:

      Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax. And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, Whose likeness and inscription is this? They said, Caesar’s. Then he said to them, Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

      (Matthew 22:15-22 [ESV]

    • David

      The Christian’s first loyalty must be to God.

  • Russell Brown

    His entire speech is based on the false assumption all religions are essentially good and from God. Hence we are doomed.

    • David

      Your first sentence is spot on, but I don’t share the pessimism of your second sentence.

      • Russell Brown

        We have to be allowed to deal with heresy by debunking it. The political elite are trying something that has never been tried before (praising heresy) a good Islam and a bad political Islam. Just watch the Tory party conference Theresa May was utterly gushing about that religion. This is an experiment we have never tried before (praising error) and it will not work. We should be defending our Protestant Christian culture from whence came all our precious freedoms by preaching the example of Jesus, respectfully of course.

        • David

          That is a very useful and, to me anyway, fresh way of exposing the futility of the exercise that the political elite are embarking upon.
          They have chosen this false, and ultimately fruitless path, because relativism has robbed them of any understanding of the Christian faith upon which our political heritage, and our Constitution, even now, is based. Moreover Humanism, promoted by the EU refuses to “rank” or even recognise any faith as possessing anything of value. So they, estranged from their religious heritage, are misdirecting their energies.

        • Little Black Censored

          Where is Linus when you need him. This discussion is altogether too intelligent.

  • Russell Brown

    The political elite think we can take on Islam with gay rights. This is not going to work. Theists will only be persuaded by other Theists and whenever Christian theologians debate Islamists they are utterly defeated for all to see. But the media is colonized with atheists and debunking Islam is seen as offensive while dropping high explosives on them is apparently ok.

    Watch Anjem Choudury getting utterly destroyed in live 3 hour debate with Christian theologian here…

    • David

      Well said !

  • The Explorer

    This issue of faith schools. Years ago, there was the Drummond School in Bradford. The head, Ray Honeyford, got into trouble for saying the white kids (a minority) should nor have to learn Urdu. He was suspended, reinstated, and given early retirement. The school is now the Iqbal School and 100% Muslim.
    I don’t know if it’s a faith school or not, but it doesn’t need to be. Abolish faith schools, and its ethos would still be determined by its intake, which is detmined by its location.

  • Martin

    “We respect democracy and the rule of law.

    We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith.

    We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life.”

    Seems to be contradicted by:

    “We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for. These people aren’t just extremists. There are despicable far right groups too. And what links them all is their aim to groom young people and brainwash their minds. And again let’s be clear who benefits most from us being tough on these non-violent extremists…”

    How is prosecuting those who stay within the law upholding the rule of law? And is not upholding the rule of law part of our British values?

    And freedom of worship, that British value, does it not extend to allowing those whose religion requires them to adopt certain values to keep those values in their behaviour? Or is Cameron saying that you can have your religion in your place of worship but not when you come out on the street?

    It seems to me that Cameron is the extremist, he has changed what for millennia has been the joining of a man and a woman into one into a joke where anyone can be joined, for no apparent reason than that they want to indulge their lust. Cameron is the extremist for wanting to spy on the whole nation, to ensure they are not doing something he considers extreme. Cameron is the extremist for wanting to subvert the rule of law.

    • Anton

      Yes, he would be in the crowd shouting “Crucify!”

    • He’s certainly coming across like one because he doesn’t know what to do or how to tackle the problem of Islam in our country.

  • Owl

    ” Ideas – like those of the despicable far right ”

    why no ideas from the “despicable far left “, you know, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. or even Baader Meinhof, Red Brigade, or even neo-nazis whose stronghold is in the old DDR. Remember the old socialist paradise. And, of course, the national socialist third reich.
    Aahh, our Dave is now a member of the dispicable left so we can’t have that, can we?
    At least he is trying to give us a picture of what his lefty, social state will look like. Reminds me a bit of what those well meaning chappies above were offering.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Apparently, according to the lefties, ‘national’ socialists aren’t socialists…..

      • Anton

        They would say that, wouldn’t they?

  • The Explorer

    Secularists used to talk about the New Jeruslaem for their vision of the good society. Now they prefer to use the term ‘Utopia’.

    If they ever start to use the term the Caliphate for their future Heaven on Earth, then it really will be time to worry. (Or maybe not, because by then the demise of secularists would be near; although we would then have other causes for concern.)

    • Coniston

      Heaven preserve us from Utopians – Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot – even Hitler was a Utopian, believing in a pure racist state. Michael Burleigh has written a number of excellent books on the subject.

      • The Explorer

        Brilliant writer. I know ‘Blood and Rage’.

        • Pubcrawler

          That’s on my ‘to read’ pile. I might have to promote it.

          • The Explorer

            Do so. He has one of those magisterial minds that can process huge amouns of diverse information. I understood the contemporary world better after reading it.

        • Coniston

          Burleigh has traced the history of politics and religion (mainly in Europe) from the French Revolution onwards in ‘Earthly Powers’, and ‘Sacred Causes’, concluding with ‘Blood and Rage’.

  • carl jacobs

    The problem with “extremism” is that it is an inherently relative measure. It doesn’t have fixed content. It is determined by offset from something else. So in effect what he is suggesting is a heresy law designed to restrict advocacy outside bounds set by the current civic religion of Self. There is no way this law will be restricted to Islam. It will have to encompass other faiths (i.e Christians) in order to prove its neutrality.

    The gov’t has identified religion as the problem because it cannot identify Islam as the problem. It will therefore define specific doctrines as extremist and in so doing cast a very wide net against all those who reject modernity. You might as well just establish a new bureaucracy and call it the Holy Office of the Post-Modern Inquisition.

    • The Explorer

      Religion is the problem because Islam cannot be identified as the problem. Very true. Dawkins reaches the same sort of conclusion in ‘The God Delusion’. Christianity (in the form of liberal bishops who believe much the same sort of thing as Dawkins himself) is harmless enough. But behind Christianity is Islam. To get rid of Islam, you have also to get rid of the Christianity that gives it cover.

  • Dominic Stockford

    I could read no further than the ‘creed’. I could not sign up to that, and am left with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.

    In Christ alone my help is found, but I fear there will be much pain before His promised peace is mine.

  • Hugh Jeego

    I’d really like to know what “British Values” actually are. I know what my values are, and I’m British, and I know that most of my friends, family, colleagues and acquaintances share many of the same values, enough in fact to comprise a coherent culture. However, one of the values is to let people get on with their lives without constantly checking whether they agree with one or not, and I’m not sure what Dave (or Tony before him) are doing to promote that. Maybe it’s my mistake, and it’s not a British value after all, maybe it’s an English value, or an Essex value, or a Bucks value.I don’t think it’s a European value, and I doubt it’s a muslim value, although who am I to say?

  • The Explorer

    A few threads back I suggested that the Left, since Charlie Hebdo, has cooled a little towards Islam. I see this speech as further evidence.

    The position now. Islam is fine, but there’s a group within it that thinks its Islamic (although it isn’t) and that group is a problem and needs to be addressed and shown the error of its beliefs.

    That seems to me a huge step forward. That could lead to the view that Islam itself is a problem. The ultimate step (after thinking it) would be to say it. I don’t think we’ll ever reach that stage, but even thinking it would be a help.

  • Russell Brown

    Watch it before they ban it….

    • Dominic Stockford

      Excellent. If a bit musically noisy!

      Article 13 of the 15 Articles of the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion – Pt.B:

      “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, the man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.”

      My Church Trust Deed contains these Articles as statements of the faith of the congregation.

  • His Grace is quite right to highlight the difference between ‘Freedom of Worship’ and ‘Freedom of Religion.’ This speech is Linus’ and Sarky’s dreams come true. Christians will be able to old their meetings behind closed doors, but woe betide us if we proclaim it outside.
    Is it the fulfilment of Revelation 11:7-10? Christian witness lies dead in the street while Linus, Sarky and DanJo send each other little gifts to celebrate.

    • Russell Brown

      Is it the fulfilment of Revelation 11:7-10? Christian witness lies dead in the street while Linus, Sarky and DanJo send each other little gifts to celebrate.

      >
      They will still celebrate Christmas but Christianity lays dead and rotting like a corpse.

      • sarky

        Says who?

      • Linus

        *Sigh!*

        Winter solstice…

        (Or summer solstice if I happen to be in the Southern Hemisphere…)

        • The Explorer

          Hello Linus, old devil (Tasmanian version, naturally, in view of Southern Hemisphere reference).
          Good to see you’re still around.

    • carl jacobs

      That isn’t really fair to those three (well, OK, two of the three) individuals. They wouldn’t celebrate someone lying dead in the streets. They don’t want you dead. They want you excised from cultural influence. I would guess in both sarkys case and DanJ0s case that they would object to this law as illiberal. The problem is not the current population of atheists. The problem is that this secular paradise they envision is inherently unstable and cannot last. What you need to fear is what comes after it. The current order is relatively benign. It’s successor won’t be.

      • Russell Brown

        They wouldn’t celebrate someone lying dead in the streets. They don’t want you dead.

        >
        It means they are celebrating the death of Christianity.

      • The Explorer

        I think, in his quaint way, that Linus is fond of us: as one might be fond of an unusual pet. Kindly soul that he is, our beliefs have given him much gentle amusement.

        • dannybhoy

          I think dear Linus is growing bored with us. We do not have enough ‘homohating’ bigots to justify him spending time here.
          I wish the man well. I like his honesty and pray for him when he comes to mind…

          • The Explorer

            I wonder if he’ll make a formal departure, or just fade away? Mind you, he was in pretty good form a couple of threads ago telling us about his marriage-bed experiences; so maybe he wants to shock/offend us for a little while yet.

          • chiefofsinners

            Sorry, I’ve been keeping him busy on that thread about the TV marriage thing. He’s still thrashing around.

          • Inspector General

            Danny, the Inspector would be most distressed if you shed a tear over that reprobate. He’s a stage performer, in drag, and lapses up the little he gets here that is mistaken compassion.

          • dannybhoy

            He’s a human being Inspector. A sinner in need of salvation whether he knows it or not. I think our Lord’s love, grace and redemption will be extended to him until he passes into eternity.
            Why do I care about him? For the same reason one cares for any person looking for love and acceptance and strugglng with an orientation he did not ask for. It’s all very well for people to condemn homosexuals (whilst perhaps staying strangely silent about the other sins our Lord mentioned), but how many of us could cope with the lonely celibate life we so fervently urge them to embrace…?

          • Inspector General

            My dear chap, for some reason unbeknown to us all, our creator has deemed that a small percentage of the population, around 3%, be sterile drones.

            As for himself, for all we know he is ‘enjoying’ gaynal sex with his ‘husband’ and thus too busy to rent his disgust at us here.

          • dannybhoy

            He didn’t deem it, any more than He deemed little chidren be born seriously deformed or unable to communicate or missing limbs etc.

          • Inspector General

            Agreed. God works on earth through his agent, Mother Nature. Too bad, but there comes a time when we all have to accept our lot.

          • dannybhoy

            So then it could be argued that Linus is making the best of his?
            I would love to see him come to a saving knowledge of our Lord. He needs to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord! But we Christians are too quick to condemn the sinner along with the sin.

          • Inspector General

            Unfortunately, the condition encourages defiance and a sense of victimhood. And why not. Would you be happy to see two queers tongue in front of you. He needs to appreciate his unfortunate condition and live accordingly. One is sure that there are many wheelchair bound who would gladly swap places with him…

          • DanJ0

            Perhaps those people who use wheelchairs should just accept their condition and stay in bed or in chairs instead.

          • Inspector General

            How about a cripple pride ‘march’ instead. To show the world they are just as good as people who can walk…

          • DanJ0

            Luckily, people who use wheelchairs aren’t normally targeted by the religious, and allowances are made by the rest of society to accommodate their lifelong needs. Only one of those things is true for homosexuals.

          • Powerdaddy

            He may be the biggest gaylord around here (after happy Jack, too fixated by Linus’s usual subject matter not to be. ….) but he has a great grasp on logic. You religious could and should learn a lot from him .

          • Inspector General

            Not really. He has the taint of madness about him, or hadn’t you noticed.

          • carl jacobs

            He certainly can do so when he wants to. But 80% of his posts amount to nothing more than throwing acid in someone’s face. Animus doesn’t require either intelligence or logic.

            What is a “Gaylord” besides a pitcher for the San Francisco Giants in the 190s?

          • Powerdaddy

            I wonder how many times he has been promised eternal torture among other insults by religious nutbags. I will never understand the spite of the religious, isn’t God big enough to sort out his own problems? He is entitled to throw something back.

            Gaylord: – derogatory Lord of gays.

            Usually a term of endearment to rib someone you know well enough to rib…..

          • The Explorer

            I think our concerns about his departure are premature. Chief of Sinners has riled him up enough on the TV marriage thread for him to keep attacking us for the next six months.

      • DanJ0

        “The problem is that this secular paradise they envision is inherently unstable and cannot last.”

        I support Article 9 of the ECHR, as I point out here time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. It’s inconvenient for the stereotype, I know.

        • carl jacobs

          I know you do. That’s why I defended you from what I considered a cheap shot. But that has nothing to do with my point. What you support isn’t at issue. What is at issue is your inability to control the trajectory of the society you are advocating. This brittle secularism is planting the seeds of something far more malignant – something that won’t have much use for Article 9 of the ECHR.

          • DanJ0

            I advocate a secular State, not a secular society. I also have a very pragmatic view of human nature and of the world so I’d never envisage a paradise, secular or otherwise. That said, I feel very lucky indeed that I live in the UK at this point in history as I think we have it very good at the moment. No doubt things will continue to change, in good and bad ways, as they always have done. I’m not the one who thinks there’s some sort of master plan or master controller around here, you know.

          • carl jacobs

            I’d never envisage a paradise, secular or otherwise.

            Fair enough. My error. Even so, your vision of a “more perfect” society (to paraphrase the Emancipator) is much different than mine, and establishes a much different set of moral imperatives. Those imperatives are inevitably leading to disaster. You cannot sustain a civilization on a libertine foundation.

          • DanJ0

            Thanks for the earlier defence, anyway. Perhaps the “witness” bit was particularly significant, despite our literal reading of the verse in Revelation. If so then I maintain that I don’t care a hoot one way or the other about Christian witnessing in public.

          • Dreadnaught

            If anything is capable of defending an individual’s right to follow a particular religion it is the secular approach to social behaviour in the public square.

      • Carl,
        The two witnesses are not literal people lying dead in the street. They represent Christian witness as a whole (cf. Deut. 19:15 & Luke 10:1).

        • carl jacobs

          OK. I can accept that you intended to convey a different message. I certainly am no expert in the details of Dispensationalist eschatology, but if I didn’t pick up on that theological subtlety, I don’t know how you would have expected an unbeliever to pick it up. Sometimes you have to be a little careful about the impression you give. 🙂

          • Dispensationalist????
            You sure know how to hurt a man!

          • carl jacobs

            [Repents in dust and ashes]

            Sorry. I let myself get conditioned by that “Rome is the Beast ” video.

    • DanJ0

      “Is it the fulfilment of Revelation 11:7-10? Christian witness lies dead in the street while Linus, Sarky and DanJo send each other little gifts to celebrate.”

      Nice. Was that the Holy Spirit moving through you there?

    • sarky

      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.Martin Luther King Jr.

      • The Explorer

        I can think of a lot of things more dangerous. Ignorance could not make the atomic bomb, for a start: that took knowledge. Ignorance might mean you can’t read: and that might save you from a lot of malign ideas.

  • Orwell Ian

    Cameron’s appeal to British Values hasn’t gained an inch of ground in the battle for Muslim hearts and minds. There are signs of underlying panic in this change of policy and a most unwelcome assault on freedom of speech for all. To legislate against the expression of certain opinions because they conflict with state orthodoxy is to journey towards the Stasi, and the Gulag. To be concerned by what is said around the family dinner table and determined that schools have a part to play in a prevent strategy is the precursor to mandatory informerming and denunciation. He is well into the area of thoughtcrime with these proposals which can only serve to increase alienation.

    • The Explorer

      What has caused the panic, do you think? Cumulative, or anything specific?

      • Russell Brown

        Its not panic, they have a cultural marxist agenda.

        • The Explorer

          And Islam doesn’t fit into it as comfortably as they hoped it would. Islam ought to be one component of the new proletariat in the new class war to exterminate the white heterosexual male: along with students, women, other ethnic minorities, sexual minorities and criminals. (Marcuse’s recipe). Unfortunately, Islam seems to want to run the show.

          • Orwell Ian

            It was assumed that once Muslim immigrants had tasted Western consumerism, liberal secularism and the joys of unbridled freedom that they would lapse from Islam. But we witness an intensification of religious zeal instead.

            Islamists face the challenge of Western civilisation still being dominant. Anything that hinders the advance of Islam towards Allah ordained control of every human institution must be removed. To this end they are dedicated to Islamising all civilisations, cultures and thought. It is an excercise in regime change.

            The Government is quite right to be alarmed by reports from the security services and other quarters. Islamists are undermining the nation from within. The Muslim minority is being used as cover and a lever to advance the acceptance of Islam as the dominant religious, political and civilisational force in the host society. Islamists are not merely gunmen and suicide bombers. As well as radicalising the young and converting the disillusioned indigenous, they also work at penetrating and infiltrating the power base to advance Islamification. They are not interested in integrating into the society they despise. It is we who are to be enfolded in an Islamic embrace. This will – in their eyes – bring an end to all conflict as true peace is possible only under a global Islamic political and cultural system. But it is peace achieved by the edge of the sword.

          • The Explorer

            The quickest way to get rid of a multi-faith society is to allow Islam to succceed in its ambitions.

          • Russell Brown

            I think the State will realize to control Islam it will have to become the State religion. That is how they controlled Christianity.

          • Dominic Stockford

            They might think that, but they’d be wrong – because it isn’t merely a religion but an entire political system. If they do that ‘We’re all doomed, Captain Mainwaring, we’re all doomed…’

          • dannybhoy

            I don’t think this is true of all Muslims, but it is true of enough Muslims that sooner or later we shall be forced to deal with it.

          • Orwell Ian

            There is a recent example of a Muslim society that acted to deal with their Islamist problem. The army in Egypt overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood. If they had not done so Egypt would probably be part of Islamic State by now. Not that I’m advocating dictatorship you understand but democracy cannot afford to tiptoe round a worsening problem and put the nation at risk.

          • Inspector General

            Sweat not, dear friend, for dictatorship and muslim populations is the happy norm. Be honest about it, and present it to all who would listen to you…

          • dannybhoy

            Egypt had been regarded as one of the most ‘liberal’ and ‘stable’ of Muslim countries until the Arab Spring, so foolishly endorsed by Western politicians. The Muslim Brotherhood was always the main enemy of ‘liberal’ Egyptian governments..
            It has close links with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), a very influential organisation in the US.

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393614/cair-terror-group-daniel-pipes

      • Orwell Ian

        The rapidly deteriorating security situation, a competing value system and widespread failure to integrate.

  • IanCad

    One of your very best YG. Where else? Where else?
    OK Guys, Keep this blog going. Up there at the top right.

    • Anton

      Yes, this blog is so good that it will soon be subject to government censorship. Did His Grace really exhort us to vote for this man?

      • Dominic Stockford

        ooh (sharp intake of breath) a bit close to the old knuckle there…

        • Owl

          I think it goes under “mysteries”.
          I have given up trying to understand.

          • James60498 .

            I think I can at least partly explain, though as I do not know the Archbishop, other than through this site, it may be wrong.

            Party Politics is very tribal, and certainly at election time. I know. I was an active member of the Tory Party for 25 years.

            However being a conservative socially, but not always economically, I was often disappointed and sometimes even angry at Conservative Government actions, or policies in Opposition. Often I would miss meetings for months on end, or fail to turn up for local election work. I even read books by politicians from other parties and find myself nodding. I once even very briefly, 30 years ago, joined another party though paying a subscription was as far as it went.

            But when the PM announced a General Election, I would be there. Issues forgotten, delivering thousands of leaflets, knocking on hundreds of doors, wearing a rosette, attending meetings. Wanting my team to win.

            It’s like the sportsfan who no matter what his team does during the week will be there on match day shouting and cheering that they win. Whatever the owner has done, or the manager has said, or what illegal challenge their player has committed on the field, come match day that’s all forgotten.

            Maybe even the car driver who has no interest in football, but when the Football World Cup comes along thinks that it’s in the national interest that they should put flags up on their car, and drive their family and friends mad with their new found obsession.

            It’s a team. It’s a tribe. It’s a Political Party.

            It’s MY team. It’s MY tribe. It’s MY Political Party.

            Of course there is at least one more part to this. Why is it STILL his Party?

            I was a Councillor at the time Cameron became leader and there were just two of us who really knew what was coming with Cameron. (though clearly no one knew how far he would go, just the direction). I met the other recently in a shopping centre.

            He was talking about all the work he had done at the election, how “we” knew this, how “we” did that.

            If I had not experienced it myself , I would have wondered how he could still talk like that. When I took the opportunity to criticise Cameron he agreed with me. He hasn’t become a Cameron supporter. Nothing like that.

            But it was his team. He wanted to win.

            Why did he remain a member of that Party? I guess because he is a Councillor. And to be fair he is good at it, both as a Politician but also he is good at helping people with problems. It’s also been his “job” for many years after taking early retirement from his real job.

            Why has the Archbishop remained a member of that Party? I have no idea.

            Maybe he has some crazy idea that he can improve things. Perhaps he is right. Perhaps things would be much worse without him and his like.

            But, whatever the reason, it is likely that when the Election (Match Day) comes along its his team and nothing else matters.

            Or at least that’s the case for many others. As I said at the beginning this is a generalisation. I do not know the Archbishop at all.

          • Owl

            James,
            I can accept your argument, for the “many”.
            The trouble is that HG is far too intellegent.
            I went through a phase of thinking that HG knows something that I don’t and there must be a good reason for his stance.
            This phase passed and I am just left with his “mysterious ways”.

          • James60498 .

            That assumes that I am not, though of course, not entirely as I left as soon as possible after Cameron became leader. It also assumes that my former fellow councillor is not too bright either.
            Perhaps neither of us are as intelligent as HG but we are certainly not stupid.
            My brother and sister both have Doctorates. I remember when a certain footballer with a name known to everyone as an embarrassment signed to play for their team, thinking that surely they will lose some interest now, or at the very least criticise the signing.

            It had no effect. Their team. Their player.

            I do not believe that tribalism is restricted to lower levels of intelligence.

            I am sure that there is a good reason for his remaining a member of the Party. If he is as intelligent as you declare, or even if he isn’t, then there is likely to be a good reason behind his decision to stay. I have no idea what that is.

            While typing this, I am remembering a post some little time ago by someone, I am fairly sure it was the Inspector. I know it was an October post though not sure which year. ( I know it was October because of the timing of the Political Conferences)

            It was in reply to an Opening Comment by HG in flag waving support and defence of the Conservative Party.

            The Inspector, if it was he, commented that the Archbishop always went through a brief spell of being very positive towards his Party shortly after their Annual Conference which it was assumed that he had attended.

            That too is part of the tribalism. You go to Conference, meet up with your team and suddenly everything is great about them. Your criticisms vanish. It’s your team. ( I only went to the Conference once but know people who went every year).

            So, although I had forgotten it this morning, perhaps I am not the first to suggest that there may be an element of ” my team” about his politics, (and nearly everybody else’s too).

            We may not be right of course, but Conference time and Election time are the two occasions when you really can feel part of a team and no matter how critical you are the rest of the time, for a brief spell it can be forgotten.

          • Owl

            James, my apologies, I had no Intention of insulting anyone’s intelligence!

          • James60498 .

            I know. And it is a very very strange thing.

            It would be interesting if people were required to write on the ballot paper why they were voting as they were.

            HG. “I am voting Cameron because………” Erm. Don’t know really.

          • Owl

            Actually, I think it also had to do with “least bad” voting.

            Anything except the “Millipede” is acceptable. Basic manipulation really.

            I also wonder if the leaders of Lib, Lab and Con all belong (are controlled by) to the Fabian Society then it doesn’t matter which one becomes PM (heir to Blair).
            ’tis a mystery.

          • James60498 .

            I am sure that they are all subject to influence from “the same somewhere”.
            Not necessarily the Fabian Society.

            Common Purpose, maybe?
            Obama?

      • IanCad

        Let’s not talk about that.

  • The Explorer

    Who was the speech actually aimed at? Muslim radicals? ‘Real’ Muslims? Us, to reassure us that the Government is on top of things?

    • David

      Voters – us, to boost his standing and reassure.
      I will be pleasantly surprised if much changes.

    • dannybhoy

      It was addressed to Muslims who live in Britain and feel no real loyalty to their faith. The Muslim Silent Majority….

  • David

    The basic problem with a culturally separate culture, embedded within a distinctly different host culture, is that they will always find it easy not to hear these exhortations. Those who are mainstream will not find it so easy to hide, and will be more impacted.
    I predict this will become a further frustration to most of the cultures and faiths here, curbing their self-expression and introducing many more restrictions, including what I will vaguely call conservative Christians, whilst most of the intended target group just keep below the radar, relatively unaffected.
    But I ‘d be happy to be wrong.

  • Perhaps this might be helpful to some. Mostly to Cameron if he ever visits here.
    The Caliphate and the Kingdom of God.
    https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/the-caliphate-and-the-kingdom-of-god/

  • DanJ0

    As NewsThump declared in a headline recently: “Tories accidentally ban themselves under new anti-extremism laws.”

  • Inspector General

    Took a long time to digest your offering for us today, Cranmer. You’ve left us nothing but to say well done!

    We really do have a lightweight in that man. It is somewhat depressing to think he’ll be around for another five years.

    One wonders what he has up his sleeve to combat the future activities of the increasing number of UK Mohameds travelling to war torn muslim countries who return sadly to live amongst the rest of us. Can’t really see his dream of them settling back into good old Western Liberal democracy and our freedoms coming to fruition. More likely, they’ll demand the government’s recognition of the Sharia ‘rights’ these people live by in England in their communities. They’ll only ask once, and then they’ll REALLY start to agitate and we all know what that means…

    One loathes to enter a discussion without contributing something positive to the pot. So in that spirit, a bit of advice for HM Government. Seriously consider making unpleasant individuals stateless by cancelling their citizenship. Expel them by removing the most valuable attribute they have, their British citizenship. There must be an incentive to cease and desist what they are doing, so let’s have one that works. And then they can go and live in their caliphate, and hopefully send for their families living here in due course as has happened. They were never meant to be here anyway. It is not their country nor will it ever be. They have to be gone from our sight.

    • reginaldon

      That can only start to happen if we cease to be members of the EU.

  • DanJ0

    Part of the problem here is that the whole liberal thing of a marketplace of ideas into which freedom of speech etc feeds rather depends on being able to reach people who hold those ideas. It seems to me that the sub-cultures Cameron is referring to are systematically quite closed as far as making counter-arguments and putting forward alternative ideas is concerned. There’s a lot of talk at the moment about ‘counter-narratives’ to the violent extremism being propagated to young Muslims over social media channels but it seems to me that we’re relying on other Muslims doing that, and doing that well.

    • Inspector General

      Standard policy in civilised countries. “Sort yourselves out, or we’ll do it for you”. First base then, as the Americans would say…

  • sarky

    Stop extremism?? With the 40% cuts just announced we won’t even have the ability to stop an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping. Truly frightening.

    • The Explorer

      Where would you envisage armed forces being used: abroad, or at home?

      • sarky

        I was thinking more of the police, security forces, border force etc etc

        • The Explorer

          Makes sense. Basically, preparing for an internal rather than an external threat.

          • sarky

            That is the biggest threat isn’t it?

          • The Explorer

            Who knows? Look at the WMD justification for the Iraq War. If the internal threat is the real one, should we be spending out on aircraft carriers and Trident submarines? (Can’t blame the Tories for that; they inherited the carrier decision of Gordon Brown.)

    • Inspector General

      More like 25% cuts, and why not. Too many people in the UK playing the sponge game, and getting obese with it…

      • sarky

        ????? The cuts are to govermnent departments.

        • Inspector General

          Smaller departments means less money going out, silly.

          • sarky

            Or less protection.

          • Inspector General

            Smaller government. You know it makes sense…

          • sarky

            So when a shipment of arms get in, because there aren’t enough border staff and go to a previous unknown group, because there aren’t enough security staff and a massacre gets carried out, because there aren’t enough police to stop them. You will still be happy with smaller govermnent will you?

          • Inspector General

            What’s that Latin phrase again, that means sometime does not necessarily follow…

  • dannybhoy

    “But he was concerningly vacuous in his grasp (or lack thereof) of a
    basic understanding of religion. Either he eschews his spiritual
    advisers, or he never had any.”
    Actually he always sounds reassuringly middle of the road, pink and fluffy, inclusive and non judgmentally Anglican to me.
    That’s why he doesn’t get it.
    Our ancestors knew that there were some differences that created chasms so wide and deep that no amount of interfaith conferences, counsellings or ACAS interventions will ever change..
    David Cameron is not going to solve this by asking people to spy on, curtail the freedoms of, or deny deeply held religious and cultural beliefs of their own families and community.

  • chiefofsinners

    Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

    (subject to the democratic will of the people, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith, and freedom to do exactly as we please.)

  • Is it correct that David Cameron is allowing muslim men in polygamous marriages to claim benefit for all their wives? If so, how will this promote integration?

    • The Explorer

      Didn’t that start with Labour? Been going on for years. The supplementary wives are/were treated as single mums. There are at least twenty-six shariah courts in Britain, I read somewhere. What their status is relative to British law, no idea

    • David

      Explorer below is right.
      I remember reading about it happening on quite a scale in the northern towns, some years ago. A well beaten path allegedly is for taxi drivers to head south to impoverished eastern Turkey in their taxis, select a “bride” from a poor family, pay the price, have an Islamic marriage, bring her back and install her in a cheap house living on single mum benefits. UK officialdom looks the other way. We subsidise our own demise.
      There’s a sensible Muslim peer who warned about this several times, and has been threatened by co-religionists. But so far she has been ignored, due to PC madness. Such is the paralysis induced by PC relativism !
      Just think of the number of children such a man can produce !
      Incredible isn’t it, that this country tolerates such abuse of our welfare systems and allows the continuing undermining of our culture.
      I have now sadly reached the conclusion, that most of my fellow countrymen and women are so blind to Christian truth, and so lacking in courage, they deserve to be engulfed by this force.

      • The Explorer

        So is this scenario correct? A future couple on welfare who elect to have eight kids will get support for the first two. But a future Muslim on welfare with four wives and two kids by each wife will get support for all eight kids?

        • It would seem so as his wives are treated the same as our unmarried mothers and fathers who have kids by different men and women.

        • David

          I suspect so, unless the previously reported, and to my knowledge undenied claims, have been circumscribed by a change in the regulations and enforcement regime. The establishment just ignores the problem. Just look at how the Rotherhams, up and down the country, were ignored and covered up for years.
          It’s moral relativism that’s sapped our sense of right and wrong, producing paralysis. It needs a tough DT type “here’s corruption” campaign, as with Parliamentary expenses.
          The political establishment is failing those who pay for everything.
          Yet still the lemmings vote for these parties !

  • prompteetsincere

    Cameron’s Government, et. al. and et Allah, just has built the Caliphate:
    in Iran’s “green and pleasant land”;
    the same Caliphate which for theological (as opposed to “ideological”) reasons is extremely intent on destroying both Jerusalems.

    • David

      Nicely put !

  • Graham Wood

    Cranmer. Another excellent comment in this survey of the speech by the heir to Blair.
    Indeed it could be regarded as a superb example of the Master’s own empty rhetoric.
    Glad to see that you rightly point to the significant absence of any reference to ‘freedom of religion’ as opposed to freedom of worship, though I’m sure you are right in that he probably is unaware of the difference.
    Of course, in the UK today the reality is that freedom of religion exists in name only as witnessed by the proliferation of court orders targeting Christians for a variety of “offences” against artificial “equality” laws. But then that is not all that important to Mr Cameron who seems to equate freedom of religion with the State imposed new religion of “British values” – whatever they may be.

    • Orwell Ian

      I think we will find that his so-called British Values are none other than those of the EUSSR.

  • Dreadnaught

    When will the people and politicians of the West accept the fact that it’s not the Uk’s responsibility to take on ISIS; they are just the latest incarnation of the Koranic House of War; it is the responsibility of the rest of Britain and the world to get this matter on the table at the UN.

    The UK armed forces will do their bit but that should be with the rest of the NATO countries as a concerted effort beginning with an overt counter propaganda campaign with the reintroduction of the death penalty for home grown Muslims acting against
    the peace and security of the people of this Country.

    The West must make an actual declaration of WAR on Islamic Extremism in whatever shape or form it take now or in the future and remain on a war footing at home and
    reclaim Western Culture as the default factor in Europe.

    They have learned nothing from the political history of the 1930s.

    • dannybhoy

      “When will the people and politicians of the West accept the fact that
      it’s not the Uk’s responsibility to take on ISIS; they are just the
      latest incarnation of the Koranic House of War; it is the
      responsibility of the rest of Britain and the world to get this matter
      on the table at the UN.”
      The thing is though that Islamic influence has been increasing within UN organisations..
      http://www.meforum.org/477/islamism-grows-stronger-at-the-united-nations
      As it is in the US and Europe of course.

      • Dreadnaught

        And so was Hitler’s influence as a ‘politician’ in the thirties.

      • Dreadnaught

        So your response is do nothin at the UN then – just pray it does not land on your toes?

        • dannybhoy

          No I wouldn’t want to do nothing. Christians believe that God is in control, and His will will be accomplished with or without our cooperation.
          Secondly Christians believe that The Lord Jesus will come back to our earth to reign as King.
          But we also believe our job continues to be one of being salt and light in society, praying for the leaders of our nation, and being prepared to defend our nation if needs be.
          The problem is as someone stated on this thread, that the enemy is already within the gates all over Europe, and until Western leaders realise how compromised some of our institutions already are.
          We desperately need firm leadership and I doubt the UN or the EU is going to give it.

          • Dreadnaught

            His will will be accomplished with or without our cooperation.
            Nice – always leave it to Someone else to sort out. Do you not think million Jews have already paid the price by falling for that old chestnut. The content of your interpretation of Christian philosophy does not do what it says on the in.

          • dannybhoy

            Of course! It’s God’s world and He will exercise judgment upon it in His time.
            And don’t forget however many Christians have fought in wars to protect our nation over the centuries. Christians are called to be salt and light. That means we stand up for righteousness and compassion and a better society according to our Christian values. A Christian also knows that one day he or she will have to give an account of what they did or didn’t do to their Lord and Saviour.
            That means those called to lead should lead, those called to support should support, and so on..

          • Russell Brown

            Christians believe that God is in control

            >
            As the Holy Spirit moves men to do His Will. Only that means Christians need to be office.

  • Royinsouthwest

    The generation that fought in the Second World War understand British values better than anybody. Unfortunately there are not many of that generation still with us and therefore people like Cameron and Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of Ofsted (or Offperv as it is sometimes called) can get away with talking rubbish about “British values”.

  • dannybhoy

    I already posted this on another thread, but it is important.
    While we still have our freedom, I hope people on this blog will take the opportunity to read this website and stand in Christian solidarity with Asia Bibi, Saeed Avedini and others who have already lost theirs and on the brink of losing their lives because they are Christians.. Please sign the petitions..
    http://beheardproject.com/bibi

  • educynic

    Must one regard Jenny Tonge’s statement, that she “understood” the actions of Palestinian bombers, as offensive. Surely we all need to “understand” them if we are to deal rationally with the situation. Of course that does not mean that we condone them at all. Nor did Jenny Tonge.
    It is interesting that one strong voice of condemnation of Tonge’s position came from the unimpeachable lips of none other than Lord Janner.

  • Revd Robert West

    Quite a good article. The problem with “extremism” is, from whose point of view? Something that may be extreme to us may not be extreme, or rather heretical, from someone else’s viewpoint. Mr Cameron is not dealing with extremists: as far as they are concerned he is an infidel and they are Moslems, the ones who are submitted to God.

    Mr Cameron is suffering from an understanding or empathy barrier.

    You have got to understand this clash of world views, this contest of divergent and conflicting value systems, to understand the problem at all. On the BNP, is the BNP racist, or is it British: it all depends on your viewpoint and where you stand on the political spectrum. Well, where do I stand? I believe in freedom of speech, for all, short of defamation and incitement to violence. That approach is opposed by the Islamic sharia, Fascistic law, Communist governance and Mr David Cameron, it seems.

    Who is the extremist now? It all depends on your viewpoint.

  • davejon

    The BNP are neither “far right” nor “despicable”, but support freedom, security, identity and democracy. Nationalism is a fundamental instinct, manifested by all animals (including man – or homo sapiens) and the indigenous people of Britain – a large majority with ancestry going back to the Neolithic era in these islands – are now threatened with replacement by non Europeans who seem able to enter our land at will and remain here. The unholy trinity of Racism, Sexism and Homophobia is used routinely by the politically correct establishment and the mass media to discourage reasoned debate, whilst Red mobs seek to shout down and physically intimidate any BNP supporters going about their lawful political activities. Cameron is either a fool or a liar if he denies Jewish international supremacy theories. Oft repeated lies about Hitler and German National Socialism, plus zero tolerance for questioning details of the history of the holocaust (or should that be The Holocaust) proves it exists. Or is that an “extremist” view?

    • Inspector General

      You still maintain the BNP are not extremist? If your party is ever going to gain credibility, you will need to dispense with the idea that Hitler was misunderstood and the Jews are taking over the world. As for the holocaust, you might have heard of an Auschwitz clerk in his 90s going to jail. He seemingly made the mistake of informing everybody he was there and saw everything. And he’s jailed for that, when other much senior Nazis managed to rise in prominence in industry 60 years ago.

      • Revd Robert West

        I quite agree. The Jews have a right to a National Homeland in their Historical Homeland, and Great Britain did a great job, I believe, with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. A genocide against any group – whether racial, religious, political or class – is an example of absolute evil and would condemn such men as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mohammed and many of the Shieks and Caliphs, Pol Pot and, alas, some professing Christians, such as some of the Popes who launched Crusades, progroms and inquisitions. My lot, the Puritans, were not always so bright: we had our Salaam witch trials and burnings; and then there was the slave trade. So we have got to recognise what is wrong from our side. However, the determination to reconstitute the Tower of Babel, is that really going to lead to anything better as the Synod of the Church of England seem to believe. I do not believe so; and so that is why I am in the British National Party. But you make an absolutely valid point that I hope those to whom it applies to, will heed.

        • Inspector General

          One is extremely fond of Jews. Their contribution to the entertainment industry is massive and irreplaceable. So, if the BNP wants to attract this man’s support, they’d have to boot their Nazis out. Won’t share a table with them, I can tell you.

          The crusades were initiated by Saracen attacks on pilgrims, were they not? Let’s just say it seemed a good idea at the time…

          • Revd Robert West

            The Christian approach is to welcome people but folk come with all kinds of problems and issues and you cannot sort things out at once. The Jews are a chosen folk, that is there in the Bible, their Bible, but you want to see what their Bible, at times, says about them! We are chosen by grace, not worth. That is the same for all of us, whether Jew or Gentile. Now there is a problem of evil but it is not confined to the Far Right: it is in all of us. The first step on the right road is to look at ourselves. I believe the BNP are right on immigration, the EU and Islam: Immigration must end; the EU is not democratic; and Mohammedanism is in itself Far Right in many respects and is incompatible with Liberal democracy. But Good is greater than Evil and you will find that it will triumph both in this life and in the next, and God’s kingdom is going to advance whatever happens to the Church or Britain.

          • davejon

            “Their contribution to the entertainment industry is massive and irreplaceable” – yes, the likes of Gershwin, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Harold Harlen, Al Jolson (Joelsohn) etc wrote beautiful songs and tunes (I bet you have never heard of them) but in the last 50 years they have sunk into depravity with decadent pop music and pornography (eg Richard Desmond). Anything for money! Much of decadent art is Jewish inspired (Freud being a good example) – and let’s not forget the early slave trade was down to them as was the invention and propagation of Communism. High finance and international banking have fuelled wars and they are prime movers in that. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf about Jews’ ability to deceive, which is perhaps why you are fond of them – they fool everyone.

          • Inspector General

            You’re a BNP man alright. There’s no mistake there.

            It’s a curious thing that as this country faces its greatest danger since the 39 45 war, increasing Islamification, you people still find the time to savage one of the most successful of immigrant groups in the UK. The small number who are here and who are somewhat private in their doings. To wit, they are not out to take the country over.

            Unbelievable really, but there it is.

            Goodbye sir.

          • davejon

            Answer my question – have you ever heard of Gershwin, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Harold Harlen, Al Jolson? No, I guess not – you are an ignorant young person who knows nothing.

          • Inspector General

            Harlen. Not familiar with him. The rest of course are standard fare for the cultured man, so rather surprising you’re coming out with them. How about Leiber and Stoller? How many tunes do you think that are in your head came from the pen of the Jew…

          • davejon

            Most of those tunes were cribbed by Jews from the pens of gentile composers like Mozart, Brahms, Bach etc. Harold Arlen (my mistake) born Hyman Arluck, wrote Over The rainbow etc

          • Inspector General

            Now you know that’s nonsense…

            Have looked Arlen up. What an impressive line up he penned to lighten our spirits. Well done him!

          • Ashley Dickenson

            According to a certain Baroness the Crusades (as abusive as they were toward the Jews) were in response to the then Islamic jihad that threatened Christendom, centuries ago.

        • mark

          I can actually believe a church of england minister is in the naxi bnp…. however i have found bnp members to be as sick depraved and evil liars as the muslims.

          Increasing numbers of so called c of e ministers are showing they merely have an intellectual belief they are christian and very much NOT born again.

          Makes me think of that ultra fake sizer.

          • Revd Robert West

            The Mohammedans are human beings: a lot of them are very, very decent and I have had the immense privilege, as I count it, of working with them and teaching a lot of their children. As for the BNP, you get a variety of folk in every political party and church and you must never judge the whole by the few, as you should never judge an individual simply on the basis of the group that he is in. But we still have to evaluate ideologies or belief systems and we have to do it honestly, and not as General Synod pleasers. There is quite a lot in common between all totalitarian systems be they Communistic, Fascistic, or Islamic. At the moment, General Synod is not happy with seeing Islam as part of that trio; even so, you still have to treat everyone as a human being. By the way I am not myself a Church of England Minister though I do interact with the Church of England and other Churches as well and will do all I can to help them: not everything in the Church of England is bad.

          • mark

            Yup, as i thought your just the typical lying nazi bnp member… allready exposed as a conman.

            Just doing a google with your name and fake title brings up a lot of information doesnt it

            And of course your not being allowed to teach also

          • Revd Robert West

            Thank you for the time and effort that you have taken to comment but may I correct you on just one point. I am not a teacher and have not been stopped teaching; I have simply been stopped programming in schools, which I was not into anyway. This, I am very glad to do. May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with your spirit. Amen.

          • Ashley Dickenson

            Yes, if anything GB does not have to apologise for the Balfour Declaration – as Jeremy Corbyn would probably assert – but it has to apologise not only for the dividing of that land into (then) Palestine and the Kingdom of Jordan but also for the disallowing of Jewish refugees to their homeland both during and after the war.
            ‘The nation that does not serve you (Israel) shall utterly perish’ – hence the British Empire’s fairly speedy post-war end?

      • davejon

        Let me tell you, Inspector General, the BNP policies have NO mention of any view about Hitler and German history – if they do, then show me where it is. Do you understand? Now, there are many people who are not remotely connected with the BNP or any other political group, but who – living in free country – are interested in precisely what Hitler actually did, and more importantly, did NOT do, after 1933. Logically, one does not have to prove what a person DID NOT do, but the onus is on someone (in this instance, you) to prove what he DID DO. Are you following this? OK – so show me documents or other evidence where Hitler desired to murder European Jewry, instead of deporting them to Israel, America and the UK. Show me forensic evidence – cyanide residues in soil or in the “gas chamber” at Auschwitz – that would stand up in court today (as opposed to faulty memory, hearsay and downright lies) that anyone was gassed at a German concentration camp. A simple request but without answers your “extermination theory” is unproven. The German clerk (Oscar Groenig) never actually said he “saw” the gas chambers working (lost in translation) but made that bit up in order to refute “deniers” and hope for a lighter sentence which worked. The Holocaust industry is sufficient proof by itself to support the existence of a Jewish conspiracy. Are you a “Truth Denier”?

        • Inspector General

          Good Grief! A Holocaust denier in the flesh. You’ve swallowed the lot, haven’t you.

          Well, one thing is for sure. The Nazis were damn cunning animals, and covered their tracks well. For example, the extermination camp at Sobibor ‘disappeared’ overnight. Then, of course, they had the time to accomplish that act thoroughly.

          But their downfall was meticulous record keeping. Yes, the camps documents were destroyed, but they forgot or did not realise the significance of their railway system. Anyway, even if they did, it was too late in the day to go and retrieve them for burning too. The German railways records exist and every train to the camps are there. And that is where we who are not taken in by the history revisionists rest our case.

          How bloody awkward for you…

          • davejon

            Inspector General – forget the ad hominem hysteria (the usual way out of evading an argument) and show me EVIDENCE – forensic or otherwise acceptable by a UK court – for homicidal use of hydrogen cyanide gas at Auschwitz or any other camp. Are there cyanide residues (ferric ferrocyanide or Prussian Blue residues) in brick or masonry walls of the alleged gas chamber or cyanide residues in soil samples? Until you can show me this you have no case. Do you understand? It is YOU who have swallowed the Auschwitz Lie!

          • mark

            I have found on other forums also, that bnp types are just as evil depraved liars as muslims.

        • maggie

          Davejon. Why are you so angry?
          Bye the way, the best regarded evidence in a court of law is witness evidence. Witnesses to the death camps, (thousands of them), are very old people who have tattoos on their arms.

          • davejon

            Most witness evidence can be inadmissible and hearsay. Tattoos don’t mean anything except the person has a tattoo.

    • mark

      In 1993 the BNP became increasingly embarrassed by Combat 18 violence. After its victory in Millwall it decided it no longer needed the street thugs and banned dual membership. However most BNP members ignored this plea. In September 1995 four of the five London BNP branch organisers attended a C18 meeting.

      Formed in 1982 by John Tyndall, one of Britain’s foremost post-war Nazis, the BNP spent much of the 1980s in the shadow of the larger National Front. The NF was to split quite dramatically, and, torn by internal conflict, left a space on the far right for the BNP to fill.

      BNP In 1985, one of its main activists, Tony Lecomber, was sent to prison for trying to blow up the offices of a rival organisation. He was also caught with hand-grenades. Despite his attempted terrorism, he remains number two in today’s BNP.

      During the early 1990s much of its activities were focused on East London, where, in 1993, BNP secured a council by-election victory in the Tower Hamlets ward of Millwall. The price to pay was a massive rise in racial attacks. In the three months after the election, racial incidents rose by 300%

      • davejon

        Much of that is past history and the details have become obscure – eg Lecomber did not have grenades or explosives, just a crude firework type device which nearly caused injury to himself. Also he has not been involved in the BNP for at least a decade (number 2? – you are deluded). I didn’t know the BNP until the late 1990s but I have seen no violence in its ranks but plenty of violence directed towards it by anti BNP activists from SWP, UAF etc – for example, instead of paying like the rest of us, to enter one of our Red White and Blue Festivals, and debating with us to show how wrong we (allegedly) are, the antis used violence to prevent our members entering. Same when Nick Griffin attempted to enter the studio for BBC 1Any Questions – proves a point doesn’t it? So is it any wonder John Tyndall created some sort of security group (possibly along the lines of C18) – after all, the Jews in the UK have their own security outfit – the CST – partly paid out of public funds. Equal opportunities.

        • mark

          Then of course most of us will have seen the exposing documentaries or articles linking foul griffin to various nazi and kkk type groups around the world.

          Also seeing the nazi salutes of the bnp supporters when a nazi bnp member got a council seat etc.

  • mark

    No such thing as moderate islam, except for the purpose of deception…. thats why they have gotton away with so much in the uk allready.. 100% deception.

  • len

    The problem with Cameron is he has no idea of what he is dealing with in regards to Islamic terrorists….Or if he has he is not letting on for fear of’ kicking the hornets nest’…