Daily Mail 2
Ethics & Morality

Daily Mail terror porn – your daily dose of Islamic State propaganda

 

“WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT”, screeches the Daily Mail – virtually every day – as it displays the heinous horrors being visited upon Christians, Yazidis and apostate Muslims by ISIS / ISIL / Islamic State / Daesh on what is undoubtedly (and horrifically) a daily basis. But despite (or because of?) the upper case warning, we click and gawp. It’s terror porn on tap – hardcore, full-frontal, indecent and obscene.

Of course these stories must be told: it is imperative that the world hears that the streets of Raqqa are littered with battered and bloodstained bodies hanging on crosses; of the jihadi butchers who behead and dismember ‘spies’ and ‘apostates’; of the brutality of child rape; of the barbarism of women being chained together and marched to a sickening sex slave market; of gays being hurled from towers and then stoned by a baying mob, just to make sure.

But these Islamist devils are savvy and sophisticated: they use social media like Luther used Gutenberg’s printing press. Protestant truth was spread by paper, ink and movable type. Islamist evil is being spread via Twitter, Skype, Facebook and YouTube. It is one thing to report the hell of Iraq and the evils being perpetrated throughout the Middle East, but it is quite another to become part of a propaganda machine and so complicit in its theo-political cause.

That is not to say that we ought never to be shown pictures of captives with shaven heads wearing orange jumpsuits. It is not to say that we should censor images of the likes of Jihadi John wielding his scythe, or of black-clad executioners ranged against a backdrop of sun, surf and sand, waiting to turn the sea red with blood of martyrs.

But do we need to be shown – virtually every day – the bloodbaths of beheadings and hacked-off limbs? Do we need to see severed heads with pixelated eyes impaled on railings? Do we need to be shown caged men being lowered into a swimming pool to drown? Or caged and doused in petrol to be burned alive? Or sitting in flaming car with a mortar gun aimed at it? Or kneeling in a line, linked by necklaces of explosives which flare up like Roman candles? Do we really need to be offered these visual abominations every day?

“It is like a waterfall of blood,” says Abu Ibrahim, a Raqqa resident and witness to the weekly punishments. “There are more and more executions and now the children watch like they are used to it.” Just like our own children log on to the Internet and ogle porn. And familiarity breeds contempt.

The Islamic State has a media mission beyond terrorising the world: they are using the Internet as a call to prayer for the worldwide Ummah; a rallying cry to inspire support with promises of adventure and romance to gain new recruits to the Holy War of Allah. And young, bored, disillusioned Muslims – of both sexes – are clearly attracted by the savagery and depravity of authentic Islam: to be able to follow in the literal footsteps of Mohammed sure beats maths homework, doing the washing up or kicking a football around.

But each and every time the Daily Mail disseminates Islamic State propaganda, they facilitate the brainwashing of the next generation. Terror porn is an Islamist tool of re-education: if you can’t see the real thing in Raqqa, just log on to MailOnline and there you will not only be able to read of murders, mass graves, torture and rape, but beam at it in all its masturbatory glory. And terror porn – like sex porn – is addictive. You just need your daily fix to satisfy a bodily urge. It’s comforting.

This isn’t a call for censorship or pious journalistic holiness, but restraint. The Daily Mail has a duty to report news and comment on events, but it has become as obsessed with terror porn as teen boys are with sex porn. Neither is fiction: both involve real people who become real victims. We can dispute the thresholds of indecency and cavil about the morality of the Daily Mail‘s range of visual improprieties, but, just as sex porn feeds lust and satisfies the urge to self-worship, terror porn breeds Islamist incest and traitorous adultery. All things are permitted, but not everything is beneficial. As St Paul wrote: ‘All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not‘ (1Cor 10:23).

Paul Dacre is no saint, but would he have published a constant stream of pictures of Jews in 1940 being marched to the ovens? Perhaps, and maybe it would have been no bad thing to tell the world of the truth of Nazi evil. But would Paul Dacre have shown Jews about to be choked to death on prussic acid? Or being burned alive in vast vats of boiling oil? Or stitched together back-to-back as part of a gruesome ‘twins’ experiment? No? Then don’t the agonised and grieving victims of Islamic State deserve the same dignity as they suffer, pray and prepare to meet their Maker?

  • CliveM

    Completely agree. I have wondered who it is who watches these things. This is the 21st centuries equivalent of the crowds cheering on the hangings at Tyburn.

    Being told is one thing, watching it is another. We are playing IS’s game by doing so.

  • The Explorer

    There are people I know who want to think well of Islam (the alternative reality is too frightening). They think even IS is sporadic in its brutality. Once in a while there’s a beheading. The last time there was an atrocity was when a bunch of Copts were beheaded down by the sea.

    As a counter to such people, one can point to the ‘Mail’. Atrocities are happening on a daily basis; here’s the daily evidence.

    That, being charitable, is the Mail’s intention. As HG points out, the intention may be abused. During the Vietnam War, Vietnamese soldiers read ‘The Lord of the Rings’. Some of them stuck images of Sauron’s eye on their helmets. Clearly, there was a message problem. With whom did the fault lie: Tolkien as writer, or the Vietnamese as readers?

    • CliveM

      Reporting the news is one thing. Reminding people what is happening on a daily basis is needed.

      Showing the propaganda videos plays into the terrorists hands.

      Ever wondered why the executions seem to be getting ever more ‘exotic’ and ‘imaginative’? It’s because IS is playing the media game. It realises simple beheadings will start to bore and people will lose interest. It needs to be ever more inventive to ensure its message is passed on.

      Also these videos are normalising this behaviour. Like sex porn people will start to become immune to it, indifferent even.

      • The Explorer

        Yes. I quite see your point that balance has been lost. You’re quite right about the analogy with sex porn. At first two people is shocking, but that quickly becomes stale. Next it’s three people, then four, then a whole orgy of them.
        What then? Animals? When tastes become jaded enough, it’s snuff movies…

        • CliveM

          Yes, and in addition by feeding the animal, you are encouraging a demand to be fed in ever more exotic ways.

          It’s becomes a symbiotic cycle of ever greater depravity.

      • IanCad

        Let’s face it. We become what we behold. Throw out the TV, and don’t linger over photos in the press.

        • CliveM

          I don’t. I have never watched any of the videos.

          I agree though, if we digest filth, we become filth.

          • The Explorer

            I haven’t watched the videos either; but I know, without doing so, that there are ongoing atrocities.

            The extended ending of ‘Mark’ says that believers can drink deadly poison and not be harmed.

            Understood in a spiritual sense, that would apply to exactly this kind of thing. I imagine, though, that it must apply only to those with a very special gift of the Spirit. There must be believers who can read the Marquis de Sade right through. I can’t.

            Without that gift, one should not try. To borrow again from ‘The Lord of the Rings’ both Saruman and Denethor believe that they can stare at images in the Palantir without harm. In practice, both become enslaved.

          • CliveM

            Good analogy.

            Also the Mail isn’t simply being read by people of spiritual discernment. This stuff damages. Even though it won’t be everyone, maybe not even the majority, but I can’t help but feel it will encourage the teenage, would be jihadist. Also in the newspapers yesterday we read of the trial if a Grandmother beheaded by a mentally ill man. Where did he get the idea from?

            This isn’t about censorship, the story is still being told. It’s about not pandering to the psychopaths and sicko’s who make up IS.

            By being in the media, a person or event becomes (in some minds at least) glamorised. Look at Jihadi John, do you not think his treatment in the media will have acted as an encouragement to some?

          • magnolia

            Jihadi what? John? Not Mohammed or any other well known Muslim name? Am I the only one who sniffs an almighty big rat? Isn’t John a notably Christian name no fanatical Muslim would touch with a bargepole?

          • CliveM

            It was the nickname given by the press. No one knew who he was (real name discovered later).

            Sort of thing the press like to do. You do know who I was talking about?

          • magnolia

            I simply cannot see what attraction these pictures would hold to any Christian person. If you know what you believe and why, and have seen through the “naughty but nice” description. These pictures give nothing, and some are faked by various secret services for various complicated reasons, but with the intent of winning the “infowar” which is a serious part of modern warfare. Make the enemy look bad in the media then gather together an international force to slaughter them. Why some people write as if this were not a major factor in international relations and warfare is beyond me.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Not quite what Jesus said, though I take your point. He pointed out that the evil is already in us – ‘what comes out of a man’s heart’ – all the watching does is feed what is already there.

          • CliveM

            Point taken, but should we feed it?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Satan isn’t guiding me to kill people in the name of allah. So I feed nothing with this. And while some might be fed, most will be exposed to the awful truth of ISIS. It all becomes a matter of balance, the need to educate of the evil against the attempts not to encourage people in doing that evil

          • CliveM

            Is that what is happening. Has the 18 months worth of videos and exposure to them slackened the pace of individuals wanting to join them? My concept is what actually does happen is people become immune to it, like the children in Ragga.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Showing them is nothing to do with stopping the already radicalised from joining up. I am afraid that we aren’t going to manage that, and as the radicalisation starts before the children head off to school (where they then inform their 4 year old playmates that in due course they will be killing them because they are infidels) the Daily Mail has no effect either way on most of them.

            It is about presenting the horrifying truth to a country that has been made so PC that it would happily appease such people, even when they stand among us perpetrating such crimes. Trying to get people to realise that this IS a real and present danger to them.

          • CliveM

            Have you viewed the videos? Did you need them to realise how deadly IS is? Did you not find photos and the written word enough?

          • Dominic Stockford

            The written word is never enough for those without eyes to see and ears to hear, and the photos are pretty bad, but given that ours is a ‘photos lie’ generation videos for those who believe only what they see ‘on the telly’ is sadly required. Even though they still probably won’t believe it unless they see ‘the holes’ for themselves.

            I have not chosen to view the videos, beyond one early one, which showed thing actually happening, only the allegations that something was about to happen. And given the so-called prank done to an ex-premiership footballer the other day, a video of such sort might as well be a prank.

  • B flat

    This is not HG’s style of writing at all. Measured prose to express clearly, thoughts that have a conclusion. But “screeches the Daily Mail” was an expression befitting tabloid journalism. I read the rest of the post with increasing distaste and bewilderment. I read the Mail online, because I won’t buy the Times or Telegraph, so I am a beneficiary of their reporting. I have noticed the increased numbers of their articles regarding ISIS, but do not open those that have no real news, so many of the lurid forms of murder described so graphically in this post were new to me. Was it really necessary to give us this in such detail, and without warning. And what exactly was the purpose of this:
    if you can’t see the real thing in Raqqa, just log on to MailOnline and
    there you will not only be able to read of murders, mass graves, torture
    and rape, but beam at it in all its masturbatory glory. And terror porn
    – like sex porn – is addictive. You just need your daily fix to satisfy
    a bodily urge. It’s comforting.
    ?

    I had to look up Paul Dacre on google, as I don’t know the name of any newspaper editors. Another blogger I revere, yesterday wrote about the degradation of science.
    He, however, discouraged any “gleeful attack upon the Natural Sciences. It would leave one deservedly wide open to a gigantic Tu quoque.”

    • Dominic Stockford

      I know what they are doing, and I know that they want to kill us too. Sometimes I read a mail article, but I have no need to keep going back for a ‘daily fix’. This really isn’t HG is it? Or has he been replaced by someone who wants us all to live in ignorance of the greatest evil, physically speaking, in the world today.

      • Phil R

        The greatest evil physically speaking is us.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Nope. That isn’t where Christian theology stands

  • Andy

    “But each and every time the Daily Mail disseminates Islamic State propaganda, they facilitate the brainwashing of the next generation”

    You don’t have to read it or look at it, but it’s important that we can find information if we choose to.

  • Dreadnaught

    Most of the press and especially the tabloids are sensationalist in their appeal. Snuff movies from ISIS and more are readily accessible on the internet. The Mail however, exhibits hypocrisy of the highest standard by pixilating a picture deemed too nasty for public exposure but leaving little to the imagination then ion the next line will **** a word like ‘Bitch’ or ‘A*se’. The side column of the Mail is a Perv’s paradise, while the news columns condemn sexual abuse. The BBC is as bad, bleeping out swear words that are they very essence of what it serves up from its own budget as a cutting edge ‘comedy’ show.
    If there had been smart phones in the first world war there may not have been a second world war. If you want to stem the trend of abortion on demand; show some.
    Publishing without self censorship is genuine reporting. They must show the grizzly and gruesome with serious comment and condemnation. If the politicians who advocate war or conflict are to be seen as representative of the electorate then the electorate should not be shielded from the actuality of warfare on their behalf.
    Would we have believed in the nature of the Holocaust without seeing the footage? No, no sane person would.
    When the actions of ISIS are perpetrated in the UK it will be too late to whine on that ‘nobody told us’.
    Publicity can work both ways, but lets have a bit of honesty and less stupidity of how we consume or are ‘shielded’ from the ‘News’.

    • Phil R

      Agreed. ISIL execute Christians, Abortion is horrible, I remember reading of an Administrator in a US Abortion clinic who called herself a Christian and had worked there for many years.

      One day she was offered to see an abortion being performed and she agreed.

      She said she watched horrified as the ultrasound showed the baby quite clearly in the womb. Then the doctor guided his “tools” in to end its life and she said she saw the baby move away from the first contact. Only text but very graphic and very real and very persuasive.

      Even then she said it took her another month to leave the employment of the clinic.

  • Dominic Stockford

    However, it is really happening to real people every day, at the hands of ISIS. And they have every desire to kill everyone who isn’t in their version of Islam. Should the true horror and evil be hidden from western sensibilities because we find it a bit ‘gross’?

    • CliveM

      Is that what’s being said?

  • Politically__Incorrect

    “But do we need to be shown – virtually every day – the bloodbaths of beheadings and hacked-off limbs? ”

    It depends how people react to it, but I think on balance, the more we expose the pure evil that is Islam the better. The Middle East may seem a long way off to many, so it is worth being reminder that these horrors are happening close to home, like the beheading in Southern France today. Meanwhile the Islamic rats are queuing up in Calais waiting to get into Britain and claim “asylum”, knowing they have a perfect ally in a spineless political elite doped with multi-culturalism.

    I don’t usually look at the images myself. It doesn’t need much imagination to grasp the sheer horror of what is happening. However, I hope Ed Milliband, who is so keen to outlaw “Islamophobia” looks at those pictures each day and feels it is right to protect those who are happy to butcher others for no good reason.

  • The Explorer

    If Islamophobia is irrational fear of the harmless, how does that tally with the Mail’s daily evidence: which suggests that the fear is not irrational because Islam is not harmless? Easy.

    On ‘The Big Questions’ recently a young Muslim woman said that what IS was doing was “not in the name of my religion”. (To frantic applause, of course, from a studio audience only too willing to believe her.)

    When she reads her Qur’an, what does she take it to be saying? Because IS seem to me to be spot on in carrying out the Qur’an’s injunctions. Two possibilities.

    1. She interprets all calls to violence metaphorically. ie, cutting the head off an unbeliever simply means discussion with an unbeliever.
    2. She is lying: which her religion says she is fully entitled to do when dealing with an unbeliever like Nicky Campbell.

    • CliveM

      If you define everything bad that Muslims do as not Islamic, then to state that Islam is a violent blood cult, is Islamophobic.

      There are undoubtedly good, moral individuals who are Muslim. There are Christians who view some of the more difficult parts of the OT as examples for us today. It’s the scale each way that’s the worrying factor. Those Christians who support slaughter of your defeated enemies are clearly a small minority. Those in Islam who support violent Jihad, in Islamic terms may not be.

      • The Explorer

        The young woman in question may well be a good moral individual. I think she also said (unless I’m confusing different episodes of the programme) that Islam says all babies who die go to Heaven.
        All babies? Or just all Muslim babies? No one took her up on it for clarification.

        • CliveM

          http://islamqa.info/en/6496

          It would appear to be subject to dispute.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you. Interesting link. Much the same debates as exercised post-Augustine Christians. Islam, it seems, has its own version of Limbo. (Wonder where it got that idea from?) That kuffar babies will be the servants of Muslims in Paradise is an interesting conception.

          • CliveM

            Yes interesting. Full of plagiarised theology and self serving views on Paradise.

            You can see why the socially ineptfind Islam so appealing.

  • Orwell Ian

    I
    wasn’t aware that the Mail was spreading a daily dose of Islamic
    fragrance on anything like this scale. I find it sickening and
    appalling but it does serve a purpose. It counters the standard
    political doublethink that Islamism is nothing to do with Islam which
    – by implication – is really harmless and enriching. Most adults
    would, I hope, be sensible enough to dip into the Mail’s coverage
    just enough to keep themselves informed but some due to personality
    or inclination could well get hooked on it. Not only might it incite
    more disenchanted Muslims but also lead to reprisals against the
    Muslim community.

    I don’t think we could ever agree on where the line
    should be drawn on this kind of reporting but to me it seems too
    lurid to be anything other than dangerously inflammatory. I
    think it was Sky News that just said “the Islamic community is now
    suffering from increased “islamophobia” and they are on a
    par with the Jews for being on the receiving end of abuse.” I can
    well believe it. All this ISIL unpleasantness, not to mention returning Jihadis,
    illegal immigration etc is entrenching suspicion and avoidance of one
    community by the others. These are seeds of polarisation, partition
    and sectarianism.

  • CliveM

    Well today’s news, a decapitation in France and an attack on holiday makers in Tunisia. 27 dead.

    Another day in the office for the religion of peace.

    • Orwell Ian

      And another day for Cameron to trot out his default assurance. Today’s events are NTDWI. He’s just confirmed it.

  • len

    Islamic State is a stone age religion using modern technology to accomplish its ends, what a toxic combination and the West seems unable to comprehend or deal with it..

  • preacher

    We should not forget that over the last few decades, films & ‘reality’ games have become progressively more violent & explicit. The games in particular can warp & desensitise young minds, & innocence lost is very hard to recover.
    It’s a short step from watching to participation given the chance & the excuse. The victims cease to be real, they’re just figures in a game.

    All media must be responsible, & if necessary graphically violent videos submitted by I.S should be banned by law from being shown, they’re subversive evil & harmful to the viewer.

    There is a morbid fascination with many people to observe the results of accidents & violence, even though they may be repulsed by what they see, they feel the need to look. Such is the lure of curiosity, which is where many addictions start.

  • The Explorer

    NTDWI. The Mail evidence is not Islam. The shootings in Tunisia are not Islam. The Grenoble beheading is not Islam. The Charlie Hebdo shootings were not Islam.

    They are heretical offshoots of Islam: like the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, or Jim Jones in Guyana were heretical offshoots of Christianity. (If Jones was even that.)

    Why? Because the possibility that they are one viable literalist interpretation within mainstream Islam is simply too terrifying for Western politicians to contemplate.

    • Orwell Ian

      They will ignore the blindingly obvious for as long as most people feel relatively secure and remain oblivious to creeping dhimmitude.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Quote from Cameron in response to today’s islamo-butchery…

    “The people who do these things, they sometimes claim to do it in the name of Islam,” Mr Cameron said. “They don’t. Islam is a religion of peace.”

    When will that man pull his head out of his own backside?

    • CliveM

      I think the problem is, once a Prime Minister announces that Islam is simply a blood cult what then?

      I can see that the implications of making such a statement, both within the Muslim community and also in the wider indigenous community, would give anyone pause for thought.

      The potential for civic violence of such a move is frightening.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        Of course I would not expect him as PM to openly describe Islam as a blood cult, but it seems unnecessary for him to keep stating what most people can see is not true. Better if he made no comment at all about Islam, but allowed people to judge for themselves. I suppose he thinks that if he keeps repeating it someone might believe him.

        • CliveM

          Fair point, however I think it’s probably fear of the consequences.

      • len

        I suppose that is why the mantra “Islam is a religion of peace” is repeated so often by our leaders a mass uprising of Islamists hell bent on destruction is too awful to consider.

        • CliveM

          Also concern about those people like the man who tried to hack off the head of the Muslim dentist in ‘revenge’ for Lee Rigby.

  • dannybhoy

    “4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; 6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

    8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

    Philippians chapter 4 (ESVUK)
    I stopped watching these vids for two reasons. One was that it does what is intended, -brings fear. Two, it breeds hatred for the perpetrators.
    Does that mean we should make like the Christian ostrich?
    No, as citizens we should ensure our MPs realise that if we do not take action to stop it, we will be engulfed by it.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      I have not actually watched any of the videos, I just read about them. If I watched them I might go out and wallop the nearest muzzie, which would not be a very smart (or righteous) thing to do. However, as these attacks happen more frequently and ever nearer to home, there may come a point when “forceful resistance” becomes a matter of survival. I hope I am wrong though.

      • dannybhoy

        We go back to the “a Christian is a citizens of two kingdoms” debate.
        If a single Christian is being persecuted for his/her faith, we are told quite clearly that we have to turn the other cheek, even if that leads to martyrdom.
        But if we are a wife or husband, mother or father, we have an obligation to others to try and protect them.
        If our earthly society is under attack, whether by an enemy outside or an enemy from within, we have a responsibility to protect our society.
        So I for one would join up to fight an enemy, and whilst I know I am called to love him, I cannot put my society/community/family at risk because of my own beliefs. I don’t have the right to do that.

  • The Explorer

    We’re minus Linus. Where’s he got to? We could do with his insights that we’re the victims of Christian paranoia.
    The videos/pictures. What do you expect from a British rag like the Mail? Grenoble. One-off incident. There are nutters everywhere. Tunisia? What about the shooting of black Christians in America?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      As they say, Grenoble was a “lone wolf”, an isolated incident, so nothing to worry about. As you were everybody and on with de-radicalising programme which is clearly going so well

      • The Explorer

        The difference between you and Linus is that Linus means it.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          LOL

      • avi barzel

        Means we need more yoof counsellors, basketball courts and new pingpong tables.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          Brilliant Avi. You should let Dave know, he’ll love the idea.

          • CliveM

            Watch it. HG said pretty much the same thing yesterday, he’ll become unbearable! I think we may need to take him down a notch or two.

            Tall poppy syndrome!!

          • avi barzel

            😀

          • avi barzel

            Let’s not even joke; been around the proverbial block enough times to see how such brilliant measures come back again and again thanks to post-doctoral strategists who barely came out of droopy diapers and jumped into droopy trousers just yesterday, or because of the infallible General Theory of Good Thoughts, which holds that if you repeat something over and over again, it has to eventually work….and if it doesn’t, you just have to feed it more money and try again.

    • Linus

      Christians see plots and conspiracies under every stone. They have to. Whipping up fear is the only way they can persuade others to believe in their ludicrous theories.

      Scared people will hide behind any shield if they think it will deflect the bullets they fear are headed their way. The problem with Christianity is that it makes huge claims and delivers virtually none of them. Becoming a Christian won’t protect you from anything. Their God certainly doesn’t lift a finger to help all his persecuted believers in the Middle East.

      And that’s where Christianity fails utterly. When you finally realize you’re on you’re own, you understand the basic negative premise of the religion, which is “be scared, because scared people flee towards any mirage that offers a promise of sanctuary, and the more scared you are, the more biddable and easy to control you become…”

      So Christians have to be scared. Of Muslims. Of gays. Of anyone who threatens their certainties. Incidents like this tragic affair in the Isère have to be portents of worse to come, otherwise what is there to be scared of?

      Christianity is the ultimate religion of fear, and some of its worst (i.e. most laughably exaggerated) proponents regularly comment right here. The sky is falling, the sky is falling, squawk! squawk!

      • The Explorer

        Linus old evidence evader,

        It isn’t Christians who are citing simultaneous attacks on three continents: IS are making that claim about themselves. It isn’t Christians reporting about asylum seekers at the Tunnel. It isn’t Christians holding crisis talks in Brussels about the escalating problem of the Mediterranean boat people.

        My impression is that as the Dark Ages return to Europe, authentic Christianity will assume a low profile, while liberal Christianity destroys itself and the two major players of Islam and Secular Humanism slug it out for supremacy.

        Globally, however, I believe that Christianity will grow; so that there is a suitable Bride (including the European remnant) to greet the return of Christ.

        • Linus

          If you get your evidence from Ukip and the Daily Mail, like so many who comment here, you’ll never want for moonshine.

          We can agree that liberal Christianity will eventually peter out in a vague and woolly tide of “spiritual” platitudes that leave those who mouth them with nowhere to hide from Atheism. But these fevered fantasies you have of an Islamic holy war are a poor way of recruiting for your cause. If you reject one set of superstitions based on their patently ludicrous claims, you’re hardly like to accept another whose claims are just as ludicrous. Europe’s future is secular, and where Europe leads, the rest of the world will, as always, follow.

          If this Christ of yours really does exist, then to paraphrase the immortal words of George Michael “he can’t come back, ’cause he (won’t have any) children to come back for…”

          • The Explorer

            I don’t know if you’re right about Ukip or the Mail, because I don’t use either as an information source.
            I’m not suggesting that secular Europeans will convert to Islam. In all probability they will remain secular, but their percentage of the population will decline as Islam’s increases. I’m not talking about the immediate future, but by 2050 the future demographic patterns should be clear.
            As I said, Christ will return to a global Church that will include the European remnant. Europe has handed on the Christian baton to the next stage, and the dynamism is elsewhere.

          • Linus

            “Future demographic patterns” is just a fancy-schmancy way of saying “they’re going to breed like rabbits and overrun us”.

            It’s reminiscent of the “Yellow Peril” nonsense of the period leading up to the First World War. Only this time it’s the Arabs and not the Chinese.

            Images of a ravening horde poised at the gates of Fortress Europe are a repeating theme in conservative ideology. They have to be foreign, they have to be savage and above all, there has to be a hell of a lot of them. Otherwise, who can you scare into supporting you?

            If you look at the real figures rather than the fevered extrapolations of Ukip and the rest of the extreme right, Muslim immigrants follow the time-honoured demographic patterns of any other immigrant community. Birth rates remain high in comparison to the host community for at most two generations, after which they tail off to a point where they’re indistinguishable from the national average.

            As an overall percentage of the population, Muslims are unlikely to reach 10% within the next century, if ever. Your demographic time-bomb is a damp squib that, even if you succeed in lighting it, is unlikely to produce more than a small burp and a puff of harmless smoke.

            Not a very frightening tale, is it? And therefore of limited use to Christian propagandists. If steadily climbing birth rates are what you need to frighten people into belief, why not start to peddle the myth that Vicky Pollard and her horde of single mums are the next Anti-Christ? Nobody can doubt that more and more British children are born out of wedlock to women who never use the same sperm donor twice (unless he’s particularly generous with the vodka Red Bulls, of course…) At least then you’ll have demographics on your side.

          • CliveM

            Ok so we should already see the truth of that in our immigrant populations. Has the birth rate of French Muslims dropped to the same level as the indigenous?

            With evidence.

          • The Explorer

            I have always maintained that predictions about anything even ten years ahead are highly unlikely to be accurate. I quite agree that a Muslim-majority Europe by 2050 is simply scaremongering. On the other hand, Britain’s Muslim population rose by 74% in the first decade of this century, with profound social impact.
            Four thoughts.
            1. The breeding rate of British-born Muslim women does drop to slightly above indigenous levels. (Three children, on average.) However, new brides are constantly drawn from Pakistan, and they have a much higher breeding rate.
            2. Muslims are not diffused across the country. They are concentrated in certain areas, where they may constitute a majority of the local population. They are thus able to be immune to integration.
            3. I’d say your 10% figure is low. Austria is thought to be the first European country likely to exceed 20% Muslim. The European average is likely to be around 16 – 20%. But that’s a mighty significant minority, especially if ideologically hostile to the host culture.
            4. The Anti-Christ is one who takes the place of Christ. It is likely to be an individual. A horde of single mums does not really fit the bill, especially as religion is unlikely to be high on their list of priorities.

          • CliveM

            Well a birth rate of 3 is greater then replacement and as the indigenous population has a birthdate of about 1.7, which is less then replacement, that combined immigration certainly suggests an increasing proportion of Muslims.

          • The Explorer

            That the proportion of Muslims will increase is universally accepted. The question is, by how much. Current predictions are 5.5 million by 2030: 8.2% of the population. A lot more than that by 2050.

            But in Britain in 1348, statisticians were probably calculating the increase in the peasant population. And then came the Black Death. Statistics out of the window. (I’m not wishing a new plague on anybody; I’m simply saying we have no idea what’s round the corner to alter all our perspectives.)

          • CliveM

            It also assumes that a proportion of Muslims don’t secularise. I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption.

          • Linus

            Your statistics are based on extrapolations that nothing but hindsight will prove either accurate or inaccurate. Predicting demographic catastrophe is easy. All you need is a catastrophe scenario and a couple of selected statistics that say what you want them to say.

            The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let’s see how things taste in 10, 20, 30 years, shall we? I’m willing to bet that the “Muslim Threat” hysteria of the early 2000s will be seen in much the same light as the “Reds Under the Bed” panic of the 1950s and the “Yellow Peril” of the late 19th century.

            Those who preach extreme visions of cataclysm and woe are almost always wrong. Especially when they’re fighting to hold on to a position of power and influence. Dire warnings of catastrophe to come if their privileges are disturbed in any way smack of desperation.

          • The Explorer

            What applies to my statistics applies equally to your statistics. As you say, we’ll see in due course whose are the more accurate. Yellow peril fears were groundless; Jewish fears about the Nazis were not. (Actually, Yellow Peril fears may have been not so much wrong as ahead of their time. China as the world’s premier power seems now only a matter of time.)

            Reds under the bed. There were. Whittaker Chambers, vilified for so many years, was right. Alger Hiss really was a traitor. So were the Rosenbergs: as proved conclusively in, I think, 2009.

            I’m not arguing from a position of power and influence. PC won long ago. As I said, Christianity, I imagine, will keep its head down while humanism and Islam slug it out in Europe.

  • Inspector General

    Let us have two statements. “Islam is evil” and “It is said that Islam is evil”.

    We are all decent types on here. One is sure that the rest of you do what the Inspector does. To wit, glide along in life not getting too close to the sides for they are jagged and will lacerate you as you pass on your journey. Thus it is understandable that we recoil at the truths of life. That is why of the two statements above, the second is the least parlous to us. The definition we prefer, because it asks nothing from us directly. In other words, we don’t have to do anything about it. We can ignore the thing. We are not diverted from our journey.

    What then is the more corrupting of the soul? To see the results of the Religion of Peace in action, or to proceed on our merry way blocking the horrors out…

    • CliveM

      There’s a thoughtful side to you IG, good post.

      I’m going to go away and think about it.

  • steroflex

    It isn’t just the Mail, you know. Even the dear old Beeb is pretty anti-Muslim. LBC reported the atrocities with relish too, I am afraid.
    The trouble is that a lot of young Muslims behave appallingly and do not pretend that they don’t. Even the left wing loathes Islam.
    Me, I notice that every time there is another atrocity, air travel, my privacy, my beloved legal system are all taken over and then, quite often, abused.

    • Dreadnaught

      The head of BBC Religious Programmes is a Muslim and the BBC falls over backwards to accommodate Muslim ‘sensitivities’ – get real.

      • Mike Stallard

        When the Prophet Mohammed was threatened in Mecca in 622, unlike Jesus and a lot of Christians, he ran away and saved his life. He then fought for survival. This means that Moslems have a duty to fight to defend their faith and, if they are economically very backward and if they are not enlightened – deliberately – they have to buy their equipment from us Christians with our own oil money which we extract from their lands.
        Terrorism is a cheap alternative.

        • Dreadnaught

          Mohammad was a mass murderer and You Sir, are an idiot.

    • dannybhoy

      It’s all about identity. We know that there are educated Muslims who can express themselves, who maybe privately question their faith, but for many devout Muslims there can be no questioning, no deviation from the faith.
      So they remain wedded to a fatalistic faith which frankly is going nowhere because its tenets are so inflexible.
      So some young Muslims find themselves unable to balance their faith with our western liberal society, Can’t or don’t want to work, are repulsed by our western excesses. Islam simplifies the choices, gives them an identity and a channel for their frustrations and alienation.
      We are the stoopid ones who won’t believe the evidence before our eyes that not everyone wants to be a consumer, wants to get drunk or take drugs and has no respect for anything.
      We make all these PC noises about getting these young people, married women and their children back to the UK; but back for what? If they are rejecting our way of life what can we honestly do to accommodate their aspirations, short of declaring ourselves an Islamic republic?

    • David

      “Even the left wing loathes Islam”
      Really ? In which universe is that ?
      Many leftists are apologists for Islam.

      • The Explorer

        Interesting point. I think the Left is bending itself into pretzels trying to stay friendly to Islam after the violation to the Left’s principles represented by Charlie Hebdo. The Left pretends that the Hebdo atrocity wasn’t authentic Islam, but deep down (in view of mounting evidence to the contrary) it knows otherwise.

        I remember an episode of ‘Have I Got News for You’ chaired by Jo Brand, back in the days when Abu Qatada was an issue. Brand and the panel mocked Qatada several times during the programme. I would have expected them to defend him. I sensed the beginning of a sea change.

        Cardinal Ratzinger said that the future of Europe would be fought out between Islam and Secular Humanism. (While Christianity hunkers down and survives, as it did during the Dark Ages.) We may be seeing the very first skirmishes in that future war.

        • David

          That is very interesting. You may well be right. As you say, many leftists are now confused, waiting for instructions regarding Islam.
          Liberal Christianity will be dead within a generation or so from now. Why ? Because eventually the gap between what the Bible says, and Tradition explains, and the desperate needs of liberal Christians to endorse almost anything that our society, driven by moral relativism, declares as desirable, will become such a yawning gulf, that the whole nonsense will become so transparently incoherent, intellectually and spiritually, it will simply collapse in confusion and a deep sense of the “end of the road”.
          Orthodox Christianity, be it Catholicism or Biblically authentic Protestantism will survive, probably as allies, surrounded by darkness and ignorance. Yes we will hunker down, read, pray and survive, as the true Light cannot be extinguished by evil.

          • Mike Stallard

            Or like the true light cannot be extinguished in Syria?

          • David

            If you fly your personal “helicopter” close to the ground, then you are right.
            But if you fly a little higher and view a wider panorama then no, the light shines strongly in many parts of the ME.
            Open Doors, to name but one organisation, quietly spreads the Gospel constantly. Many are coming to faith. Indigenous Christians of all stripes do the same.

          • Mike Stallard

            Thank you for that encouragement.

      • Indeed, one of the strangest features about life today is the practical coalition between revolutionary Islam and the revolutionary Left. Peter Hitchens explores this seemingly bizarre paradox in his book ‘The Cameron Delusion.’ Still essential reading, as is his ‘The Rage Against God.’

        For atheist/secularists, its a case of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Of course they don’t/can’t/won’t see that Christianity (with its Judaic roots) is the bedrock and well spring of the freedom under law and prosperity that Europe, USA and the West have hitherto (but not for much longer) enjoyed. They believe in something called ‘The Enlightenment’ which the see as the guarantor of their rights and liberties. They see our Judaeo-Christian roots as being an impediment to those rights and liberties, not their guarantor. So if importing millions of Muslims into Europe helps with the dechristianisation agenda (as it undoubtedly does) then fine.

        We’ll rub ‘the Right’s’ noses in it now, then civilise the Muslims later. They’ll come round to our way of thinking after a few generations of gaydom, compulsory evololtuionism and abortionism. Linus’ tragic rant above is a perfect illustration of this delusion.

        However, ‘There was an old lady who swallowed a fly…..’ (see link http://www.poppyfields.net/poppy/songs/oldwoman.html)

        She died.

        It all makes sense when you understand that the Father of Lies is behind both atheism and Islam. I probably wouldn’t dare say that if my children were any younger and my mortgage paid off, but there it is.

        Not long to go now. He who endures to the end will be saved.

        • David

          Totally agree Stephen.
          My thoughts too exactly.

        • CliveM

          I think the Left understand that Christianity underlies the freedoms and wealth we enjoy today and hate it for that reason. With its emphasis on individual freedom, individual responsibility and it’s associated underpinning of ownership and a broadly capitalist system (as opposed to the corporatist, individual denying socialist system) and when seen in those terms you can see the attraction of Islam to the left. It threatens to undercut Christianity on religious grounds, attacks it claims to authority and as a religion is much more about central authority and control. All beloved by the left.

        • The Explorer

          Mike Stallard made the point a while back that universities are starting to hate Islam as much as they hate Christianity.
          I think the heirs of the Enlightenment are beginning to realise that Islam (especially as it grows exponentially) may be a tougher nut to assimilate than they anticipated.
          Pym Fortuyn saw this very clearly. The growth of Islamic influence would mean the diminution of his rights as a gay man. When he pointed this out (albeit forcefully) he died.

          • James M

            Archbishop Lefebvre got there before Ratzinger. As a missionary in Africa, the Abp was well-placed to know. He was remarkably perceptive.

  • The Explorer

    Now it’s a suicide bomber in a Kuwait Shiite mosque. Accounts vary between ten dead and twenty-four dead.

    But don’t let the suicide bomber bit deceive you. IS are said to be claiming responsibility; so this has nothing to do with Islam.

    • Pubcrawler

      There have been suicide bombings in mosques for weeks; how has this one become newsworthy?

      • The Explorer

        I think because it coincides with Grenoble and Tunisia. There has been talk of IS striking on three continents simultaneously.

  • The Explorer

    IS seems to be flexing its muscles as an indication of things to come. Today, Iraq and Syria. Tomorrow, the World. Have a foretaste.

    • Pubcrawler

      I fear that you are right. And there is only one language they understand. Lord, have mercy.

  • Inspector General

    One understands the Islamic population of France is around 10%, The Uk’s is around 4%. We’ve a bit if catching up to do, but we’ll get there eventually.

    Just as the result of having road transport costs several hundreds of sudden deaths each year, so does, or so will do, accommodating Islam. There will come a time when there won’t even be any screaming as the atrocity occurs. We’ll all just dust ourselves down, help clear up, and give thanks it wasn’t our turn on this occasion.

    • The Explorer

      We’ll catch up only if the French Islamic population remains static. It shows no signs of doing so. Projected French demographic statistics for 2050 are quite eye watering. (Although, of course, a projection is only that. It is not a fact, and any number of currently-unknown variables could render it completely invalid.)

      • Inspector General

        We’ve one chance to avert what’s coming. Take the same steps Germany has over Mein Kampf. Make possession of their filthy book a criminal offence.

        • dannybhoy
          • Inspector General

            Thanks for that Danny. Of course, China has had problems with their muslims just like the rest of the world…

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, but the difference is that they have the will and resolve to impose their own rule on them. The West is trapped between political correctness and fear of losing control..
            The tragedy is that if we don’t start saying clearly and unequivocally that we won’t put up with this nonsense, our governments will only be allowed to retain control for as long as it suits those who wish to destroy us.

          • avi barzel

            Funny, how they never get censured for oppressing their Muslims and their inalianable rights, not offering them a state of their own to…how does it go…live peacefully side by side?

          • dannybhoy

            Big dogs don’t have to worry about what anybody else says.
            You will find very little criticism of China anywhere.
            Whereas anybody and everybody criticises Canada…. ;0)

          • DanJ0

            The problem with banning the Qur’an seems to be that we believe in freedom of thought, conscience, and religion here. Perhaps if we ditched that article then we’d be more able to come down hard on our Muslim citizens and stop them believing in their god.

          • CliveM

            I know you’re not suggesting it, but history seems to indicate trying to ban a book and it’s belief system, unless accompanied by systematic, long term atrocities, doesn’t work (even then it might fail).

            I’m reasonably certIn that that would fail to get any support.

    • avi barzel

      Cateful, Inspector, people get upset when someone brings up the Immutable Law of Religion of Peace Percentages. But thete are country charts on this. Yes, at 10% things are rough; at 20% things are already grim and dangerous and you have to do a balancing act with payoffs and tribute in one hand and the truncheon in the other; at 30% it’s essentially Good Night, Nurse for your nation or locale and at 50% and above, you might as well relocate to Beirut to get some peace.

      Some folks get very upset at me when I point out the empirically proven and glaringly obvious facts that the real “roots” of the Israeli-Arab conflict is the solid Islamic neighbourhood and the 20% and up Muslim population….everything else is gobledeygook and fluff that sucks foreign aid, sells papers and keeps otherwise unemployable liberal arts grads on the dole at state-funded and controlled “NGOs”.

      • Inspector General

        Yes Avi, one has seen versions, and has published one on Cranmer before. At 40% they tend to make a grab for power. That shouldn’t come as a surprise as we all be eating halal meat by then and have adopted their religious holidays as our holidays.

        • avi barzel

          Ah, thanks, forgot about what they do at 40%. You won’t like Ramadan, Inspector, I’m sure of that, but it’s either chewing on you pencils at the desk all day or risking the loss of your head for sneaking a dish of bangers and beans…halal bangers, of course.

  • Royinsouthwest

    If all muslims were Sufis there would be no need for Cameron or any other politically correct idiot to state that Islam is a religion of peace. Similarly if all muslims were Nizari Ismailis, i.e. followers of the Aga Khan, there would be no need for these tiresome and insulting platitudes.

    Unfortunately one of the most influential strains of Islam is Wahhabism which, thanks to Saudi money, has polluted the thoughts of muslims around the world. Even more unfortunately Western political “leaders” such as Cameron, Merkel and Obama do not have the slightest intention of confronting Saudi Arabia and telling their rulers to stop sowing the seeds of terrorism in the West. let alone in the Middle East. Instead they hope that the Saudis can exert enough influence to keep terrorism at a moderate level that the electorates of Western countries can live with.

    • The Explorer

      After all, it’s in the interests of the Saudis to have Western economies stable enough to keep buying oil.

  • The Explorer

    Hollande spoke of terrorism. David Cameron spoke of “the horrors of terrorism.”

    Terrorism is the problem. Got it? Terrorism. We focus on how it’s being done; not on who’s doing it. But It could be anybody. True, there was an Islamist flag flying above the factory in Grenoble, but that was just coincidence. It could equally have been a Tricolore. Or a Union Jack.

    • Inspector General

      Have to be fair to Cameron on this occasion, he couldn’t say much else. The main thing is that Islam = Terrorism is now formly entrenched in the British psyche…

      • Royinsouthwest

        He could have said that terrorists are doing the Devil’s work.

        • Dreadnaught

          He should have said they are doing as the Koran and Hadiths reccommend.

          • Royinsouthwest

            To some people in this country that would sound like an endorsement. It would be far better for Cameron to say what I suggested.

          • Dreadnaught

            Why alienate the atheists?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Would atheists really be that petty?

          • Dreadnaught

            How the hell would I know?

          • Pubcrawler

            Amounts to the same thing. Some might say…

      • The Explorer

        Islam = terrorism is absolutely the perception.
        It’s actually unfair to peaceful strains within Islam like the Sufis (as Roy points out below) or decent strains like the Kurds.
        But that ‘terrorism’ is code for ‘Islamic terrorism’ seems a given.

        • Inspector General

          Forgive this man, but he is wondering if there is such a thing as a peaceful form of Islam. Do they not share the same book?

          • The Explorer

            A good point. The Sufis are mystical, and the Kurds are fighting IS. And don’t forget that there are different schools of Islamic law: some more rigorous than others. Muslims, after all, disagree among themselves about whether to behead homosexuals and burn the corpses, hang them, throw them off towers, or bury them under rocks.

            I believe there are Muslims who read the Koranic injunction to smite unbelievers on the neck and say that this was applicable in ancient Arabia, but need not apply in a modern global context; although one must still convert unbelievers, of course, or turn them into dhimmis. (They probably don’t say so too loudly, in case they are killed by those with a more literalist approach.)

          • Inspector General

            Ah, smite them on the neck. Explains much…

          • Pubcrawler

            There are the Ahmadis and the Sufis. Both of which are generally considered heretical by mainstream Muslims. Draw your own conclusions…

          • Call me Dave seems to think that Islam is the religion of peace, he said so in his speech after the Tunisia shootings that what had happened did not represent Islam which is the religion of peace. I think he’s kidding us all.

  • Inspector General

    Credit due to our Explorer in questioning the current situation as to the Left’s opinion of Islam,

    Do we have any Lefty types on board tonight who can advise us if Islam is now held in as much contempt by them as Christianity is?

    • Linus

      Of course Islam is just as nonsensical as Christianity. Or Judaism. Or any other religion you care to mention.

      The big difference between the major religions is not to be found in their doctrines, which are all uniformly sexist, homophobic and prejudiced in so many other ways. It’s got more to do with their believers.

      As a gay man I have a huge problem with Muslims. Many of them want me dead, and those that don’t have other unpleasant punishments in mind, so there’s no room for compromise with them, and my only protection against them is the solid enforcement of civil law that keeps their murderous desires at bay (at least most of the time, in most Western countries).

      Muslims do however have one saving grace. They don’t lie like Christians. We know where we stand with them. They hate us and aren’t afraid to say it. Their beliefs are hateful, but at least they have the merit of being clear, which makes it easy to formulate a strategy to counter them.

      Christians on the other hand are just plain dishonest. They claim to love us, when really they hate us. They claim to want our happiness, while doing their best to make us as miserable as possible. They lie, and when caught out doing it, lie some more in order to justify the first lie. Virtually none of them can come out and say “I despise you, please die, or at least disappear”, which, just like the Muslims, is what they really want from us.

      It’s therefore very hard to respect Christians. How do you respect two-faced insincerity and veiled malice? They talk about love while practicing hatred. That’s why the gay community has such a problem with them.

      • Linus,
        If whining ever becomes an Olympic sport, you will undoubtedly be representing France.
        Your problem is that you don’t have any criteria for knowing what love , hate, good, evil are. To love someone is not to have sex with him. It is to seek his well-being, even at the expense of one’s own, and that often has to be done by warning and rebuking. You are on your way to hell, man, and if I hated you like poison I would be encouraging you in your lifestyle and saying, “Good on you! What a splendid fellow you are!”
        But because I and others here love you, we warn you. And because you are exceedingly stubborn and stupid we sometimes have to be very direct with you. I understand that you may not like that, but one of the things about love is that it endures (I Cor. 13:7).

        • Linus

          What you love is your own opinion. And yourself. Everyone has to be just like you. If they’re not, they have to be told to change.

          That is nothing more than narcissism. And narcissism is not love. It’s an obsessive psychological disorder. If they ever make it an Olympic sport, Christians will bring home gold, silver and bronze in every event…

          • I am not the one who goes onto websites with which I disagree, makes myself as obnoxious as possible and then bleats like a poor lost lamb because I think nobody loves me.
            You’ve come on a Christian website. Nobody has forced you to. What is so surprising to you if you are told to repent and believe the Gospel? A quick browse at Mark 1:15 might have given you a hint that this might happen.
            If being told you’re a sinner on this blog is so terrible for you and you find it so hateful, you do have a quick and easy remedy.

          • Linus

            I don’t think I’ve ever expressed surprise at Christian lies and hatred. I was raised in the Catholic faith. How could the duplicity and falseness of Christians come as any surprise to me?

            Your comments continue to reveal the essential narcissism that lies at the root of your faith. You think I actually want to be loved by someone like you? Merely remarking on the falseness of your claim to love everyone does not mean I desire your love. Quite the reverse.

            Being loved by a Christian narcissist is a millstone I’m very happy not to have my neck encumbered with. You only love the reflection of yourself, so the barely concealed undercurrent of hatred that flows through all your responses to me tells me you don’t believe I resemble you in any way, and am therefore unworthy of your love. And that is a blessing for which I am excessively grateful!

            Exposing Christian hypocrisy is not whining. There may be needy individuals out there who crave love and approval from even the most abject and damaged religionist. But those of us gifted with common sense know that any kind of emotional entanglement with these basket cases only feeds their overinflated egos and stokes the fires of their monomaniac obsession with themselves, deified. You can’t love someone who only loves himself because the relationship can only ever be a one-way street. But you can pity him, and warn others of the danger they risk by interacting with him. That is the point of my reponses here. There is no other.

          • ‘You can’t love someone who only loves himself because the relationship can only ever be a one-way street. But you can pity him, and warn others of the danger they risk by interacting with him.

            I am doing my best to do the first, though I get the feeling it’s just a smidge unrequited. I certainly pity you, since it is plain that you are unfulfilled in this life (otherwise you wouldn’t be here demanding attention) and face something much worse at the end of it.
            I don’t know about any dangers anyone faces from you since no one here takes you seriously.

        • DanJ0

          It’s a waste of time and counter-productive if the people you rebuke don’t believe in your god or accept the concept of an afterlife in heaven or hell. Also, there are lots of Christians online who seem to take a lot of pleasure in pointing out the punishment they imagine is in store for homosexuals.

          • preacher

            Hi Brother, regrettably I have to agree with you on both your points, if people continue to reject Christ’s love, that is their choice. It’s no good banging the drum if people won’t come to the party.
            But speaking personally I will continue to try & reach as many people as I can as I know how important it is & how precious they are.
            Your second point pains me, as true Christians Never delight or take pleasure in the fate of those that reject God’s plan for their salvation, the Bible tells me that All have sinned & face judgement. That includes me & the rest of humanity so it’s not or shouldn’t be a question of taking pleasure in the loss of a specific group.

            Blessings my friend, enjoy the weekend. P.

          • DanJ0

            I expect the truth of your first point depends on whether you’re from the Calvinist stable or not but I suppose even Calvinists are required to spread the Gospel on the assumption that their god will use it as it sees fit to create its elect. That said, I’d question whether repeatedly rebuking non-believers outside of the church really counts as spreading the Gospel, especially if it’s perceived as being done sanctimoniously or for one’s own personal pleasure.

          • preacher

            Hi again, I’ve never thought of myself belonging to any group or stable, more of a maverick as the old boys would say.
            Well my answer to your second point is that I don’t rebuke, (well sometimes, – but usually inside the Church) I tend more to discuss & try to answer questions I hope I’ve never been sanctimoneous & it’s often hard work, although I must admit I often enjoy the results.

          • DanJ0

            You don’t come across as sanctimonious or as taking pleasure in berating others. I’d have thought spreading the Gospel would mostly mean witnessing i.e. being that ‘city on a hill’ and describing the impact on one’s own life, encouraging people to read the bible, and being available to explain the core stuff and answer questions.

          • preacher

            That’s right D, I believe the best way to reach people with the gospel is to be honest & share with them the difference that Christ has made in ones own life. It means being open & frank about ones own past which can be a bit of a hurdle at first.
            But when folks realise that you aren’t going to judge them & that you respect & care for them they will ask more freely the questions that have bothered them about the gospel.

            I’ve found that the ‘City on the hill’ has to be a place that people want to visit rather than be incarcerated in, my own approach is the door’s always open.
            I can’t change the rules that God has given, but that’s obvious to anyone with an eye to see, but I can help people to see that God is not the tyrannical judge that many like to think He is, that enjoys condemning & sentencing people to eternal suffering. But one who loves them enough to suffer & die for them so that although they have transgressed the law, their fine has been paid by the very judge that sits at their trial. The rest is up to them, their choice but no matter what they choose, I’ll always be there to try & help them.

            Blessings. Enjoy the summer Sun, & remember the U.V is forecast to be high this week. P

          • Ethical monotheism is probably at least as good a thought experiment as any of the others suggested in ethics, such as wearing the veil of ignorance whilst in the initial position.

      • The Explorer

        Hello Linus,

        Good to see you back. (You won’t believe me, of course.)

        “Easy to formulate a strategy to counter them.” Contain them in zones sensibles where the law of France does not prevail, and the police do not dare to venture. (Outside them, French law DOES prevail. Hence, the banning of the burka.)

        Sharia law will thus expand in line with the expansion of the French Muslim population. As long as Muslims confine sharia to themselves there will, I imagine, be no problem. When they try to apply it to the native population (as with current attempts to impose Islamic dress codes on Swedish women in Malmo) they will, I suspect, encounter fierce resistance: the French having revolution in their blood.

      • Inspector General

        It’s you alright. No one else who posts here utilises such outrageous hyperbole and then collapses to the floor weeping…

        • Linus

          My eyes are completely dry, old bigot. I certainly won’t be shedding any tears over your hatred of all things (and people) gay. It’s our great good luck to be hated by you. It makes others look at us and say “if that crazed old whack job hates you then you must be pretty decent people…”

          • Inspector General

            This man doesn’t hate anyone, you old fool. By the way, this year marks the 75th anniversary of France ceasing to be a world power. Perhaps you can run up a white flag on a pole to mark it…

          • Linus

            When you can’t think of anything else to say, try a bit of French bashing, eh?

            What a pitiful wreck of a human being you are. A salutary lesson in the dangers of a weak mind poorly educated and further obscured by a confused and self-serving religion.

            Luckily your kind is dying out. Evolution has blind alleys that just wither away and die as their niche environments disappear…

      • jawjaw2013

        All Christians secretly hate you? ALL? Certainly I can see your point about some, or even many (particularly on conservative boards) but there are plenty of Christians that don’t – 75 per cent of UK Catholics support gay marriage, for example, so do they secretly hate you? Methodists, Quakers and others now support gay marriage, and the tide is certainly moving in that direction. Reverend Steve Chalke, does he secretly hate you? Do I?

        • Linus

          Yes, but who’s a real Christian? Do we rely on self-identification, or do we apply the conditions set out in the New Testament and confirmed by the Church over the ages?

          I suppose my point is that if you support same sex marriage, you’re arguing against 2000 years of constant and unchanging Christian tradition AND a scriptural prohibition. Are you really a Christian in that case? Or is your faith of the cafeteria variety: a buffet where you get to pick and choose the dishes you eat and nothing is obligatory?

          I would argue that Christians who support same-sex marriage aren’t really Christians at all, but rather Atheists in the first stages of renouncing a faith that just isn’t compatible with a rational mind.

          So when I say that all Christians are homophobes, I don’t mean everyone who cries “Lord! Lord!” and claims to be a Christian. I mean those whose beliefs are compatible with the bible AND Christian tradition.

          To my great joy, there aren’t that many of them. And as more and more of them “see the light” every day and come to accept the equal dignity of gay relationships, there are fewer and fewer with every passing year. I’m very happy if you accept and affirm equal marriage, but I don’t consider you as a Christian. So there’s no reason why you should hate me … is there?

          • jawjaw2013

            I see! Well, you can consider me whatever you wish! But you know, it has always been a broad church – look at the wide range of doctrines and differences there are in Christianity. This is merely one of them. Little over a century ago, Christians were using the Bible to justify slavery etc… there are some things about Christianity that do not change – love, forgiveness, sin, and so on – now, people on this board and elsewhere might quibble over the details because they want to belong to some kind of exclusive club, but I would argue, to use your reasoning, that anyone who inculcates these values (sin being more problematic, I agree, but IMHO applying more to what motivates one to act, rather than what one does with one’s genitals), along with a belief in a higher power, is more or less a Christian. Some of the “Christians” on this board would howl in outrage – but really, what are we but cheeky monkeys with a limited time on earth, if we believe in a greater good and Jesus Christ as his messenger, then I think we can leave the details to God and focus on the important things than arguing over the small print. God (and Linus) are welcome to decide who is, or who is not, in the club…. 😉

          • Linus

            I make no claim to have any power to decide who is and isn’t a Christian. I merely state my own opinion. As I’m not a Christian myself, it’s more a

    • James M

      …Apparently so.

  • In our response to these terrible Islamic outrages today, Christians must not fall into the trap of hating individual Moslems, and tarring them all with the same brush.
    .
    Those of us who actually know some Moslems will understand that the vast majority of them are appalled by these atrocities and thoroughly embarrassed by them.
    .
    Our task therefore is not to berate Moslems but, as best we can, to get alongside them and to earn their trust and respect. Few Moslems in Britain have any respect for Christianity because they hear of all the apostate clerics and homosexual priests and think we don’t believe our own Holy Book. They will only get a proper understanding of evangelical Christians if they get to know us, and then we may have the opportunity to tell them about our Lord and Saviour, the Prince of Peace.

    • Ivan M

      One man with a gun can rule one hundred without – Lenin. There are pathological elements in every society. The Muslims have focus. That’s about the only difference. Due precautions have to be exercised in places infested with the al-Queda/ISIS elements. Pray for the dead today.

      • No use praying for the dead. Pray for the living- for the survivors and the bereaved- that they will turn to Christ, the God of all comfort (2 Cor. 1:3-4).

        • Ivan M

          That too

    • James M

      So how are we to get shot of ordained unbelievers in the various Churches ? In the CC and C of E alike, the rot has come from the top. The BCP does at least have the Commination, which is handy for denouncing whoever is the current unbeliever in a mitre – but Catholics have to make do with whatever anti-Christian rubbish the bishops come up with. In a sane CC, Paul VI would have been anathematised and disinterred, not beatified.

      • I believe that Bible-believing churches in unbelieving or mixed denominations should come out and join a free association of believing churches. There are three of these: The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC); the Fellowship of Evangelical Congregation Churches (FECC) and the Grace Baptists (not to be confused with the Baptist Union). All these are in fairly close fellowship with each other.
        .
        In the FIEC, the minister and other leaders have to sign a declaration each year that they are in agreement with the FIEC Statement of faith
        https://fiec.org.uk/about-us/beliefs
        .
        Anglican churches that want to come out of the Church of England but remain Episcopalian will have to get a believing Bishop, perhaps from Africa or somewhere, to ordain new vicars. It can all be done if there is a determination to honour the Lord.
        If you are a believer stuck in an unbelieving church, GET OUT! Don’t give your time and money to those who dishonour Christ. Go online and find a Bible-believing church near to you. The wheat needs to separate from the chaff if God is going to bless this country once more.

  • Anton

    We the people might not need our daily dose of this stuff but the government certainly does, so I hope the Daily Mail carries on.

    • The Explorer

      While it’s Syria and Iraq it’s just Syria and Iraq. But once IS expands the scope of its operations and British tourists are involved…

      • Anton

        I meant more than that. Our government doesn’t let in genuine refugees – many Christian – from ISIS terror, meanwhile letting in large numbers of queue-jumpers, many of whom have the same scriptures as ISIS.

        • James M

          Many of whom are quite happy to murder Christians. Mohammedanism should be outlawed, as is happening in China (of all places), and at least one African country.

  • Ivan M

    ISIS establishes Interplanetary Command. Plans to rename Moon LUNASIS. — from an old post at moonofalabama. Cut the Turks out and the IS is contained and eventually destroyed. But they are a NATO ally necessary for destabilizing the Syrians, so you should look the other way.

  • len

    This latests terrorist attack by a Muslim extremist in Tunisia reveals a carefully laid our plan.This terrorist was not randomly shooting people but carefully selecting victims and the Tunisians were left alone and Europeans were shot.
    This is a deliberate attempt to destroy Tunisia`s tourist industry and destabilise the Country thereby gaining more recruits for I S which gained recruits (and is still gaining recruits)by the destabilising (by The West)of Countries like Iraq and Syria.
    Western Governments still seem to fail to understand Muslim extremists (Muslims extremists refer to themselves as true Muslims) and I wish people like Cameron would actually read the Koran and gain some sort of insight into Islamic aims than to keep repeating that Muslim extremists are not ‘real’ Muslims….

  • len

    I might add to my earlier post that Muslim ‘extremists see the West as totally corrupt and without any morals at all.The recent endorsement of homosexual lifestyles and the enforcement of acceptance of these through legislation has reinforced the concept of a decadent West in this eyes of Islamic extremists.
    This confrontation between Islamic and western cultures can only be expected to get worse as the West ‘liberalizes’ itself.
    This is not a problem that will go away ………

    • Len,
      You are absolutely right. Moslems despise Cameron’s ‘British values.,’ and quite rightly so. Thursday’s Telegraph quoted a young white British lad seen in a library studying the Koran (I quote from memory): “I’d sooner be doing this than be shooting up drugs in a park somewhere. And I’d sooner not marry a girl who flashes her belly-button at all and sundry and is off her face on booze every Friday.” That fellow ought to be in a church, hearing about Jesus Christ but he’s going to end up in a mosque being taught how to hate. Why is that?
      .
      Until we realise just how sick our society is, we’re going to have more white British moslems in our midst, many of them radicalized. And our churches very often aren’t part of the answer; they’re part of the problem. Whatever deviation from Christian doctrine the Government may encourage, there will always be a Bishop or senior cleric supporting them. When I wrote to my MP about same-sex ‘marriage,’ he wrote back to me quoting a C of E Bishop.
      .
      Young people looking for something outside our sin-sick secular society don’t consider Christianity because they think the Church doesn’t believe its own Holy Book, and in very many cases, they’re right. Bible-believing Christians! Get out of the C of E, the Baptist Union, the Methodists, the U.R.C. and find a church where the Bible is believed by the Minister and the Gospel faithfully preached. There are still some about in almost every town.
      .
      Then, and not until, we shall start to have an effect upon society. Read 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, and act upon it.

      • Ivan M

        Don’t tell me the Koran student couldn’t find a conservative Christian congregation. There are plenty around. The way the fellow talks you would think all British teens are sluts or binge drinkers. I have not come across more than the normal complement among the tourists here. The evangelical Churches have little attraction to those who have no interest at all the stories about how we should worship Israel. That is why they have no traction with these fellows. Preach Christ exclusively and we might see a difference.

        • ‘Don’t tell me the Koran student couldn’t find a conservative Christian congregation’.

          You’ll have to take that up with the Daily Telegraph. But the point is that there is hardly any Christian doctrine which some cleric or other is not prepared to deny. When people see some Canon or other blessing the Durham ‘Gay Pride’ march and the Bishop of Durham describing Christian doctrine as ‘lousy,’ they are entitled to believe that much of the Christian Church does not believe its own Holy Book. The search for authenticity may take people to the J.W.s or to Islam. At least they believe their founding documents.
          .
          The word ‘Evangelical’ comes from the word that means ‘Good News’ or the Gospel. That is, the good news about the Lord Jesus Christ. The word has nothing to do with Israel. You are right that a church that is obsessed with Israel is not evangelical, and that we need to preach Christ and to be cross centred. However, there is more to preaching Christ than John 3:16 over and over again.

          • Anton

            There is plenty about Israel in the 3rd quarter of Romans. But the church must be obsessed with one thing only – Jesus Christ and him crucified and resurrected.

        • DanJ0

          There was a false dichotomy in there which no doubt suits the narrative. It needn’t be either drugs / booze and male / female sluts, or studying the Qur’an or Bible.

      • preacher

        A look at the seven Churches in The Revelation may prove very enlightening, especially Pergamum (2: 12 – 17 ).
        As the book is an end time prophesy one might think that some ministers & leaders would preach from it more often.
        What’s the point of reaching out to unbelievers when the Church is in a doctrinal mess ? Where will we take them ?.

  • Minnie Caldwell

    Yes, we need to be shown.

  • ZX10

    OK not a reader but I find the mails Hysterics uninteresting and far less worrying then the BBC’s tacit acceptance of the terrorists right to be heard and protected the mail I can ignore and do! but the BBC ? no as they will drag me to court .

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Listening to the BBC Today programme this morning about the atrocity in Tunisia, I could hardly believe my ears. They seemed to be looking for an excuse for the attack in local unemployment and flaws ion the democratic process. The BBC really are terrorist apologists. We also have Boris Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph today that ISIL is not Islamic. No opportunity for reader comments on that one of course – the page didn’t have enough room for that many comments saying b******t.

      • The Explorer

        Leftists quite genuinely believe that any problems with Islam are the result of poverty, not Islam’s essential doctrines.

        Utopian Socialism has not really changed its explanations since the Nineteenth Century. Everything that’s wrong is the fault of poverty and ignorance.

        Give everybody the same level of education and redistribute wealth, and the good society will at last emerge. The wolf of Christianity will lie down with the lamb of Islam, under the benign shepherding of Secular Humanism.