European Union

Evangelism threatened by counter-extremism measures


The Evangelical Alliance has been surveying Evangelicals. 1,730 of them, to be precise. And it transpires that four out of five of them think government policies to tackle extremism may make it harder for them to share their faith. Perhaps the other 20% is either not paying attention to sinister developments, or doesn’t grasp the essential Christian mission. Two thirds of respondents to the Alliance’s survey on ‘British values’ felt that the current attempt to define those values was “a reflection of the country’s identity crisis”, and three quarters agreed that “freedom of speech needs greater protection”.

The glass is almost full.. but is it not astonishing that 25% of Evangelicals believe the state of our freedom of speech is just fine and dandy? It is now apparently a public order offence to quote Leviticus; it is a crime to criticise Islam via electronic media; and an offence not to bake a cake bearing a slogan one considers to be immoral. In fact, it is increasingly difficult to express any orthodox view on sexual morality or the uniqueness of Christ for salvation without being stoned with ‘-phobe’, ‘hate’ or ‘bigot’. Are these 25% asleep in the light?

Evangelicals are broadly supportive of government plans to define and promote British values (71%), and, although they consider it a reasonable response to extremism (57%), there is widespread concern about its unintended consequences.

The Evangelical Alliance has strongly advocated for freedom of religious belief and freedom of speech over many years, which includes standing alongside other faith groups and secular campaigners to defend the right to say things that others may not agree with. Dr Dave Landrum, director of advocacy for the Evangelical Alliance, commented: “Our fundamental freedoms are being threatened by the government over-reacting to security threats to those very freedoms. We may be in danger of destroying the foundations while trying to protect the house we have built on them.”

The Christian faith has indeed been foundational to the historical development of the nation’s values, but this legacy is being eroded. The survey showed that the vast majority of respondents (93%) agreed that Christianity had strongly shaped historic British values. Quite what the other 7% believe is something of a mystery. What history books are they reading? Indeed, do they read at all? Less than a third of respondents (31%) felt that Christianity still shapes those values today. Fewer than one in five (18%) agreed that Britain is a Christian country. It depends how one defines ‘Christian’, of course.

Dr Landrum added: “Many people value the legacy that our country is built on, yet it seems that today we’re trying to build our social values on nothing but fresh air and good intentions. We value Christianity when it suits us, and we dispense with it when it’s inconvenient. But it’s the central truths of Christianity that led to the very freedoms we now rely on. If we want to restore values to the heart of British society we need to remember where they came from. If we want to continue to enjoy the fruits of our freedoms, we need to acknowledge the roots.”

He’s not wrong. Further findings in the survey include:

• Half of Evangelicals think greed is the top ‘deadly sin’ among the British population, followed by 15% who chose lust.
• Consumerism is the most commonly observed negative trait (picked by 65%), followed by obsession with celebrity (58%).
• Charity is the top ‘heavenly virtue’ in the British population, chosen by 34%. Not a single person thought the virtue of chastity was most widespread among Britons.
• Evangelicals are much more likely than the national population to believe “respecting Britain’s political institutions and laws” and sharing “Britain’s customs and traditions” were important aspects to being truly British. For the first measure, 96-85%, and on the second 84-50%.
• Far fewer Evangelicals think an important characteristic of being British is being born in Britain (43% compared to 74% of the national population), having lived there most of one’s life (49% compared to 77%) and having British ancestry (35% compared to 51%).
• 43% of Evangelicals think being a Christian is important to be truly British, compared to 24% of the British population.

The questions relating to native ancestry aren’t insignificant in the fraught context of immigration and debates surrounding national identity. Here we are, under a Conservative government led by a Prime Minister who pledged to cap immigration at “tens of thousands“, and yet, at 318,000, net immigration is higher than it has ever been – even under any preceding Labour government. Last year, 323,000 native Britons emigrated and 641,000 foreign nationals immigrated, almost half of whom came from other EU countries, about which the Prime Minister can do absolutely nothing.

Dr Landrum tweeted yesterday:

David Lundrum immigration 2

Inconvenient truth or partisan cynicism?

Well, it was New Labour who opened the floodgates, not least by immediately opening our borders to Eastern European nationals on their accession to the EU:

Net migration

Stemming the flow proved impossible for the Coalition, not least because Britain’s EU membership is contingent upon the free movement of persons. If the overriding Conservative motives were, as Dr Landrum suggests, greed and consumerism – “suppresses wages and makes the rich richer” – the Thatcher years were a manifest failure.

If the Evangelical Alliance really wants to restore fundamental Christian values to the heart of British society, they might begin by reappraising their own longstanding, fundamental and unquestioned support for Britain’s membership of the EU.

  • Dreadnaught

    I would like to see the Country adopt the maxim once so familiar in the black and white B movie Westerns from ‘leave your guns behind the bar’ to ‘Welcome to the UK -Leave you cultural trappings where they belong – the management reserve the right to refuse admission’ – and mean it.

    • sarky

      Try telling that to the ex pats in Spain. Would have to be a two way street.
      As for enforcing the rules, good luck with that, the government have cut Border Force and Immigration Enforcement to the point of them being totally ineffective and just being a token gesture.

      • “Would have to be a two way street.”
        Not necessarily if we were out of the EU.

  • sarky

    The problem with talking about British values is that most people look at them only in the context of recent history. Britains history is one of fluid values that have changed depending on who has invaded us and on ideas brought in by immigrants. The way most correspondents on here feel is probably no different from how the pagans felt when immigrants first brought christianity to these shores.
    Our society has always been fluid, harking back to a bygone era will change nothing. You have a choice, adapt or die.

    • Anton

      Yes, absolutely, but there’s a difference between being fluid and being flooded.

      • sarky

        Absolutely. We need a system where we decide who comes to the country. Remember though, that without immigration our health service and food industry would pretty much collapse overnight.

        • The Explorer

          Our food industry would collapse. We’re eating immigrants?

          • sarky

            Makes a change from horse 🙂

        • John Thomas

          We had a health service and food industry some while before we had mass-immigration … if we could run these ourselves then, we can do it again.

          • sarky

            Thats the whole point, we can’t. We are too far down the road. We don’t have the infrastructure or money to train the amount of health professionals that we need. As for the food industry, native brits won’t work that hard for the measly wages that are

          • The Explorer

            Never mind the infrastructure or the money for the health professionals. We don’t have the education system.

          • bluedog

            ‘native brits won’t work that hard for the measly wages that are
            paid.’ But isn’t one objective of mass immigration to depress wages, thus increasing corporate competitiveness and subsequently profitability? In a globalised world, it is very hard to pay first world wages within a first world economy when the goods and services produced compete with similar offerings from third world nations. Solution? Import third-worlders, drive down labour rates.

          • bockerglory

            Excellent observation. Also no tax for the low paid so employers want lots of low paid as less NICs! It is a race to the bottom and redistribution of wealth.

          • bmudmai

            Considering the number of people I know who have applied to medicine And have been rejected, some without even getting an interview, some without university response, I’m not sure the limitation of Brits is due to lack of infrastructure or lack of willingness from Brits to train. The fact is these places are going to the foreigners who bring in more money as they pay more to study. If we prioritised the university places to British students and only then give any remaining spaces to foreigners, we would find an abundance of Brits in the NHS and wouldn’t be relying upon immigrants. It’s a myth that we need immigrants for our infrastructure and it’s a myth the natives aren’t willing.

          • We had our own fish and lovely it was too, and seasonal tasty, nutritious British fruit and veg that you had to scrape the soil off not these chemically grown in a sandbag stuff. We had lovely good quality meats from the Commonwealth as well as our own.
            Mass immigration and American sized portions of junk fast food are both contributing to our demise and downfall. There’s no getting away from the fact so we have to do something about it and get out of the EU for a start.

          • CliveM

            Out of curiosity, in what way is the EU contributing to our dietary problems?

          • Well the reasonably priced good quality meat supplies from the Commonwealth stopped, Our farmers have to kowtow to the French and we get their left overs where they bag all our best produce. Our farmers and fishermen have suffered and a lot have perished since we signed up. Ask any farmer and struggling fisherman now and they’ll tell you plenty of tales of woe about the stupid rules and regs the EU are imposing upon them.

            Our food supply is less nutritious and a poorer quality. We have to suffer watery fruit and veg. and meat from Spain, Holland France whilst our best gets enjoyed by other countries including the French and Germans.

          • CliveM

            I’m still able to buy New Zealand lamb, Brazilian beef is everywhere, half my vegetables seem to come from Nigeria, Israel and other non European locations.

            Food is international. The way it’s produced is to satisfy demand for cheap, readily available produce. If the EU imploded tomorrow, this pressure would remain the same.

            I’ve no time for the EU, but if anything food quality would be worse. The big driver would be the US.

        • That is because the country aborts 200,000 of its potential citizens each year. Another result of our sex education programme.

    • Dreadnaught

      Our society has always been fluid

      Come off it Sarky even before the Romans and Normans, the ‘pagan’ tribes had always fought for dominance and self interest between themselves.
      The Scottish and Irish clans, The English and the Scots, The English and the Welsh, the Irish and the Scots fought like cats and dogs. You have a very selective view of history. Are you aware that the English demanded Jews to self identify by badging their clothing in the 13thCentury or thereabouts? The only fluidity that really mattered was the strength of the British navy and colonial expansion.

      • sarky

        I never said it was pretty, but things tend to even out in the end.

  • Anton

    These figures raise some questions:

    * Is it the better educated who are leaving these shores and the less educated who are arriving, so that the net figure disguises a decline in expertise?

    * Of the 600k who came, half were EU and half weren’t. What were the demographics of that latter half, which Westminster has the power to stop without reference to Brussels, and on what grounds were they permitted entry?

    “Our fundamental freedoms are being threatened by the government over-reacting to security threats to those very freedoms.”

    The government is not over-reacting to the threat of Islamic terrorism, Dr. Landrum; the problem is that it hasn’t the guts to call it by its name and deal with it more specifically. Please set a lead. Of course, what we really need is a senior bishop or royal to say this. Would a major atrocity cause that, or only redouble political correctness?

    • Ben Ryan

      Some 188,000 of the total 600k are students. Some are probably dubious, but given the clamp down on visas and dodgy colleges most probably aren’t (in that at least initially they are studying a legitimate course at a legitimate educational establishment – what they do after graduation is another matter).

      This is what happens when universities see the only possible way of remaining financially solvent is to take foreign students at higher fees than British students. In a straight assessment between 2 Masters students for a single place, one of whom is British and the other American, the incentive is always to take the American who pays twice as much.

      • It’s crazy because half the time the foreign students end up not paying the full fees and only paying some of their loans back. Loans they got from this country.

  • Orwell Ian

    Some people make things happen, others watch things happen, and the remainder are rudely awakened and wonder what happened.

    If 18% of Christians think Britain is a Christian country they are wandering around with their eyes wide shut.

    It is hardly surprising that Britain is no longer Christian. Britain is no longer British.

  • In Perfect Ignorance

    3000 years ago “British values” were decided by druids whipping slaves to make them drag large lumps of sandstone faster, because the henge needed finishing or those virgins would never be sacrificed, and the sun god would get angry and send plague and pestilence.

    2000 years ago “British values” were decided by the Romans. There may have been a few druids left hiding in damp Welsh caves, rueing the day those bloody immigrants had invaded and the sacrificing of virgins in henges had fallen out of fashion. But they were marginal voices who had little effect on the wider culture. Immigrants had carried the day. It was to become quite a trend in the evolution of British society.

    1000 years ago “British values” meant speaking French in your new French king’s court and looking down on your lumpish and uncouth Saxon serfs. A few of those serfs may have gone off to live in Nottingham Forest to behave like latter-day druids and rue the day the French had landed. But on the whole, the population just got on with it. Once more the immigrants had won the argument and British culture adapted and changed as a result.

    Nowadays “British values” are again evolving in the face of a new wave of immigration. Once again our culture will adapt and change as a result. And once again a few druids will sulk in their caves, or forests, or suburban semis in Sidcup, and rue the day the evil foreigners arrived and changed everything. And then they’ll fade away like all of their predecessors did.

    Those who want to turn the clock back NEVER win. The clock can’t be turned back. It only moves in one direction. Forwards. Future “British values” will be strongly influenced by immigrants just as they always have been in the past. There’s no way around that, like it or not.

    • The Explorer

      There are immigrants who find the term ‘British’ offensive because it reminds them of the bad old days of Empire. If they were to prevail, the very term ‘British’ would change, along with the values. All that would remain would be the geographical location. ‘Airstrip One Values,’ ‘Offshore Island Values’ anyone?

      • bluedog

        ‘Airstrip One Values,’ ‘Offshore Island Values’ Sounds rather Bransonesque, Mr Explorer, that and the Virgin bit.

        • The Explorer

          Orwell and Marghanita Laski.

      • sarky

        Actually think you will find teenage pregnancy is now down – a result of our sex education programme.

        • The Explorer

          Does the sex education programme mean that kids aren’t getting pregnant; or that our kids aren’t having sex? You can lose your virginity without getting pregnant.

          • dannybhoy

            The question is does the freedom contraception gives to have sex (at a lower and lower age) make us more or less human?
            Does it make children a blessing and responsibility, or an optional extra to be disposed of or neglected?
            (Think Planned Parenthood)
            Does the freedom contraception gives to have sex whenever, make men value women more, or less? Do women then become a commodity to be exploited by evil and ruthless men, and do we then see an increasing abuse of children for the same purposes?
            Answers on a postcard please..

        • How about sexually transmitted diseases?
          Are they going down? I think not! A result of our sex education programme.

          • Dreadnaught

            Ignorance is Bliss.

          • The Explorer

            I remember speaking some years back to a London peripatetic sex educationist who admitted that in some boroughs chlamydia was completely out of control. I doubt that the situation has improved since.

          • Chlamydia’s a pretty effective contraceptive too if left untreated and it can be symptomless.

        • chiefofsinners

          The recent news item was based on statistics for births plus legal abortions.

          A spokeswoman for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service said: “We have seen a huge decline in the number of babies born to teenage mothers over the last decade, in part due to the improvements we’ve seen in contraception advice and services for younger women, with straightforward access to abortion services when their chosen method lets them down. But it also reflects broader societal shifts, with younger women quite rightly expecting and able to pursue educational and professional ambitions.”
          We are now sacrificing babies rather than virgins. That’s progress for you.
          By the way, pregnancy rates in male virgins have remained steady over a long period. As they have in females.

    • Orwell Ian

      “British values” are not evolving. They are being imposed by a Political Class hell bent on a ruinous experiment in social engineering, the cornerstone of which is mass immigration. It is not evolution it is imposition backed by law. Can one be so sure that those who want to turn the clock back never win? We have within our borders some very dangerous people who are only too keen to reset the clock to Year Zero and usher in the darkest age known to man.

      • In Perfect Ignorance

        Every major shift in “British values” has been imposed by an elitist political class, from the Romans, to the Normans, to the Reformation, to now.

        It might not be fair, but since when did fairness have anything to do with how we’re governed? There’s always an elite, and they always get what they want at everyone else’s expense.

        Mass immigration is the latest upheaval in the long series of upheavals that has created the Britain we know today. More upheavals are on their way and the Britain of tomorrow will be a very different place than it is today, just as today’s Britain bears little relation to medieval or Roman Britain. Nothing ever stays the same.

        • The Explorer

          But some changes are much better than others; some possible futures are much worse than others.

        • Yes but our current ‘elite’ claim to be democratic, unlike the Roman’s and Norman’s or the Reformation. And they brought law and order and Christian values. They are also tacitly or explicitly homophiles and in favour of women’s ‘reproductive rights’ (abortion and contraception on demand and all funded by the taxpayer). We are heading at a rate of knots back to paganism.

        • bockerglory

          Well, the village I live in has not changed in its stoicism self sufficiency suspicion of pmpous wealth and the joy of being Christian. The govt. Did build council houses but within a generation these inhabitants have turned into inpendent stoic people with high standards and tidy front gardens.

    • dannybhoy

      Values are not evolving, they are changing. Big difference. Cultural values change slowly over time. The members of society mostly accept those values even if the are uninterested on or reject the underlying religious beliefs which shaped them. What we have now is a collision of cultural and religious values, so instead of an integrated society we now find ourselves gravitating towards cultural community ghettos.

    • Johnny Rottenborough

      @ In Perfect Ignorance—The clock can’t be turned back. It only moves in one direction. Forwards
      Our ‘new wave of immigration’ is likely to make Britain a majority Muslim country. In chapter seven of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, Christopher Caldwell writes: ‘The Islamic world is an economic and intellectual basket case, the part of the potentially civilized world most left behind by progress, as the annual Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations make plain, year after year…Spain translates more foreign books in a year than all the Arabic-speaking countries have translated since the reign of Caliph Mamoun in the ninth century…Outside of fossil fuels, the entire Arab world exports less than Finland does.’

      Islam: turning the clock back the world over.

      druids whipping slaves
      If it’s Stonehenge you’re thinking of, ‘scientists have discovered that its builders completed Stonehenge over a thousand years before the Celts ever inhabited this region, eliminating Druids from the possibilities.’ No mention of slaves, either.

      Once more the immigrants had won the argument
      With a little help from the Harrying of the North.

  • Martin

    I’m not sure how Evangelical the EA, nor who they asked. They certainly didn’t ask me.

    Mind, I’m not sure what Evangelical means these days. I think it may be becoming divorced from Christian.

    Over our long and bloody history we have achieved a measure of freedom to believe what you wish and express it in public. It seems to me that the government find that freedom scary when actually they should realise that it allows us to spot those who wish us harm more easily.

    It has never been legal to incite violence or hatred against others but it has been legal to say that we won’t play their game.

    To those demanding that others bake them a cake I wish no ill, they’ve already harmed themselves, but I fail to see why I should play their game.

    Of course, I don’t regard myself as British but English.

    • dannybhoy

      ” It seems to me that the government find that freedom scary when
      actually they should realise that it allows us to spot those who wish us
      harm more easily.”
      Don’t you think that as the demographics of our nation have changed successive governments -pragmatists to a man!* have, in a very British way, redefined what our values are in order to accommodate the change from am established homogenous society to a multicultural one?
      In seeking to ensure peoples’ freedoms to maintain their cultural and religious identities they have rowed back from what those of us of a certain vintage were brought up to believe was British.
      Over the years our governments have steadily painted themselves into a corner, and the one faith that has seen strictures and censorship imposed on it is the very religion that was basic to our cultural values and practices.
      As Dr Landrum is quoted as saying..
      “Many people value the legacy that our country is
      built on, yet it seems that today we’re trying to build our social
      values on nothing but fresh air and good intentions.”

      • Busy Mum

        🙂 Iron ladies are quite happy to be referred to as men – I will certainly fight like one if the EU Rodrigues report succeeds in rewriting all our school textbooks to remove ‘gender bias’. Apart from which, anyone with a passing knowledge of school budgets will be wondering how on earth any school will be able to afford to replace all its textbooks….

  • len

    The problem confronting the small group of elites who wish total control over the population was the Judeo /Christian foundation from which all sense of order and fairness originated.
    So they set about destroying the Judeo Christian Foundation( in the minds of the public).To do this (acting on the satanic example) they attacked the Genesis account.From “Did God really say?” to “Did God really Create?”
    So separate society from our Judeo /Christian foundations and the downward progression starts once we have no definite moral Foundation .

    So now order descends into chaos in all aspects of society.

    George Orwell had a nightmare and tried to warn us what would happen if we allowed those who desired total control to smash our society for their own gain…..

    • Orwell Ian

      ‘’Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” – George Orwell – 1984

  • Albert

    I don’t really see the logic of this post – perhaps I am not reading it carefully enough. Dr C sets off with complaints about lack of freedom for mission, and then somehow we are talking about immigration and the EU. I just don’t get the logic. I would also point out that as such a large proportion of immigration is coming from the EU, it tends to be Christian (Catholic usually) and much more conservative and zealous than we find here. So immigration – at least if my parish is anything to go by – is making the country more Christian.

    • dannybhoy

      I think it depends where you live Albert, and it doesn’t change what policies the government of the day may implement in the interests of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion..

      • Albert

        The figures are clear: a huge proportion of immigrants are from Eastern Europe, and these are usually Catholics. Thus, the make up of the population is increasingly Catholic – hence the fact that in parts of the country where there are lots of immigrants, Catholic churches are over-flowing (literally) several times over on a Sunday morning.

        If the argument is to say that we now have lots of minorities and therefore the Christian culture must be decultured, I would say that has happened already, and that immigration, if anything pushes in the other direction.

    • Anton

      I wouldn’t mind that. Trouble is I suspect your parish isn’t representative.

      • Albert

        My parish is representative of parishes where there is high immigration, which I think is the issue. In the end, what immigration does is make the population more, not less religious. Perhaps that’s why religious freedom must be curbed!

        • Anton

          Depends which religion. Immigration is 100% responsible for the presence in the UK of The Religion Of Peace.

          • Albert

            Yes, but surely no one seriously thinks that we can’t quote from Lev. because if we do we might blow people up? Anti-terror law in our case, is just an excuse, it has nothing to do with Islam.

          • CliveM

            Even in the Church I attend attendance has been boosted by Eastern Europeans. Frankly I’m relaxed about EU free movement, it’s immigration out with the EU that’s more concerning.

          • The Explorer

            Two million from the EU since 2000 (estimate) slows down the rate at which the UK is Islamicised.

  • bluedog

    A quote from the Daily Telegraph; ‘The army has made contingency plans for the “reappropriation of national territory”, meaning to win back control of neighbourhoods where the population become hostile to the security forces and where guns are easily obtainable, according to the source.’

    The army in this case is French. Remarkable, and quietly encouraging, that a modern European state is planning a Reconquista. Will it ever happen in Britain too?

    • The Explorer

      I understand that in some of the sensitive zones, the denizens have bazookas. The police dare not venture there. The army is the only viable option.

      • bluedog

        Indeed. The article alludes to the return to Europe of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles supplied to the anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya. A very serious development.

        • The Explorer

          I’ve tracked down the article. Here was me thinking in terms of taking out police cars. The actual fear, it seems, is of a missile bringing down a passenger aircraft.

          • bluedog

            Shooting down an aircraft is certainly a worst case scenario. After the recent foiled attack on board a TGV, it doesn’t take much imagination for jihadis to try launching an anti-tank missile at a moving TGV somewhere in France. Impossible to prevent, and just as effective in causing mass casualties as downing an aircraft. Imagine a Eurostar spectacular.

          • Anton

            I think I’ll stick to the ferry henceforth.

    • Orwell Ian

      The French are clearly rattled. Some of the heavy weapons they gave Libyan rebels appear to be finding their way back home. Including Milan anti-tank missiles which might be used against aircraft. The Libyan intervention wasn’t very well thought through was it. Act in haste. Repent at leisure.

      • dannybhoy

        Which is another spin off of Western secular humanistic arrogance! It is the obsession with spreading contemporary western values that has so annoyed (and wrecked) other nations.

        • bluedog

          True dannybhoy. We no longer crusade under the Cross but willingly take up arms to spread the holy writ of democracy.

    • Sir Walter Tyrell

      That has happened in the UK, in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007. However, the engagement of the British Army did not succeed in suppressing terrorist gangs, who have still not gone away.

      • bluedog

        But the terrorist gangs were/are indigenous British, not recent migrants. The strife largely reflects a Christian civil war and lacks the added ingredients of race and culture.

    • Douglas Redmayne

      It can only be hoped that such a thing will happen here.

  • IanCad

    Two seminal issues raised here YG.

    The liberties of the populace and that of immigration.

    The latter will fix itself after the next terrorist outrage.

    The former will need the application of lengthy prison terms for those involved in any diminution of the established right to offend and insult and recieve the same.

    In sturdier times those treasonous wretches who would contrive to diminish our hard-won liberties would face the scaffold.

    Our American cousins have their First Amendment. I wish we could have one.

    • dannybhoy

      Although I think that’s under attack as well! As is Christianity and the freedom of clergy in the armed forces to counsel personnel freely and preach the Gospel. There is increasing pressure to remove symbols and references to Christianity such as crosses, from public buildings and schools. Interestingly the Muslim faith is being promoted.

    • The First Amendment is being eroded by the liberal pro-abortionist and pro-homosexual lobby and secularist too.

  • Inspector General

    Well, no point moaning about it unless we’re prepared to do something about it. The Inspector suggests you all take a long hard look at the way organised buggery is so successful. They long abandoned tugging at normality’s coat and whimpering for tolerance. Instead, they stood up, squared up and shouted in your face.

    Now, we must follow where they blazed ahead, and overtake them. We can start by reminding everyone, including the muslims, that British values are based on CHRISTIANITY and any attempt to suppress said faith will erode those values. Furthermore, we must remind the muslims that their presence in this land is tolerated only while they desist from imposing their alien faith and values on the rest of us. Same goes for those secularists blackguards. A gang of wreckers if ever there were…

    In other words, Christianity needs to bare its teeth.

    Tally ho!

    • Unlikely though with this bunch of cowards we have in government.

      • Cowards – or amoral and self-serving? If there is cowardice it’s on the part of the Churches and the silence of remaining Christian citizens.

        • Both HJ. They are self-serving and amoral first followed by cowardly .

    • David

      Power to your elbow !

      • DanJ0

        I expect the Inspector’s right elbow is already plenty powerful enough.

        • David

          Indeed ! But just issuing encouraging wishes !

    • Remember, it isn’t the Muslims promoting contraception, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, fornication, serial children outside of marriage and the rest of our godless ‘values’. Even without Islam, this nation would be heading for meltdown. The gutless response to Islam is a symptom of a wider malaise, not its cause.

    • sarky

      Got a feeling that you will get a whimper, not a roar!

      • michaelkx

        that Sanky is the problem. if all professing Christians stood up and were counted we would not be ruled by a weak government that will listen to those who make the most noise. So until all Christians stand up and shout very loudly, we will continue to be ignored.

        • DanJ0

          I think you’ll find that your shouting would result in a lot of shouting back from other people. People like me don’t want religionists, whether Muslim, Christian, or whatever, to have control of our lives.

        • sarky

          Its down to hundreds of years of being taught to be meek and mild and to turn the other cheek. You haven’t got a hope!

    • DanJ0

      “They long abandoned tugging at normality’s coat and whimpering for tolerance. Instead, they stood up, squared up and shouted in your face.”

      And quite rightly, too. Similarly with the suffragettes. Luckily, our British values changed so that women have a say in the running of our shared country and people like me can metaphorically stick two fingers up at the Roman Catholic Church. Our shared values have changed throughout history to reflect the society in which we live and society has been changed as our values have changed.

      • Inspector General

        Can’t understand it meself. The Inspector’s criticism of the all powerful homosexual cult labels him a bigot. Your criticism of Christianity makes you a champion. What the hell has gone wrong…

        • DanJ0

          I think it’s more than your criticism, to be honest. My criticism of Christianity, or rather the desire of some of its adherents to control and stigmatise, makes me a champion of liberty. My regular reminders that I’m happy for Christians to dance in the streets, put weird dayglow signs outside their churches, wear naff knitwear in public, and whatever else they want to do in their personal lives, only pushes that point home. You, on the other hand, want people like me to stay out of sight, and keep to the back streets, and to maintain low profile. That, and your obsession with the physical details of a particular act, tends to invite the label.

          • Inspector General

            Yes, that’s it in a nutshell. For your type to leave the scene and, well, ‘retire’….

    • Dreadnaught

      In other words, Christianity needs to bare its teeth

      Oh look… is that them, in the glass on the bedside table?

  • preacher

    I feel that we must face facts here. The majority of our politicians will fight tooth & nail to keep us in the E.U, it’s their fat retirement fund. A five star retirement home for old & retired politicians like Blair, Kinnock & others of the same ilk.
    Why is the public vote on remaining in or out always ‘ Tomorrow ‘ we all know the old saying about when tomorrow arrives. Whatever happens here, it will no longer concern them after they step down.

    Many of our Churches that consider themselves Evangelical are sadly out of touch with the literal meaning of the term, & confusion reigns.

    With the intention of growing in numbers the message of the gospel has been diluted & modified so as not to cause offence to minorities & members of other religions.
    Even within the Church a ‘ Feel God ‘ factor is, it seems the main aim, rather than producing strong believers who are 100% committed to the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ among those of other faiths or no faith at all.
    This situation leaves the door open for the minority who are Truly evangelical to face prosecution, persecution & injustice for standing by their beliefs.

    An enemy has sown tares among the Wheat & it has to be left until harvest to be rooted out, but we should at least be concerned that we are still planting wheat & encouraging it to grow, rather than allowing the tares to take over the crop unhindered.

    • David

      Hear, hear !

  • chiefofsinners

    The Evangelical Alliance’s survey provides powerful evidence that Christians are more likely to be model citizens and pose less of a threat to British values than the population at large.
    It would be interesting to see the survey repeated among other religious groupings.

    • Pubcrawler

      I think most others would pretty much mirror that. Probably not all, though.

    • Unfortunately, being a “model citizen” and remaining polite and acquiescing in the face of the anti-Christian agenda is strengthening evil. Look at the example of same sex marriage and now Islam. This country is sleep walking towards social and economic chaos.

      • dannybhoy

        Absolutely Jack. It is that Christian acquiescence that has allowed so many changes to take place. We live in a democracy and we have a responsibility to engage in local and national political issues to uphold God’s truth and Christian values.

      • chiefofsinners

        Yes – that’s true. I was thinking of the statistic that:

        Evangelicals are much more likely than the national population to believe “respecting Britain’s political institutions and laws” and sharing “Britain’s customs and traditions” were important aspects to being truly British. For the first measure, 96-85%, and on the second 84-50%.

        Not surprising because “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
        But a fact which needs to be emphasised to today’s secularists, who would love to label Christians ‘extremist’ and characterise us as the enemy within.

  • Here’s an interesting news item.

    James McConnell, an Evangelical Christian pastor, is facing charges of making “grossly offensive” remarks about Islam. Local Muslims complained that on May 18, the Reverend McConnell had preached a sermon describing Islam as “heathen” and “satanic”. McConnell, rejected an “informed consent” warning that would have allowed him to avoid prosecution, and now faces six months in prison.

    Here’s what he said:

    “The Muslim religion was created many hundreds of years after Christ. Mohammed, was born in 570. But Muslims believe that Islam is the true religion, dating back to Adam, and that the biblical Patriarchs were all Muslims, including Noah and Abraham and Moses, and even our Lord Jesus Christ.

    “To judge by some of what I have heard in the past few months, you would think that Islam was little more than a variation of Christianity and Judaism. Not so. Islam’s ideas about God, about humanity, about salvation are vastly different from the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Islam is heathen. Islam is satanic. Islam is a doctrine spawned in Hell.”

    In an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, McConnell said he had no hate for Muslims: “My church funds medical care for 1,200 Muslim children in Kenya and Ethiopia. I’ve no hatred in my heart for Muslims, but I won’t be stopped from preaching against Islam.” Ironically, Dr. Raied al-Wazzan, the director of the Belfast Islamic Center and the chief complainant against McConnell, does seem to bear some animus against Christians. Speaking to the BBC in January 2015, he said, “Since the Islamic State took over, it [Mosul] has become the most peaceful city in the world.” That, after the Islamic State had killed or expelled all of Mosul’s Christian community of 60,000.

    Al-Wazzan seems to be endorsing genocide. Why isn’t he on trial for hate speech? Writing in the Belfast Telegraph, Susan Breen, an atheist journalist, raises that very question: “The fact that Dr. Al-Wazzan will be in the witness box, and not in the dock himself, reinforces Christians’ belief it is they alone who are being victimized and persecuted in our society.”

    As another article argues, what business is it of the State what he says? Short of inciting a mob with pitchforks and torches to attack the local mosque or church, the representatives of one religion ought to be free to criticize another religion. Freedom of religion should include the right to say what you think is wrong with another religion. Letting the State sit in judgment on sermons is letting the State tell the Church what it can and cannot believe.

    There is no end to the things that Muslim leaders find offensive. In Saudi Arabia, it’s offensive for Christians to build a church. In some Muslim countries it’s offensive when Christians use the word “Allah,” even though that is the word they have traditionally used for God. When Pope Benedict quoted a medieval emperor’s assessment of Muhammad, Muslims around the world rioted in protest. In Sudan, an English woman was put in jail and almost lost her life for letting her students name the class teddy bear “Muhammad.” At this point, most pastors will have figured out that anything other than platitudes about Islam will be considered offensive, And so most will remain silent on the issue.

    “But that is the same mistake many pastors and certainly the vast majority of priests made about homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” They chose to remain silent on these issues. As a result, a good many Christians came to the conclusion that the same-sex “marriage” debate wasn’t that important. Now, thanks in part to the silence of so many Christians, gay activists are in a position to dictate to Christian florists, photographers, and bakers. By now, it should be apparent that the gay assault on Christianity has nothing to do with provocative Christians and everything to do with the gay activist agenda. There is nothing provocative about a Christian baker politely declining to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, especially when the couple had other options. On the contrary, the gay couple were deliberately attempting to provoke a predictable reaction from the baker so that they could proceed with a lawsuit.

    Let’s hope that Christian pastors will exercise prudence when speaking about Islam. But for them to remain silent about the threat from Islam will lead many Christians to conclude, as they did with the issue of same-sex “marriage,” that there is no real danger to church or society. The tables have already been turned on Christians who failed to understand the gay activist agenda. It is their rights, not the rights of gays, that are now at risk. Likewise, Christians who fail to understand the global Islamist agenda will have far more to fret about than pastors who don’t observe the niceties of non-offensive language.”

    • DanJ0

      As quoted: “As another article argues, what business is it of the State what he says? Short of inciting a mob with pitchforks and torches to attack the local mosque or church, the representatives of one religion ought to be free to criticize another religion. Freedom of religion should include the right to say what you think is wrong with another religion.As another article argues, what business is it of the State what he says? Short of inciting a mob with pitchforks and torches to attack the local mosque or church, the representatives of one religion ought to be free to criticize another religion. Freedom of religion should include the right to say what you think is wrong with another religion.”

      Also from a position of a-theism too. The finer line might be drawn through a proselytising stand on the High Street on a Saturday afternoon, but that ought not to be banned outright or even discouraged on the basis of freedom of speech. That said, I’m thinking of a BNP stand in the centre of Leicester or Southall, or a Irish Republican stand in parts of Belfast, or a Muslim protest outside of a November remembrance parade in Luton. Those things tend to fall under public order concerns rather than freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

      • The Explorer

        Your examples are excellent. I agree that all of them would be a threat to public order, even life threatening, and should not be allowed because of the potential damage to police, property and innocent citizens in the vicinity. But they are also examples of freedom of speech.

        Maybe we have become a society in which freedom of speech is not possible, and we should cease to pretend that it is even an ideal. If you say publicly that Islam is satanic, the odds are that the Muslims will get you if the authorities don’t.

        • DanJ0

          If we go back to where freedom of religion in the UK arguably started then we’re at the time of Thomas Cromwell and, ironically, Thomas Cranmer. As we know, heretics were burned alive during the religious cultural war of the time. The saintly Thomas More as Lord Chancellor took a pretty dim view of people reading the English bible, I believe. No doubt he worried about his culture being undermined, and the potential for public order issues. Yet Cromwell put some pretty restrictive laws in place as far as freedom of speech and expression goes, one of which finally resulted in the execution of the saintly Thomas More. Which of these Christian positions were aligned with English values at the time, and to which do we ascribe the roots of our current British values?

          • The Explorer

            My point wasn’t about where we’ve come from – although that’s a perfectly valid question, and you’ve summed it up well – but where we are now.

            Although I wasn’t alive at the time, I’ve read that during WW2 there was a campaign ‘Careless Talk Costs Lives’. You had to guard your conversation because of who might be listening. That restricted your freedom of speech, but most people could see the sense of it in a war situation. It was not a desirable atmosphere in itself, but a necessary response to abnormal conditions. One might hope to be free of it when the war ended.

            My fear is that the decisions of our recent rulers, British and EU, have committed us to a much-longer-term future war: of which we are already seeing the occasional preliminary skirmish. (So preliminary, that many would say I am simply scaremongering.) A war situation results in the inevitable restriction of freedoms.

            The 1960’s era delighted in releasing itself from Christian-influenced censorship, creating a social climate in the process that in the future would lead to the re-imposition of censorship by a different religion.

            I would be delighted to be proved wrong. Time will tell if my war fear is phobia or reality.

          • Ivan M

            Your phobia is warranted. The Left probably does not give a damn about Islam, but as long as it can be used to batter down the Christians it has its uses. Someone named Azzam, in probability ensconced with Saudi money, has no right under any reasonable order, to complain about Christians. The hypocrisy is so jarring, that I have to quote the renowned Dr Daniels:

            In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

    • len

      We need more Pastors like James McConnell who will speak Bible based Truth. Islam makes unsubstantiated claims which need to be rectified in the Light of Scripture.

      Bible or Koran? Which has the authentic record?

  • prompteetsincere

    The Ummah has silenced the Christian voice in its midst,
    chiefly by expelling all its Missionaries;
    now it would impose, ironically by British law, the same in its Christian homelands –
    the Ummayyad Mosque of St. Paul’s in the making.

  • len

    Rather ironically the more Christian values are driven back in the West the more Mosques seem to be appearing?.
    I wonder if the secularists have noticed yet?.