Nigel Farage
Civil Liberties

Farage is right to defend our Judæo-Christian heritage

 

Some things in politics are so utterly predictable that we can guess what our politicians are going to say with a high degree of certainty before they open their mouths. How many times have we heard Labour politicians trot out their “cost of living crisis” mantra over the last couple of years every time there has been a negative piece of economic data released? And who was even remotely surprised when Nigel Farage came out with his “We’re going to have to be a lot braver and a lot more courageous in standing up for our Judæo-Christian culture” comment following the Islamist atrocities in Paris?

One of the main reasons for Farage’s appeal away from the Westminster bubble is that he is willing to say what a large proportion of the public is thinking, but would rather not acknowledge openly for fear of being accused of bigotry or hatred. Do many people feel uneasy about levels of immigration and the way multiculturalism is changing our society and culture? Yes they do. Do they like the sound of Sharia courts operating in this country? No they don’t, even if they haven’t a clue how they actually work. And how many people believe that the authorities have turned a blind eye to FGM and the racial aspect of sexual grooming in Rotherham and elsewhere, because they are not willing to address the religious and ethnic dimensions of these wicked practices?

The problem is that Farage – speaking as a true politician – likes to take the worst examples to make his point, and by doing so leaves us more fearful of the overarching situation than we rationally should be in order to win us over and gain our vote. But this doesn’t mean that we’re being fed a pack of lies; it is (mostly) truth – from a certain point of view.

This is the case when it comes to the future of our country and the threat to our Judæo-Christian heritage. It’s impossible to disagree with the fact that Britain is rapidly becoming less Christian and more secular. The increase in those following the Muslim faith is also surging.  The last census in 2011 found that 59 per cent (33.2 million) of respondents in England and Wales described themselves as Christian. This was down from 72 per cent in 2001. On the other hand, those of ‘no religion’ now account for 25 per cent (14.1 million), compared to 15 per cent in 2001. Practising Muslims are expected to outnumber practising Roman Catholics within the next 10 years, and according to current trends, attendances at mosques will outnumber those at churches sometime in the next 40 years.

These are monumental shifts in a generation, and the impact on our culture is already manifest and profound. Is it right for Nigel Farage, David Cameron and Eric Pickles to be claiming that Britain is still a Christian country and that our Judæo-Christian heritage needs defending against a combined multicultural, Islamic and secular onslaught?

It is so important when considering this question that we separate current religious practice (or lack of it) from the way religion has impacted and formed our national make-up and identity.

It’s not difficult to argue that the link between Britain and Christianity has been firmly established since King Ethelbert was converted to Christianity by Augustine in 597. That was over 1400 years ago, and over that time Christianity has firmly cemented itself into our national culture, structures and subconsciousness. Our democracy, schools, universities, hospitals, banks, justice system, festivals, working week, plus a good deal more owe the nature of their existence to the Christian Faith and the Bible. As Nick Spencer argues in his weighty book Freedom and Order, which charts the impact of the Bible on politics in this country, the principles behind the freedoms we experience and which permit diverse views and beliefs to be held, are Christian in their very nature:

To most modern Westerners, religion is the very antithesis of tolerance, a belief for which they can cite many persuasive historical examples. But those examples also make the opposing argument.. (P)ost-Reformation Christians were forced, by innumerable examples of intolerance and its effect on society, to develop a robust defence of toleration. That defence was based on principles concerning the legitimacy and proper extent of adiaphora, ‘things indifferent’, the acceptable boundary between temporal and spiritual jurisdictions, and the appropriate function of law in adjudicating between different scriptural interpretations. And all of these interpretations were rooted ultimately, and sometimes explicitly in biblical teaching. This is not to claim that toleration is not possible beyond biblical bounds. That is obviously not the case. It is, however, to suggest that toleration was hard won and remains a far from self-evident virtue. The confusion and consternation that dog current debates about toleration, reflect a little of our historical amnesia concerning its origins.

Much of our lives are infused with Christian values and heritage irrespective of our individual beliefs. The thing is that it is so ingrained in our national identity that much of it is taken for granted – Christian values and morals make up our Britishness far more than most of us realise. Even Humanism derives much of its morality from Christianity, whether its proponents choose to acknowledge it or not. Some humanists and secularists might like to believe that this country would probably have turned out pretty much the same without the Christian Faith flowing through it over the years, but you only have to look to other countries where this has not been the case to see that their thinking is both arrogant and naive.

Humanism, as set out in the 2002 Amsterdam Declaration, can easily be described as both biblical and Christian in the majority of its fundamentals. Islam, however, is a very different beast. Islam, as a political as well as religious entity, provides a very different worldview and presents a not entirely welcome set of challenges and demands to the Western mindset. With its growth in Britain, we are having to ask some very difficult questions about how or if these conflicting paradigms can harmoniously coexist.

When Nigel Farage talks of the need to defend and protect our ‘Judæo-Christian’ heritage, what he is really saying is that if the Christian heart of our national identity is removed, our Britishness will become unrecognisable. The consequences would be a massive social upheaval and the political fragmentation of so much that has been established over the centuries. For this to happen over a comparatively short period would destabilise our lives and communities significantly. The vast majority of British people don’t want to go through such unsettling change, which explains much of the appeal of Ukip as it offers a future that looks back to and grasps hold of the beliefs and philosophy that have defined Britain for so long.

It may be reactionary, but the alternatives that seek to compete with our Christian heritage and impose themselves on us are too alien and, more critically, offer no apparent advantages to be widely accepted. Increasing cultural diversity has brought many benefits, but if our nation is to retain a sense of unity and identity, then we need common bonds. And it is the centuries of socio-political formation with Christianity at the root which provides the strongest bond of all. That is why Nigel Farage is right to call for its defence, even if his language and methods may be questionable. Without Christianity at the foundation and core, Britain will be drawn into an identity crisis from which it may never recover.

  • DanJ0

    Article: “Much of our lives are infused with Christian values and heritage irrespective of our individual beliefs. The thing is that it is so ingrained in our national identity that much of it is taken for granted – Christian values and morals make up our Britishness far more than most of us realise.”

    We owe much of our way of life to the Enlightenment, which challenged Christianity of the day. Thank goodness it did, too. Our freedom for the individual comes from that heritage, I’d said. Christian morals do not make up much of our Britishness because most of us clearly do not believe in the basis of those morals. However, we share ethics which no doubt have come about because of our country’s Christian past, amongst other things. We’re a post-Christian country now and I expect the majority like that. Luckily, our Enlightenment heritage readily allows Christians to follow their religion in their private lives, and in our public spaces for the most part, while the rest of us live our own non-Christian lives and pursue our own interests.

    • Old Blowers

      ” We’re a post-Christian country now and I expect the majority like that.”

      I am utterly certain the majority have never been asked that question.(Only Gays and Atheists,like that, one presumes?)..An outrageous assumption on your part and not based on facts”

      • bluedog

        Well said, Blowers. Pure fantasy, of course. DanJO must have been listening to the BBC as he typed his post.

        • Old Blowers

          The BBC have been an absolute shower this last week. I am more cheesed off than ever to be parting with my cash to subsidise this marxist propoganda machine.

          If a broadcaster was putting out solely right wing bias and we were all forced to pay I would be just as utterly outraged.

          WE should ONLY pay to an organisation to have our own polotical / ideological views published by rags such as Mirror, Morning Star etc for Labour, Mail etc for right wing and the Beano and Dandy for Gays and Atheists where they do smashing caricatures of society’s charmers. We can choose to pay or not to pay for said toilet roll.

          Citizens of the UK shoud NOT be forced to contribute by law to give a ‘tithe’ to the Church of Secularism/Atheism that is Auntie…Or is unbelief and denial of it’s forbidden. If a law against forced attendance at church is acceptable why not to a monstrosity of a social dictator that always ‘knows best’?

          Blowers

      • DanJ0

        Blowers, the overwhelming majority of our population don’t go to your churches. We have a significant number of Muslim and Hindu citizens. We vote in political parties which create legislation which is incompatible with your religious beliefs, and opinion surveys show that the majority of the population backs those laws. People typically co-habit before marriage and therefore have pre-marital sex. Divorce rates are high. The majority of teenagers have sex, and many are promiscuous during their pub and club years. Gay people can live their lives in full in the open, and can even get married now. Individuality is the norm and social diversity is embraced. Look around you. These are the lives that people live, and by choice, so the facts really ought to be slapping you around the jowls. Who cares about your wishful thinking, appeals to heritage, and hankering after the past when you had social control? Christianity is a spent force in the UK. Luckily for you, our post-Christian society values tolerance and freedom as part of the Common Good so you can continue to live your lives as the minority you are, enjoying the benefits our post-Christian society confers on all of us.

        • The Explorer

          Good points, well expressed: as always. I think Blowers, has a point though about the perception (maybe even the reality) of lack of consultation.
          That is, perhaps, the issue in a limited democracy. You don’t make the decisions yourself: you vote for those who will make the decisions on your behalf. But there was so much cynicism with politics by the time of New Labour’s last term that I think there was something like a 30% turnout. In which case, decisions were being made on behalf of the active will of around 18% of the voting population.
          It is a commonly-heard complaint that the British public was never consulted about immigration. We voted for the EEC, thinking the ‘Economic’ part of the title was what it was about. We never voted for European membership as it is now constituted. (And the Irish having to re-vote when they came up with the wrong answer is perceived as the model for any decisions that might be made.) Despite being part of the UK, non-Scots had no say in Scottish devolution.

          PS Do you share my difficulty that all these-sub-threads make it very difficult to follow the general direction of main thread?

          It may be people say what they think; it may be they say what they think will not harm their employment prospects.

      • carl jacobs

        Blowers

        Theyve been asked and they have answered. The majority like it a lot. They will continue to like it a lot – right up until the day the bill comes due.

  • The Explorer

    The modern British and American traditions both derive from Locke. I’m no expert on this, but his importance of the individual inherent in the defence of property rights only makes sense given the existence of God. (I’d have to go back and look things up to defend this point.)
    But the significance of Christianity within the Lockean Enlightenment tradition can be clearly seen in contrast with Marxism. There, the individual is subsumed within the mass. People will not be properly human until the final revolution. Hence Stalin’s omelette and eggs. Hence the Marxist record of 100 million dead.
    To sum up, in Locke the individual is important because humanity is made in the image of God. Remove God, and how is individual importance justified?

  • Steve Hopkins

    We have been steadily moving away from ethical values based on Christian teaching since the 1960’s with the decline in belief in marriage and marital fidelity, gay relationships and more liberal attitudes towards abortion. The Islamic faith brings a fresh challenge as there is no intermediary between God or Allah and man so man has to face the full penalty for his wrong doing as was the case in the Old Testament. We have been influenced by Christian notions of undeserved forgiveness due to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as Son of God on the cross whereby the wrath of God is appeased according to New Testament teaching. That makes a massive difference as the true Christian knows that if he genuinely repents he won’t have to pay the price for his sins.

    • Dreadnaught

      moving away from ethical values based on Christian teaching since the 1960’s

      Hey there don’t forget ‘we’ also moved away from witch burning, the divine rule of kings and of poverty being a virtue.

      • magnolia

        I wasn’t aware of the 1950s witch burning or the Divine Right of George V1… The things you learn here!

        • Dreadnaught

          Why limit it to the 1950s when you have 2000 years to chose from?

          • magnolia

            Ahhhhh….. that’s kinda cutesy it’s so weird!!

            2000 years of rabid witch burning…. Which history book were you reading? Matthew Hopkins must have had a lifespan longer than Methuselah by these reckonings. What planet are you on, and is it very pink, and do blue cows fly past in the orange sky with flowers growing out of their nostrils?

          • Dreadnaught

            Have you had your morning nap? – there there now

          • magnolia

            You must be historically accurate because truth does matter and the principles by which we do history matter. Broad sweeps and assertions unable to be backed up by decent secondary or even tertiary sources, (as for primary sources I understand that that is beyond most folk) just don’t hack it. By all means debate, but please show the discipline of history some basic respect, which is not shown when you rehash the latest hardline atheist propaganda that has no connection to source material at all, even if it does give you emotional satisfaction.

            Read Trevor Roper on the European witch trials if you really want a better knowledge of the dates and causes of the phenomenon which was a relatively short-lived thing. He will be biassed, as everyone is, but he has sources. This is more respectable than literature like plays, which may or may not be close to the historical source, but almost never sticks rigidly to it: think Shakespeare, Holinshed and all that.

            Furthermore the suggestion that all Christians should support and be accountable for the actions of all other Christians (especially miscreants) in the last 2000 years is absurd, , just as it is for any other group, e.g atheists. A bad example is just that.

          • B flat

            Another broad sweep of history, would indicate that It is not the Enlightement at all that gave rise to political establishment of toleration in religious views. The Royal Commonwealth of the Two Nations -Orthodox in the east and Roman in the west – by the 15th century was a well established haven for Jews, and later Anabaptists and other dissenters. Of course, the United Kingdom among many others, did not learn toleration from there, rather acceded to the dismemberment of the Kingdom by the three surrounding absolutist powers of Russia, Prussia and Austria. The last, Austria and Hungary, had been rescued, by forces mainly from and led by the King of Poland, from total annihilation by the forces of Islam led by Turkey, in 1683.
            Not only was the political entity of Poland/Lithuania annihilated by “Enlightenment” monarchs one hundred years after this, but the contribution to European “enlightened” values of these nations was completely marginalised, to near oblivion until the end of the First World War.

  • dannybhoy

    “One of the main reasons for Farage’s appeal away from the Westminster bubble is that he is willing to say
    what a large proportion of the public is thinking, but would rather not
    acknowledge openly for fear of being accused of bigotry or hatred.”
    Absolutely, and what we all should acknowledge is Farage’s courage and integrity in doing so.
    Not one other mainstream politician, nor Bishop, nor even ArchBishop,has had the courage to do so. They will speak up; but only (to quote your good self), “from a certain [PC bandwagonish, intelligensia acceptable, champagne and soirees] point of view….”

    “The problem is that Farage – speaking as a true politician – likes to
    take the worst examples to make his point, and by doing so leaves us
    more fearful of the overarching situation than we rationally should be
    in order to win us over and gain our vote. But this doesn’t mean that
    we’re being fed a pack of lies; it is (mostly) truth – from a certain
    point of view.”

    I think Farage is a one off. I think when he said “All I want is my country back!” he meant it. Had he been a politician in the modern mould,
    i.e. “What do I need to do to get into/stay in power?”
    people would have seen through him by now. The fact that Nigel commits some awful gaffes, occasionally shows admirable but misplaced loyalty reveals him as a genuine man who speaks in a way that other people can understand. That he addresses people’s fears could be seen as playing to the gallery, but the fact is that since Margaret Thatcher very few politicians have addressed the concerns of the people.; instead they address what they think the people should be concerned about….

    • Old Blowers

      “what they think the people should be concerned about…”Spot on, Danny lad.

      • dannybhoy

        Well thank you, Huff and Puff…

  • The Explorer

    I have vague memories of Harvey Cox. ‘The Secular City’. Secularism assumed it would replace Christianity in the West. Now it is having to come to terms with the likelihood that if Christianity goes, Islam will replace it instead.

    • Old Blowers

      What is it about western atheists that they believe they would get it right,only needing our agreeal to show us how its done and that they are so different from their Russian and Chinese counterparts in outlook if totally in charge of a society…Is it a bit like the argument we only getting good mustapha muslims living here rather than the evil abu’s and anjems in far off places instead…Deluded?

      • magnolia

        The Russians it seems now cherish their Christian roots more than we do, and as for the Chinese, it seems that young people are bowled over by the faithfulness through many years of prison and hard labour of some of the Christian leaders who were imprisoned, and have now been released and this is one factor leading to an exponential growth of Christian discipleship in China.

        What we took for granted they, having seen the effects of atheism, value and cherish. I am also struck by the loveliness of converted Muslims, so excited by the treasures that they have found. They have such radiance and enthusiasm despite frequently being disowned by their families it is a joy to behold.

    • cypruspete

      I have to say I agree completely with your explicit comment, but not sure I agree with the inference [were one intended, apologies if not] that if secularism and Christianity were not antithetical, or at least if secularism did not challenge Christianity it would form some sort of bastion against the Islamification of Europe. I just noticed a post above which states this explicitly.

      I find ecumenicism a difficult concept to get hold of at the best of times, and I get very nervous when I see Whelby, Nichols et al sharing a platform with [sometimes quite radical] Imam’s with a message for kind of universal respect for all faith [regardless of how contrary to the basic ideas of human solidarity the tenets of that faith might be], or even worse a kind of ‘any faith is better than none’ mutual defence against atheism. It started with Rushdie, I think, and has been getting progressively worse.

      If Christianity is to continue it’s role as a force for basic human respect within Europe, or at least the UK, maybe it should consider that as its rally point when looking for allies, rather than considering Islam a bedfellow in resisting secularization? I think it’s current position leads it to what might be considered [externally at least] very morally dubious grounds [victim blaming in Charlie Ebdo for example, by saying they shouldn’t poke the snake].

      Otherwise, I think, the idea of Christianity as a bastion against anti-enlightenment Islamic clerical bullying, will become an increasingly tough sell, to the point of being self-evidently oxymoronic

      • The Explorer

        I was thinking in terms of Comte’s view of the positivist phase replacing the religious. That, I think, was how 60’s secularism saw itself: the heir to a dead religion.
        Then, of course, Islam was not an issue. What has happened since means that rather than secularism replacing religion, it may be a case of one religion replacing another. That was about it, really.

  • Dreadnaught

    I am in agreement with much of what Gillan had said in as
    much as Christianity in this country has shaped our identity; how could it do
    anything other as the collective memory continues to be steered to overlook its worst excesses; it has and still does only less viciously.

    It is disingenuous however for any Christian, to infer that without Christianity, Humanity would be bereft of such worthy traits as empathy, love or understanding and forgiveness. Laying claim to the most worthy of humanistic behaviour on behalf of a god is a good scam; but a scam is exactly what it is. The same claims have been made by religions throughout history on behalf of their various gods, theologies and power-hungry dictators with their gods of Love, gods of war, gods of fertility and so on: so ‘why not cut the crap’ says Moses (allegedly) and combine everything into one super-god? It would make good business sense if you can sell it to the people; especially if you praise it only for the good things that happen and ignore the bad, except for shifting the responsibility for the bad things to the entire human race in perpetuity.

    The Enlightenment began the opening of minds previously held
    closed by threats of violence from practitioners of Christian belief for non-compliance in this world, by the threat of consignment to the fiery furnaces of hell and worse in some other imaginary place; nothing less than mental Terrorism.

    However this having been said, I am with Farage for speaking up for our culture, heritage, and Christianity and all, if that means stopping the spread of Islam.

    • The Explorer

      Hobbes, however, who was emphatically not a Christian, saw empathy love and understanding as being in short supply. Without a strong ruler to keep humanity’s self-centeredness in check, life would be nasty, brutish and short.

      • Dreadnaught

        I speak for myself when I say carry those traits naturally, as did my English parents and grandparents. I don’t see the need for endorsement or comparisons to philosophers past or present.

        • The Explorer

          Okay, forget philosophers. How about the Yorkshire Ripper?

          • Dreadnaught

            I’m Not related to him as far as I am aware

          • The Explorer

            You are as common members of the human race. To return to Locke a moment, I don’t think he said people can’t be good without God. I think he said respect for others exists because of the existence of God. You would find the explanation in human evolution.

          • Dreadnaught

            Wrong context – be ashamed.

    • dannybhoy

      I agree with the general tenor of your post. Man must be free to question everything, including religion. (However to deliberately insult believers and poke fun at what they consider sacred, is not in my view, the mark of a civilised society.)
      Where I think I would disagree with you is that because as human beings “we live in the now,” it is easy to forget how our freedoms and benefits came about and what inspired them. I would hate to live in a society ruled by the church, but much of what is good today was brought into being by people who believed in the values of Christianity.

      • Dreadnaught

        Thank you Dan and I also respect you comments [within reason :-)] it would be impossible if not a total waste of life trying to claim exclusivity for all we hold dear.
        We do have a cultural heritage an that was started here long before Muslims arrived. We have laws that protect us; Muslims prefer Sharia. Sharia is allegedly not man-made and to them it trumps all else.
        So we can’t criticise or ridicule Islam? – well that’s tough – they should have taken that into account before deciding to come here.
        Depictions of Mohammad have existed for hundreds of years and in Islamic countries. If Muslims are banned from drawing new images well fine by me. I don’t subscribe to their religion or am bound by its rules. That goes for the West in general I would imagine.
        We have made far too many concessions already. Time to stop now.

        • dannybhoy

          Your -or rather our- problem is that Islam is here, period. Something that my father for example would never have believed possible, coming from generations of ordinary Britons called upon through the centuries to to be prepared to shed their blood and give their lives to protect British interests and defend their country from invaders
          Well, it’s too late now.
          We ourselves have opened the gates wide and there’s no turning back the clock.
          As I have said before, essential Islam does not do equality of faiths; only subservience.

  • Albert

    In 2010 the percentage of Britons who were Muslim was 4.6. Even allowing for that figure to be a bit higher now, it is hard to see why we should be so worried by such a small minority. 95% of Britain is not Muslim.

    The issue for British culture is not the growth of Islam. The issue is the loss of Christian faith and the growth of secularism. If British people were overwhelmingly and confidently Christian in faith and practice instead of secular, we wouldn’t even be having the conversation.

    To borrow from the Russian philosopher Alexei Khomiakov:

    How are we to arrest the affects of Islam? Shake off our secularisation.

    • The Explorer

      I think with those worries about Islam, it’s a case not of the puppy, but of the grown dog. It’s the long-term demographics, towards end of the century.

      • Albert

        And why is the Muslim community growing so quickly? Because they reproduce more. If we got rid of their contraceptive mentality and stopped aborting the children who would sustain our culture in the future, we still wouldn’t have a problem. Also our response in the meantime would be such that Muslims coming here would be under no illusions that, while they are welcome to bring their faith and practice it, they must work within a Christian culture and if they don’t want to, they shouldn’t come.

        So the problem remains the secularisation of Britain, but even most Christians won’t accept the solution, because it would mean us having to be less selfish with our fertility.

        • The Explorer

          And if we had the children ourselves, we wouldn’t need the immigrants in the first place, since the 7 million shortfall in the young created by abortion would not exist. I think we’ve agreed before that there’s a problem with trying to guess fifty years ahead. The predictions are based on the continuation of present trends. That could be an erroneous assumption.

        • Coniston

          Some 30 years ago the first surviving sextuplets were born (in Liverpool I think) – the Walton sextuplets, all girls. A few years ago there was a TV programme about them, all then aged 28. As far as I could gather none of them, then, had any children. I thought at the time that if they were muslim women they would, between them, have at least 20 children.

    • dannybhoy

      ” Shake off our secularisation…”
      Albert, easier said than done. The Christian church needs revival. Not because of Islam, but because we need reviving.

    • CliveM

      As usual you make a good point. We need to grow Christianity, as I think you say, we are perhaps at risk of looking at this the wrong way round.

      • DanJ0

        The majority in the UK have been free of Christianity’s yoke for too long now to allow Christian religionists and political agitators to imprison them again. It remains to be seen how long we tolerate Muslim religionists agitating for their own power but I doubt very much we’ll accept their power of us either.

        • Inspector General

          Sometimes DanJ0 you appear to have an unfounded persecution complex…

          • Dreadnaught

            Not unfounded with your good-self around for sure Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            You atheist types don’t know when you’re well off…

          • Dreadnaught

            I think we do

          • DanJ0

            Inspector, godless people like you and I like our freedom. One only needs to read the comments under these blog articles to realise that some Christians want their former power back. If they simply wanted to have the freedom to live their lives according to their Christian beliefs then they have that already! But they’re not happy with that by the look of it. Not only do they want to have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, they want us to live our lives as they see fit too! That’s what all these appeals to heritage etc are about: aligning our diverse and shared society to their religious principles.

          • Inspector General

            Now, about addressing this complex of yours…

          • magnolia

            Ah but if this is true, and in part it is, then you have to consider whether you are not so in part too. When a man advertised for s.o who was happy to be eaten after all someone turned up. People confess to crimes they did not commit. Would you not wish to stop these people, and others like this from self-harming?

            If you see people fighting and about to do each other real damage, do you not want to stop them and pull them apart? If you see someone about to jump off a precipice do you not do all in your power to prevent it? If someone is ill and refusing the medication that will save them because they have temporary hallucinations from high fever would you respect their freedom? Or someone with dementia? There is a limit to the desirability of freedom, and a humane one that cares about the happiness of the other person, even should they not care.

          • DanJ0

            I find it quite surprising that you don’t see the difference. It’s a little disturbing really. I hope you never get power over anyone else!

          • magnolia

            “Wanting other people to live their lives as you see fit.” You also do that, whether you see it or not. For example here you are on a Anglican blog making it clear you dislike Christianity and suggesting we live our lives more as you live your life, because you consider the way you live your life as better.

          • DanJ0

            That’s simply not true. As I say time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, I fully support Article 9 of the ECHR. Feel free to deny yourself sex outside of marriage if you like. Feel free to attend church as often as you like. If you are homosexual then be celibate all of your life, if you can manage it. Wear a hair shirt for your imagined sins, for all I care. Or a woolly jumper and a beard, if you’re a man. Feel free to take so-called Holy Orders. Celebrate Christmas and Easter in your own way for your religious reasons. Go on a pilgrimage. Stick naff dayglo signs outside your churches proclaiming your Good News if you wish. And so on. That’s the point. Individual freedom allows you to waste your life in pursuit of your religion, and it allows me to live my life without the constraints of your religion. Everyone’s happy! Or should be, anyway. Except those who want to impose their religion on others, of course. They hate this freedom of ours.

          • Dominic Stockford

            You’re right, it isn’t true – this isn’t an Anglican blog.

          • Phil R

            Orwell would be so proud of you.

            So you are free you say.

            That’s nice

          • DanJ0

            Orwell? Orwell? Are you as thick as two short planks, or what? It’s the exact opposite of … oh nevermind. And Orwell’s book was a warning, not his political aspiration. Jeez, what happened to our education system that it produced someone like this?

          • Phil R

            That was my point……

            Orwell’s book was a warning.

            Often I read your comments and his words resonate with me.

            If it is just me then it resonates with then of course there is no issue.

          • DanJ0

            I advocate libertarian-leaning liberalism in my comments, promoting diversity, individualism, freedom, and state secularism (not societal atheism). Orwell’s book was a warning against totalitarianism, based on what he saw of the so-called communism of the time. The two political systems are polar opposites of each other. If you don’t understand that then I expect the education system has badly failed you as you should have attended some sort of special needs class in your youth.

          • Phil R

            I understand all right Danjo. Call your totalitarian worldview what you will. We know what you stand for and it ain’t freedom

          • DanJ0

            Totalitarian view? I’m a libertarian-leaning liberal for christ’sake. The majority of my comments here argue for liberty. The one up there responding to magnolia is a prime example! Read the fecking thing! I’m supporting Article 9 of the ECHR which requires the state to support freedom of religion, as a (qualified) right. That’s me, an a-theist, saying that. I’ve provided a whole list of things that demonstrate how little I care what Christians do in their private lives. It’s the kind of thing people who promote and defend liberty say. I’ve consistently said it over and over and over and over and over and over again here over the years. Yet you believe I have a totalitarian worldview? For heaven’sake, you’re either a moron or delusional. And probably both.

        • CliveM

          DanJo

          You should try to go along to a good mix of Churches, because if there is a single feature of Christianity in Britain today, it’s just how un-yoke like it tends to be.

          Much to the frustration of several of the bloggers on this board!

          Reject Christianity if you must, but for what it is, but not for how you would like to project it.

          Will this nation ever be Christian again? I don’t know, I just know it would be better if it was.

          • DanJ0

            Better for you, perhaps. No doubt our Muslim citizens think the UK would be better if it adhered to Muslim principles too. We all seem to have differing opinions on what better means. Freedom is a social good for me as I think I’m best placed to decide what’s in my own interest.

          • Dreadnaught

            Isn’t that what all dictators think?

          • DanJ0

            I doubt dictators think you’re best placed to decide what’s in your own interest too, which is what separates liberalism from authoritarian political systems.

          • CliveM

            Well no one is forcing you

      • Albert

        That’s exactly how I see it. The irreligious mind lacks content and therefore cannot respond to the issue. If Islam is a problem, it is not because there are Muslims, it is because there is a vacuum.

        • Dreadnaught

          You’ll be saying next that Islamic terrorism is nothing to do with Islam. If that’s the case why did they go after Jewish people right after the Charlie Hedgerow? or any of their other victims such as Buddhists and Pakistani Christians?

          • Albert

            I won’t be saying that next. That does not follow. There is one issue of Islam and Western culture. That is one issue. It is a problem because of irreligion. There is a distinct issue of Islamic terrorism. There are connections because both involve Islam, but that does not mean they are the same.

          • Dreadnaught

            So to my understanding you are suggesting that if we had a hard-line Christian theocracy – Islam would not have made the same in-roads?

          • Albert

            That would definitely be true, but that is not what I am recommending. Culture is the key issue here. Irreligion cannot found a culture, except by force. Thus Islam and irreligion both tend in the same direction.

          • Dreadnaught

            Irreligion cannot found a culture, except by force. Thus Islam and irreligion both tend in the same direction.

            More like Islam and any other religion surely, than ‘Irrelegion’ whatever you mean by use of that word.

          • Albert

            Any belief or political system can turn to violence. The question is, which are the most prone? I am saying that irreligion cannot found a culture because culture comes from “cult” – that is from a belief in shared transcendent values. Now since no society can function without shared practices, and since irreligion cannot create those shared values, it will, ultimately have to use force to hold things together. This is why irreligion has such an incomparably violent history.

          • Dreadnaught

            By irreligious you mean against any of the big three presumably; however much you find it unpalatable I doubt irreligious entities could trump religions for violence unless you are restricting your observations to the 19/20 Century.

          • Dominic Stockford

            There was a small City State in the centre of Italy that managed very well, before the time period you mention.

          • Albert

            I don’t mean irreligion against anyone. Irreligion is the absence of religion. It cannot therefore be against a religion, or against some religions and not others.

            however much you find it unpalatable I doubt irreligious entities could trump religions for violence unless you are restricting your observations to the 19/20 Century.

            No, in the whole history of mankind, I believe the irreligious have killed more than any other group. I may be wrong on that, but when you consider how few of you there are, and how you are a bunch of Johnny come latelies, the proportions involved are incontrovertible. The fact that you chaps did all that, after we have had years of discovering how terrible violence is and how important human rights are etc. is more than sufficient to establish my point. Forget Islamism, it’s very small beer.

            But my point is that humanity is prone to violence. How exactly does irreligion deal with that tendency. As Christians we have the Sermon on the Mount and we have the cross. It’s not fool-proof, of course, because we are all sinners, and life is sometimes horribly complex. But what break does irreligion provide to the human tendency to violence?

        • carl jacobs

          Islam isn’t the problem. Islam is the opportunistic infection. Materialism is the problem.

  • bluedog

    Gillan says of Islam, ‘ With its growth in Britain, we are having to ask some very difficult questions about how or if these conflicting paradigms can harmoniously coexist.’

    The answer is these conflicting paradigms cannot co-exist because they represent moral polar opposites. Islam permits killing of apostates and heretics as well as unbelievers. Islam permits the telling of lies in the furtherance of Islam. Islam permits multiple wives so that the man-woman relationship central to Judeo-Christian marriage is caste aside and made worthless. There is no escaping that deep within its DNA, Islam inherits the attitudes of the murderous plunderer or thief who was Mahommed, and on it goes. At some point the Western political class must stop their denial that Islam is not a problem.

    The challenge, as always, is to provide leadership to our leaders without humiliating them. As they are approaching the matter from the wrong perspective at present, namely that Islam is not the problem when it manifestly is, it becomes important to give our leaders the confidence to change their collective minds. This requires a degree of education. Not easy because most of the political class are focussed on the 24 hour news cycle and philosophical complexities tend to be beyond their attention span. As we have discussed before, help is at hand from two Muslim sources, firstly the Egyptian President spoke on the 1st of January calling for the reform of Islam, and secondly, that call has been echoed by some senior Muslim clerics in Saudi Arabia. If the Muslims recognise that all is not well, these developments enable the Western political class to politely agree.
    What our leaders should do now is offer constructive suggestions for the reinterpretation of Islam. Muslims tell us that Islam is the perfect word of Allah, from which it follows they will not take kindly to a Crusader government telling them how the Koran should read. But re-interpretation could be less problematic, and we need to brief some compliant Muslim scholars on what to say.

    • Dreadnaught

      What our leaders should do now is offer constructive suggestions for the reinterpretation of Islam.

      Start with banning the Koran and prayer that is not in English or the language of whatever country Muslims are in.

      • bluedog

        Indeed, Dreadnaught, but to achieve true piety within Islam, all speech and writing must be in Arabic. Start banning foreign languages and you hit a brick-wall called the Tridentine mass.

        • Dreadnaught

          Quite – ban it.

          • bluedog

            And the Jews, Sikhs and Hindus will immediately say, ‘what about us?’
            More votes at risk.

          • CliveM

            And why shouldn’t they? What risk to society are they?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Where would you like me to start… 😉

          • Dreadnaught

            Would the Catholics rather hang on to this annacronism rather than preserve our way of life – no brainer if you ask me.

          • A minority of Catholics prefer to worship in Latin Orthodox Jews worship in Hebrew. We ban all this because ….

      • Graham Wood

        D. I suggest no “reinterpretation” is possible for the reason I have just passed to Bluedog above which he has read “with astonishment”. I would strongly recommend the same
        enlightenment for you. Do read the content of this link.
        http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.gr/

        • Dreadnaught

          Ok fair comment, but I’m sure the Catholic Church felt similarly secure before Calvin.
          We need for UK muslims to hold up the mirror to their religion and use the common language most of the West is access to. How else can there be dialogue of purpose? We and the rest of Europe have to be bold, Churchillian even and demand that UK mosques are conducted in English or close; even if it means loosing arm sales to SArabia.

          • Graham Wood

            D I don’t think we are in a position to demand English in mosques. My own solution is simple, though some may see it as draconian, but under the present climate of violent Islamic fanaticism it is better than innocent people going about their lives in fear in a “free” country – or worse being butchered. Perhaps it depends on the value we place on human life.
            For every instance of Moslem violence, or threats to kill on our streets, including threatening literature/placards etc, then one or more mosques should be closed down,
            No questions asked, it will be automatic, and the imams deported.
            One other sensible step. Stop ALL immigration into the UK from Moslem countries,
            And ignore EU diktats on the “free movement of peoples” as being not in the national interest.
            For the bigger picture do read the link I recommended.

          • Dreadnaught

            For every instance of Moslem violence, or threats to kill… … one or more mosques should be closed down.

            You think this is easier to achieve than asking for English to be written and spoken in mosques: I doubt this is any easier to achieve than all singing from the same hymn sheet simply to achieve a start point in dialogue. The big trouble is not many Muslims by proportion actually speak or understand Arabic. Islam is indoctrinated in the young and not so young by monkey-see, monkey-do compression.

    • Graham Wood

      Bluedog. These are all interesting points, but any such “reform” of Islam is just about impossible, for it is a completely closed system.
      Please read the content of the link : Islam ‘s fatal flaw’ to understand why.
      It is the most informative and important comment on Islam I have read, and many of the author’s blog readers think the same. Essential reading!

      • bluedog

        Thank you, Mr Graham Wood. Can’t see the link but if it is that which leads to ‘Islam’s Fatal Flaw’, which you posted previously, I have read it with astonishment. As you infer, there is no prospect of a non-Muslim tinkering with Islam. But if enlightened Muslims such as President al-Sisi can see that Islam is leading the Muslim ummah to catastrophe in the form of world-wide contempt and revulsion, there seems to be hope. The rise of Iran in the Middle East and the success of IS seems to have changed opinion in Riyadh too, especially as the Saudi monarchy seems to be struggling to manage an orderly succession. The Saudis may feel that their aggressive propagation of Salafism has been a failure and that they cannot afford to become alienated from the West. Concessions may be in order.

  • Darach Conneely

    Ironically the Secular Britain that welcomes foreigners is more Christian than the bigotry and hate Farage is fostering.
    Matt 25:35 I was a stranger and you welcomed me…

    • dannybhoy

      Matt 25:35 “I was a stranger and you welcomed me…”
      Yes, but not his brothers,his sisters and his cousins and his aunts too.
      A bit flippant I know, but follow the logic through to its conclusion sonny.

      • Darach Conneely

        Like when Jesus fled from Herod and was an asylum seeker in Egypt, he brought along his Mum and Dad? The other Joseph, from the OT, ended up bringing all his family to Egypt too. Would you side with the Pharaoh later on who made them slaves and tried to reduce their population.

        Matt 25:43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me…
        Careful, you are on the side of the #goats there.

        • dannybhoy

          “Like when Jesus fled from Herod and was an asylum seeker in Egypt, he brought along his Mum and Dad?”
          ?! The opposite I think Darach.
          According to my version of the Bible, under Divine instruction His parents fled to Egypt from Herod who wanted to kill the child..
          (Ain’t you got that bit in your Bible?)

          More to the point they returned home once the danger was past….
          Follow the logic Darach. If we throw open the doors to everybody, including those poor people coming from North Africa to Italy, what do you think the consequences will be?

          • Darach Conneely

            They willl settle and become an intrinsic part of British culture just like every wave of immigrants in the past. But if you are worried, your best best is to encourage building up their economies at home through fair trade, education and health so they won’t want to move to Britain’s gray skies and drizzle.

          • dannybhoy

            You keep dodging the issue Darach. I asked you what happens if we keep on taking in the world’s persecuted, poor and dispossessed out of a sense of Christian love and duty.?
            Just answer the question.

          • Darach Conneely

            I just answered.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s not an answer! That’s pink and fluffy liberal theology romanticism, washed down with Coca Cola…

          • Darach Conneely

            So you are saying the only way for western capitalism to work is by keeping other nations poor?

          • dannybhoy

            Fair trade would be good.The trouble is that there is a greater demand for our weaponry than our flymos and rotavators.
            Now why is that Darach?
            Why do so many of these nations have dictatorships or military juntas all complete with snazzy ‘shades’?
            Could it be that many of these nations have a different worldview to ours?
            As I have said before, I’m a nationalist, I believe in respecting other nation’s cultures, rather than interfering and creating more chaos.
            I believe in fair trade. I believe in helping other nations in times of disaster.
            I’m a believer in a trading bloc made up of commonwealth nations and ex colonies from our former Empire.

            If we follow your wishy washy, kind and cuddly philosophy, we as the host nation will find our culture, our infrastructure, our economy and our security totally overwhelmed; and we’ll be of no use to anybody.

            If you’re from Ireland or of Irish stock, you’ll be aware of how hard the Irish fought to get rid of the Viking invaders and later those nice, polite English….
            Why did they do that? Why were the IRA for example so against multiculturalism that they got busy murdering British soldiers and those that supported them? Could it be that they wanted Ireland for the Irish?

            Finally just one little fact Darach (nice name by the way)
            The UK has the highest number of tuberculosis cases in Western Euope.
            http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/19/us-health-tuberculosis-britain-idUSKBN0KS00120150119
            Why do you think this is?

          • Darach Conneely

            The trouble is that there is a greater demand for our weaponry than our flymos and rotavators
            The legacy of colonialism, proxy wars for Russian and American hegemony propping up dictators, the profits for diamonds, oil, tantalum going to multinational corporations and local warlords, impoverished locals joining rebel armies to overthrow sunglasses wearing dictators, who keep buying arms to keep their populace in line or fend off threats from neighbours. Africans have a different world view? In lots of ways. They are much more family orientated than the West. But it is not so long age that Europe was tearing itself apart at regular intervals. If it was the ordinary Africans flourished from their mineral wealth, agriculture and trade, if education and health led to industry prospering, then people and governments will benefit from peace and stability in their nation and with their neighbours.
            If you’re from Ireland or of Irish stock, you’ll be aware of how hard the Irish fought to get rid of the Viking invaders and later those nice, polite English….
            The Vikings were defeated at the battle of Clontarf by a combined force of Irish and Vikings under High King Brian Boru. Incidentally the Battle of Clontarf features on Weekend Warriors tomorrow at 9pm on the Yesterday channel. Nice polite Anglo Irish played a major role in the Celtic Revival and our struggle for independence.
            Why were the IRA for example so against
            multiculturalism that they got busy murdering British soldiers and those
            that supported them? Could it be that they wanted Ireland for the
            Irish?

            Even with Protestant members in the IRA? There is a difference between not wanting to be ruled by a foreign country and welcoming foreigners who come to live in your country. The real problem in NI was a lack of multiculturalism, Protestant Loyalists who instituted a system of Apartheid to keep Catholic out of work and without a vote. It was the violent supression of Civil Rights marches by Protestant mobs and the Protestant police force the RUC and B-Specials’ that led to the re-emergence of the IRA. The Peace Process only came about through multiculturalism, Protestants power sharing with Catholics in NI and the Republic of Ireland voting to change the Irish Constitution’s claim to sovereignty over the Six Counties of NI. Catholics North and South had to recognise that Ulster Protestants have their own culture and the right to want to stay part of the UK.

          • dannybhoy

            In many parts of the world Darach, it was common practice for example to make slaves of conquered enemies, even to sell them to traders.
            That kind of tribal attitude to life remains widespread.
            Europeans discovered the world and began trading by fair means and foul. But whoever, or whichever nation had emerged as the first organised coherent society to explore the world would have had the greatest influence on those nations.
            Europe trades weaponry and armaments as well as machinery with these States, It seems to suit both sides for this to continue. If the states buying weaponry didn’t want to they coud easily stop it and buy farming machinery instead.
            But they don’t.
            Some might day that’s because the evil Captalist manipulate situations so that firepower remains preferable to farming and fertilisers. I don’t believe that of course.

          • Darach Conneely

            My reply wasn’t just blaming capitalism (as your previous post blamed their African world view) it was about how prosperity, which we can encourage through fair trade, health and education, through banning the sale of blood mineral, takes away the incentives for war. If two neighbouring countries having thriving economies, going to war will devastate that. There is more to be gained and kept through trade than could be gained by war. If the young men are making good money on the farms and in factories, money to support a family and see them healthy and educated, why would they want to take to the hills and join the rebels?

          • dannybhoy

            “There is more to be gained and kept through trade than could be gained by war. If the young men are making good money on the farms and in factories, money to support a family and see them healthy and educated, why would they want to take to the hills and join the rebels?”

            Quite true as far as it goes, but then you are speaking from a Western European world viewpoint. You can’t help but do that! It’s the same viewpoint that (especially) the US has worked from in interfering in Islamic nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. They think everybody should want the American democratic way of life, but that is only half true.
            Many peoples want the fruits of Western democracy, but they don’t want what goes with it, or haven’t got the religious values that would allow that democracy to take root.
            So in answer to your
            “..why would they want to take to the hills and join the rebels?”
            I would say that they don’t place as much value on material things, consumerism or politics or law as they do on the religious or tribal values that shaped their worldview.

          • Darach Conneely

            Europe has done it’s tribal / nationalistic / political and religious warfare, in the recent past too, and just like Africa it is often desperation and injustice that set them off.

          • dannybhoy

            Good Morning Darach.
            Yes of course that’s true, and proves once again that man is a tribal creature.
            Also different ‘tribes’ have different outlooks or worldviews.
            Here in the British Isles for example, rivalries continue between various historic ethnic groups. White tribes dislike other white groups, black peoples ditto, brown and yellow folks the same.
            What we see is that although we are all human beings our beliefs are what separate us and cause us to go to war or treat each other badly.
            So as I said to you earlier, why assume that all peoples want the same thing? They don’t. Some totally reject materialism, their religions do not lend themselves to democracy or the growth of infrastructures and governance leading to societies like the European models.
            Some value cows above women, others get excited about camels, rifles and warring for others.
            A nationalist respects those differences and doesn’t assume that everybody wants what he has.

    • Uncle Brian

      The Islamic State is said to be very welcoming to volunteers from the UK. You could arrange with the RAF to have yourself parachuted into Caliphate territory and explain to them, politely but firmly, why the right thing for them to do is to be secular, tolerant and unbigoted. Don’t forget to send His Grace a postcard!

      • Darach Conneely

        Finding it hard to follow you logic here. Because ISIS is more intolerant than Farage, we should be intolerant of Muslims in Britain?
        Bit like some Irish are in the IRA therefore https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=no+irish+need+apply&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=iWC6VKTTJ5HgaOm4gsgL&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=996&bih=581

        • carl jacobs

          Darach Coneely

          It’s not that hard to follow, really. You can tolerate Islam only so long as it remains constrained and impotent. But there are no Western-safe versions of Islam. If you let it become dominant, you will lose the Western nature of your culture. Because there is nothing tolerant about Islam at at all. There is no such thing as an Islamic state that operates on Western concepts of morality.

          So you can tolerate Islam all you like. But if you suddenly find yourself living in a nation with 75% Muslim population, I wouldn’t expect them to provide the same consideration in return. Because you won’t get it.

          • Darach Conneely

            The same was said about the Catholic Church in England in the past, you still burn effigies of a Catholic terrorist. Dutch Reformed preached Apartheid in South Africa and were very intolerant of non whites. Protestants in Northern Ireland practised their own form of apartheid, denying Catholics the vote and keeping most of the jobs for Protestants, meanwhile the Protestant police supported Protestant riots in Catholic streets and later colluded with protestant paramilitary terrorist groups. The same argument you have used was used there: what will happen if Catholics keep breeding and form a majority? “Home rule is Rome rule”. In the US, Southern Baptists supported slavery then racial segregation, while good Christians donned pillowcases to lynch uppity Blacks. Apocalyptic Christians they are still behind the militias, KKK and white supremacist terrorism. We have seen in Europe what happens when racists take over. So who do we keep out? I say we start with Farage’s intolerance.

          • carl jacobs

            Darach Conneelly

            I don’t know who “they” were who said any of those things. “They” certainly weren’t me. And whatever “they” said about other groups has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of what I just said. Islam must be judged on its own merit. You can’t respond to my claims about Islam by pointing at Catholics. They have nothing to do with each other. So perhaps as a starting point, you could point me to all those tolerant Muslim countries that inhabit the world. Can you point to even one? In fact, if you were required to move to a country in the Middle East, there would be exactly one country you would even consider, and that country isn’t Muslim.

            See, this was the whole point behind Uncle Brian saying …

            You could arrange with the RAF to have yourself parachuted into Caliphate territory

            You wouldn’t do it. For all your rhetoric about tolerance, it only works if your understandings continue to dominate the culture. And you know those understandings are non-existent everywhere Islam dominates. So you will talk a good game. But you won’t actually put your money where your mouth is.

          • Darach Conneely

            If you are not aware how other groups were feared as much as you fear Islam, if you do not realise how such fear led those in power to behave as badly or worse than Islam in power ever has, why should anyone believe your Islamophobia over all the other bigotries the world has seen? Why single out Islam to be judged on its own merits instead of all the other bigotries the world has seen. Shouldn’t we fear your bigotry and islamophobia as a greater more imminent danger to peace and justice in the UK?

          • The flaw in your analysis is that Islam isn’t driven by fear and nor are Muslims oppressed in the West. Islam is driven by the absolute conviction that submission to Allah is the destiny of the human race and all who do not submit according to their terms are to be eliminated. Individual Muslims who fail to follow their will also be beaten into submission or killed.

          • Darach Conneely

            Throughout most of history the Islamic world was more tolerant, more civilised and better educated than heretic burning Christian Europe. You were much safer being a Jew in Baghdad than in Cologne or Madrid.

          • carl jacobs

            Do you think you can cover up your complete lack of an argument by pounding the table with your shoe and saying “Islamophobia” over and over and over again? I’m an American. I have no fear of immigration whatsoever. When people complain about Hispanic immigration into the US, I remind them that in 1850 the immigration crisis in the US revolved around those … dirty Irish and Germans.

            You have to deal with the reality of Islamic culture. It is not Western by any stretch of the imagination and the act of pointing out that obvious fact is not evidence of “Islamophobia.”

          • Darach Conneely

            Saying I have no argument is not the same as answering my argument. How is your fear

  • len

    Our Judeo/Christian culture in the west acted as a measure of restraint against the more extreme Islamic fundamentalists but now the West has adopted ‘extreme liberalism’ the West seems to be living in a libertine anything goes society with no moral absolutes the West is now seen as’ a hotbed of corruption’. We in the West have largely thrown out God`s Moral Law and we are starting to reap the results of doing so.

    So Islamic fundamentalists see it as ‘their duty’ to attack the corruption in the West and replace it with an ‘Islamic moral order’.
    As the West slides further into a moral chaos so will the rise in fundamentalist Islam.

    Farage is right to try and restore our foundations but he will get no support from others in positions of power because they seem to be blinded to the reality of what is actually occurring in the world today.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Without Christianity at the foundation and core, Britain will be drawn into an identity crisis from which it may never recover

    Britain will simply assume a new, probably Muslim, identity. One cannot help thinking that through its universalism—‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’—Christianity has brought its demise upon itself. A faith offering universal love is at a disadvantage when sharing the same territory with faiths who have one moral code for the in-group and a lower standard towards the out-group; Judaism and Islam spring to mind. (SD Gotein observed in 1974: ‘Modern Western civilization, like the ancient civilization of the Greeks, is essentially at variance with the religious culture of the Jewish people. Islam, however, is from the very flesh and bone of Judaism.’)

    Hats off to Christianity for wanting to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony but there’ll be plenty of time for that when it has fought its corner and ejected Islam from Europe. Recalling the US evangelist Pat Robertson’s anguish at the ‘assault on Christianity’ by ‘Jewish media and intellectuals’, ejecting Judaism wouldn’t be a bad idea either.

    • dannybhoy

      Christianity does not offer universal love. That is the soft, pink and fluffy, handwringing version of the faith.
      Christianity offers salvation and redemption to all men contingent upon repentance and commitment to discipleship
      As the advertising men might say, “Terms and Conditions Apply..”

      • DanJ0

        Shush. The soft, pink, fluffy version is what makes Christianity acceptable to the masses. The hard-core theological version would have most people looking sideways at you lot.

        • Dominic Stockford

          They already do. The joy of being the chairman of the Protestant Truth Society is that the liberals don’t want to talk to me any more 🙂

          • sarky

            Knew you had to be a chairman, quite fitting that its for the oxymoronic society.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ dannybhoy—You mean Christians have one moral code for the in-group and treat the out-group like shit? You learn something new every day.

        • dannybhoy

          “…and treat the out-group like shit?”

          I don’t know what that means. Perhaps you have more hands on experience?

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ dannybhoy—Perhaps you have more hands on experience?

            Not personally, but St Peter did: ‘And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.’ [Acts 10:28]

            And Allah, once again helping himself to the Jews’ best ideas: ‘Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.’ [Qur’an 48:29]

          • dannybhoy

            I still don’t see what you’re getting at.
            Christians don’t make the rules, God does.
            God loves all men and is unwilling that any should perish.That’s why He came to earth, to secure that salvation for all who would accept their state as sinners, rebels before a Holy God, and repent, receive forgiveness and redemption.
            It would make no sense for God to give everyone a blanket pardon if they still want to do their own thing.

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ dannybhoy—Christians don’t make the rules, God does

            As Britain’s Muslim population grows, it will eventually be Allah making the rules, and Christianity, hamstrung by ‘Love thine enemy’, sits back and lets it happen, kidding itself that, in the words of Gillan Scott, ‘cultural diversity has brought many benefits’. Thus does British Christianity go giggling to its grave.

          • dannybhoy

            You got quite a few things mixed up it seems to me Mr, Rottenborough.
            An individual Christian persecuted for his or her faith is commanded to turn the other cheek.
            A Christian as a member of society has obligations to his/her society. First of course to family, to community to society. If his society is under threat, if lives are under threat a Christian citizen should be willing to take up arms in defence of all he holds dear.
            Some Christians feel it is wrong to take life, so would seek to serve in a non combative role.
            That’s fine with me. Each of us Christians answers to the Lord. Personally although I wouldn’t want to kill anyone, I most certainly would take up arms. I think most Christians see it the same way.

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ dannybhoy—a Christian citizen should be willing to take up arms in defence of all he holds dear

            If Christians do take up arms to slaughter Muslims, it won’t be the first time it has happened but I suggest we try voluntary repatriation first. It would take a miracle for the Churches to support even repatriation, so enamoured are they of diversity and so terrified of being accused of racism, rods they and their flocks have made for their own backs.

          • dannybhoy

            Using words like “slaughter” is unnecessarily provocative.

            Call me pedantic, but “taking up arms in defence of one’s nation” is not quite the same as “slaughtering Muslims.”
            Voluntary repatriation is a non starter.
            We have to accept that the vast majority of Muslims in this country whilst keeping themselves separate, are law abiding citizens. Voluntary repatriation sends out the wrong message.
            I think governments will have to start getting tougher with those involved in terrorism. Forget the taxpayer funded trials and prisons, either they die at the scene of the attack or they face execution.
            Those involved however remotely are deported and banned from returning ever. If their home nation doesn’t want them they are dropped off in another Islamic nation.
            This is another stage in the war against our western civilisation, and we cannot allow the handwringers and placaters to make the decisions regarding the survival of all we hold dear.

    • Dreadnaught

      ‘Imm’ Gott Uns’ herr Rottenbugger Im Gott Uns – lest we forget.

    • CliveM

      Strange but once you get away from the feverish ramblings of Jewish conspiracy blogs, you would be hard pressed to find any evidence of Jews doing damage to British society.

      • carl jacobs

        The idea of salted herring on a cracker constitutes real damage. Perhaps acceptable damage, but we must be realistic. The vision of someone eating that stuff is in my mind now, and I will never be able to get it out.

        Yes, I’m looking at you, Avi.

        • CliveM

          Was stuck in Iceland for a day once.

          What they do with fish is beyond your wildest nightmares!

          Salted Herring, doesn’t even come close. :0(

          • carl jacobs

            I’m sure Avi would affirm it’s all part of the vast Jewish Conspiracy to take over the world by destroying our culinary senses. From what I understand, his weather machine was rejected after it unintentionally buried Ontario in an Ice storm.

          • CliveM

            Oh the horror…………! What foul dealing is this?

            Still, what’s Ontario?

          • carl jacobs

            I think it’s a lake. Or maybe a shopping mall. There’s also a city in California named Ontario. It has a nice alternative airport to LAX.

          • CliveM

            Hmm and he buried it with snow. More to this Avi then I realised.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, Avi didn’t actually do the burying. The machine was sentient. It discovered it was in Canada, and so in its despair it decided to seal itself in ice. The Executive Council of the Worldwide Vast Jewish Conspiracy was not pleased. It was a major embarrassment.

          • avi barzel

            Worse. The snow turned to rain, then ice, coated the trees and branches and froze them, and then, it all came crashing down on cars and powerlines. I was too distracted trying to beat my phone in Scrabble to stop the chain reaction. Never thought I’d live to see a day when my phone would be smarter than me.

          • CliveM

            I’m not sure Ontario is deserving of this attention! What have the inhabitants done?

            However a certain JohnyRB’s home! It would do him a favour, it would be nice to have one of his conspiracy theories confirmed!

          • avi barzel

            We have polar bears. And a guy in Toronto banana plants outdoors.

          • CliveM

            ??

            You do know there is going to be a link on one of JR’s sites to this conversation!

            Jews will officially become responsible for global warming. As I’m freezing at the moment, could you get on with it?

          • avi barzel

            What’s Ontario? Once the economic engine of Canada, currently a national welfare case, the land of rusting wind turbines and bird shit -disabled solar panels. Would you like to buy it?

          • avi barzel

            It’s a fair cop….

            I was merely trying to halt the dreaded global warming which threatened our monopoly on beaver furs.

          • Anton

            You mean the decaying shark dug into the tundra over the winter as a natural refrigerator but which still emerges ammoniacal? The answer is to take it with very strong spirit. Great combination.

          • CliveM

            Yuck…………..! If you mean blind drunk, maybe.

        • avi barzel

          That’s the idea, Carl. Just to distract from my boot on the media, the Church, immigration, high finance and whatever else I might have missed. Doesn’t fool Johnny R, though. Then, there is the question of pumping binding herring protein complexes to the once-secret Jewish DNA he revealed ….

          • carl jacobs

            I feel like I should be making dumb Jewish DNA jokes right about now.

            Something like

            “How do you tell Jewish DNA?
            It’s the one loaning electrons to the other molecules.”

            Is that any good? It’s the best I could do on the spur of the moment.

          • avi barzel

            Actually, that’s pretty good, although too egg-heady to be a knee-slapper; the money-lending bit has been forgotten. If I wasn’t terrible at jokes, I’d work in pawn shops while they are still around.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ CliveM—Does Disraeli count as a feverish rambler? ‘The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most [skilful] accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.’ [Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography, quoted in The Culture of Critique: an Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 13]

        • CliveM

          I would hope for something a bit more contemporary. However as a quote it is strong on accusation and light on evidence. I note the quote went on to blame the Jews for the 1848 revolutions. Which frankly says all that needs to be stated.

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ CliveM—The link in my comment provides several hundred pages of evidence for you to dismiss. Feel free, also, to dismiss the words of the former Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore: ‘For a Jew to become a Christian is to go over to the enemy’.

          • dannybhoy

            Jesus is the enemy of the Jews??
            You must have the same version of the Bible as Darach….

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ dannybhoy—Jesus is the enemy of the Jews??

            No, Montefiore warns that Jews see Christians as their enemy.

          • Inspector General

            Now that is where context is all important when it comes to quotes. The Montefiore family was, is, Jewish. At least one of them went over to Christianity and that strain provided a bishop….

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ Inspector General—Quite. As a Jew, Montefiore’s insight is invaluable.

          • Inspector General

            As a Christian with Jewish heritage, Montefiore’s insight was invaluable. That was what you meant to say, wasn’t it, Mr Rottenborough…

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ Inspector General—I think ‘Christian with Jewish DNA’ covers all angles. Many thanks.

          • Inspector General

            Look old chap, take this as the friendly advice it is meant. There’s never been a better time for the right to regain ground and re-establish the old order we loved so dearly. However, it doesn’t help when some damn fantasist runs bloody riot with claims of blood rights and gets pointed out by all who are sane to be some odd fucker shouting over the fence from the ‘sad home’

            Sure you’ll agree….

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ Inspector General—Jews being a distinct race, Montefiore had Jewish DNA. Nothing wrong with that in my book. Good for the Jews, I wish them well but their sojourn in Europe has been disastrous for both sides. Anyway, now that we have reached the stage where troops are protecting synagogues, the Jews will be moving on; the Muslims will see to that. As for the Right, it will come back into fashion when things have become really dire and we’re nowhere near yet.

          • Malcolm Smith

            “At least one of them went over to Christianity…” That one was Hugh himself. To quote his testimony on page 234 of his book, The Paranormal, A Bishop Investigates, “My parents were both Jewish – my father was president of his synagogue. I had never been to a church service. I had never read the New Testament. I had never discussed Christianity with my friends. … I had not been searching for a faith: indeed, I had even thought of becoming a rabbi.”

            But it all changed on a single day when he was aged 16, minding his own business in his room at Rugby School, when Jesus appeared in his room, and said, “Follow me!”

            I’ve included his, and a number of other people’s Damascus Road experiences at:

            http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/some-peoples-damascus-road-experiences.html

          • Hi Clive

            What Johnny never gets is the context of quotes or indeed the people whom he quotes.Disraeli wasn’t in any way shape or form immune from hyperbole, poetic license or being a loud dandy, so here’s another quote from him:

            “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.”

          • CliveM

            Hi Hannah

            That the problem with JRB link. Can the sources be trusted, probably not. What is the context? Well to be honest I don’t have time to check.

            Take the Disraeli quote. I can’t work out if it’s Disraeli himself or if he was quoting!

  • Malcolm Smith

    I wish people would stop using the expression, “Judaeo-Christian.” Seriously, what has Judaism contributed to British civilisation? The only values it shares with Britishness are the only it shares with Christianity.

    • dannybhoy

      Nonsense. Without Judaism there is no Christianity. The Ten Commandments was a common sight on church walls usually above or near the pulpit, when I were a lad.

      • CliveM

        Well said DB.

        It is worth pointing out that Jews have contributed large amounts to Brutish Society.

        • Dreadnaught

          Brutish? – steady on there CM

          • CliveM

            Thanks DN, sigh I hate predictive text!

          • dannybhoy

            Me too. In fact I find the more these gadgets can do the more difficult it becomes to remember how to do it.
            I spend so much time ringing Apple Support because they will insist on changing/”improving” their operating system. I no sooner have a vague idea of how to do things, then they go and change it all around…

          • CliveM

            What I hate is how instead of presenting it as a choice, it’s imposed as being in our best interests!

            Apple is a Dictatorship!

          • Dreadnaught

            I’m sticking with Windows Steam Mk1

          • dannybhoy

            I’d go with that. Just finished a long telephone session with someone called Ricardo helping me (remotely) uninstal and reinstal my errant printer.
            Nice chap. Even the accent wasn’t too difficult to follow.
            However, he lost me when he started saying how much more user friendly Apple systems are….
            Nothing stirs up the beast in me more than trying to understand the logic of Apple’s OS. I am considered by those who know me to be a very sensible, practical and logical man.
            Yet when it comes to Apple and all the little signs and symbols and arrows and lines, all neatly contained in their little boxes I become the most explosive and irritated of men…

          • Apple is atheist, run by homosexual, and controls its applications and web searches to filter out Christian sites and those hostile to its ‘message’.. You should research a company’s background before giving them your business.

      • Uncle Brian

        The Ten Commandments take up only half a column, if that, in most people’s Bibles. Surely not even Comrade Smith could object to that. The real trouble is the Psalms. They just go on and on, don’t they, a hundred and fifty of them. I mean to say, who needs a hundred and fifty songs? Not even Lennon and McCartney wrote as many as all that!

      • The God who revealed Himself to the Jews is the same God made Incarnate in Christ who fulfilled Judaism and perfected it. The moral law revealed in the Old Testament is the same for Christians. God does not change. Christ revealed the solution to man’s fallen nature; He widened our understanding and increased its depth; the Jews rejected this spiritual path and are still holding out for an earthly Kingdom.

        • dannybhoy

          “He widened our understanding and increased its depth; the Jews rejected
          this spiritual path and are still holding out for an earthly Kingdom.”
          This is true Jack, but it doesn’t mean that God has given up on the Covenenant . The Jews remain in unbelief or indifference or devotion to (usually) Rabbinic Judaism. WE are called to reach out (darn it, there’s that phrase again!) to all men, to give an account of the faith that is within us.
          That the Jews rejected Christ does not mean they are abandoned by God, nor give us the right to reproach them, persecute them or force them to convert them under pain of death. Each person has to come to faith in Christ. Now how the Lord will deal with the Jewish people regarding salvation I don’t know, but I believe the New Testament teaches us to love the Jews and provoke them to jealousy, not fear.

          • Jack never said or implied any the points you responded to.

          • dannybhoy

            Historically though Jack this is what happened, is it not?

          • You made no historical claims in the post. You asserted this:

            “That the Jews rejected Christ does not mean they are abandoned by God, nor give us the right to reproach them, persecute them or force them to convert them under pain of death.”
            No one has the right to persecute any person for any faith or lack thereof, or to force conversions under pain of death. Historically, the situation is more complex than you have painted it if you are claiming this to be a wholly accurate summary of Catholic treatment of the Jews and others. Any fuller account would need an inclusion of context and motive. Not to justify or condone the Church’s part or the role of Christian belief, but to give an understanding of the interplay between belief and social, economic and political forces.

    • Dreadnaught

      and Marks and Spencers.

    • Inspector General

      Judaism rightly helped end the ban on usury. Where would we be now if that was still in place…

      And fish and chips. The Jews gave us that.

      Jews are outstanding in the field of entertainment. What a dull life we would have without that.

      • CliveM

        And science.

        • dannybhoy

          And arguing..

          • Dominic Stockford

            No, never. We always managed that without any help.

      • Uncle Brian

        Strictly speaking, Inspector, I think the Jews only gave us the recipe for fish in batter. Fried potatoes came from somewhere else, across the sea from Wales, know the place I mean? Then Londoners put the two things together and hey presto! Fish and chips!

        • Hi uncle Brian

          The fried fish was Sephardic and the fried chips Ashkenazi:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8419026.stm

          • Uncle Brian

            I take your word for it, but as the BBC says, the origin is hotly disputed by several different claimants.

            You’ve been very quiet recently, Hannah.Everything okay, I hope?

            Regards
            Brian

          • Hi Brian

            I’m okay, being more of the ‘silent reader’ of late, but thanks for asking.

          • avi barzel

            And a good thing too you Sephardim stepped in with the fish and chips. Imagine if the Ashkenazi won that one; generations of Brits taking home slices of pale and sweaty gefilte fish with limp noodle pudding wrapped in yesterday’s news.

          • carl jacobs

            Ya know. You aren’t helping your culinary cause, here.

          • Hi avi

            Have been trying to get into Ashkenazi foods: chicken soup (which apparently has medicinal properties) and yes gefilte fish. Personally prefer my Sephardic alternatives of Gazpacho and chermine…

          • Although I do like herring and pickled egg (:

      • avi barzel

        We keep alive the traditions of schmaltz herring and pickled eggs. And the spike on your national revenues charts from the single malt quaffing in Toronto synagogues alone on this cold afternoon probably topped income from North Sea oil sales.

    • Watchman

      Malcolm, it is difficult knowing where to start to respond to you, and whether I do it out of pity or anger is something I am still trying to fathom. Christianity exists only because redemption offered to the Jews, by God, was rejected by them. Christians are grafted into the root of Abraham, we are adopted into the family of Abraham, we are honorary Jews. Jesus was a Jew, sent to redeem the Jews from their sins and as Christians we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude as they are still God’s Chosen People and we have been invited into the fold. The value, principles, spiritual tenets etc are basically Jewish: they are based on God’s promises and curses to His People.

      • Inspector General

        Hopefully, Smith will hang around here and be enlightened. The Inspector is not at all embarrassed to say that at his age, this site has opened his eyes to so many issues. It’s rather like attending church and hearing the greatest of sermons…

        • CliveM

          Sometimes you talk absolute bollocks, but on this occasion you got it completely right!!

          • Inspector General

            Even back handed compliments welcome these days…

          • CliveM

            :0) can’t have you getting to big headed!

          • dannybhoy

            Times are that hard Inspector?
            Surely not?

          • Inspector General

            It’s like walking against a gale these days…

        • Watchman

          Thanks, Mr General, I hope he does and I presume that if he reads this he will accept my apology for being a bit sharp

        • DanJ0

          Glad to be of help. 😉

          • carl jacobs

            OK. That was genuinely funny.

          • Inspector General

            One despairs of you at times…

          • carl jacobs

            Oh c’mon, Inspector. Give credit where credit is due. That was hilarious.

          • Inspector General

            Alright then, “Ha”.
            Might find another “Ha” before the day is out, if you’re lucky…

      • Malcolm Smith

        All you have said is exactly what I said: The only values it shares with Britishness are the ones it shares with Christianity. (Sorry for the typo in the original comment.) Please note that I didn’t say anything about Jews, but about Judaism. Christianity is the natural growth from the Old Testament. Judaism is the Talmud; it is the lens through which they perceive the Old Testament just as the New Testament is our (undistorted) lens. Judaism has not contributed to Britishness, except through the Christian understanding of the New Testament. We should stop using terms which imply equality and equivalence between the two.

        • Watchman

          I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”. I think, for you, Malcolm the time is now!

          To separate the Jewish people from Judaism and to separate the NT from the OT is a bit like separating your head from your body and expecting your legs to function properly.

          Apart from the obvious fulfilment of biblical prophecy about the Jewish people being a blessing to nations which bless them why don’t you simply do a headcount of Jewish businessmen, scientists and participants in every other field of human activity and compare their success and achievement with the indigenous population. Without the contribution of Jewish people to British life we would be a far poorer country not just financially but in every way.

    • Anton

      The Jews gave the human race the Law, surely the template for the legal codes of Judaeo-Christian nations.

      (Oh alright, they gave us the law, but apart from that what did the Jews do for us…?)

  • Inspector General

    What is particularly relevant today is the state of Israel. The first entity in modern times to stand up against the filth of Islam. Still going strong today. As we face our own skirmishes with this particular type of insidious filth, it is to Israel that we should look for inspiration.

    How’s that for a damn fine Jewish contribution to British culture !!

  • carl jacobs

    You can’t have Christian ethics without the foundation of Christian metaphysics. People have been trying to achieve that outcome for close to 200 years. It is at the very heart of the origin of liberal religion. It has failed and failed repeatedly. Once you lose the Faith, the practice soon morphs. The reason is simple. Without the metaphysics, people soon choose not to deny themselves. They declare their desires good and act on those desires. That is the nature of man.

    People want the benefits without the boundaries. They want the benefit of stable families without the boundary of sexual continence. They want the benefits of equality without the boundary of moral significance. They want the benefit of autonomy without the boundary of law. They want to steal from religion the concepts that please them, but they want to leave behind the moral restraints that make it possible to thereby derive benefit. This is why ethical Christianity is unsustainable. It’s not collapsing in the face of Islam. It’s collapsing for lack of foundation and Islam is simply there to build something on the rubble.

    The only way to defend your Christian heritage is to evangelize. Otherwise you will revert to paganism. That is the default position of man. Back to gods and ghosts and crystals and Magic and spirits and mediums and divinations and astrology. Man attempting to mediate his own spiritual reality in the time-honored tradition. Don’t think your rationality can save you. Life in a dead universe is far too debilitating for people to long tolerate. They need meaning. And they will go find it.

    • Dreadnaught

      Isn’t this the mantra of Islam also?

      • carl jacobs

        Dreadnaught

        I honestly don’t know. But it’s not a question of who says it. What matters is the truth of the statement.

        • Dreadnaught

          Can’t argue with that.

        • It is the message of Islam – its solution differs from Christianity.

    • dannybhoy

      Well said.

    • sarky

      I think you are right, people are looking for something. The problem for Christianity is that has argued itself into irrelevance. It had its shot and now people are looking elsewhere.

      • carl jacobs

        sarky

        It hasn’t argued itself into irrelevance. A people became fat and rich and self-satisfied and said to themselves “What need have we of this god. We have plenty and who will take it from us? What we have we have made ourselves. All this god does is tell us not to do things we want to do. Let’s put him away and sit upon his throne in his place. Then we can do what we want.”

        And so they did what they wanted. And look where it has got them. You had better be afraid of this reality. This materialist understanding of reality is fragile as a dry leaf in summer. It is entirely 100% sustained by prosperity. But once strike it with hardship, and it will crumble. A people who believe in nothing but material goods will not long tolerate the absence of material goods. “Life is meaningless, and you will live in misery and die in misery” is not a message they will be willing to accept. They will find a replacement. And it will not be benign.

        • And how have did the majority become “fat and rich” whilst others have been left thin and poor? You argue against a Christian ethical framework for business and also against state policies for supporting basic needs of the poor and sharing wealth.

    • So you now believe the Church and State should work together?

      • carl jacobs

        Jack

        Your ability to create the oddly innovative and yet remarkable non-sequitur is truly unsurpassed. I have said nothing that demands such a conclusion.

        • “Your ability to create the oddly innovative and yet remarkable non-sequitur is truly unsurpassed. I have said nothing that demands such a conclusion.”

          Thank you, that is a great compliment.

          Irony, Carl, irony.

          Jacks message is you don’t but maybe should consider doing so. What other ‘solution’ is there? In time, it could be a God awful alternative to what we have now.

          Throughout your posts you comment on the disconnect between virtue and the behaviours resulting from a secular state. You’ve identifies that abandoning of Christian values means grasping materialist ones. Such a nation when it abandons Christianity inevitably tends towards chaos as it gives increasing license to human nature. We both agree God’s moral laws serve a purpose both in the temporal order and in the spiritual one.

          In Jack’s opinion, the only effective break on democracy heading towards dictatorship to contain man is a strong influence from the Church and the maintenance of the moral codes of Christianity. And these would be in all spheres including statesmanship.

          And Jack thinks this is where our differing theologies might come into play. Jack believes God wants us to actively promote His justice at individual, family, community and state level, including the international level. It was in the poem Jack posted that Martin dismissed as heretical. It may not work, yet nevertheless it is good in itself and God’s Will will be done.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            The only thing I disagree with in your post is found in this phrase:

            a strong influence from the Church

            What is the definition of ‘influence’? What is the definition of ‘Church’? Therein lies the difference between us.

            Well, there is also this pollyanna-ish idea of ‘international justice.’ Babel was in a way a mercy as well as a punishment. The most horrifying governmental prospect is one power controlling all the nations. Nothing would be withheld from it. The nations restrain each other as beasts, and in so doing limit the damage that man may do to himself.

          • “What is the definition of ‘influence’? What is the definition of ‘Church’? Therein lies the difference between us.”

            Yes and Jack is still musing over these tings and how they might be answered in the 21st century.

            “Babel was in a way a mercy as well as a punishment. The most horrifying governmental prospect is one power controlling all the nations.”

            Agreed – but it was pagan and a vain attempt at dislodging God’s authority and replacing it with man’s.

            “The most horrifying governmental prospect is one power controlling all the nations. Nothing would be withheld from it.”

            It would be shocking. The key to our difference is perhaps in your framing it as one power controlling all nations. Jack is thinking at the level of ideology and faith rather than actual temporal power wielding total control. There are still ‘Two Swords’. We are moving in this direction anyway with the liberal-democratic ‘faith’ being preached and enforced worldwide through the UN and its various agencies.

            “The nations restrain each other as beasts, and in so doing limit the damage that man may do to himself.”

            The nations could restrain themselves like the moral creatures we are called to be rather than relying on a Darwinian model of balancing world empires and powers.

  • You cannot have ‘Judeo-Christian values’ without Christ.
    We’ve been here before, 300 years ago.
    At the end of the 17th Century, the effects of the Endarkenment began to make themselves felt and many people thought that the scientific discoveries of men like Boyle and Newton meant that a belief in God unnecessary (though Boyle and Newton themselves were not that stupid). there were liberal clergy like Anthony Collins, and ‘evangelicals’ who changed the Gospel like William Whiston. Look them up.
    .
    The effects are well-known and well-documented. They are well summed-up in the Hogarth prints, ‘Gin lane,’ ‘The Rake’s Progress’ and ‘The Harlot’s Progress.’ Alcoholism got so bad that the population of London actually declined for a few years; crime soared exponentially, despite over 100 of them being punishable by death, and sexually transmitted diseases became endemic. Despite all Voltaire’s warm words about a brotherhood of man, nothing was done to end the slave trade.
    .
    The churches were in a desperate state. The lawyer Blackstone, having heard all the most famous preachers in London, declared that he had heard no more of Christ from any of them than he could read in the speeches of Cicero. It all sounds remarkably modern, doesn’t it?
    .
    What changed things? It was the Great Awakening which started around 1738 and continued through to the Regency Period. It involved the free preaching of the Gospel by men like George Whitefield and the Wesleys, and it changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people for the better. That is what we need today, and wittering on about Judeo-Christian values is not worth a fig without it.

    • Anton

      Well, yes and no. Wesley is a great hero of mine but real Christianity is a voluntary religion. If we want to change British morals for the better then, since there is no guarantee the people will heed even the best presentation of Christianity, we need to chuck out immoral laws and put in place moral ones. Ending the subsidy by the tax-and-welfare system of the consequences of sexual promiscuity would be a good start.

      Nations have gone sexually continent from promiscuousness without Christ’s explicit involvement. But at the moment we are going the other way and it will end in dire consequences for our way of life. (Some of us believe that the rise of Islam is His impending judgement for this – what else could it be than judgement given that He has all authority yet Islam denies His divinity? But this is another debate.)

      • If we want to change British morals for the better then, since there is no guarantee the people will heed even the best presentation of Christianity, we need to chuck out immoral laws and put in place moral ones. Ending the subsidy by the tax-and-welfare system of the consequences of sexual promiscuity would be a good start.

        But moral laws are not going to be voted for by immoral people. The nation needs to be changed, not outwardly but inwardly. Only God can do that, and He has given us a wonderful promise:

        ‘If My people, who are called by My name
        [ie. Christians], will humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.’ (2 Chronicles 7:14).
        .
        There’s the promise; let’s be about fulfilling the conditions.

        • Anton

          Martin, I respectfully disagree. 2 Chronicles 7:14 was given to a covenant nation which Britain is not, whatever vanities might be in the coronation oath; it is beyond the legitimate authority of the sovereign to decide the faith of his or her subjects in an era (“between the times”) in which God has given us choice to believe in His Son or not. The New Testament analogy to this verse is “…I will hear from heaven and heal their church.” And heaven knows it needs it in this land.

          • I’m not quite sure of the point you’re making. We may be in agreement.
            We (Christians) are ‘….A holy nation, His own special people….who once were not the people of God, but are now……etc.’ (1 Peter 2:9-10). The Old Testament promises apply to us (in a spiritual, not a physical way): ‘For whatever things were written before [i.e. the O.T.] were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope’ (Romans 15:4).
            It is for God’s people (us) to heed the instruction of 2 Chron.7:14. If we do that, God promises to heal the ‘land’ and yes, I think that means the churches, but if that happens it will also be to the blessing of the nation if Christians will only be salt and light within it.

  • David

    Excellent analysis from an historical and socio-political viewpoint.
    But what of faith ?

    As others on this blog have said, you cannot continue indefinitely living of the cultural capital, accumulated by previous generation of observant Christians, for ever. Selling off the family silver bit by bit eventually results in none left. You cannot have Christian values without Christ.

    So unless more of the dwindling numbers of observant Christians, and those who like Farage are vaguely speaking, thrice a year church worshipers, or cultural Christians; unless both these groups take up a more vigorous defence of Judaeo-Christian values in the public square, the vast proportion of the public will be nudged by the over dominant so called liberal media, into a fearful acquiescence of both secularism and strangely, Islam as well. But increasingly Marxist inspired laws are used against Christians who speak out in the public square, or simply try to follow their consciences in their working lives.
    To continue as a Christian nation we need more people to turn to Christ. But at present the denominations are lost in both internal squabbles given them, quite deliberately, by PC Cultural Marxism, or in dealing with their shame over child related offences. Oh and how the liberal anti-Christian media and press constantly highlight every difficulty that denominations suffer, whilst hardly ever pointing to their successes.

    It is imperative that Churches preach the simple gospel contained in the revelations of the Bible. Ultimately as the Holy Spirit guides revivals, this depends upon God. But individual Christians have responsibilities to influence where they can, both as individuals and in concert with others.

    Returning to Farage, it is heartening that as both the main establishment parties, effectively, certainly their leadership, abandons Christianity, the growing party of patriotism, Ukip, supports the old values and wisdom, rooted in the faith. All power to Ukip and come on Churches what happened to the Great Commission ?

    • Dominic Stockford

      Some of us follow the Great Commission, and preach the Glorious Gospel of salvation through Christ alone, but as you say, our voices are deliberately silenced in the media.

      • David

        Indeed, and thank you Dominic.
        I appreciate that there are many fine preachers out there, and I listen to some when I have the time. But it is the predominately liberal leadership of most of the protestant Churches that I am familiar with, that need to return to the basics of the faith, rooted of course in the gospel Jesus taught us.
        As a mere auxillary, a lay preacher, I try to do my inadequate best, but it is not easy in a predominantly liberal denomination. As in other parts of UK life, we desperately need a leadership change.

        • Anton

          Easily achieved by changing denomination…

          • David

            What, and leave, surrendering that denomination totally to the liberals ?
            A few leave but most of the reformed faith prefer to stay and fight. But take your choice.

          • jsampson45

            And look where it got them. Stay and fight, and lose every time.

          • David

            Ye of little faith.
            Every time ?
            The 18 th century C of E was in a very poor state by any measure, as it is now, but it reformed.
            Now as only God knows the future, you may be right of course.
            But my feeling is that it is still worth contending for, as late 19th century J.C. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool, an evangelical of the reformed branch, argued vociferously.
            Much depends upon what view you take as to whether we will ever turn the corner, away from this current phase of destructive post-modern relativism, or not.
            As history shows us that no philosophical movement lasts for ever, you may be taking too short term a view, looking to the immediate past ?
            Whereas I for the time being at least will return my debt to an earlier more gospel guided C of E by staying and fighting for the reformed faith from the inside.
            But good luck to you too, friend.

          • Why bother with de-nominations? Christ nominated one leadership.

          • David

            At a deep theological and philosophical level I too ask that question.
            Indeed if people ask me about my faith I always emphasise that I am first and last a Christian, (in the CS Lewis “Mere Christianity sense) but happen to have been introduced to a particular denomination by my family, who have belonged to it for hundreds of years. If they are determined to discover my denominational affiliation then I say, Anglican, of the reformed protestant sort.

            In fact I feel, almost instantly, a deep affiliation to all committed Trinitarian Christians of all denominations, without denying the importance if the doctrinal differences. I recognise in them fellow travellers, on the path. It is often a relief to discover one or maybe two in whatever transitory group one happens to find oneself, on holiday perhaps or wherever. So many Christians nowadays are reluctant to self-identify as such to strangers, so timid have many become – more shame on them ! So much more unites us than divides us, across the man-made divides barriers.

          • dannybhoy

            Amen David. Of course doctrinal differences deeply held are important, but true Christians major on what unites us, not the differences.

          • David

            Thank you, and yes.

          • Anton

            I entirely agree. Himself.

          • And His representatives until His return as King.

          • Anton

            All Christians are His representatives.

          • jsampson45

            So what is your strategy? How do you intend to win?

          • David

            In a previous paid role creating strategies was part of my job.
            But now, as a part time volunteer, “strategies are not us”. I am merely an individual attempting to obey the Great Commission.
            However, encouragingly, I note that the growing part of the C of E, its younger, expanding conservative Evangelical section, are reformed Christians. I further note that all the rest within the denomination is shrinking. As the lines on the graph converge ……

            But I am not sure that constitutes your “to win”. Indeed we are all urged to work for Christ, not some human idea of winning ?

            However I have a strategy in this sense. If the liberal diocese, in which I chip away at error, became wholly unacceptable to me, say by approving gay “marriage”, and tried to impose that on my particular church, my personal reaction will be to migrate wholly to the neighbouring diocese’s Reform churches, as a mere “doorman”.

            But until it becomes impossible to follow Bible and The 39 Articles, I will stay and fight. As RC Ryle puts it, from memory, “whilst there is life in the good old ship, it would be unChristian and unmanly to launch the lifeboat” – or something like that.

          • jsampson45

            Re ‘winning’, you, not I, used the word ‘fight’ which implies a desire to win. If a ‘ship’ analogy were appropriate, a mutiny might be in view rather than launching of a lifeboat.

          • David

            Are you proposing a mutiny ? Yes/ no ? You are not being exceedingly clear. But if so, it’s hardly practical I’d suggest.

            “Fight” means, an activity. Most fighters would want to win, yes, but for the Christian, for, on behalf of Christ, surely ?
            But so what ?

            But is this fruitful ? I would want to avoid mere pedantry, word splitting, and do what each one of us, in our particular circumstances, feels God is asking us to do, guided by Scripture, Tradition and Reason, as an Anglican, and of course, the Spirit.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The majority of reformed Christians in the UK are not in the CofE

          • David

            Not at present.

          • Anton

            It is a matter for the private conscience, perhaps informed by the message “Come out of her, my people”, when an individual should change denomination. Allow me a brief testimony. When I quit the CoE (for the nonconformists) it was for two reasons. I could have stuck the liberal theology that dominated the PCC if the hierarchy had been solid; and I could have stuck a liberal hierarchy if the influential people in the parish had been evangelical. But a liberal PCC and too many apostate statements by liberal bishops – entitled to their view but hypocrites to spread doubt on a church salary – together did for me. (And the row with the vicar over the fortune teller at the church fete, but that’s another story.) I also felt that hard times are coming for Christians and I needed to be in a congregation that understood this and was ready rather than one where people would be jumping round like headless chickens when trouble came. You might say I should have remained to be the one to guide them, but I was missing the corporate aspects of the faith and could not have grown in Christ as I needed and need to in preparation for that day.

          • David

            I agree with you totally, and well put. It is a personal decision, reflecting the particular situation in which each person finds themselves.
            So those who make sweeping universal statements, in a sort of “here’s what I did, so it’s definitely right” way, are perhaps being led by their egos, not the Spirit. They may be failing to recognise that their decision reflects their particular set of circumstances, and what God wants them, personally to do. Such generalising is not helpful, especially pastorally, to the seeker of their path. Ultimately it is a decision between each individual and God, alone.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Anton has a point – better made by Martin Lloyd Jones – even all that time back when he spoke similarly he was probably right.

          Although denominations are unnecessary – find a good bible teaching congregation – that frequently isn’t part of a denomination.

  • Dominic Stockford

    There is an article in the Telegraph today in which the writer, some bloke called Abdal Hakim Murad, writes: “To laugh at the Prophet, the repository of all that Muslims revere and find precious, to reduce him to the level of the scabrous and comedic, is something very different from “free speech” as usually understood. It is a violent act…”

    (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11351280/Scorning-the-Prophet-goes-beyond-free-speech-its-an-act-of-violence.html)

    And we wonder why the Judeo Christian ethic that has made this country great is so derided. Of course it is when the country has got to the state where people can effectively accuse anyone who laughs at his so-called prophet of committing a violent act.

    • The Explorer

      If laughing is a violent act, then a beheading or a mass shooting would simply burst the violence thermometer.

    • carl jacobs

      And, oh btw, a violent act justifies a violent response, doncha know. Except they will employ violence that kills and maims. See how this works? If you refuse to treat my religion according to my narrative, then you have committed violence against me. Therefore I will respond with violence.

      The proper response is “We will laugh at your prophet as we see fit. If you respond with violence, we will grab you by the throat and dash your head against the stone.” In accordance with civil law, of course.

      • Dominic Stockford

        I note the Psalmic reference…

        Within law, and within the concept of “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord”

        • carl jacobs

          Yes, for men. Not the state. The state bears not the sword in vain. So if a Muslim (say) shoots up an office for offending the prophet and kills a dozen people, then then the state should find that Muslim and put him to death in accordance with civil law.

          I’ll give credit to the French on this one. They didn’t screw around.

          • Dominic Stockford

            A just punishment, though it would be nice to have a just state as well – we can all hope!

          • Aquinas:

            “The punishments of this life are medicinal rather than retributive. For retribution is reserved to the Divine judgment which is pronounced against sinners “according to the truth” (Rom. ii, 2).

            Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity.”

    • Dreadnaught

      You sound a bit jealous DS

      • Dominic Stockford

        ?

        I am confused, do you mean you think I want to commit violence? I don’t – I have moved on from such youthful follies now.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Gillan wrote, When Nigel Farage talks of the need to defend and protect our ‘Judæo-Christian’ heritage, what he is really saying is that if the Christian heart of our national identity is removed, our Britishness will become unrecognisable.

    There are two issues here. One is that it is unlikely to happen in an instant because it is so ingrained in the indigenous population. The other is that much of what the older generation of this country knew and understood as Britishness is now almost unrecognisable.

    At this election one might consider what will restore a Judaeo/Christian society.
    One would be to a growth of the church with many turning to Jesus. The other might be to elect a Government whose leaders will stand up for those values with Integrity, not the two timing deceits of this present Government.

  • carl jacobs

    deleted

    • Inspector General

      You certainly did, Stanley…
      Now THAT is funny…

      • carl jacobs

        I floundered in a typhoid.

        • Now that is irony … Grasshopper

          Jack has run into a spot of bother too by calling Mr M. “the man”. He has alienated his ‘fair weather’ supporters and foes alike. He is distraught and battle weary.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            It was a quote from “Sons of the Desert” which is probably Laurel & Hardy’s greatest work. And who is Mr M? Why should calling him the “man” alienate anyone? I found no answers looking through your recent posts.

          • dannybhoy

            I love Laurel and Hardy!

          • Ah, the line was at a Master level and Jack was going to welcome you to the Order of Grand Irony.

            Mundabor – hated by all liberal Catholics and even conservatives. He is certainly an ‘outlier’.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            If you account for Chesterton’s ‘Democracy of the Dead’ Mundabor is the center of mainstream Catholicism.

          • You know more that Jack gives you credit for – respect, Sir.

            Jack keeps reminding liberal Catholics who insist on giving prominence to sensus fidei that the faithful consist of all members of the Church, including those who have gone before us. Christians may be physically separated by death. However, we remain united to each other in one Church.

            The full quote from ‘Orthodoxy’:

            “Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

            http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16769/16769-h/16769-h.htm

            Mundabor is gladiatorial old school, perhaps too rigorist in approach since Vatican II. He is a solid Catholic. Jack doesn’t agree with all that he writes, or the way he writes it. He is a touchstone and an antidote to modern progressives. Plus, through his writings, Jack has grown fond of him too.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            I came of political age under the tutelage of William F Buckley Jr. You can’t read Buckley without encountering Chesterton. I had two or three of Chesterton’s books in my youth. (Of course, I didn’t know much about the RCC back then.) If someone really wanted to know my politics, he would not go far wrong reading WFB.

            I suspect you have never heard of him, but he was the father of reborn Conservatism in the US. He was also Catholic which proves that everyone has a fatal flaw.

          • Jack hasn’t heard of him but will research him. Interesting that he was/is a Catholic.

            What may interest you is that Mundabor has a respect for the intellectual rigour of Calvinism. Theologically, he disagrees with you, of course, over the central issues of predestination and the nature of atonement. However, what is really scary is that his politics are almost the same as yours. This is very worrying for Jack who is more left of centre over political and economical affairs whilst right of centre on personal moral issues.

            Chesterton was compulsory reading at the school Jack attended, as was Hilaire Belloc. One wonders what they would make of the world today.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, remember, Jack. When I was 20, I was a Conservative with sharp edges and rough surfaces. Now I am a Conservative measured and tempered and polished by time and experience. I’m not really different so much as I am wiser and more discerning. Mr Reasonableness and Light, that’s me. I have learned the art of compromise and accommodation at the appropriate time and place.

            Surely you have noticed.

          • Yes, Carl.

            As for Jack at 20, he was just starting University having spent 3 years studying for the priesthood. He was soon to become a faux International Socialist and a quasi-Hippy. Different times and worlds for us. Jack was overwhelmed with a sense of freedom and adventure. He guesses you just missed Vietnam which given your families background and American politics at the time must have had a significant impact.

            Down the years Jack has also acquired a calm, moderate and sensitive manner to accompany his open minded, tolerant exploration of the issues of our age.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            I missed the war. My family didn’t. I was just short of ten when my brother was shot. You’re right. You have no idea how many of my early memories revolve around that war, or just what a seminal impact it had on my life. My brother came home, and stayed because of his injuries. When I was a teenager, he was there for me because of it. It was he who taught me to be a man. But for the war, that wouldn’t have happened. My own personal example of all things working for good.

            Even so. I hate that war and what it did to my family. I hate the betrayal and cowardice. It would be easy for me to hate the men who ran, and the men who hid – the men who said to themselves “They must be killers because otherwise I am a coward.” The men who stashed themselves away in Universities and so found positions of prominence; men who used that prominence to ratify and vindicate their cowardice. This is where the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant gets very uncomfortable for me. Because I am that servant. But I must submit.

          • Our views on the Providence of God and predetermination are not a million miles apart and so Jack knows what you mean about God overseeing our lives.

            For Jack marriage and fatherhood was necessary to ground and centre him. For some years Jack thought he’d turned his back on God calling him to the priesthood and so avoided Him as best he could. Got up to all sorts too. Then God called ‘time’ on Jack’s shenanigans and gave him a choice to make and a path to follow. He used other people to do this.

            Not submit, Carl. Just accept some of those people were flawed, accept some were wicked, forgive them all regardless, leave the rest with God and move on. Whatever happened was under God’s control. That’s a central part of the Christian good news too.

            Jack wonders if you’ve ever read any of the classic Christian spiritual books. Something less concrete. There can be great peace gained from them. .

          • carl jacobs

            Anyways. See I knew you were a Leftist. 😉 Now you are just a Catholic Leftist.

          • IanCad

            Oh for the days when The National Review was under Buckley’s care!
            He was a huge influence on my political and social outlook.

      • carl jacobs

        And anyways … No, I didn’t. That was your vivid imagination. You have no evidence.

    • As it happens, Jack completely agreed with your comments. The others failed to recognise you obvious intellectual and moral worth. Here we make allowances for your poor mastery of the English language and inability to use satire, irony and … well … humour.

      What was it now …. ah, yes … “dumbass” … and … “zip it bird brain”. The latter comment being an insult to all feathered creatures – living and dead.

  • preacher

    In the 21st Century we must face facts. In many cases the Church has evolved into a religious turmoil, without direction, passion or purpose.
    Jesus Christ told a learned religious leader of the time “You must be born again!” Following any religious body however good, will never be enough, We MUST be born again of the Holy Spirit to receive the equipping we need to reach the lost.
    The Church was born in Blood – Not the blood of men, women & children, slain by evil men. But the Holy & Blessed Blood of Jesus Christ, to offer humanity, however evil, the opportunity to be saved, the only way possible. Blood shed for all who will turn & receive God’s mercy. Shed for the remission of sin & to redeem lost humanity from the just judgement we deserve.
    Many preachers today present a dewy eyed request for people to ‘receive’ Jesus, as if the Lord was some weak pathetic figure who needed friends, instead of the Lord of glory whose grit & courage took Him to Death on the Cross to disarm the Devil & defeat Death by His resurrection.
    The real call should be ‘Will God receive you if you reject His offer of life eternal?’.

    To follow Christ means to be prepared to accept following Him through thick & thin, pain & sorrow, as well as joy unspeakable. To do this is impossible without His Holy Spirit. Religion alone will never accomplish His purpose. God will send His Holy Spirit to live in those that ask for Him & are prepared to act on His leading. Are there any bold enough to pick up the mantle of Christ in the present age?.
    Tomorrow many will pray “Thy Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven” Are these just empty words, repeated parrot fashion again & again or are there a few who will accept the challenge to change the World?. We are his ambassadors & troops, Our weapons are the Word of God & the love of mankind whatever the personal cost.

    I don’t know where Mr Farage personally stands, but politics alone have proved to have no answer, religious practice has not fared much better. We need revival – & Only God can send this, through us!.

  • So how are we to go forward when currently we are not even allowed to talk about
    our religion to others?

    The article here states “ The problem appeared to be that Miss Wasteney is a
    Christian and her colleague was Muslim. And her employer – a health
    authority in one of Britain’s most ethnically mixed areas –
    deemed her behaviour to be a case of harassment and bullying.”

    Praying with a Muslim colleague ruined my career, says Christian NHS worker.
    Claims by Christian NHS worker that she was
    discriminated against on religious grounds after saying a prayer for
    a Muslim colleague come during a tense period in relations between
    Islam and other faiths, following the Paris terrorist attacks

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11352785/Praying-with-a-Muslim-colleague-ruined-my-career-says-Christian-NHS-worker.html

    I hope that UKIP once installed in government will change laws to
    favour Christians and the Christian culture so that we will have none of this nonsense.

    • sarky

      Maybe she should have checked with her colleague that it was ok before praying. I just wonder how she would have reacted to a muslim praying for her.

      • You haven’t read the whole article. Read it all.

        • Malcolm Smith

          Well, I just read the whole article, and it appears she did everything right. What do you think she did wrong?

        • sarky

          Have read it and very one sided it is too!!!! We don’t hear the other person’s side of the story do we? What on earth was she thinking giving the woman a book about a muslim converting to christianity?
          If this was all done outside the workplace we wouldnt be having this conversation would we?
          If you want to push your faith, fine, but dont do it on your employers time in your workplace.
          Personally, I would find it awkward having to work with someone banging on about their faith. Difference is I wouldn’t make it official id just tell them to ‘go forth and multiply’.

      • Inspector General

        Perhaps the muslim colleague should have respected the culture of the country she found herself living in.

        • Or not made false allegations her neighbour. This case has a whiff of conspiracy about it. From what Jack has read, she has done nothing wrong.

        • DanJ0

          Our culture has changed significantly in the last 30-50 years (as it has every 50 years for hundreds of years, of course). By that argument, perhaps both Christians and Muslims should respect the culture of the country they find themselves living in?

        • IanCad

          As we are expected to do in Muslim lands.
          Of course, the lash and the sword do have an influence.

      • What happened to the sacred right to offend others that everybody has been upholding recently. Could it be that tu n’es pas Charlie?

        • DanJ0

          What one does in the workplace is a different matter. The sooner people realise that freedom doesn’t necessarily extend there the better. It’s not rocket science, for heaven’sake.

          • What a load of rubbish! There is either freedom of speech or there isn’t.
            The other woman had a tongue in her head. All she had to say was, ‘No thanks; I’m not interested.’

          • William Lewis

            Quite

          • DanJ0

            There isn’t in most workplaces. I can’t make racist comments at work. I can’t expect to be able to tell my senior management that they’re inept in a company meeting without potentially losing my job. I can’t decide to dress how I want if there’s a dress code e.g. business smart or business casual. I can’t decide what time I come into the office if there are set office hours. I can’t decide that tomorrow I don’t care that others see me as a representative of my company, and start telling risqué jokes to customers. And so on. Honestly, I really shouldn’t need to tell functional adults something like this!

          • Oh dear!

            The woman didn’t make a rascist comment (which you can’t do anywhere these days, not only in work).

            She didn’t tell the senior management it was useless (though I don’t think you can ever have been in a sales meeting. I do it all the time).

            She did not dress up or down (though if you’re transvestite you can decide for yourself whether you wear a suit or a skirt and even which loo you use).

            She didn’t go into the office outside of office hours. She had a conversation with a work colleague, that’s all.

            Honestly, I really shouldn’t need to tell functional adults something like this!

            Danjo, you don’t seem to be able to finish a post to anyone without a jibe or a sneer. It’s not big and it’s not clever. Functional adults don’t need to do it.

          • DanJ0

            She didn’t just have a conversation with a work colleague, when one looks into the reported details. It doesn’t help you at all to downplay it. As for the rest of your comment, it’s hard to know what to make of it. It’s obvious that one doesn’t have the freedom of speech in the workplace that one has in one’s private life, and that one doesn’t have freedom of other sorts either, especially as I’ve listed a whole load of examples which ought to chime with most people in work. Though you have bastardised them to reduce their impact, by the look of it. This is the experience of almost everyone who goes to work in the UK as an employee as the workplace is a regulated environment, and it is directed towards the goals of the employer. As for being rude, perhaps you ought to look at your own opening sentence: “What a load of rubbish!”, and consider whether you could have disagreed more politely yourself. Don’t feel the need to apologise though, just step down off your high horse instead.

          • DanJ0

            It appears that the woman in question was the complainant’s manager. Awkward.

          • William Lewis

            There is no reason why freedom should not extend to the workplace. Rules in the workplace, whether public services or not, should only pertain to the ability of the worker and their colleagues to do the work expected of them.

          • DanJ0

            Nonsense.

          • William Lewis

            Rather harsh I thought.

          • Sherry

            Unless you are drawing highly insulting and disgusting cartoons that have no educational value but are simply designed to antagonise Muslims.

          • DanJ0

            Huh? Their workplace produced a magazine which specialised in challenging cartoons etc. Their employers required that, and their work role was about that.

          • Sherry

            And a magistrate is required to bring his experience and judgement to bear on cases such as these. Believing that children are better off with a mother and a father is not just a religious view and is still widely held.

          • DanJ0

            Have you tried writing your replies under the comment to which you’re replying? It makes things so much more comprehensible and readable, you know. The subjects stay together then, you see.

          • DanJ0

            Nothing, probably. I’ve seen enough on Facebook already. There’s potential comedy in it, and I say that as a gay man.

      • Read the article.

    • Phil R

      Spot on Marie

      This is the heart of it. We are not even allowed to talk about our faith.

      There is Danjo further down the blog like a character from Orwell’s 1984 telling us basically how he loves his new freedom. Then tells us what his brave new world of his chums is willing to allow us to do as Christians.

      The limits are of course reasonably generous

      For now…..

      • DanJ0

        What a feckwit.

        • Phil R

          When you have lost the argument attack the person..

          There ought to be a noun for this…….

          but being an ignorant bastard how should I know any Latin?

          • DanJ0

            Phil, I’ve wiped the floor with you down there. You’re too thick to even see that, I guess. Jeez.

          • Phil R

            Attack the person then call yourself a winner

            We should trust you Atheists?

          • DanJ0

            Phil, every time you open your mouth you make it worse. The argumentum ad hominem thing is about a logical fallacy. It doesn’t mean that people can’t be rude to whoever they’re arguing with otherwise what they actually argue for is somehow not true because of it. You made a complete berk of yourself with that Orwell thing. I’ve shown you why lower down and you were unable to defend it. You didn’t even try because it was so poor. Instead, you’ve flapped your arms about down there claiming I’m somehow in favour of totalitarianism anyway despite my arguing here and elsewhere for the polar opposite. You’re completely absurd.

          • Phil R

            Danjo you and what you stand for is exactly what Orwell was warning about.

            You are in favour of a totalitarian response.

            That is evident

          • DanJ0

            Oh grow up. What’s the point of posting blatant lies? Man up and face your shame.

          • Phil R

            Mutter all you want but your end game is clear and has been for many years. You are not interested in what most of us would call freedom in any real sense

          • DanJ0

            “You are not interested in what most of us would call freedom in any real sense”

            You say that despite the considerable amount of time I spend here consistently arguing for it, against the desire of many religionists to limit it to align more with their own religious beliefs. I was a even paid up member of Liberty during the Blair and Brown years, attempting to fight their erosion of our civil liberties. I’ve praised Henry Porter’s work here a number of times. I’ve argued for the right of people like Tony Miano to preach in the street, albeit perhaps without a PA system next time. I supported the very small number of cases which have merit that the CI/CLC have published, so my position is clearly on a case by case basis. I’ve criticised the Equality Laws we have. I’ve supported the removal of the word “insulting” from the Public Order Act here. And so on. In short, I expect you have no evidence of your claims and you’re simply lying to try to save face now because you wish it were so. Pathetic little man.

    • From the article, it appears this woman was subjected to institutionalised anti-Christianity. Let us hope and pray she wins her appeal. This case should receive wider publicity.

    • DanJ0

      I see the CLC has given it the kiss of death!

      The woman was a bloody fool for proselytising at work, especially as she works for a public service. Whether that’s right or wrong in the wider scheme of things is a another matter.

  • And yet another case against a Christian speaking about Christian values
    and in private too! Truly shocking.

    “A Christian magistrate has been disciplined by a Tory Cabinet Minister
    for expressing the belief that children should be raised by both a
    mother and a father.

    Richard Page told colleagues behind closed doors during an adoption case that
    he thought it would be better for a child to be brought up in a
    traditional family rather than by a gay couple.

    He was shocked a week later when he found he had been reported to the
    judges’ watchdog for alleged prejudice, and was suspended from
    sitting on family court cases.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914951/Suspended-sent-equality-training-Christian-magistrate-said-Adopted-child-needs-mum-dad-not-gay-parents.html

    • Michael Nazir-Ali’s words on this are worth a read .

      • What do we expect from this government which is a continuation of the Labour politically correct Marxist lot we had in previously.

      • Uncle Brian

        A link, please, Jack?

        • The Telegraph article posted by Marie, Brian.

    • DanJ0
      • Phil R

        You find the article amusing that he was disciplined for suggesting that a child is best brought up by a mum and dad…………..

        There is no equivalence in the articles.

        • DanJ0

          No, you useless berk. After all that furore about the Christian bakers and the Bert and Ernie cake promoting same-sex marriage, this story pops up. It amused me because we seem to be in a state of Cake War now.

          • Phil R

            It is far more serious than cakes.

            If you want articles on where we are going with this see

            http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

            Scroll down on the 17th is also interesting information on the Paris murders.

          • DanJ0

            I know you have a history of taking the most outrageous untruths at face value but you really ought to read around that particular subject. And no, I’m not in favour anyway if you do manage to unearth the real story there. Hitchens ought to be ashamed of that little piece.

          • Phil R

            OK let’s hear the truth. Enlighten us as to where Hitchens is wrong……..

            loss of freedom is a good thing I suppose you would argue if you can stamp out criticism of you lifestyle choice

          • bluedog

            Phil R, it seems pretty straightforward. Once you have chosen your ‘protected characteristic’ you can say pretty much what you like. The act merely discriminates against white, able-bodied, heterosexuals in full possession of their faculties. What’s new?

          • The Explorer

            Some friends of mine (not at their own request) had counselling after a burglary, and found that they were at fault for owning stuff and thereby providing temptation to the thieves. The legal perception of who was the victim in a burglary appeared to have changed. And burglary is not the only area in which this new perspective applies…

          • bluedog

            Hard to know where it ends, isn’t it? The nineteen years since 1996 have seen the settled practice of centuries over-turned. At some point there will be a counter-revolution. Interesting to read the former head of MI5 speculating on an outbreak of vigilantism in the event of another Islamic bloodbath. Not quite what the Cameroons had in mind when they started talking about standing up for British values. But it’s what they may get. It’ll put the police on the spot.

          • Phil R

            Wait till the money runs out. ….

          • DanJ0

            You think I would argue that? Phil, how on earth do you manage to dress yourself in the morning? You’re a complete moron. And a homophobic bigot. Not a great combination, really.

          • Phil R

            No to be honest I did not think you would point out where Peter Hichens was wrong

            I thought you might attack the person again instead of engaging.

            So you did.

          • DanJ0

            Phil, read around the subject he’s talking about as I suggested. The proposal is not to select pupils based on sexual orientation, like a Roman Catholic school might on the religious beliefs of a child’s parents. After you’ve done so, you can answer your own question about why Hitchens is misrepresenting that, presumably deliberately for the consumption of the small-minded, right-wing, middle-England readership of the Daily Heil.

          • Phil R

            Read it again. The main point was not the gay school

          • DanJ0

            No, I don’t think I will. It’s bad enough dealing with the rest of your crap without getting led down the garden path on wherever you’re going with this, too.

          • Phil R

            There we are

            Just deal with the minor details

            The only bits you have answers for

          • DanJ0

            Phil, you gave a vague reference. I still don’t know where you’re going with this. I’m not playing your moronic games. If you have something to say then say it explicitly. You’re probably expecting me to agree with and defend something I don’t agree with anyway on the basis that I’m Everygay in your unpleasant, homophobic little mind.

          • Phil R

            Read the article. It is not about gay schools.

            BTW

            Homophobic? Not at all. ☺

          • DanJ0

            Say it explicitly, or be damned. Especially about what it’s got to do with me.

    • sarky

      But shouldn’t judges be impartial?? How can you make a balanced judgement when you start from a position of prejudice?

      • Sherry

        Hang on. You are saying that it is biased to believe that a mother and a father are the best people to bring up a child. Why then is it not biased to say that two homosexuals can do an equally good job? Answer: common sense and increasing social research shows that children do better with a mother and father. We have now reached the point that liberals are so blinded by their dogma of equality that they cannot even
        See what us staring them in their face.

        • DanJ0

          Do you know the specifics of the case he was presiding over?

          • Sherry

            I know as much as you.

          • DanJ0

            I don’t know the context of the comments, nor the details of the case. I presume judges in family courts adhere to some sort of guidelines. His comments may well have been about the specific case he was presiding over, and indicate a personal prejudice in the case which might not be appropriate. Perhaps that’s why the complaint was made.

    • DanJ0

      I think that, in general, it’s better for a child to be raised by its mother and father. I’d even go further and say that, in general, I think it’s better for a child to be raised by a male/female couple. However, if I were a judge in a family court then I’d be quite careful what I said to others at work in certain contexts.

      • Uncle Brian

        I haven’t been following this case in detail but at first sight it certainly looks as though the judge was either surprisingly poorly informed about the current state of play or, alternatively, surprisingly naive.

      • dannybhoy

        Danj0, you do know that children brought up in a secure family unit with married parents works best for society don’t you?
        “Children raised by married parents ‘are better behaved’ A study published by the Department for Education shows that early education, family income and parents’ marital status has a significant bearing on children’s behaviour and exam results at 16..”

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11084932/Children-raised-by-married-parents-are-better-behaved.html

        • DanJ0

          What are you arguing against with that?

          • dannybhoy

            “”I think that, in general, it’s better for a child to be raised by its
            mother and father. I’d even go further and say that, in general, I think
            it’s better for a child to be raised by a male/female couple. ”

            I’m not arguing.
            I’m merely saying that couples who have made a (religious) commitment to each other in the presence of family, friends and community tend to provide the best upbringing for their offspring. In fact I would say that for a man and woman to say in the presence of family and friends “For richer for poorer….” is as solemn and as beautiful as it gets.. 🙂

      • This wasn’t idle chatter at work Danj0 this was a discussion of the case as part of the decision making process by the magistrates who didn’t need to be a Christian to have the opinion that children are best raised by a mother female and a father male in a married relationship. I think Mr Page has been unfairly picked upon because he also happens to be a Christian.

        • DanJ0

          What was the case about? Was it a wrangle over (say) whether a child lives with its father and his partner or its mother and her same-sex partner, or something similar like that? Presumably, the court ought to be primarily interested in what’s in the best interests of the child, however that is determined, based on the specific details of the case rather than on generalities. I’d have thought the case details in a family court would be kept private but I guess you’ve got hold of the context of the conversation somehow.

          • Yes If I remember rightly it was a wrangle over a child being placed with a couple of gay men.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Richard Page should tell the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling to get stuffed and should refuse to attend the “equality course” that he has been asked to attend before being allowed back in a court room. Whoever reported Page to the judge’s watchdog should be sacked.

      Stating that it is better for a child to be brought up by a mother and father than by two men or two women is not in the least prejudiced. It is simply common sense and the perverted views on “equality” of many politicians and people in the judicial system shows how alienated they have become from universal moral values and indeed from the natural world.

    • IanCad

      Thank you so much for the link Marie.
      Chris Gayling, was, I believe, the name.

  • len

    As society in the West become more’ liberal’ so does the opposition against anyone who does not hold to this’ liberal ideology’ The irony seems hardly to be noticed by ‘liberals’.
    As societies have pushed for greater freedom of expression of their wanton desires God has come to a point where He’ gave them over’ to their wanton desires.
    This is one of the most chilling phrases in the Bible ‘ He gave them over’. And if God does that it will be almost impossible to find a way out of the maze of moral confusion that will ensue.
    I wonder if we are at that stage already?.

    Believe me I am no saint I can see the attraction of sin but also the snare that awaits those that become entangled in it.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Why the mention of Augustine and King Ethelbert? Ethelbert was a Saxon king, not a British one and thanks to the Celtic saints in Wales, Ireland and Scotland Christianity was well established in Britain before Augustine arrived.

  • Philip___

    Yes indeed Nigel Farage is right.

    Mr Cameron, also, trumpets (when he thinks it’s appropriate to say nice things
    about Christianity) that we’re a Christian nation. But I’m sure I’m not alone in detecting perhaps a more than slight inconsistency between what he says on those occasions (usually at Christmas and Easter) and certain policies he has been so proud to have enacted. And he seems to support the targeting of Christians such as the N Ireland cake bakers and the B&Bs, as he (Mr Cameron) seems intent on imposing on us all the State’s prescribed politically correct version of morality.

    The same consistency test will surely apply to Nigel Farage. He has made encouraging statements and he does seem more genuine in his support for our Christian heritage. But ultimately the test for him will be whether he would repeal all laws and regulations that are used against Christians and that undermine the Christian way and morality (e.g. on marriage) on which a strong society depends, and that undermine freedom for Christians to live out their faith.

    For his support for Christianity to be real, Mr Farage would have to stand against and withstand determined and vile opposition from the metropolitan lib-left media (many newspapers and it seems all the broadcast media) and vested interests that stand for vocal and strident minorities intent on imposing their views on society and crushing dissent. In the last couple of years there does seem to been a bit of a retreat by UKIP on their opposition to the erosion of Christian values (e.g. now it seems they wouldn’t repeal same-sex ‘marriage’), so they might not be the answer many are hoping for on that score. As UKIP becomes regarded as a more serious party, it seems even they must to at least some extent capitulate and toe the line set by the metropolitan lib-left elite. There’s always “None Of The Above”.

    • dannybhoy

      Philip,
      “For his support for Christianity to be real, Mr Farage would have to
      stand against and withstand determined and vile opposition from the
      metropolitan lib-left media (many newspapers and it seems all the
      broadcast media) and vested interests that stand for vocal and strident
      minorities intent on imposing their views on society and crushing
      dissent.”
      I don’t know if Nigel is a Christian. I see few indications. I think though he accepts the need for a robust Christianity which would speak into society.
      If/when he gets into power I think his problem might be finding a Christian leader robust enough…

  • Philip___

    Further to my previous comment….

    ” if the Christian heart of our national identity is removed, our Britishness will become unrecognisable. The consequences would be a massive social upheaval and the political fragmentation of so much that has been established over the centuries. For this to happen over a comparatively short period would destabilise our lives and communities significantly.” But isn’t this what has been happening since the 1960s or before?

    For our Christian heritage to be of most benefit to us, it needs laws that arise from it and are in line with Christian morality (marriage being a good example, with studies proving married couples are more likely to stay together and children in their upbringing need the complimenting input of both mother and father to have the best chance). Presumably rejection and retreat from our Christian heritage and values could create a vacuum that could be filled by something far less liberal (to put it mildly) than Christianity.

    Indeed, Christianity promotes freedom and tolerance,as Gillan Scott says. Presumably this is because of its recognition we’re all equally fallen sinful imperfect people in need of the mercy and grace of God.

    (btw, I think if anyone can follow the Humphrey-esque quote from the Nick Spencer book, they’re doing well! Wayne Grudem’s “Politics According to the Bible”, although written from a US perspective, is surely also a recommend)

  • Ivan M

    It would be a lot more honest for Farage to drop the Judeo affectation
    when defending what is called the Judeo-Christian heritage. There was
    no distinctive train of Jewish contribution to the development of the
    Western polity different from what the Christians in the West say before the
    nineteenth century could find from their own resources.

    The foundation of the West (quoting from an old political science text) is
    based on the Roman principle of Law, the Greek principle of Reason,
    the Jewish principle of Brotherhood and the Christian principle of Agape.
    This synthesis was effected long ago, going back to the Pauline revolution.
    It owed nothing to developments in Rabbinic Judaism after the Christian Era.

    What is it that is distinctive about the West? That are are fond of
    quoting some bulls**t text from the past? But the Muslims already do that.
    That they are capable of working themselves into a frenzy on account of
    righteous anger based on (possible) misreadings of the same? But this again may be one thing that the Muzzies are good at.

    All the cool reasonableness of the West based on Greek reason,
    its ability to look at itself dispassionately, would of course be of no use
    to the Muslims, since ultimately the moral and divine sanction for not taking
    this world too seriously comes from Christ’s injuction “Render unto Ceasar…”
    here is no hint here that the Christians are to temporarise with the
    secular world, while waiting to be strong enough to take over the world
    and all the women in it. The secular world according to the Divine Master
    has its own mode of existence and should be respected as such.

    Therefore instead of pandering to morons of various stripes, Farage must
    instead don sackcloth and ashes during Lent and parade around
    with that great injunction of Christ.

  • May I invite your grace and readers to read this publication “A Matter of LIFE or DEATH – The Struggle for the Soul of our Nation” http://www.lifedeath.org

    • I have read through the article and can agree with much of it’s diagnosis, but I cannot see Maranatha having any effect upon the nation. It is composed of

      Anglicans & Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostalists, Salvationists, Presbyterians & members of the United Reformed Church, members of the New & Independent Churches.


      There is no agreement among those groups as to what a Christian is, what a church is, what the Gospel is, what the authority of Scripture is, or even its canon. It is a Babel of different views.
      I am not interested in denominations, but unless there is agreement on these basic points, Maranatha will not have the blessing of God and will lead nowhere. ‘For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?’

      • Anton

        All are Trinitarian Christians, and that is a heaven of a lot in common.

        • If I’m supposed to be grateful that J.W.s and Christadelphians have been excluded. I’m afraid I’m not. It’s not enough; not by a long way.
          Is Trinitarianism a requirement for membership? I’m not at all sure that even the majority of leaders of some of those denominations would comply.

          • Anton

            The organisation that has produced this document is very deliberately not another church but a voluntary organisation that seeks to help Christians of any sort be better Christians wherever they are. If you prefer to grumble about that than applaud its aims, that is your privilege.

  • CHBrighton

    Many of us have already succeeded in lifting the dead hand of Christian heritage (forced down our throats as children at school and by parents) and are free as adults to live our lives as we see fit. Many more are in the same process so hopefully within a generation Britons will be free. Believe if you want to, but don’t impose your belief on others.