Civil Liberties

Stephen Crabb has no need to be ashamed of his Christian faith


Who could have imagined just 15 years ago at the turn of the century that we would now be living in such unpredictable times? What seems like a permanent cloud of nervousness and instability pervades our news channels and filters through into our daily life. The grand European dream of ever closer union teeters on the edge of collapse with the woes of the Euro and the unprecedented influx of refugees and migrants. As David Cameron takes his demands to the rest of the EU’s leaders, we are facing the very real prospect of walking out on a 42 year relationship to go our own way.

We have weathered much of the storm of the financial meltdown of 2008, but the pain of balancing this country’s books will continue to bite hard for years to come. And of course we continue to wrestle with the ever-present danger that is religious extremism in all its destructive and violent forms, intent on bringing the world to its knees to bow before cultic ideologies.

Uncertainty and unpredictability are so commonplace that we almost expect them. Peering into the future has become increasingly difficult as we struggle even to make sense of what is happening in the present. As far as the current and future state of the Christian faith goes, two recent comments highlight the apparent contradictions we face. Firstly, the Secretary of State for Wales, Stephen Crabb, delivering the Conservative Christian Fellowship’s annual Wilberforce address, said: “Britain in 2015 is.. increasingly characterised I believe by a creeping intolerance towards Christianity, and towards religion more generally, which we should be deeply concerned about.”

Compare this to Justin Welby’s thoughts, being interviewed by Michael Gove in the Spectator:  “I think the tide is turning in this country. We are seeing many churches growing and particularly I would say that in the last seven or eight years one of the most exciting things has been that, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, we have seen the churches more active in social structures again, in the social events of this country, than at any time since 1945.”

There’s plenty of evidence to corroborate what both are saying, and here lies the paradox: Christianity has rarely been so poorly regarded or misunderstood, and yet it is precisely now that some corners of the Church are being reinvigorated and revived, growing in confidence and stature. This should not be surprising. Scholars of Church history will know that Christianity is an incredibly resilient faith. It tends to grow more when it is put under pressure, often in the face of persecution. The Early Church expanded rapidly throughout the Roman Empire under such conditions, and there is probably no better modern example than China. Despite routine government restrictions and attempts at suppression, the Chinese church is expanding at an incredible rate. Although no one knows exact numbers, there are currently well over 50 million Christians and this is expected to triple over the next 10 years.

As Christianity in the UK breaks free from the established nominalism that has defined it in recent decades, those adherents who remain have increasingly returned to a biblical, rather than cultural understanding of what it means to be a Christian, and in doing so, they have found a renewed strength and hope fuelled by an encounter with God’s Holy Spirit. It is a confidence – in Justin Welby’s words – in “the Victory of God which is seen — surpassing evil — in the events of the Cross, of the Resurrection and the Ascension”.

Even for those who take little interest in religion, there is a growing awareness that our ingrained societal values which have been taken for granted for so long are beginning to come under threat and need to be protected. The multicultural, multifaith melting pot is unable to provide security or stability in unity. Nor are secularist attempts to make us more neutral – as they see it – by the relegation of faith to private places offering a more welcome alternative. It is in fact those universal values and rights that have been labelled ‘British’, but are grounded in Christian principle and teaching, that will continue to provide the best way forward.

In the face of opposition and rapid change, Christianity continues to offer hope, and this is not being forgotten. If politics can be said to reflect the views of the pervading culture, then the Christian faith has been on the up in 2015. At the start of the year, Eric Pickles successfully enshrined the right to hold prayers at public meetings; we have seen a host of politicians including Michael Gove and Tim Farron openly discussing the importance of their Christian beliefs; the study of religion has been defended by the government in court; the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life issued a report calling for Britain to be systematically de-Christianised, which provoked a furious backlash from government ministers; the Equality and Human Rights Commission and David Cameron have ridiculed the refusal to screen the Church of England’s ‘Lord’s Prayer’ advert in cinemas; and the Prime Minister has also repeatedly talked of the need to support persecuted Christians around the world.

Despite these positives, the open discussion of personal faith in public still carries risk. It is expected of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but for many politicians and other public names, as Stephen Crabb explained in his address, it is too much:

I have never found it easy as a politician to talk about my faith. In an age where every word is watched for something that can be construed as a gaffe, off-message or representing some bigoted or irrational attitude, it is a topic which many of us steer clear of.  It kind of makes life simpler.

And as for the topic of personal prayer, well that’s become a total no-go-area – even though the phrase “our thoughts and prayers are with ______” appears in so many of the statements or tweets we all put out in response to any form of tragedy or suffering.

To speak openly as a Christian politician about praying is really asking for trouble. Just ask Tim Farron or Tony Blair.

Until such openness is acceptable, we cannot call ourselves a truly free society. This is not about proselytism or religious privilege, but realising that if we are incapable of allowing each other to discuss all aspects of faith, we considerably hinder our understanding of the world and will continue to marginalise vast groups of the population, which does nothing to facilitate tolerance and respect. Again, Stephen Crabb sums this up:

The stigmatization of faith, intolerance towards religion in our public life, will reduce the overall stock of goodness at work in our society.

So what is the response?

I think there is an immediate challenge here for politicians – myself included – in ‘renormalising’ faith.  Maybe we can and should be a little bit more open about our faith – even the stuff we are not sure about, our doubts and the things we are not clear about.

Maybe rather than stay silent about things like prayer, which is at the heart of so many faiths, we can try to explain what we think it is all about.

Writing in another age, William Wilberforce in his book Real Christianity observed that “Christianity has been successfully attacked and marginalized… because those who professed belief were unable to defend the faith from attack, even though its attackers’ arguments were deeply flawed..”

And there is a challenge too for the Church, I believe, in responding to those of other faiths and none.

Far from being an enemy of the tradition of tolerance and liberty that marks Britain out in world history over the last 500 years, Christianity has been a foundation stone.  And we should live up to that heritage.

Indeed, Wilberforce’s love of freedom, his recognition of the dignity of all humanity, his desire for an end to the injustice of seeing people treated as subhuman – as tradable commodities – because of the colour of their skin….

…All of that sprung directly from his deep, fervent Christian faith… his troublesome, inconvenient, scandalous faith in Jesus Christ

…A faith which so many people said at the time had no place in mainstream public life.

This is the reason why Christians should not be ashamed to be more vocal about their beliefs and practices. If others complain or mock then without a better alternative to offer, the foolishness is entirely their own.

  • Inspector General

    Don’t be so gloomy Scott. Social media is to blame for the uncertainty of late, coupled with the herd mentality. And stupid people with access to PCs. Don’t forget the stupid people.

    Eventually, leaders will be appreciated for what they are. If they stand true to their beliefs. It is those who try to accommodate all sides who fall, easily pushed over, as so they should. Leaders are always appreciated in uncertain times, as Churchill found.

  • magnolia

    Thanks for this article and for the lovely Wilberforce quotation, which reminds us how we have been in a similar position before, and come through. I know we won’t win through in a very similar way again, as we are contextually different and it is a feature of the Holy Spirit always to surprise us. A revival would be lovely…..

    Out on the streets offering Church literature you seem to get the strongly yes, the friendly, the ignorers, and the scowlers. Not much in-between. This accords with someone I heard (cannot remember the name) who said the grey in the middle is being taken out and the black and white becoming more focussed.

    • Phil R

      It is also called the mushy middle.

      Hence the crisis of numbers in the cofe.

  • len

    The media is manipulated by a small group of people who influence how society think and act.Just look at how ‘the soaps’ have changes public perception on issues which would have been inconceivable a few decades ago. Christians have been portrayed as ‘unhinged’ and ‘bigoted’ at one end of the spectrum and as serial killers at the other.All this has been done with the deliberate attempt at marginalising Christians and promoting anti- Christian propaganda.Some Christians have been complicit in the marginalising of Christianity by adapting their thinking to come into line with current flow of public opinion in the desire to be’ relevant’.
    All those who call themselves ‘Christian ‘ must now make a stand and be ‘salt and ‘light ‘ or be trampled underfoot by secularists…..We have Truth on our side let us make that Truth known to all who have ears to hear…….

    • IrishNeanderthal

      The “small group of people”. Ah, the “Sceptic Tank”.

      It seems that to do a documentary these days on the BBC, one generally has to have made a “profession on un-faith”.

      History of maths is one of my fortes, and I was displeased when Marcus du Sautoy made such a profession in his generally quite good series on the subject.

  • preacher

    Thank you Gillan, a real tonic to read excerts of Stephen Crabb’s address.
    The reason, I believe that Christianity grows under pressure is because followers have to stop the milk & start on meat. The quote from Wilberforce’s book is right on target, if we are content to be Christians in name only, without knowing what or who we believe, the attacks will continue & many souls will be lost because of our complacency.
    Since Wilberforce’s time, there have been many revivals, sweeping thousands into the Kingdom of God – why ? because Christians buckled down, read their Bibles, studied the contents & asked themselves “What do I believe & Why do I believe it ? ” Some undoubtedly continued to sit on the fence, but others went forward & asked God to fill them with His Holy Spirit & lead them into the conflict.
    It’s not just a matter of well now I’m a Christian I can get on with my life as before & if I mess up all I have to do is say sorry to God & everything will be O.K.
    God Bless Stephen Crabb & all the other Christian M.P’s who attended his address, & God Bless you Gillan for allowing us to attend by proxy. P.

  • Inspector General

    There’s a schoolboy in his teens on the continent. Not sure if he’s French, or German, or Dutch. Maybe he’s eastern European. He’s bright, and smart. He’s also devious and an accomplished liar. He loves the EU. Everything about it. When he leaves education, he’s going to work for it. He has a long term ambition. To be appointed Governor of the godless EU province of England by his mid fifties. Will he achieve his ambition…time will tell..

    Let’s say he doesn’t. Then what. Well, there’s another schoolboy in his teens on the continent. Not sure if he’s French, or German, or Dutch. Maybe he’s eastern European…

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I have sometimes asked humanists / secularists how they define their worldview without refering to their non-belief in God. I haven’t had an answer yet that didn’t define it in terms of non-belief, other than some wooly stuff about people being “nice” to each other, which is so unspecific as to be almost meaningless. It sometimes looks like secularism can only define itself in terms of non-belief.

    Good artcle Gillan, and thank you. I do think that Christianity in this country has suffered partly because the established church has largely lost the plot, and that thanks to our British “politeness” and reserve, few have wanted to shout the Gospel from their rooftops, but that is what is needed.

    • sarky

      “Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evilor innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science andphilosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy ofutilitarianism, ethical naturalism, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality”

      Kind of sums it up for me.

      • carl jacobs

        must be thoroughly examined

        According to what? Examination is only possible if you possess a basis for evaluation. You have assumed some kind of prior neutral standard by which this examination can be made. Would you be so kind as to tell us what that standard is?

        Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy ofutilitarianism, ethical naturalism, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality”

        Yes. Your problem is that Generalplan Ost could be justified by any of the three.


        As an aside, I chuckled over that missing space. First I read the word as “obfutilitarianism.” Then I notice the missing “b” and read it as “futilitariansim.” Imagine my disappointment when I realized there was just a missing space. But still …

        “Obfutilitarianism” and “futilitariansim” both seem perfectly sound descriptions of the humanist search for truth.

        • alternative_perspective

          Hey, what’s true for you….

      • chiefofsinners

        Christians thoroughly examine their ideology before choosing to put their faith in it, just like humanists. Christians also search for truth, but the truth we have found is not “continuously adapting” like the ‘truth’ of the humanist.

        • sarky

          But your truth does adapt as science advances. How many christians now don’t believe in a literal creation? Or a literal flood?
          You have to adapt or you just look stupid.

          • alternative_perspective

            Are you not assuming that literal creation has been the defacto belief down the ages? Personally I believe the science and the bible to be in harmony

            Ahh but you wouldn’t know that because you never followed the links I post for you..

          • sarky

            Did you not read my reply to you on that thread?

          • alternative_perspective

            You responded to me.. I will check it out. Thanks

          • alternative_perspective

            I checked out your response, thanks! It was nicely put and I can truly understand your position, I only started coming to faith it seems, as you were ‘losing’ it.

            I agree 100% God is more than just an argument. But I believe it is necessary often to peal back the intellectual objections, to reveal the real reason people are so antagonistic towards God… The reality is most who put up such objections have either been hurt or are wed to a particular sin.

            For those people it is often most important to get these objections out of the way so the underlying issue can be addressed. This is why I come from an argumentative perspective.

            Could I tell you I’ve encountered God supernaturally. Could I tell you I heard his voice. Could I tell you my close friend had a miraculous conversion, could I tell you about demonic warfare another close friend has engaged in. Yes and more so. I could tell you how he healed my broken heart, out my life in a completely different path and gave me a hope for the future.

            But, i dont believe you are inclined to listen or accept any of these where you are at the moment. So why should I open myself up to you only to have what is precious and intimate to me thrown back in my face? This is why I go down the argumentative route. If your heart was open, I’d let you in.

            I apologise if this seems less than inviting and I often come across a tad harsh but please, please, please understand I’m not attacking you. This entire subject, God his grace and healing is vital to me, it changed me and I’m convinced of every humans need for God and his healing even if they seem not to want it.

            Sincerely, this isn’t a numbers game and manipulating people into church, such a motivation would be awful. We want you to know Christ : relationally, because we all seriously think it’s vitally important and we long to call you brother / sister. I hate watching people living estranged from their heavenly father. Life, in my opinion, isn’t meant to be like this.

            On a related note, I’m sorry that the churches you visited in the past were… Empty. It happens too often. Finding a church where God is tangibly present is hard, right or wrong they often depend heavily on the leadership which is often too narrow, too uniformed, too dispassionate… But there are good churches out there, with good teachteaching, strong community and the presence of God. But sadly they need some searching out.

          • sarky

            Believe me I don’t feel attacked!! If I comment on a christian site I expect to take a few hits 🙂

            The thing is I wasn’t hurt and I’m not attached to any ‘sin’. I actually have a great life, great job, great family and I am fulfilled on every level. Even when I went to church I never believed (one of my earliest memories is questioning a sunday school teacher) and I have never felt that my life is missing something. You might ask why I frequent this site? The answer is I’m curious as to why people don’t see christianity as I do, I’m also interested in religion. Im a firm believer in the ‘religious brain’ theory, that some people are just more predisposed to belief than others and that I’m in the no belief section.

          • chiefofsinners

            Glad you have a good life Sarky. You’ll be familiar with the parable Jesus told that ended with the words “this night your soul will be required of you. Then whose shall these things be?”
            Christians are people whose brains are predisposed to think ahead.

          • sarky

            I would rather live for the now than spend my life worrying about the end of it.

          • chiefofsinners

            The Christian life is joyful now, more so than a life of materialism in my experience. But I am not concerned with the end of life, more with the move into eternity.

          • DanJ0

            I suspect the same regarding the religious brain thing.

          • Anton

            Science and the Bible are in explicit accord except for miracles. There you have to choose one or the other and when, as a physicist, I became a Christian, I changed my choice.

          • Pubcrawler


          • chiefofsinners

            I believe in a literal creation and a literal flood.
            I’m not bothered whether people like you think I’m stupid.

          • sarky

            Then how do you reach people like me, that happen to be in the majority?

          • chiefofsinners

            Not by compromising the truth, that’s for sure.
            I’d start by pointing out that you weren’t there so you don’t actually know.

          • sarky

            Nor were you.

          • chiefofsinners

            Yes, exactly. We both have faith positions. Already you’re beginning to see it my way.
            Now, suppose we were in the garden of Eden on day 7 of creation and Adam came down the garden path. I say to you “How old is that man?”. You might say “about 25” and I would say “actually he is only a day old.” You might think I was stupid. The point being that creation was, of necessity, made already mature. Looking old. Suppose I cut down a tree, it might have growth rings for years that never occurred. And the valley it grew in might appear to have been formed by the river at the bottom.

          • sarky

            Whaaaaat? That’s just crazy talk.

          • chiefofsinners

            As opposed to the entirely rational view that there are an infinity of parallel slightly different universes in which every possible random event occurs. – which is the best answer science can give to the infinite improbability of us existing by chance.

          • sarky


          • chiefofsinners

            If you want crazy talk, how about God dying for His own creatures. You couldn’t make it up.

          • sarky

            Really? I think you could, many cultures have a similar myth.

          • chiefofsinners

            Which ones?

          • sarky
          • chiefofsinners

            Not dying-and-rising. That of course is commonplace.
            Dying for the sins of humanity.

          • sarky

            Just a different take on an old story.

          • chiefofsinners

            Unique in its audacity. Revolutionary in its concept of God.

          • sarky

            But still a story.

          • chiefofsinners

            Like the Big Bang story.

          • sarky

            Theory – that can be advanced as we learn more, unlike creation that is set in stone.

          • chiefofsinners

            Theory- another name for a guess. And yet so confidently affirmed by some people, who put all their faith in it and ridicule the alternatives.

          • sarky

            It’s a little more than a guess. Unlike the bible, it’s backed up with evidence.

          • chiefofsinners

            We have the same evidence. We just interpret it differently.

          • sarky

            You have no evidence of a literal 7 day creation or that it was done intelligently.

          • chiefofsinners

            Yes – there’s lots of evidence that the earth is young and that there was a global flood. It is the same evidence that you interpret to mean that the universe is billions of years old and we are the product of evolution. You interpret it one way, I interpret it another.
            It’s a big subject. If you’re interested you might start at the Answers in Genesis website.
            Or if you want evidence for intelligent design, look into the structure of a feather. Or try the website of Andy Macintosh,, or the work of Stuart Burgess.

          • sarky

            One place I definately would not start is ‘answers in genesis’. Ken Ham is a blithering idiot who has been systematically torn apart in every debate I’ve seen him in.

            As for evidence for a young earth and global flood – get real.

          • chiefofsinners

            If there had been a global flood, what evidence would you expect? Perhaps sedimentary rock layers all over the earth, with millions of dead animals in them?
            Go back to the feather. An everyday piece of evidence. Impossible to explain through evolution. Makes Dawkins look like a blithering idiot.

          • sarky

            Errr thermoregulation?

          • chiefofsinners

            You’ve lost me there.

          • chiefofsinners

            Thermoregulation as the evolutionary origin of feathers?
            The problems with this are multiple:
            There are no transitionary fossils with part formed feathers.
            Flight requires multiple types of feathers and an interlinked nervous and muscular system, in fact a complete redesign of the animal. – lungs and bone structure included. For this to evolve the organism must be a functional whole, and each stage must convey a distinct advantage in the environment with which the organism interacts. Not only is there a complete lack of rationale for any of the intermediate stages, or even a suggestion of what they might be, but there are no fossils of anything other than fully formed feathers, just as we see them today. And thermoregulation? Hair is a much better insulator. Why not evolve that?

          • sarky
          • chiefofsinners

            A good example of a website which purports to identify transitional fossils but actually contains no feathers any different to those we see today. Try

          • DanJ0

            I expect the problem is not that people might think you stupid, it’s that they don’t take you seriously anymore when they find out.

          • DanJ0

            One might ask why the Jewish god bothered with a flood to wipe out almost all of humanity. For a god which is sustaining the entirety of our reality moment by moment, why not just wish away everyone but Noah and his family and leave the animals as they were? Why make it a supernaturally-triggered natural event?

            Of course, if there was a local event in the Middle East like the flooding of Doggerland here then one might expect explanatory myths to evolve. Afterall, people had little knowledge of the nature or the unnecessary vastness of our reality so the terms they thought in would be different.

          • chiefofsinners

            The point of the ark and the flood was that all humanity had the opportunity to enter the ark and be saved. God does not act unjustly. Noah preached righteousness for 100 years and then the flood came. It all points forward to the present age in which the gospel is preached all around the world. God is patient, not wanting anyone to perish. But ultimately God is also just, and judgement will fall.

          • chiefofsinners

            No, that’s not what happens.
            Although the atheist/humanist tribe dominate the public space and talk as if their truth is unquestionable, the majority of ordinary people think God made the world.

      • The Explorer

        “a continually adapting search for truth”.
        1. Can you stop adapting when you’ve found it?
        2. How do you know when you’ve got there?

        • sarky

          You don’t get there, that’s the beauty of it.

          • The Explorer

            How long will that statement be valid?

          • alternative_perspective

            Its bull shit and you know it.

          • sarky

            Really? Are you that arrogant that you think you know the truth of everything?
            At least I am honest enough to know I won’t.

          • alternative_perspective

            Haha, did you not assume in positing your response that truth must have some objective measure? You call me arrogant but if truth is relative and ‘always adapting’ then why should it concern you? Yours is your truth and mine is mine, is it not… But of course it isn’t as evidenced by the way you responded. You know there’s an objective measure of truth otherwise you wouldn’t think you could correct me. You can only correct something whose truth content is independent of belief.

            If there’s an objective measure of truth..God exists. By your own actions you undermine your atheism.

          • The Explorer

            Sounds like The Flying Dutchman: more of a curse than a blessing. He really wanted to get to port some time.

          • sarky

            I think the beauty of it is in continuous discovery and an open mind. Bit of a cliche, but is the journey not the destination.

          • Sputum Flange

            I am not sure you can have a journey without a destination.

      • Phil R

        It isn’t even your definition.

        You copied it from Wiki

        • sarky

          Erm that’s why it’s in quote marks??

          As for story books, you follow the biggest one ever written!

          • Phil R

            You know the high point of Atheism was around 1910 when around 2% of the world’s population was Atheist.

            It is now less than 1%

            Your story book seems out of favour. Of course it never really was that popular it seems.

            BTW. Why did you miss out Eugenics?

          • sarky

            The 2015 BSA survey on religious affiliation in the United kingdom shows christianity at 42% and no religion at 49%. Something else we lead the world in.

          • Phil R

            Since atheism is the unofficial religion from every media outlet. I am not surprised

          • DanJ0

            Quote marks. The clue’s in the name. Heh

      • alternative_perspective

        So many statements of mere assumption. Herein lies the failure of atheism.

        It can only communicate its self using words that only find their meaning in a theistic context.

        What is moral, what is ethical, what is true are entirely subjective, entirely relative and entirely determinable by the individual. Language is privatised, meaning reduced to mere glances of coincidental beliefs and truth lies is in the eye of the beholder.

        Its a vacuous statement. So many words so little meaning. It could be more easily reduced to: ‘do whatever you want everything is yours to be defined for a season. Attempt to justify your beliefs IF you want with a little philosophy. Critique all beliefs according to your own criteria. Accept what you want, reject what u dislike. Redefine truth IF it you find it convenient, nothing needs to be coherent unless you want it like that.’

        If everything is up for grabs and atheism is so wonderful, why does it rely on the implicit theistic meaning of words to communicate its message. How is it able to successfully assume that everyone reading said text woyld understand it if every truth and meaning lies in the eye of the individual beholder?

        Good / evil … What do these even mean atheistically speaking. The concepts are entirely rooted in religious identity.

        Superiority… Image beaters of God with prior ordained purposes. How would you even define the concept and agree it, atheistically.

        Truth … Always posited as an absolute with objective meaning even though such concepts are meaningless in atheism.

        If there had been no religion prior to atheism it would have been near impossible to construct the above text in away that the vast majority of people could understand it.

        • An alternative perspective I’ve been mulling about, Alternative Perspective, is that Western atheism is actually an extension of Christianity, a geature of Christian thought and Christian civilization. It retains some key components of Judeo-Christian ethics and values, but rejects the mystical and institutional underpinnings. It’s a far-flung protesting sect, in a manner of speaking. The increasing conflicts beyween theists and atheists, I think, are emerging because of the undeniable weakening of both Christianity and Judaism, and the resulting confusion anong atheists, whose base that has been their ethical and cultural foundation…even as focus for opposition…is rapidly crumbling.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        Kind of proves to me that humanism means just follow the end of your nose

        • sarky

          That, to me, is kind of what it is. Its finding your own understanding of the world and your place in it.

  • David

    A very good article which correctly identifies the fact that luke warm cultural Christianity will not do. We must know our Bibles, our historic Creeds, embrace God’s ability to occasionally bring about the supernatural, such as Christ’s resurrection from the tomb, and proclaim from the rooftops the incredible saving love of God for all of us flawed creatures.
    Only a thorough going, spreading Christian revival, across the Churches, can save western civilisation from further moral and intellectual decline. But ending that decline must not be the objective. Our aim must be to know and serve the Lord. Once enough people are reborn through repentance and faith in God then then the social movements will follow and succeed, as sure as night follows day. Let the glory be God’s !

  • Christianity has been successfully attacked and marginalized… because those who professed belief were unable to defend the faith from attack—Wilberforce

    If Wilberforce is correct, it is strange that believers could not defend Christianity when it was virtually the only religion in town. That unassertiveness may help to explain why the churches accepted the arrival of Christianity’s historically violent enemy, Islam. Whether it also explains the churches’ ongoing cooperation with Islamization I’m not so sure.

    Christian assertiveness would seem to be required, particularly in a multicultural society where arguments are won by those who shout the loudest, have the best boo words or train the best suicide bombers. But vociferation, vilification and violence are not the Christian way, which suggests that Christianity is uniquely unsuited to multiculturalism.

    If Christianity is to survive in the West, the only practical option (discounting prayer and writing wearily optimistic blogs) is a reversal of diversity. The Church of England could make a start by putting out to pasture an Archbishop of Canterbury who famously does not want to live in a Christian Britain. Yes, Justin, that means you. (For new readers, his remark is here, seventh paragraph down.)

    • The Explorer

      “it is strange that believers could not defend Christianity when it was virtually the only religion in town.”

      Christianity may have been the only religion in town, but it was not the only belief system in town. It had to contend with the Enlightenment, which in its deistic version (eg Voltaire) or its atheistic version (eg Hume) was a most formidable opponent. Add a maverick like Rousseau to the mix, and Christianity more than had its work cut out.

      • @ The Explorer—It had to contend with the Enlightenment, which in its deistic version (eg Voltaire) or its atheistic version (eg Hume) was a most formidable opponent

        Christianity seems to be quite good at coming up with excuses. Here’s the next one it will need if it doesn’t pull its finger out: It had to contend with Multiculturalism, which in its guileful version (Judaism) or its ruthless version (Islam) was a most formidable opponent.

        • The Explorer

          Less an excuse than an explanation of what the enemy was then. My reading of human history is that genuine Christianity will always have enemies (including fake Christianity ) until the Second Coming.

          Agreed that Multiculturalism (under the umbrella of cultural Marxism) and Islam are the two current most formidable enemies. The consolation is that Multiculturalism and Islam are also enemies of one another. Islam knows that already. Mullticulti will have to learn it as a painful lesson.

          I fear that irresponsible politicians since WW2 have condemned Europe to conflict of one sort or another.

          • dannybhoy

            Well said.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you.

          • @ The Explorer—The enmity of Judaism and Islam should be no consolation. The one is using the other to take revenge on Europeans and their historic faith. Those expecting Judaism to stick around and help out should prepare for disappointment.

            Genuine Christianity and genuine humanity have enemies aplenty in the House of Bishops. What depths of depravity does it take to read of the horrific torture and murder of poor Kriss Donald by Pakistanis and then gaily announce that diversity is a gift?

          • The Explorer

            I will grant you that the Frankfurt School – and its two main legacies of Political Correctness and the malign text ‘The Authoritarian Personality’ – has been a disaster for the West.
            I will grant you also two things about the leading lights of the Frankfurt School and its allies – Adorno, Horkheimer, Munzenberg, Marcuse, Lukacs and Gramsci: 1. they were all Jewish, 2. they were all atheists.

            Which of those two factors is the more significant is a matter of interpretation. In deciding, I think we cannot afford to ignore Nietzsche. He was also disastrous for Europe. He wasn’t Jewish, but he was an atheist.

          • @ The Explorer—Referring to Third World immigration into Europe, Douglas Murray’s Jewish friend does not say, ‘This will come round to hurt the atheists—you’ll see’ but ‘This will come round to hurt the Jews—you’ll see.’

            The video Douglas Murray mentions towards the end of the article is probably ‘With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations’, now heading for six million views in little over a month. The video’s star turn is Barbara Lerner Spectre, glorying in the Jews’ ‘leading role’ in the destruction of Christian Europe:

            ‘Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re going to be part of the throes of that transformation which must take place—Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of that leading role but without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.’

            The gefilte fish is out of the bag.

          • The Explorer

            He may not have said it will come round to hurt the atheists, but I do. If immigration ultimately makes Islam dominant, it will hurt atheists, Jews and Christians alike.

            To look at Muslim eschatology (which Islam borrowed from Christianity and distorted) is instructive. When the Islamic Christ returns, Islam will be the only belief system permitted. That hits wrong believers and unbelievers equally. It is no consolation that there will no longer be the jizya. The reason it will not exist is that any refusing to convert to islam will be eliminated. As for the Jews, they will muster behind the Dajjal, and the Islamic Christ will exterminate them.

            One does not have to accept the reality of the Islamic vision of the End Times to appreciate that the long-term Islamic vision in regard to non-Muslims is not a benign one. Their vision of the End Times may be untrue, but that doesn’t mean they won’t do their best to bring it about. ISIS are having a pretty fair stab at it right now.

          • Anton

            You bang on about the attitude of “the Jews”. I ask: WHICH Jews? The ones I know in London are not at all happy about the rise of Islam in the UK and Europe.

          • The Explorer

            Same here. Some see no future for themselves in Europe.

          • @ Anton—My previous comments on these threads, with their wealth of links and references to Jews’ words and deeds, may still be on my Disqus profile. Other than that, I cannot help you.

          • Anton

            We’ve discussed it before; I’m always interested in information but, as I said, you are making a mistake in supposing that all Jews think alike. I mean look at Jewish politics in the Holy Land for a start!

          • Or just look at the contradicting views I alone can express in a single post, for that matter

          • Hi avi

            I just thought it was Sephardi who argued to the ninth degree.There is a stereotype about Sephardim, that we are, among other things,passionate, loud, argumentative, hot-blooded, and can be, well, kinda of uncivilised. As someone who is Sephardi, I can say with regards to my family at least, that stereotype is kind of, sometimes, a little bit, in some ways… true. And being the Sephardi that I am, I kind of, sometimes, a little bit, in some ways… like it!

            Like our Friday night Shabbat meals.It was while we were all sitting down happily eating that it happened.Sam – probably knowing full well what he was going to start – made a casual remark about yesh atid ,secularism and the Charedim in Israel. And then just sat back and watched as World War III erupted around him, between , well everyone else as we got into a fierce debate and sub debates (LOL). All of that and more was to be shouted repeatedly whilst we’re gesturing wildly, on and off over the space of nearly an hour…. then we discussed Jacob’s ladder….

          • Hi Miss Hannah. I’m half Sefardic, but by minhagim and I’d like to think temperamentally, Ashkenasi. As you may well imagine, I too have a thought or two about Yesh Atid, although will resist going further OT than I have already ventured here.

          • Hi avi,

            The consensus within my family is they’d like to see either Miriam Regev(likud), Ayelet Shaked(Jewish home) or Karin Elharar(yesh atid) as the next PM of Israel. Okay an all Sephardi women short list , but as Ben Gurion said of Golda Meir”she’s the only man in the cabinet”.

          • Hi avi

            Cool. You’ve got to admit, thou, Sephardic food is more appetizing? (:

          • Pubcrawler

            Sephardic music is much better to these ears. I can’t abide klezmer.

          • Anton

            That’s nothing, Avi; I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is both divine and human.

          • Um, that’s not nearly as confounding as 3=1!

          • Anton

            You don’t expect to understand the inner life of the Creator do you? We have enough trouble understanding the creation – see Job 38-41 and Isaiah 55:8.

          • Neither the mysteries of Creation, nor our inability to fathom God’s thoughts or nature lead to the suggestion that any interpretation goes. Especially since we have His unambiguous instruction in the she’ma on His indivisibility: “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

          • Anton

            The Hebrew word for in the Shema for “one”, ECHAD, is also used in Genesis 2:24 when man and woman marry and become one flesh even though they are still two. That word is in contrast to YACHID which is strict oneness. Then there is the plural nature of ELOHIM…

          • The Bible never uses yachid, Maimonides does, as the word is a layter additiin and the meaning of a husband and wife becoming one is clear; from two to one. Even if you stretch it, it becomes two, not three. The plural suffix in Elochim denotes greatness and never implie multipless, and spefically three. God Himself underlines this fact in His speech to Moshe rabbeinu:

            The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made thee a god אֶלהִים, (Elohim) to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”

            Exodus 7:1

          • Anton

            I agree that you can’t get specific threeness out of the Tanakh. But there are hints at plurality – without specifying whether two, three or more – in ECHAD and Elohim, which are ambiguous.

          • I fail to see the ambiguity, it’s there in the plain meaning: אחת שתיים שלוש, one, two, three… your Hebrew is better than mine. God doesn’t hint; He is explicit about mysteries and would not play word games, especially about His nature. And Exodus 7:1 is an explicit lesson on the meaning of Elochim. The battle between Christian unitarians and trinitarians was a hard one, very politicised and close. Reformation nearly renewed it, and in some quarters returned to uniyarianism. Had things gone differently, we would have been squabbling over the acceptance of a new prophet and which halakhot to hold by, not the core, the very nature of the Almighty, and who knows how history would have turned out.

          • Anton

            I’ve never claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is *explicit* in the Tanakh, but I do assert that “Elohim” and ECHAD in the Shema are consistent with it. God openly says in Tanakh that he uses phrases which will be understood differently by the faithful and the rest; see eg Isaiah 6:8-10.

          • The prophesies of Isaiah concerned immediate, contemporaneous and near -future events. Prophesy was an institutionalized and regulated “public service” which focused on ethics and conduct. The Prophets drscribed, complained and warned, but did not claim authority to add or remove central tenets, such as the oneness of God, as enshrined in the Tanakh. The Bet Din and after the Exile, the recognized rabbinic authorities could provide interpretations and suspensions of some, mostly rotual laws under different specific circumstances. Inyerpretations and commentaries may abound, but none of the rabbinical rulings, commentaries or codes attempt to radically redefine the nature of God, the Covenant of Israel and the role of a Messiah. Classical, traditional Judaism is Torah-based and does not see either scriptural, nor evidentiary causes for replacing or adding to the Torah. The situation is analogous to most Christians’ rejection of Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon as the latest “new testament.”

          • Having wasted a few hours in the fever swamps of your “historical sources,” Johnny, I can say with certainty that they are of little value other than as prime exhibits of the pitfalls of pseudo-scholarship. Your primary source seems to be a fellow who is obsessed with identifying real or imagined “Jewesses” by their looks, and lacking any primary documentation or credible references, your “scholars” merely recycle old crap and quote each other in a round robin of citations and mis-citations, in an unconvincing attempt to give each other scholarly airs. Sheers SHISHO…shit in, shit out.

          • @ avi barzel—Kind-hearted of you though it is to check my sources, I would suggest that your time, and that of other Jews, would be better spent in the comments section of the video ‘With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations’, in order to counter the impression given by the video that the Jews are responsible for wrecking white Christian countries. If that idea ever catches on, the Jews will be as unpopular as a bacon butty at a bar mitzvah.

          • Not interested in additional “source material” of yours on the loony fringes. My excursus into your intellectual outhouse was brief, unpleasant and unsatisfactory. Hatred, lies and stupidity make me feel uggy …and guilty for wasting valuable time. Bacon butty at a bar mitzva…wow.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            One could always try mycoprotein.

            However, I was most disgruntled to find that Quorn sausages and similar contain less than 50% Fusarium venenatum, which I regard as an absolute swindle!

          • Sir, you are a wag! Compelling me to google terms few are aware of, distracting me from serious scholarly endeavors and stuffing information into my groaning cranium, information that is bound to randomly spill out before exasperated care givers in my upcoming years of dotage!

            However, should you succeed in concocting a kosher and passable imitation of Virginia ham or salt-cured Hungarian bacon with your improved version of Quorn, please do not hesitate to contact me.

          • Hi

            A little song to cheer you up :

            I don’t eat burgers like they do with all the cheese
            I’ll take a burger but hold the bacon please
            I can’t eat lobster, can’t eat prawns, and can’t eat crab
            Some people say that its the very best I’ll never have

            Oh oh oh oh oh oh oh-e-oh e-oh
            I love my matzah and bagels -uh oh
            Oh oh oh oh oh oh oh-e-oh e-oh
            I love my matzah and bagels -uh oh

            Can’t eat that can’t eat that
            No I can’t eat that
            I’m Kosher cool
            I read the Torah, so I’m Koveiah Itim that’s for sure-uh
            Can’t eat that can’t eat that
            No I can’t eat that
            I’m Kosher cool
            read the Torah, so I’m Koveiah Itim that’s for sure-uh

            K-K-K-Kosher -cool K-K-Kosher cool
            K-K-K-Kosher cool K-K-Kosher cool

          • Anton

            To what tune?

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Reply the second — I hope you did not find my first one too flippant. But the kind of stuff you find ‘uggy’ has a certain effect on me.

            SuperNanny was visiting a family with three boys, and in reaction to their father’s over-the-top behaviour, one got violently angry, one started to clown, and one withdrew.

            I’m like a kind of particle that modulates between the three states, and you happened to catch the ‘clown’ state.

          • My considered response to your frivolities, Sir, is to be found below.


          • ” the Jews are responsible for wrecking white Christian countries. If that idea ever catches on, the Jews will be as unpopular as a bacon butty at a bar mitzvah.”

            LOL!! /ROFL!!! Is all I have to say to that. Hey my bro in law is a broad shoulderd, six footer , blue eyes Anglo Saxon convert to Judaism, so your silly theories about the Jewish menace are just silly and belong in a Goebbels add.

          • @ Hannah Out Loud—my bro in law is a broad-shouldered, six foot, blue-eyed Anglo-Saxon convert to Judaism, so your silly theories about the Jewish menace are just silly

            In English, we call that a non sequitur. My conclusions are based on the words and actions of Jews themselves, such as American Jewry boasting about its leading role in overturning America’s white immigration policy, the Jew Charles Krauthammer describing anti-Semitism as a disease of which Europeans can never be cured, and the Jew Norman Podhoretz writing that Jews emerged from the Middle Ages knowing that their worst enemy in the world was Christianity and that very little, if anything, had subsequently occurred to alter that belief. I have linked and referenced all those statements in recent weeks.

            Poles have a theory about ‘the Jewish menace’, too. It is that the Jews are using the EU ‘to destroy white Catholic Poland’, and Poles recently made plain their anger by burning a Jew in effigy. The word ‘silly’ doesn’t seem appropriate any more.

          • Hi

            You are quite right . Burning a Jew in an effigy doesn’t deserve the word silly. It deserves the word Jew hating antisemitic evil . Do you not agree?

          • It all makes sense, dearest Jewess Hannah; some Polish atisemites burned an effigy of a Jew, another proof that Jews are destroying Europe…by flooding it with antisemitic Muslims! Clever devils.

          • Actually, non sequitur is a borrowed term from Latin, but given your casual attitude to facts, why quibble over trivia?

          • Hi avi

            The whole inability of English guys to speak another language reminds me of a story , when my uncle Yitzhak was in Paris with my cousin Oscar , trying to find where my sister Esther was staying ,when she lived there.

            “You there ” Oscar declared to one of the old men, who was smoking a Turkish cigarette and drinking red wine on the outside of a cafe, even though it was only one o clock.

            He rolled his eyes.

            But Oscar insisted “Can you direct me to the rue Charles de Gaulle, my good man ? ”

            “Bof ” said the man.

            Oscar replied, raising his voice and speaking more slowly as if addressing someone half dead , half senile and half deaf, ”
            I am British … I am looking”- he mines a sailor surveying the horizon -“the rue Charles de Gaulle. ”

            The man looked like my cousin was mad.

            “Ahem, you speak Latin: Omens gallia divisa set in partes trees perhaps? ”

            My uncle Yitzhak said ” I feel these Frenchman require special treatment , as we Israelis did in 67″

            “I’m not sure that’s really -”

            But my uncle had already gone into French mode and cleared his throat with a sound like an engine backfiring

            “Felications Frenchman”, he declared ” ou est la rue Rue Bonaparte , sil vous plait? Je voudrai attender un Famille”

            “Rue Bonaparte?”
            “Mais oui! ” and he got the directions.

            “Go Lord how did you manage that?” Inquired my cousin.
            “It was most simplistic” said my uncle : ” All I had to do was converse in their strange French way. Now follow me old bean: Chop chop!!”

          • Anton

            Jews have been an asset to Europe since they were granted citizenship. Before Hitler, what proportion of physicists and mathematicians in Germany were Jewish? And what proportion of the population did they comprise at the time? How do the stats for their replacements match up?

          • @ Anton—The Irish Savant quotes Edgar Mowrer, ‘Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, and a noted anti-German’ writing in Disgrace Abounding: ‘The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish.’

            The remainder is worth reading, too.

          • Anton

            I’ll answer some of my own questions. Between 1901 and 2007, Jews won 48 of the 181 Nobel Prizes awarded in physics (my own subject). That’s more than ¼, despite comprising 0.2% of the world’s population and perhaps 1% of the population of the developed world (from which Nobel laureates invariably come) at the time. The Nobel Prize is awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences which is not a Jewish body.

          • Ivan M

            I have to add, that if you look at the mainsprings of modern civilisation, electricity, steam turbines, engines, communications and the rest, the whites are head and shoulders above the rest.

            Take electricity:
            Volta, Oersted, Ampere, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Edison, Marconi, Lord Kelvin, Siemens, Heaviside, Westinghouse, Forrestal etc.

            Take atomic physics,
            Democritus, Dalton, Avogadro, Rutherford, Soddy, Chadwick, Wilson, Lawrence etc.

            Take geographical exploration:
            Marco Polo, Columbus, Magellan, Prince Henry, Lord Raleigh, Mason – Dixon, Piazzi Smith, Everest, etc..

            In fact if you take any field of endeavour, the whites had explored the deepest depths, the widest reach and the highest levels. The whites stand more or less alone; since paraphrasing Laplace, there is only one world, and the whites had discovered almost all of it.

            This is not by way of being a toady, or a white wannabe but merely a statement of fact, especially when claims like these come up. As a matter of fact, the inventiveness, genius and passion of the ancestors of the whites are such that, nations such as the UK, France, the US and Germany, could by themselves have recreated much of the above by themselves.

          • @ Ivan M—From a book review by Fjordman on The Brussels Journal website:

            ‘In the 2003 book Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950, the American political scientist Charles Murray attempts to quantify the accomplishments of individuals worldwide in arts and sciences by calculating and ranking the space allocated to them in important reference works. Murray finds that almost all important scientific and technological advances in the modern world until the mid-twentieth century were made by Europeans or their descendants overseas. The most prominent city figuring in the lists of achievers is Paris. France is tied with Britain and Germany as the leading nations in producing major figures in the arts and sciences’.

          • Ivan M

            You can see that for example in the Second World War, where between them the British Commonwealth, Germany and some time later the US, more or less invented all the contrivances visible and invisible we see around us and laid the foundations for everything else that came. France was unfortunately knocked out early in the game.

          • You’re feeding Johnny’s delusions. Whenever he finally clues in that his spurces are old and shitty and that his argument died long ago and he missed the funeral notice, he runs back to safe topics everyone on the conservative spectrum can agree on.

          • Ivan M

            OK I am off boss. BTW have you any news on Happy Jack? He wrote that his chemo for throat cancer would last about six to seven weeks. It is already the seventh week.

          • No, but I mailed him a crazy, self-made “card” with a teturn address, phone number and email last week Monday to give him a good razzing and will humiliate him more when I can be sure he’s still at Western General and Ward 4. I figgured he’s in some sort of trouble, but didn’t know it was throat cancer. Shit. If you hear from him, be so good as to pop me an email…it’s on my site’s home page linked in my profile here…but, don’t pass it around any of your, um, dubious White buddies, eh?

          • Ivan M

            I may be wrong about it being seven weeks. I think Explorer has a connection to him. I’ll definitely let you know if I have any information, though others here will inform you too. A tough guy like you should have no problem handling White baddies.

          • What? You want me to stare-down or beat-up email spam?

            Thanks, I’ll hunt down Explorer later and see what’s up.

          • Ivan M

            I might as well add this quote from Joseph Sobran, which is somewhat related to what is being bruited about.

            Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of western power long after colonialism, imperialism and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. Superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call “minorities.

            -Joseph Sobran, 1997

          • @ Ivan M—Destroying white civilization

            This breaks my heart:

            White working class children are being ‘marginalised’ at school after being forced to follow a multicultural timetable that shuns British traditions, according to research. The conclusions come amid growing concerns that working-class white British children are lagging dramatically behind at school and now perform worse than any other group.

            One primary school teacher told how the school was ‘very explicit in celebrating other cultures’, but added: ‘There is always that difficulty in identifying what is British culture. How many of our pupils would understand what maypole dancing is about? We celebrate Christmas and Easter but even that is done in a diverse way. I think white families are expected to just fit into the curriculum, it is seen as the norm for them and we focus on the children new to the country.’—Daily Telegraph

          • Ivan M

            You have to ask yourself, which war did Britain lose? Or indeed if you had fought the right wars. For this is what happens to a conquered people. The problem in the UK, is that your leaders no longer love your own peoples. In India, Malaysia and Singapore, countries that I lived in, the saving grace is that the leaders have always loved their own.

          • But you are being a toady. You went along with a selective and narrow White supremacist list clustered in the applied sciences relating to the Industrial revolution and one which omits contributions of your own people, as well as accomplishments in medicine, biology, arts and mathematics.

            What is your working hypothesis here, dare one ask? That science is some sort of a mystical quality with which only Whites are imbued? How profoundly unscientific! This is what happens when you get two quasi-educated twits like you and Johnny, float around the Web, collecting any scrap of trash that might cover up their stupidity.

            Try this for a hypothesis on the development of industry and science in Europe: the potato. See if you can work it out.

          • Ivan M

            You have a rig I suppose. Work out its engines – gas, diesel, petrol, see who discovered or invented the engines, Diesel, Otto among others, all of whom were white men. Who worked out the thermodynamics behind it, Joule, Brayton etc, again all white men. The purification and mining of the fuels, again all white men. The nozzles, the theories behind fluid flow in the bleeds and feeds. etc, Bernoulli, Laval, Pousuille.

            When you are on the road, the steering mechanisms, McPherson struts, the tyres – Dunlop, the hydraulics behind the braking systems. The methods of manufacturing steel and aluminium, all the big names associated with it are whites, Bessemer etc. I don’t have to repeat myself on the electrical systems. And then calculating the power output and forces whose names are involved? Newton is always there, for control theory there is Laplace, Euler and Lagrange etc. And that is just your rig. Look up any engineering textbook and see how many non-whites are referenced when it comes to the fundamentals. And do take some time to figure why the names Newton, Ampere, Farad, Joule, Watt, Henry, Maxwell, Gauss, are associated with the SI and cgs system of measurement.

            And that was just your rig, now go on to the airplane.

          • Good grief. It just doesn’t penetrate, does it?

            Once again a list like dozens of ppintkess ones, including ones by Chinese, Indians, Jews, Arabs and jingoists of all nations on earth proving only that they can compile lists of indispensible inventions.

            Are you aware of the progression of technologies and their cumulative development on the basis of population pressures, economies, environments and cultural and physicsl requirements, or the necessity of previous developments of materials ? Of chemistry, fuel use, kilns, metallurgy? Of how difficult and technically exacting it is to make a microlithic blade, design a perfectly balanced atlatl, make multi-staged hunting arrows tipped with just the right poisons, craft compound bows whose darts can penetrate a knights steel armour? Have you looked at “primitive” textiles and their complexities? American native canoes which can navigate shallow rivers and cross the Great Lakes? Windmills and waterwheels powering complicated wooden machines?

            All humans are inventive and will operate at their maximum capacity, with the torch going to this group and that depending on circumstances. You don’t expect the !Kung bushman who only needs to work three hours per day on the average to get his band of 40 people to mine thousands of tons of ore, smelt a variety of metals with scrub wood and develop chemicals, plastics and ekectronics to build a Jumbo jet, I hope.

            This is why a good education with a wide and substantial knowledge base

          • Ivan M

            All these other peoples may in some possible world have discovered the same, but they were beaten by the whites to it in this world. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

          • Again, Sparky, what mechanism or magic do you think is taking place? A “science gene” riding on blue eyes and blond hair? By your accounts “Whites” were dumb as a bag of rocks for most of their history and now that technology and innovation are slipping from their hands to Asia, will once again suck their thumbs. If you and your masters can’t understand obvious facts middle school kids do, and how depressingly stupid your argument is, how on earth do you imagine you represent a superior race?

          • Ivan M

            Avi, have you forgotten that I am an Indian? Frankly I don’t care about bragging rights based on belonging to a supposedly superior group, since it is only a reflected glory. If at all, we can take pride only in our work.

          • No, obviously you didn’t read the rest of my long post which I accidentally posted and then continued as an edit. I’m quite puzzled at your sucking up to Johnny and his stupid ideas. I guess he needs a friend and someone to take him seriously, but gee-wiz, why you of all people?

          • Ivan M

            It is partly the “committee effect”. If Johnny has sufficient ballast on his side, I do not post my two cents. The other is that, as you may have noticed, I confess to using his posts as a foil, to slyly add some further information, that may not be well known. Plus he is a friend. As indeed you and all here are to me.

          • There is much to be said about the committee effect, as we’re not here merely to postulate, but there is also the issue of integrity to facts. Johnny comes up with gopd posts now again, but he’s been sliding towards teal off-the-wall antisemitica which makes even run of the mill antisemites squirm, it being so transspatently stupid and outlandish. Now that former and neo-commies and Muslims have gotten into tbe game, its freaking zoo…and Johnny doesn’t even realize the comical mess he is wading into, or the irony of of his going on about White this and White that, while throwing out crap produced by the very untermenschen the old suotemacists would have thrown in the ovens. And you go along with it!

            If this wasn’t a public forum, I’d just keep quiet, taking in the stuff, avoiding the observer’s paradox. The stuff fascinates me; its progtession through history, the dead ends, sudden spurts and diversions…having so much pathological attention would be flattering, if it wasn’t so lethal. But I can’t just sit back like slacker and gather the pristine data while half of the board goes to battle against the swill and uncounted numbers of lurkers gasp in horror.

            You know, I work with a lot of Indian chaps, both in driving and graphic design projects, mostly Sri Lankans and mainland Hindus, and I’ve never run across an Indian antisemite. What the fuck’s wrong with you? Did you get jilted or ripped off, or something?

          • Ivan M

            It is the truth as I see it. I am well aware that many among the White “buddies” as you say, would in all likelihood give me a black eye for one reason or another.

          • True, but Jewish contributions since emancipation rests on the much greater foundation of less well-known contributions in fieldst hey were allowed to participate in since the early Middle Ages. It’s an unfortutane feature of leidensgeschichte/”hard-luck” historiography which paints European Jewish history as a series of unmitigated horrid disasters and ignores places and times where and when they participated in key historical events under the protection and commission of Christian authorities.

    • David

      Christianity was launched into a very multi-faith, multi-cultural society. The Apostle Paul was regularly bounced out of town, or even incarcerated, for preaching against the local god.

      • @ David—The only examples I have are Acts 14:19, Acts 17:5 and Acts 23:12.

        • David

          The whole of the Mediterranean basin, in which Paul operated, was a highly diverse inter-digititaion of different races, languages and cultures, all mixing along the trade routes of the Pax Romana. The towns in which he based himself, usually for several years, to establish the new churches were, like many prosperous towns and cities, either at the crossroads of major routes or formed important sea ports handling the empires trade goods.

          Jesus’ native language was Aramaic, although he understood Hebrew and Greek. Additionally scholars think that he may have had some Latin, which is hardly surprising with Roman soldiers and officials about.

          Into this heady mix was launched early Christianity. No it is clear that the seed of Christianity was planted and grew within a very multi-cultural society. Just consider the diversity of Rome, the Empire’s capital city ! Yet the church at Rome was one of the largest, as the records of the catacombs underline.

          The faith has always come up against other faiths and rival philosophies from the southern Stoics to the northern Druids.

          • Yes David, Jesus was a pioneer and God’s representative, the Archbishop of Canterbury supposed to be Jesus and God’s representative here on Earth should be defending and promoting Christianity at that meeting not acquiescing with the other faiths trying to be all things to all
            men. He’s a bit of a weasel it seems.

            We are British and Christian not Sikh,nor muslim. We tolerate others here, and they have to accept our primary faith IS Christian and that their religions all come second. The
            only people that do not really accept this are muslims and atheists.

          • DanJ0

            And lots of left-wingers, if my experience is typical.

          • Uncle Brian

            Most left wingers are already included under the heading of atheists, aren’t they?

          • Most of them are the atheists Danj0

          • DanJ0

            In as much as they’re vaguely godless or simply uninterested in religion, I suppose. I’d call them multiculturalists, primarily, and advocates of Tony Blair’s style of equality. Christianity is just one of a number of religions to them. But they’re different to me in a number of ways.

          • In what ways are they different to you Danj0?

          • David

            I was pointing out to Johnny the fact that the Christian faith is sufficiently robust to prosper within a complex society and has done since its beginning.
            But I agree with you that Christianity has been and remains, essentially a Christian nation. Indeed all the other faiths accept this, except Islam which is able to co-exist with nothing else. It seems that draconian laws designed to curb its violent tendencies are in danger of restricting everyone’s freedom. We suffer from our own tolerance towards the “other,” I believe. Aggressive atheism is also openly bullying, and must be fiercely resisted.
            I share with you the disappointment in the Archbishop of Canterbury. Whilst he is a marked improvement on the previous one, who had a disastrous impact on Christianity in this country, he is still not sufficiently vigorous and confident in upholding the simple, basic truths of our faith, over and above all else.

        • chiefofsinners

          Try 2 Corinthians 11 verses 23-27.

  • dannybhoy

    I would guess that the AofC is talking about the social aspects of the Gospel as viewed from a State Church point of view..

    That’s fine, but the likes of Wesley, William Booth and others preached a Gospel of repentance, by pointing men to their sinful state before a Holy God.

    Just as the prophets were tasked with warning the Israelites that unless they turned away from the worship of false gods, judgement and disaster were sure to follow, so the Church has been tasked with being a prophetic voice in our own society.

    It is that component, spoken in holy love which is missing today.
    As we continue to turn away from our acknowledgement of the Christian revelation, we are starting to see the consequences in our national life, aren’t we?

  • Little Black Censored

    “Just ask Tony Blair.”
    Tony Blair shamelessly enlisted Christianity, entirely on his own terms, to improve his image as a politician.

    • SP_UK

      I will hear many things against Blair but this is just not true.

    • No, LBC I don’t think this is true, remember he declared himself a Catholic Christian after he’d left office. More likely he thought he could absolve his sins and receive forgiveness for the Iraq war, telling lies in the dodgy dossier and all his other sins with six hail Marys! He more than likely used the Church like he used everyone else for his own benefit.

  • Matt Sheard

    The idea that there is a “creeping intolerance towards Christianity” is part of a narrative of victimhood that is based, not on actual oppression of Christians in Britain, but on the realisation that Christianity no longer has hegemonic control and is now just one of many faith positions. Stephen Crabb is a member of a cabinet of which 16 of 22 are open Christians, 1 is atheist, the remainder are very coy about their faith or lack of it. We know that when he retired as an MP James Arbuthnot talked about the pressure on atheist Tory MPs to hide their beliefs ( Crabb shouldn’t be ashamed of expressing his faith but he should be ashamed that his party suppressing the views of his colleagues. The idea that Christians in Britain are oppressed is absurd when the Government is dominated by Christians. This narrative of victimhood is false and dangerous because it fosters intolerance of others as can be seen in the Tory party.