louise-casey-2
Education

Integration tsar Dame Louise Casey has a problem with ‘religious conservatism’

In 2013 Dame Louise Casey was named by BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour as one of the Top 100 most powerful women in the UK. She was duly appointed by David Cameron and Theresa May to examine issues of community cohesion, extremism and integration. Her report – The Casey Review – sounds deafening alarm bells and offers a few cogent solutions. “We need to be much bolder in not just celebrating our history, heritage and culture, but standing up for our democratically decided upon laws of the land,” she summarised for the Telegraph. “I have become convinced that it is only the upholding of our core British laws, cultures, values and traditions that will offer us the route map through the different and complex challenge of creating a cohesive society.”

Which is all well and good, until you examine what she means by “core” values.

In oral evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee this week (video HERE), she expounded some of her beliefs about faith schools (that is, schools with a religious foundation, which have considerably expanded under the process of academisation and the establishment of Free Schools). She said:

More importantly, when does a teacher running a secular school say, “No, it’s fine for you not to do theatre,” or music or those sorts of thing? When is that okay? I do not really have any view on which religion it is that it is promoting those sorts of views, but they are not okay, in the same way that it is not okay for Catholic schools to be homophobic and anti-gay marriage. That is not okay either—it is not how we bring children up in this country. It is often veiled as religious conservatism, and I have a problem with the expression “religious conservatism”, because often it can be anti-equalities.

And so, in Louise Casey’s secular world, religious orthodoxy – which some might term religious conservatism – must be subsumed to the overarching ‘equalities’ agenda, which then becomes the superior moral framework by which society is regulated. Millennia of moral teachings on, for example, normative sexuality or societal beliefs about the nature and purpose of marriage must conform to the new egalitarian social-justice imperative. Of course, ‘homophobia’ and ‘anti-gay marriage’ are in the eye of the beholder: for some, a rational argument for the maintenance of the Anglican marriage liturgy is ‘homophobic’; the exclusively male Roman Catholic priesthood is ‘sexist’; to question any aspect of Mohammed’s character or action is ‘Islamophobic’, and so on. One may no longer argue for the values of religious conservatism without the forefinger of bigotry being prodded directly into one’s forehead. And Louise Casey – whose whole political mission is virtuously dedicated to integration and social cohesion – has just jabbed another finger (not quite the middle one) at all those who call themselves religious conservatives, for “often” they invoke that very term to cloak their anti-equalities bigotry in a shroud of holiness.

The curious thing is that schools were specifically told that they may do this. There is official guidance on the matter from the DfE, and in 2012 Michael Gove, then Secretary of State for Education, was perfectly clear:

The education provisions of the Equality Act 2010 which prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their protected characteristics (including their sexual orientation) do not extend to the content of the curriculum. Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions of the act.

There is a manifest freedom conflict here, and one which Louise Casey is incrementally shunting towards less freedom for faith-based schools. The fact that she singles out Roman Catholic schools is telling. And the fact that she then proceeds to frame them with epithets of homophobia is even more telling. Was Pope Benedict XVI homophobic when he said that homosexuality is a “strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”? May the teachings of the Pope Emeritus no longer be taught in Roman Catholic schools? Is it “anti-gay marriage” to teach that God’s plan for marriage is that of a life-long union between one man and one woman for the creation and nurture of children? Are the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and many free-church liturgies “anti-gay marriage”?

It appears that schools are free to ‘do God’ provided that its divine precepts accord with the values and human rights prescribed by the Secretary of State (or the overarching European Court of Human Rights). Faith schools which were once free to regulate themselves in order to foster moral virtue and intellectual capacity must now be regulated by ‘British values’. As Barry Sheerman MP observed back in 2007:

It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith. But as soon as there is a more doctrinaire attitude questions have to be asked. It does become worrying when you get a new push from more fundamentalist bishops. This is taxpayers’ money after all.

And so ‘fundamentalist’ bishops (priests/rabbis/imams/granthis/acharya) are not free to ‘do God’ in state schools, and the Integration Tsar will exhort the Secretary of State to intervene (or, indeed, close) a school which fails to inculcate the ‘moderate’ values she prescribes, lest they become anything like the Muslim ‘Trojan Horse’ schools in Birmingham. In fact, all faith-based schools are now tarnished with the ‘Trojan Horse’ association, for what do religiously conservative teachers seek to do but propagate religious bigotry? And so religiously conservative groups are only free to ‘do God’ in free schools provided they don’t propagate a robust apprehension of moral orthodoxy, or believe anything ‘extremist’ too strongly.

Louise Casey favours the introduction of an oath of allegiance in order to foster integration, which makes perfect sense for immigrants. In the wake of the Casey Review, Sajid Javid’s rather authoritarian proposal is that all those who hold public office must also swear this oath, which would include a commitment to uphold “belief in equality, democracy and the democratic process”. Note how ‘equality’ hangs with democracy. “We can’t expect new arrivals to embrace British values if those of us who are already here don’t do so ourselves, and such an oath would go a long way to making that happen,” he explained.

How may Christians with any integrity could swear allegiance to a politico-philosophical concept which shifts from year to year and morphs to the zeitgeist? Would public servants who swore such an oath in (say) 2010 – then perfectly content to uphold equality on the basis of race, sex, sexuality, religion and disability – now be obliged by virtue of that that oath to uphold ‘equal marriage’ ex post? What if ‘equalities’ went on to include (for example) criteria such as income (as in a national maximum wage), or educational outcome (as in equalising the results of examinations), or children’s political representation (with votes at 16, 14 or 12, and quotas to ensure a proportion of under-18s in Parliament)? Would Dame Louise Casey then invoke her ‘political conservatism’ to shroud her anti-social justice prejudice?

  • Finnbar01 .

    I wonder will she force churches to host same sex marriages?

  • Anton

    Is she a bigot, then?

    • Little Black Censored

      It seems so.

  • Mrs S wilson

    This is a very serious issue, and the Women’s equality commission and others are all pushing the same way- i.e. that Christianity’s orthodox views be forbidden in schools in the light of the new LGBT rights agenda. Our children are being more and more brainwashed to believe they should discard the good and proven for the trendy socially-acceptable. If parents and church leaders don’t waken up and speak up loudly NOW it will soon be too late. I fear the nation is sleepwalking to disaster.

  • Sigfridiii

    When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

  • Anton

    A glance at her Wikipedia entry suggests that she has, like many of her ilk, never held a job in a wealth-creating enterprise in her life.

  • Anton

    when does a teacher running a secular school say, “No, it’s fine for you not to do theatre,” or music or those sorts of thing? When is that okay? I do not really have any view on which religion it is that it is promoting those sorts of views

    What you mean, Louise Casey, is that you are not prepared to name the religion in question. Disgraceful.

  • CliveM

    It would appear that truth and openness is also not a British value. How else can you explain identifying Catholic schools as a problem, whilst leaving unsaid where the problem really lies.

    • Dreadnaught

      Totally agree; they can’t talk and condemn about terrorism without using the word ‘all’.

    • John

      It appears to be catching. You haven’t said where the problem really lies either!

    • Little Black Censored

      Why can’t she simply condemn Islamic schools for certain activities? It is nothing to do with Christian or even British schools.

  • Dreadnaught

    Louise Casey favours the introduction of an oath of allegiance in order to foster integration, which makes perfect sense for immigrants.

    Yes; but I would go further and instill the message of alegiance to this Country and its traditions into all British children from the earliest age as part of morning assembly (if such gatherings are still part of the school day).

    • CliveM

      I don’t know. I find the idea of some sort of regular pledge of allegiance somewhat un-British.

      You would also be certain that if it was introduced, it would include a whole load of guff that you wouldn’t like.

      • Dreadnaught

        That’s no good reason to back away. Everyone stood for the anthem at the end of a film not all that long ago. Yes it was a different time and I don’t suggest bringing it back but tradition dies when we don’t pass them on to children.

        • Old Nick

          The National Anthem in cinemas is precisely what should be brought back. Together with the picture of HM on the screen, and enough bloody-minded people to stand firm in their seats so that those trying to shove out in a hurry do not get past.

          • Dreadnaught

            It would be impossible to decide where not to play the anthem after a public gathering which is hardly practical. At least Radio 4 still gives it a regular airing.

          • Old Nick

            I am not advocating legislation, just the growth of a custom.
            One could start with the Women’s March in London on Saturday 21st.

          • Dreadnaught

            Why not in Churches, Mosques, Synagogs and Temples?

          • len

            Shhhhhhhhhhhh

        • Martin

          Dreadnaught

          The memory I have from my youth is that as soon as the credits started rolling all made a dash for the exit so as to not have to stand for the NA.

          • Dreadnaught

            That was the beginning of the end and really not that long after WW2.

          • Old Nick

            And there were those of us who stood at attention at our seats and caused a certain amount of annoyance. Very satisfactory.

          • Little Black Censored

            Perhaps you were living in Kilburn.

          • Martin

            LBC

            I have never lived in Kilburn. I’m not sure I have ever set foot in Kilburn.

  • Old Nick

    If parish councillors are to swear allegiance to “British Values” (and to the French value of ‘equality’), how soon will it be before they are also required to offer incense to the emperor. A perusal of Pliny Epistles X, 96 and 97 might be edifying.

  • James Bolivar DiGriz

    Much if not most of our “our history, heritage and culture” has a Judeo-Christian basis, of what she would call ‘religious conservatism’.

    So Casey says “We need to be much bolder in not just celebrating our history, heritage and culture” and then wants to not only ignore but suppress the parts of it that don’t agree with her narrow viewpoint.

    That suggests to me that thinking is not her strong point.

    • Martin

      James

      She is a politician, don’t expect too much.

      • James Bolivar DiGriz

        Indeed. And, as Anton points out, she has never done a days wealth-creating work in her life.

  • len

    The elephant in the room is Islam. Better no go there then?.

    • Dreadnaught

      Not in my room Len.

  • Maalaistollo

    Hope you’re not all holding your respective breaths while you wait for the ABC and innumerable bishops to advocate vociferously the right (indeed duty) of CofE schools to teach religiously conservative principles. I think the expected silence will give as clear an indication as anyone needs of the line they will take on homosexual ‘marriage’ when all the facilitated conversations, good disagreements etc have run their course.

  • len

    What are British values any more?.Does anyone know?. Our Judeo/Christian value system has been ruthlessly attacked and all but destroyed by cultural Marxists. Now with a broken, multicultural ,society with no moral absolutes, no boundaries, an ‘anything goes’ culture. these cultural Marxists are now groping around for something to anchor our drifting broken society.

    • Dreadnaught

      They don’t give a stuff about our society; that’s why they are busy on pursuing the socialist utopia of EUSSR long after its been rejected by Russia and China and even Cuba.

    • David

      Very well expressed Len, and in pithy too !

    • Coniston

      ‘Towards the conclusion of his landmark book After Virtue,
      the Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre observes that the death rattle of the Roman Empire began when men and women of good will “turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium” which had become socially decadent and culturally diseased.

      “What they set themselves to achieve instead – often not recognising what they were doing – was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness.”

      For MacIntyre – a lapsed Marxist turned Catholic – the parallel with our contemporary Western society was both obvious and sobering. “This time, however, the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another – doubtless very different – St Benedict.”’

      Another reference to MacIntyre: “To borrow an idea from philosopher Alasdair Macintyre: even in government circles there remain the disjointed fragments of traditional culture. But these memories are fading with each generation. Notions of truth, goodness, state, society, family, justice, and patriotism linger on, but increasingly with new meanings. Our leaders traffic in transient values and political correctness rather than principles, truths, and virtues”

  • magnolia

    The PC garbage mostly came from the USA. You can trace it backwards. Maybe the stupid fashion for gender studies, and “gender neutral” rapist haven faciliities will unravel there, and then a reverse follow here. Certainly there is much angst as the PC brigade and neocons lose power in Washington DC. This latest fake news picked up, and packaged into a dodgy (conveniently anti-Russian) dossier from a scammer re Trump will change the perceived reliability of a whole batch of people not least the CIA.

    Quite extraordinary really, and just shows how alarmingly willing people are to believe dirt on those they dislike. A grim tale all round, excepting those who called out hoax while holding their noses.

    • Old Nick

      I first heard the term “Politically Correct” used in Berkeley California in 1983/4 – actually in ironic self-mockery (e.g. “is it politically correct to shop at the Berkeley Co-op ?”). Can anyone take it further back ?

      • IanCad

        It was rife in the USSR as soon as Lenin grabbed power. Of course, the gulags encouraged such behaviour. I’m sure every generation has a core cadre of such control freaks just lusting to be appointed to positions of power.

        • layreader

          I first heard ‘politically correct’ as an ironic term in the 60’s to refer to Soviet Communism. However you look at it, it refers to a system that wants to strangle all opposition and freedom of speech. There are many ways of looking at the expression of sexuality in our society, but only one correct one, apparently. Dame Louise Casey is a particularly sinister example of one who cannot cope with multiple views, including anything remotely approaching a traditional one. She is a prime example of the cause of widespread cynicism of the political elite – the same one that resulted in a Brexit vote.

        • John

          It was politically correct to dutifully offer your pinch of incense to Caesar in the 1st century Roman empire.

          • Old Nick

            That is a little more complicated. Offering incense to the emperor is the simplest form of sacrifice – the emperor being the lowest of Gods and the highest of men. Sacrifice ensured, it was thought, the co-operation of the forces of Nature in specific localities. It therefore had direct practical benefits, like roadmending and good drains, it was not just a loyalty test.

      • Dreadnaught

        I thought it was Mao’s Little Red Book.

      • The Explorer

        1925, the Frankfurt School. Europe’s workers failed to behave as Marx had specified they should in World War One. World War One should have been proletariat versus bourgeoisie. Instead the, workers united with their various nations against one another. They behaved ‘politically incorrectly’.

        The key members of the Frankfurt School (all atheist Jewish) who survived Hitler took PC to the States: Mostly to Columbia and Brandeis. PC emerged again in the 60’s with Marcuse’s redrawing of the class struggle: the new bourgeoisie of white, heterosexual males versus the new proletariat of women, sexual minorities, ethnic minorities, students and criminals.

        PC went underground in name in the 70’s, and emerged definitively in the 80’s. It has had us by the throat, on both sides of the Atlantic and across the Channel, ever since.

        • Anton

          Hitler was not into annihilation of Jews, just persecution, when the Frankfurt school migrated en masse to the USA – before World War 2.

          • The Explorer

            I meant ‘survived’ in a career sense. Hitler didn’t like the Frankfurt School any more than Stalin or Mussolini liked Gramsci.

            I grant my wording was ambiguous, and you’re quite right. Before the Final Solution, the Nazis considered sterilising Jewish women, and even sending the Jews en masse to Madagascar, using captured French ships. But then they decided that since the Jews were running the world, they would simply run the world from Madagascar. A more radical answer was needed.

    • Anton

      It is said to have reached the USA via the mass migration there of the ‘Frankfurt School’. Worth checking out.

    • Dreadnaught
  • in Louise Casey’s secular world, religious orthodoxy – which some might term religious conservatism – must be subsumed to the overarching ‘equalities’ agenda

    The French writer Renaud Camus, interviewed in 2014:

    Equality and secularism are the two enemies of the interior, the nation. If we give them free reign, they will let nothing of the nation remain…No nation, no people, no civilization can survive if they continually submit in this suicidal fashion to the aberrant rule that there is equality, in their heart, between that which constitutes their essence and that which undermines it: between the friend and the enemy, between the indigene and the conqueror, between the replaced and the replacer, between the citizen and the non-citizen, or very simply between self and non-self.

    The elites have a plethora of insults to smear and shame those who do not submit—racist, anti-Semite, Islamophobe, xenophobe—and a plethora of hate laws with which to silence the recidivist, with any luck permanently.

    As all the mainstream parties will not hear a word said against equality, it can be safely assumed that they wish to let nothing of Christian Britain remain.

  • Martin

    All must sacrifice to Caesar, or else be denied the rights of citizenship?

    Of course it isn’t that long ago that you had to be a member of the CoE to be a public official.

    • IanCad

      Better to forget that Martin.

    • Dreadnaught

      That was a very bad rule; look at what it did to NI.

      • Intonsus

        What did it do to NI? Most of the leaders there were members of various dissenting coventicles

        • Dreadnaught

          It marginalised anyone not CoE. The PRIA found it easy to recruit amongst the marginalised and cost lives all round.

          • Intonsus

            The Test and Corporation Acts were repealed in 1828! Long before the PIRA came on the scene.

          • Dreadnaught

            I was there in 71-73; shooting and being shot at which had bugger all to do with any Act of parliament. I’ll tell you why – the Catholics couldn’t get jobs in the ship yards and the Orangemen controlled the Councils, centres of administrtion and the judiciary. Treat people like crap and we all end up in deep shit.

          • bluedog

            ‘Treat people like crap…’. So right. You get crap back every time. Talk to them, ask them what they want and they will always tell you. Your subsequent actions then determine their further response. This communicant continues to believe that the Orange marches and any Catholic equivalent are sheer madness. Needless chest beating and provocation. The truth is, not all tradition is benign.

          • Anton

            If the Orangemen were confident that they wouldn’t be sold out by Westminster then they’d be a lot less likely to march.

          • bluedog

            They’re in an unenviable position, that’s true. But how would you define sell-out? What if a deal were to be struck with the Irish Republic for a re-united Ireland to join a federal Britain? Would that be a sell-out? Would aggressive marching make the slightest difference to the outcome in the greater scheme of things? Answer: no.

          • Anton

            It’s very obvious what the Orangemens’ concern is: ask any politicised Catholic in Northern Ireland what he wants.

          • Old Nick

            The Orangemen are not in general Anglicans. And it was as much as anything else the collapse of the linen industry in West Belfast (which had drawn RCs from the South up to Belfast in the 19th century) which made the RCs unemployed.

          • Intonsus

            Totally agree

          • Old Nick

            Most of the Ulster Protestants are Presbyterians; the Church of Ireland is small by comparison. It is not sufficiently realised that the Northern Irish problem (as opposed to the Ascendancy in the South) is a Scotch problem. If the Scotch wish for independence, they should be obliged to take Ulster with them.

          • Dreadnaught

            As you know the Scots don’t drink Scotch – they drink Whuski

          • Old Nick

            Have we discussed this before ?

          • Dreadnaught

            I don’t think so.

          • Old Nick

            The Scotch objection to “Scotch” seems to me very recent. “Scotchman” was described as the normal English form until it was gerrymandered (like the entry on ‘man’) in the last two or three years – and it was of course written by a Scotchman Sir Alexander Murray. Scott and R.L. Stevenson wrote “scotch” without a second thought. I think the objection is no older than Kenneth McKellar – and was made up so that there could be one more thing to complain about.

          • Anton

            North Britain as it was known for at least a century. Just as Cornwall was formerly known (much longer ago) as “South Wales”.

          • Anton

            You are the second serious thinker I’ve known to say that. Interesting…

          • Old Nick

            Larne to Stranraer is a v. short crossing, and I found folk round Edinburgh would refer to those from the extreme South West as the “Galloway Irish”. The book which really brought it home to me was Scott’s Old Mortality. But I guess it is obvious with Celtic/ Rangers and Hibs and Hearts.

          • Anton

            I’ve been to an Old Firm match. One of Billy Connolly’s best comments is about Partick Thistle as the cinderella team of Glasgow – “People in England think the team is called Partick-Thistle-Nil”.

          • Old Nick

            Between school and college I was a teaching assistant in a mixed boarding school for Glasgow boys – they were sent out into the country to see if milking cows and digging the garden would give them a better start in life than the streets of Easterhouse and Maryhill. Mixed refers not to sex, but to religion (though I was the only Pisky). One afternoon I was playing the piano in the games cupboard (where it was kept) when one of the boys came in, fell into talk (my job) and picked out a tune with one finger. The door of the games cupboard flew open to reveal a very agitated colleague: “Do ye know what yer playing ?”. “No”, I replied. “Well, Graham does”, he grunted. Apparently it was a little ditty called “The Sash my Father Wore”. We avoided a riot. They were actually fine chaps – and very helpful when the school caught fire. We had one or two supporters of Partick Thistle – who always reminded me of the Reds and the Whites in the 6th century Constantinople Circus.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Pisky? Sounds Cornish to me.

    • Old Nick

      On the contrary, you had to receive Holy Communion in the Established Church. Belief and “membership” (whatever that might be) was not enquired into.

      • Martin

        Nick

        I’d have said HC was membership.

        • Old Nick

          That is a particular theological position which you would be at liberty to adopt, but it was not stated as such. Queen Elizabeth did not make windows into men’s souls and this is precisely a strength of the Church of England.

          • Martin

            Nick

            Attending Holy Communion at the parish church is as near to having a membership as the CoE gets. In the days when it was required it would have been akin to sacrificing to the emperor in the view of many.

          • Old Nick

            Which rather shows up the self-righteousness of that sort of Christianity.

  • IanCad

    So we have here a serial tax eater; controlling, ignorant and warped.

    “—it is not okay for Catholic schools to be homophobic and anti-gay marriage.”
    Then she bangs on about equality.
    From the above quote, am I correct in inferring that, unless I wholeheartedly endorse and embrace anal sexual relations, and, in addition raise my children to enjoy the same, I will fall afoul of she and her tribe of self-righteous control freaks??
    Where! O Where! is the Inspector when he is needed?

    • len

      Inspector has banished himself.

      • Martin

        Len

        Again?

        • len

          No same one.Jack obtained some sort of brief blogging window for him. Its a RCC thing.

          • dannybhoy

            Oi veh!

    • Inspector General

      The new religion of Equality bows to no man. Not even a Marxist leader, Ian
      —————————–
      http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/11/benighted-corbyn-the-labour-leaders-slap-in-the-face/
      —————————-
      Corbyn knighted David Crausby MP. However, he forgot to run his name past our LGBT betters for consent and is being savaged for it resulting. He won’t be making THAT mistake again…

    • Demon Teddy Bear

      Fascinating to see fresh anti-Catholic measures threatened. Didn’t we stop doing this in 1850?

    • Holger

      Are you a school?

      I thought not.

      Raise your children how you like. But if you send them to a publicly funded school, you’ll have to accept that the state decides what should and shouldn’t be taught there.

      If you don’t like it, yank your kids out of school and educate them at home. You won’t have to apply the national curriculum, so equality and diversity lessons won’t be compulsory. But the government retains the right of oversight and can check on how your kids are doing at any time. If it feels you’re not doing a good job, it can order them back to school.

      That’s the law of the land. Don’t like it? Campaign for reform then. Or emigrate. Them’s yer choices. Take ’em or … take ’em.

      • The Explorer

        Linus, old chap. If the State were always wise, it would be a good system. But sometimes the State gets it wrong. Who will guard the Guardians? The question has never been answered by secularism.

      • IanCad

        Holger,
        You make a good point about home education. Councils are actually very helpful to those independent souls who elect to do it at home.

        • Holger

          Well there you go then!

          It makes sense for councils to support home education. It’s the same principle as home working. If you’re at home, you’re paying for your own heating bills, your own meals, etc

          State schools – and schools supported by public money – have to conform to the national curriculum. That’s the deal. You want public money? You have to conform to public policy.

          You might not like that public policy, but it only exists because the government formulating it has a democratic mandate. If you want to opt out, you can. What you can’t do however is force your minority views on others. The only way to do that is to get majority support, which conservative Christians just don’t enjoy at this time. You can campaign for it. But until you have it, your choices are limited. Either your children attend schools where the viewpoint of the majority will be taught. Or you educate them privately.

          What more is there to say?

  • CliveM

    Just noticed she’s a Dame. What on earth has she done to justify such an honour?

    Or does it simply refer to a Panto she (or should that be he) is currently starring in?

    Would explain the looks.

    • James Bolivar DiGriz

      The honour is ‘for services to families and vulnerable people’. Which actually means, doing the job that she was paid to do.

      • Martin

        James

        Depends what you mean by ‘families’ and ‘vulnerable’. And of course most of us just get paid for doing our job.

        • James Bolivar DiGriz

          I was just quoting Wikipedia (which references the London Gazette).

          Given that she has worked for the DHSS, St Mungos, Shelter, the Rough Sleepers’ Unit, the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit (in the HO), etc, I think what is meant by ‘families’ and ‘vulnerable’ is reasonably clear. I also think that all the work that she did was work that she was paid to do.

          “most of us just get paid for doing our job”
          Of course. But senior people in the civil service & charities get honours as well as payment.

          • Martin

            James

            And hence many of us view the honours system as a joke.

          • chefofsinners

            She presided over abject failure at the antisocial behaviour unit.

    • len

      There is nothing like a dame(as the song goes)….absolutely nothing..

    • Anton

      Dames, eh?

      • CliveM

        All part of the great British Panto tradition. I may also add, I can’t stand Panto!

    • Holger

      Very Christian of you. Not to mention gallant.

      So what do you look like? And how many honours have been showered on you?

      I think I can guess. Your real name isn’t Sir Sean Connery, is it?

      • CliveM

        I’m not telling, it would stir your loins and I’m a happily married man.

        • Holger

          You mean if you weren’t a happily married man, I’d be in with a chance?

          • CliveM

            Nope, just trying to break it to you gently.

            In the best Christian tradition.

  • mmac1968

    Tony Blair stated that same sex unions would never lead to same sex marriage. He then converted to Catholicism, to destroy it from the inside i am sure. The bloke is like a dyslexic Midas and every thing he touches turns to sh#t.

    • len

      King Midas in reverse.

  • Don Benson

    It takes seconds rather than minutes to think through and recognise the utter eccentric nonsense which is the notion of gay “marriage”. It distorts language in order to hide its rejection of biological fact in order to produce a preconceived and destructive social outcome.

    But, because an awkward minority will never yield their minds to such a distortion (due either to a strong determination to retain their objectivity, or their religious faith, or both), the only way to ensurethat outcome is through coercion.

    Louise Casey has at least warned us of her intention to force her wicked and destructive views on the rest of us at the expense, if necessary, of a complete shut-down of freedom of speech. And presumably she believes the political tide is with her.

    Just stop and think what kind of politicians we have who actually believe that such a woman is suitable to advise the nation on ‘community cohesion’.

    Unless we make the loudest and most persistent fuss about it (yes, we won’t stop this by being ‘nice’) she will get her way. I very much hope we have or will all be writing to our MPs about this deeply dangerous attack on British society and personal freedom.

    • David

      “wicked and destructive views”
      Indeed and well said !

    • Coniston

      The problem with introducing gay ‘marriage’ is that the proper question about it was never asked in the first place. Instead of bleating about ‘equality’ the question that should have been asked is ‘what is the purpose and meaning of marriage?’ and ‘why have all societies had some form of marriage that is between a man and a woman’ (even though some societies have been polygamous).

      The answer is obvious – marriage between man and woman is for the begetting, nurturing and raising of children – the next generation. This is impossible for gay people. In the recent past Stonewall, etc, have wanted to abolish all marriage, which they hated. Now they have succeeded, by making ‘marriage’ meaningless – it can now, logically, mean incestuous or multiple marriage, due to the spurious demand for ‘equality’, aided and abetted by clueless deluded nitwits like Cameron.

      • James60498 .

        “clueless deluded nitwits like Cameron.”

        Nicest thing I have ever heard anyone (outside the BBC) say about him. Good description though.

  • Louis E.

    I’m not religious at all,but don’t want secular schools teaching that same-sex marriage is anything but an outrage and disaster that must be ended.
    False claims of “equality” are found on both the sterotypical “left” and “right”…if we have a pre-emptive dictate that all claims must be treated as irrefutable and indisputable where does it end?

    • chefofsinners

      Sorry, but according to Louise Casey and most politicians, you don’t exist. A person who is not religious would never disagree with same sex marriage.
      Why do you think that way?

      • Louis E.

        The institution of civil marriage benefits society to the extent that it implements the public interest in recognizing the unique importance of opposite-sex relationships.There is absolutely no public interest served by promoting same-sex sexual relationships,which ideally ought not to exist.

  • len

    We can do faith then, as long as it is a’ wishy washy’ ,vague, inconclusive, Politically Correct type of faith. Ideas anyone?.

    • dannybhoy

      Join the Church of England?

      • len

        Got it in one.

      • Maalaistollo

        I thought you didn’t actually need to ‘join’ it; if resident in a parish (and I don’t think there is any part of the country that is outside a parish, even in Bradford, Rochdale and other such areas) aren’t you ipso facto a parishioner and therefore entitled to avail yourself of the wishy-washy, vague etc services of your local parish church (if still open)?

        • dannybhoy

          Yes, but there’s a difference between being a parishioner and one who lives in a parish. Most people in a parish would resent the implication that they are connected to the parish church.

  • ecclesiaman

    I recommend a look at vomkorea.kr and the introduction to Rev Richard Wurmbrand’s prophetic writing about, “Preparing for the underground Church”. The agenda whether the equality advocates realise it or not is the complete destruction of Christianity. Gay matters and same sex marriage are steps along the way.

  • bluedog

    Your Grace, your communicant offers a practical suggestion in the light of the Integration Tsar’s progressive approach. Taking things a step further, and noting the proposals for Oaths of Allegiance, one can foresee a role for some sort of State Baptismal Affirmation. You will recall that in the days of Christian worship, parents and soi-disant god-parents would attend a ‘church’ service in which an infant was held over a baptismal font and marked with a cross; we need to concern ourselves with the reasons. Clearly this practice exposed the infant to the risk of drowning, something the State could not endorse. However, the idea has merit in principle. To modernise the practice in line with current thinking, one suggests that the mother of the infant, and the father if known, should attend a small Departmental ceremony. At this, the mother (and father) should affirm their commitment to rear the child in a manner compliant with British values. The penalties for failure would of course be criminal and potentially custodial.

    • Old Nick

      Oh it happens. With-it folk want you to come to their baby’s head-wetting. Grrrrr.

    • Little Black Censored

      “Held over”? Cranmer said the infant must be dipped “discreetly and warily”, once on either side and once on the face. (Isn’t that right, Cranmer?)

      • bluedog

        Semantics apart, the risk is clear. Infants presenting for Christian baptism such be provided with an appropriate personal floatation device.

        • Little Black Censored

          It’s not a semantic difference, but a difference in what is actually done.
          (Speaking of flotation, I knew a priest who encourage the parents to provide a floating bath toy to accompany the child – C of E, it goes without saying.)

          • bluedog

            whatever.

  • dannybhoy

    This is nothing but a cowardly cowardly attempt to appease those groups from among whose ranks zealots have sprung who are willing to die -or kill, whichever, for their faith and crush the accursed unbelievers.
    Folks, your own government has determined that you Baptists, Methodists, United Reformed Churchians, Salvation Army Storm Troopers, even Catholics are a danger to the harmony and stability of our society.

    Now look, please! if your minister is planning mayhem, if your priest is having the women’s friendship club assemble molotov cocktails, whilst the choir practice aggressive synchronised chanting..
    it is your responsibility as a good citizen to inform on them…
    Do it and do it now.

  • Dominic Stockford

    She is a highly dangerous woman, and her continuance in her post will undoubtedly result in great spiritual harm to this nation. Pray she be gone.

  • Dominic Stockford

    So what happens if I get elected as a councillor and then refuse to take the ‘oath’, having said in the election campaign that I wouldn’t? The will of the electors, knowing my intentions, would be as nothing before the march of evil I guess.

    • bluedog

      If you were the member of a designated minority, exemptions could be claimed, and granted.

    • Sarky

      Ha ha never gonna happen!

    • Old Nick

      I did precisely this as an undergraduate. I was elected the college’s representative to the University’s Student Representative Council (now known as the OUSU) on a platform of attending no meetings and placing all the bumph in the circular file. Sound place, my college.

    • Pubcrawler

      Same as for Sinn Fein MPs at Westminster.

  • Sarky

    So here we are again back to the usual christian position……’all mouth, no action’

    • Maalaistollo

      As opposed to ‘all mouth and trousers’?

  • David

    This is horrifying, it will not unite society, but split and divide it.

    The legal recognition of the “marriage” of two people of the same sex defies Reason. To claim that it represents the same “thing”, as marriage of two people of different sexes is a “thing”, is philosophically a category error. The first class of relationship cannot produce new human life, whilst the second has the potential to produce such new life. Two people of the same sex may be able to enter into a relationship legally recognised by the state, in some way, but it cannot be marriage.

    Yes this imposition, against the grain of 2000 years of Christian philosophy, morality and faith, not to mention human reason, will surely split and divide.

    This is nothing less than social engineering, Cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School. Forcing these irrational and immoral views upon everyone represents a truly chilling, potentially totalitarian proposal. It must be stopped.

    • Sarky

      Since when did you have the monopoly on marriage?? Marriage can be traced back to 2350BC, long before Christians got involved. Since then marriage has evolved and luckily most people are ok with that. We are not a christian country therefore your views are no longer relevant.

      • Anton

        Please name ANY culture other than modern secular, across four millennia of time and seven continents of space, which has recognised gay marriage. So who’s the odd culture out?

        • Sarky

          Greece, Rome, China, mesopotamia.

          • The Explorer

            Gay sex or gay marriage? (Apart from Nero, who married other men sometimes as husband and sometimes as wife, according to mood. But he also screwed his mum, which even the Romans disapproved of.)

          • Old Nick

            And the Emperor Heliogabalus who had, Dio Cassius informs us, an incision made in a sensitive place, so that he could experience pleasure under both kinds.

          • Anton

            There was plenty of gay sex in ancient Greece and Rome – as I have never denied – but cultural and/or State recognition of gay marriage? References please!

          • Little Black Censored

            Nothing new about perversion.

          • Old Nick

            Wrong about Greece and Rome. The others are outside my ambit. And that fellow Boswell is not merely wrong, he engages in wilful misquotation and scholarly misrepresentation.

      • David

        Did I claim that marriage was the sole preserve of Christianity ? No I did not, and I would not, as it belongs to humanity.

        • Sarky

          So why do you have the right to dictate who gets married?

          • David

            The answer to that question is, if you think about it, contained within my previous reply. And as has already been said, marriage has always, everywhere, been about uniting the two sexes.

          • Sarky

            No it hasn’t.

          • Little Black Censored

            It has too!, as the Americans say. Good heavens, what a quality of argument!

      • Martin

        Sarky

        Marriage can be traced back to the Creation week. And the reason it is between two people is because we have two genders. It belongs to God, as we all do, including you.

        • Sarky

          Not me.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Of course you, as you will be unable to deny when you die.

          • Sarky

            I won’t be denying anything, I’ll be dead.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            You’ll be standing before the judge of all the Earth.

          • Sarky

            Simon Cowell??

          • Martin

            Sarky

            An answer that is to be expected given the level of your wit.

      • chefofsinners

        We are not an atheist country either, so your views are…?

      • Dreadnaught

        I disagree; we are still (for now) at least a culturally Christian Country. Whatever you make of it, a responsible male father and female mother, registered and bonded by mutual agreement is the best format for raising children. It is a time proven arrangement to preserve the species living in distinct cultural groups throughout the world. The Marriage ceremony I would agree is not exclusive to Christianity but recognised in most cultures.
        I have no kick against same sex unions as in civil partnerships and I feel that they should settle for that for the long tme being. A Church wedding should be the preserve of exclusive heterosexual conformity; it is after all by far the greater percentage of the population that fits that category if they are even only losely or token Christians.

      • Malcolm Smith

        What do you mean, marriage can be traced back to 2350 BC? Are you suggesting that all the Australian Aborigines, Bushmen, and Andaman Islanders, to list just a tiny number of pre-literate societies didn’t practice marriage before 2350 BC? Marriage is the fundamental human institution. In fact, it pre-dates the human race, and without it we would not have evolved.
        http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/the-science-of-sexual-morality.html

      • Little Black Censored

        Nobody is saying Christians have a monopoly of marriage; that would be self-evidently silly. Marriage is part of the natural, God-given order, ordained for all mankind.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      I’ve always said that same sex “marriage” is a legal contrivance, crated by man to satisfy an all-pervasive grievance culture that demanded preferential treatment dressed up as equality. The number of same sex couples actually getting married, according to statistics here and inn the Netherlands is a tiny proportion of the gay population, showing there was never any real demand for it. The legalisation of same-sex marriage was just a worthless trophy for activists to parade and flaunt as a “victory” over those of traditional views.

      • David

        Spot on !

  • Anton

    Dear God

    Thank you for your submission on this subject, published under the name “The Bible”. We are grateful to you for taking the trouble to let us know your views in this depth. We cannot, however, accept them as they stand, as they are not inclusive, certainly not in the field of religion, and are unwontedly narrow toward various groups.

    We feel sure that you would benefit greatly from attending one of the government-sponsored anti-extremism seminars which take place regularly in our large cities. Attendance is voluntary but if you fail to attend then any children you have will be liable to certain penalties imposed by the authorities.

    Yours sincerely
    Louise Casey (Dame)

    • bluedog

      Exactly. That’s the situation as it stands. But we may need to draw a longer bow.

      Casey doesn’t seem to realise it, but her job is to manage a withdrawal from multiculturalism, the promotion of ‘British Values’ being the state sponsored alternative. While we may rightly mock BV for failing to spell out the underlying principles thereof, the idea is important in so far as it lays down markers constraining a creed that is entirely antithetical to both Judeo-Christian and secular understanding. Where Judeo-Christian and secular overlap, we can work with Casey. Where there is no over-lap, as in same sex marriage, we need to educate Casey. This communicant suggests that the path Casey is on leads inevitably back to Christianity, but the obstacle is ‘equality’. It is therefore necessary to devise arguments that constrain ‘equality’, without insulting Casey and her disciples in the process.

      Victory will come when Casey is persuaded that Christianity does not threaten ‘equality’ as a British Value.

      • chefofsinners

        I wouldn’t bother trying to educate Casey.
        Governments appoint Tsars only when years of failure in a policy area finally becomes so embarrassing that spin will no longer keep a lid on it. The Tsar is paid a big salary for a couple of years then resigns and is blamed.

  • chefofsinners

    When will these self-aggrandising professional busybodies understand? Integration does not come from insisting that everyone agrees with you, it comes from accepting their right to disagree with you.
    Louise Casey is evidently bigoted against religion. She is promoting division through her own intolerance. She must resign.

    • dannybhoy

      No, she is bigoted against the Christian religion. She just won’t say it,

      • All religions …. unless they are socially and morally liberal.

        • dannybhoy

          No Jack. Most people who go into politics are manipulators not heroes.
          You usually find heroes in the Forces, the Police and emergency services.
          Politicians are mostly not brave, They try to manipulate the people who are law abiding and appease those who are not.
          Our politicians are afraid of zealotry, of those who are not afraid to die.
          It is Islam they are seeking to appease by these nonsense oaths.
          They dictate behaviour and conformity to Christians because they are not afraid of Christians,,
          They appease Islam because they are frightened of Islam,
          How is your health now btw. Are you completely recovered?

          • Read the report ….

          • dannybhoy

            “At the start of this review, I had thought that I knew what some of the problems might be and what I might report on. Discrimination and disadvantage feeding a sense of grievance and unfairness, isolating communities from modern British society and all it has to offer.
            I did find this. Black boys still not getting jobs, white working class kids on free school meals still doing badly in our education system, Muslim girls getting good grades at school but no decent employment opportunities; these remain absolutely vital problems to tackle and get right to improve our society. “

            https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575973/The_Casey_Review_Report.pdf

            This is ballcocks! Absolute tripe.
            Look, our multicultural mousetrap society is trying to achieve the impossible.
            If you are religious and find your country of birth or adoption is irreligious, you have the opportunity to leave for a country sympathetic to your beliefs.
            If you have a culturally different attitude to work, time keeping and discipline to your country of birth or adoption, you can leave for the country of your ancestors,
            What you can’t do is insist that your country of birth or choice subjugates its own history, values and traditions in order to accommodate your failed culture of choice.
            The reality is that people who chose or are choosing to come to the West do so because IT IS BETTER than where they came from.
            If we are going to to rubbish our own British values in order to accommodate the demands of those who can’t get it through their thick heads that the West is BEST, then we will destroy our own future and the future of those who are seeking a better life.

          • dannybhoy

            This review is ballcocks! Absolute tripe.
            Have the Hindus tried to fundamentally change Britain? No.
            The Sikhs, the Asians? No.
            Look, our multicultural mousetrap society is trying to achieve the impossible.
            If you are religious and find your country of birth or adoption is irreligious, you have the opportunity to leave for a country sympathetic to your beliefs.
            If you have a culturally different attitude to work, time keeping and discipline to your country of birth or adoption, you can leave for the country of your ancestors,
            What you can’t do is insist that your country of birth or choice subjugates its own history, values and traditions in order to accommodate your failed culture of choice.
            The reality is that people who chose or are choosing to come to the West do so because IT IS BETTER than where they came from.
            If we are going to to rubbish our own British values in order to accommodate the demands of those who can’t get it through their thick heads that the West is BEST, then we will destroy our own future and the future of those who are seeking a better life.

            This review is trying to achieve the impossible at the expense of the native British peoples, whose ancestors fought for a Britain they understood, loved, and believed in.

          • Anton

            How I wish you were right, Danny.

            People come to the West because it WAS better than their places. And the accumulated wealth of generations means that materially speaking it still is better. But if it is “righteousness that exalts a nation”, and if morality is best expressed in family stability, then the Third World is now better than us. Which is why God is sending us the worst of it to enact judgement on us in a generation’s time, when our sins “have reached full measure”.

          • dannybhoy

            In the early/mid 60s people came manily from the Caribbean, from the Indian sub continent, from Idi Amin’s Uganda, The Sikhs came, and a few boat people.
            None of them made serious demands that we change our way of life. Most tried to fit in.
            Sadly it is from among our burgeoning Muslim communities that an alternative system of laws, of female oppression, of FGM, child brides and honour killings has arisen. It is these people living in the Muslim populations that are bringing pressure to bear on our country, and unfortunately we have no leaders of courage and conviction to stand up to the threat,
            To insist that people take an oath means nothing to devout Muslims who cannot accept man made laws over the laws of Sharia. They will conform perhaps, but only as a stepping stone to achieving their long term goals i.e. to make life as miserable and terrifying for us as it is in their homelands..

          • Anton

            Nonsense, secular people will suffer terribly is sharia is enacted here. They’d have their worldly wealth taken for a start. No more beer or wine. Mandatory prayers 5 times/day. Probably be the servant to a Muslim family. Pretty daughters taken for forced marriage.

            One has to ask why second and third generation Muslims here are LESS integrated than their fathers. It is because their fathers saw the utter disaster of the sexualised way of life and quite rightly vowed “not in our community”. That community represents God’s impending judgement on our culture’s sexualised way of life.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes non Christians if Islam takes over, but I doubt that will happen until Christianity is re-cast as the enemy of progress and harmony.
            Is it God’s judgement on us?
            Might be
            Could be
            Who knows unless a true prophet stands up and proclaims “Thus saith the Lord!”
            No one is doing that Anton, and until God anoints a prophet, one Christian’s opinion is as valid as the next’s..

          • Anton

            One may look at the rise of Islam here, which on the timescale of national history is incredibly fast, and notice also the family breakdown stats whose tenfold rocketing matches the same timescale, and ask ourselves why Christ, who holds all authority in heaven and on earth, is permitting it. We have the mind of Christ, after all.

            Listen, O my people; if you will not purify my church, I will do it. The bride must be made ready for her wedding.

            Prophetic words?

          • dannybhoy

            According to Open Doors there are at least fifty countries where it is dangerous to be a Christian. Is the Lord purifying the Church in these countries or is it that they continue to witness despite the triumph of (especially) Islam?
            We in the West have not been overrun by Islam -because they would be incapable of doing so. No, Western countries as secular humanistic countries invited all peoples in as a matter of principle. Now we are finding that these folks’ attachment to their beliefs is much stronger and more important to them than our humanist values..
            So yes, you might be right, or the Church may just be so wishy washy that we don’t even merit God sent persecution…

    • Politically__Incorrect

      I’m in complete agreement with you. If anyone is displaying extreme prejudice it is Dame Louise Casey. I suspect this role of “Integration Tsar” was another Dave’s gimmicks to signal his PC virtue. Nobody needs it. It will be as useless as Blair’s “Drugs Tsar”. This woman clearly lacks both judgement and religious literacy, both deficiencies being “compensated” by having vindictiveness towards Christians. Resign? No. Fire her? Yes.

  • Inspector General

    One suspends his penance (yet again) to inform all that this is a thinly veiled assault on Islamic schooling. Should Christian faith schools encounter collateral damage, it would be under the concept of ‘friendly fire’. An interesting term coined from warfare that reassures the dead that although they are dead, it’s not as if they were marked down for death, so thus although still dead, they shouldn’t be. So that’s alright then.

    It’s also a breathtakingly stupid course of action by Louise Casey (a meddling agitator and professional nuisance is the Inspector’s impression of her from her Wiki write-up). The muslims will feel slighted at best, persecuted at worst. We know that these people are from countries where a substantial part of the population are apparently unhinged. If they go around with a chip on their shoulder in the UK, a bombing campaign will surely happen eventually, will it not! A mass uprising, perhaps, bringing further demands no doubt. And the Government will concede of course. Anything to stop the bombing. Yes. One can see them now, even taking credit for re-establishing the peace they wrecked…the duplicitous rotters…

    And all for what? So that muslim boys might sit next to muslim girls in a classroom? Or that muslim girls be taught there is such a thing as a career waiting for them, assuming they are not honour killed at home for desiring one? Leave these people alone!!! Just leave them to themselves. That’s the way they like it. Surely bringing them over to the West in the first place was enough social engineering for them to endure. For Christ’s sake, give them and their social ways SOME respect!!!

    There, said it. So one returns to his penance and there will be no more comment tonight.

    • chefofsinners

      You comment more now than before you suspended yourself.

      • dannybhoy

        Things are different in the Inspector’s world..
        He can’t bear being out of mainstream conversation, and truth to tell we are too fond of the Inspector to rub his nose in his indiscretions,, :0)

        • Dominic Stockford

          AND, we aren’t snowflakes. We can cope with a little indiscretion from time to time. Especially when someone says sorry, which we accept and move on.

    • Martin

      IG

      You do realise, of course, that penance is not biblical.

      • dannybhoy

        Don’t say that Martin. He hasn’t yet figured out that if he’s here only to amuse his Maker, remorse means nothing, Bless his heart and pray for him instead.

      • “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn, and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.”
        (James 4:8-10)

        • Martin

          HJ

          Nothing about penance there:

          Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.
          (James 4:8-10 [ESV])

    • Yes, leave them alone and wall them in.

    • IanCad

      Your posts have become more lengthy since your self-imposed absence.
      I can only conclude that you are using your penance time to polish, expand, and then post your excellent comments.
      Some punishment!

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    It’s all getting very 1660’s on us, where worthless politicians demand oaths of loyalty.

    • Old Nick

      Or you could say 1650s when lawfully beneficed priests were expelled from their parishes by dissenting ranters.

      • Demon Teddy Bear

        Twit.

        • Old Nick

          I am sure I do not know why you need to be rude. Calamy is only half the story.

      • Anton

        If that’s ranters with a small ‘r’, I’d say that the previous law had been an ass.

        • Old Nick

          Then you presumably think that you and those like you have a monopoly of understanding the Christian faith. Frankly, how dare you write off the glories of the Church of England in the 17th century.

          • Anton

            Glories like Laud getting the State to cut off the ears of peaceable Puritan pamphleteers, and after the Restoration throwing men like John Bunyan in gaol, you mean?

            In contrast, Cromwell and many of the New Model Army Independents were for freedom of protestant church polity.

          • Old Nick

            Yes, Laud. Also, Jeremy Taylor, George Herbert, John Donne, Lancelot Andrewes, Ralph Kettel and many other faithful clergy, also the martyred King Charles himself and John Newte, who driven from his benefice by bigots continued to conduct Prayer Book worship in the woods near his former rectory. Their concern was with the entire kingdom and not just with the Puritan minority who happen to think themselves the only godly. Puritan pamphleteers were far from harmless.

          • Anton

            Charles I was a martyr to no other cause than his own absolute power, apart possibly from the notion of divine right of kings. He came from a dynasty that had no understanding of English common law and Magna Carta, and in furtherance of his own power he regularly broke his word and his principles, notably about consulting parliament over taxation, but supremely when allying with his former enemies the antiepiscopal Covenanters, even though he was a dedicated high church episcopalian. That led to the second (phase of the) Civil War which ended at the Battle of Preston in 1648 and caused Cromwell to realise that this man could not be dealt with, and must be done away with.

            It’s worth revisiting the Army’s “Head[ing]s of Proposals” which it floated between the first and second phases of the Civil War, calling for broad religious tolerance among Reformed traditions and a balance of power between Parliament and the defeated Crown. Or the Army’s Remonstrance, which it was still floating after Preston (!), containing proposals which lifetimes later would be regarded as routine privileges of the English: freedom of Reformed religion, regular elections, Parliament above king. The constitutional proposals and patience of the Army and its leaders in the two-and-a-half years between Charles’ original surrender at Newark and Pride’s Purge show good faith, in contrast to Charles’ intransigence and duplicity.

            Thanks to Charles I’s religious policies enacted under Archbishop Laud, denying the Puritans their own way of being church, there was an exodus in the 1630s of 20,000 entirely peaceable Puritans to North America and as many again to the Netherlands, often entire families. Yet these were the citizens of England most committed to diligence, family life and honest dealing.

            The English Puritans were probably the most biblically committed Christians ever to govern a country, but when they reached the levers of power in the 1650s they too ran into the perennial problem that gospel Christianity cannot be enacted by law. When they put into England’s statutes more of the laws of morality that Christianity had been intended to help people keep (from ancient Israel’s code), the people did not react well. Whose fault is that?

          • Old Nick

            Eikon Basilike is clearly the work of a martyr, and even if he did not write every word of it, it clearly represents his prayers, recorded by those close to him, as he faced the prospect of pseudo-judicial murder.
            As for his intentions, his concern was that the Church of England should embrace all those who profess and call themselves Christians. In doing so, he had to steer a via media between those who would tolerate only those who were like them, that is to say RCs (I adduce James II) and Puritans (I adduce the ranters who drove from their livings clergy loyal to the Church of England during the Civil War). Those who promote freedom of Reformed religion remind me of nothing so much as modern left-wingers who are even prepared to tolerate views as right-wing as those in the Manchester Guardian and folk, in fact, who got their bottoms bitten badly by Brexit. The central problem with Puritanism in general, from the time of Thomas Cromwell onwards, is that those who espouse it think that because it works well for a certain percentage of the population it will work for everyone, provided they just wake up. It doesn’t and it won’t. A Real Anglican (now seemingly a rarity on this blog, which seems to have been taken over by Papists, Puritans and the Anti-Buggery League) would care for the entirety of the Great English Public, not just for those willing to fall for the blandishments of Billy Graham et al.. (And no that does not mean that such an one would want the Qur’an read in churches).
            As for English Common Law, though highly admirable, it is not revealed truth.

          • Anton

            Nowhere did I say that English common Law was revealed truth. It is simply a good way of providing flexibility and bottom-up power. Like Magna Carta, it is not something that an absolutist like Charles would grasp.

            As for Eikon Basilica, Charles should be judged by historians for his actions, rather than by words composed for posterity.

            The verb ’embrace’ is a grotesque distortion of the truth in your words that Charles’ concern was that “the Church of England should embrace all those who profess and call themselves Christians”. As this was a matter of compulsion, I would consider spiritual rape to be a more accurate analogy.

            You have ignored the fact that the Army Independents were all for tolerance among protestants. The larger problem in that era was the assumption that everybody was a Christian of some form, when the gospels are clear that the church is called out of every nation.

          • Old Nick

            Among protestants. That is to say among those who agreed with them or very nearly so. The church may indeed be called out of every nation. That does not mean it consists only of you and your friends.

          • Anton

            I’m against all politicised Christianity whether protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, and have consistently said so here.

  • John

    Oh, she has a problem with ‘religious conservatism’ does she? Well, I have a problem with people in power who change their minds about what’s right and wrong every five days and expect the rest of us to meekly fall in line with them or face consequences.

  • The Explorer

    How can Christianity be considered wrong if all views are equal? If all views are not equal then some are better than others and equality is a myth.

    • bluedog

      Despite the rhetoric about equality, British Values trump Christianity. We are witnessing the demise of multicultural relativism and its replacement with a new sovereign, BV. The British state’s experiment with multiculturalism has failed and the state is recoiling in fear, the appointment of the Integration Commissar making that point.

      • David

        Yes that’s the measure of it.

      • IanCad

        I do hope you are right bd. The Statists will not go without a fight, and, unless we are prepared to take off our gloves, things will not change.

        • bluedog

          If one judges things by actions rather than BS, IC, it’s hard not to be cautiously optimistic. The electorate will force change, and the Labour electorates which voted against their party line for Brexit will point the way in their rejection of multi-culti.

          It’s a tasteless point to make, but Jo Cox died because she had been totally brainwashed by the post-modern secularists into selling a message her white British constituents violently rejected. One suspects that the message has been received and understood, despite protestations to the contrary. So this communicant believes that Louise Casey is carefully treading a path back to an earlier Britain despite claiming that she is doing something very different.

          The challenge for the authorities is to try and avoid an equally violent reaction from the Muslims. Note the summary execution of a Muslim drug dealer near Bradford with attendant threats of rioting. If the Muslims ever make good their threats, the entire multi-culti project collapses over-night in a disorderly fashion. Then the gloves will come off, and it won’t be long.

    • Martin

      TE

      All views are equal but some are more equal than others. Just look through the window for the evidence.

    • chefofsinners

      Equality is indeed a myth. It can only be created and sustained by a greater power. One willing to use that power not for its own benefit but for everyone else equally. God. And the human longing for equality is an echo of the divine in us.

  • Maalaistollo

    Surely it’s quite simple. ‘British Values’ are whatever the government says they are. ‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’

    • chefofsinners

      Yes, Orwell saw it all coming as usual. This is the cult of Ford in 1984.

  • Barnabas Fund Executive Summary

    1. The review attempts to redefine “British values” to exclude freedom of religion.

    2. There is a prejudicial attitude to religion evident in the review.

    3. The language used about Christians and Muslims holding socially conservative views is highly prejudiced.

    4. There is a particularly prejudiced attitude to Christians.

    5. The review seeks to redefine “extremism” to include religious views “at odds with the views of mainstream society”. This is both alarming and intolerant.

    6. The review equates holding “conservative” religious views – whether Christian or Islamic – with “extremism”.

    7. The review shows almost no understanding of either the nature of freedom of religion, its historical development in the UK or its central importance to the UK’s historic national values.

    8. The review recommends the imposition of a new set of required beliefs both for those holding public office and for wider society. These beliefs are partisan socially liberal values.

    9. The review implicitly seeks to impose government-backed definitions of what “modern “British” Islam or Christianity are.

    10. The review is fundamentally intolerant of anyone who does not hold the overly partisan socially liberal views of the author.

    https://barnabasfund.org/downloads/PDF/other/Barnabas-Fund-Casey-review-analysis.pdf

    • bluedog

      The Barnabas Fund says, ‘These beliefs are partisan socially liberal values. ‘ So why don’t they use the term secular when that is what they mean? The Left has a long history of managing linguistics in order to dictate the terms of engagement. The Barnabas Fund seems to have fallen straight into their trap.

      • Probably because it is attempting to engage in political dialogue and trying to avoid making it a religion v’s secular discussion. Plus, many liberal-progressive Christians have socially liberal views.
        The actual report is well worth a read – but is loooong. It certainly has a handle on Islam and the threats to social cohesion. However, it sees problems with integration being caused by social conditions rather that being reinforced by theological issues.

        • bluedog

          One needs to look at the terms used and whether they have generally accepted positive or negative connotations.

          For example: partisan – negative
          socially – positive
          liberal – positive

          It’s a curious juxtaposition of terminology because partisan is clearly there to indicate disapproval. A better option would have been to use wording such as ‘distortion of socially liberal’ etc etc. This is all highly subjective stuff and a matter of judgement, but you tend to react on first impressions.

      • Simon Platt

        They also say “narrowly intolerant” and “intolerant and oppressive”, which I think are apt.

    • weirdvisions

      11. Casey is an intolerant, authoritarian tripehound.

      • bluedog

        Wrong. She is a potentially valuable ally who has a mandate to qualify multiculturalism. We need to ensure she does so on Christian terms. A long way to go, it would appear.

        • weirdvisions

          Well she certainly hasn’t realised her potential with this report.

          • bluedog

            Wrong again. The report illustrates her potential.

          • weirdvisions

            I think we need to agree to disagree on this one. The report started off okay, I’ll admit that, but then it descended into identity politics nonsense.

          • bluedog

            Happy to enjoy a good disagreement on that basis. The essential point is that creation of the role of Integration Commissar announces the failure of multi-culti and the British State’s subsequent attempts to manage the disastrous consequences. One can’t expect the authorities to get it right first time given the extent to which they have already screwed up. Maintaining the Queen’s Peace will be their prime objective, and to mitigate the risks of violent Muslim insurrection, a secularist approach would appeal as the line of least resistance. We know it won’t work. But they need time to come to that conclusion.

          • weirdvisions

            I’m not going to argue with that. :0)

      • *gasp*

        This is a blog for erudite, considered debate and not vitriolic statements. There was no need to call Dame Casey a tripe hound (i.e. an ugly person (male/female), a dog but worse! A dog who only gets fed on tripe.)
        .

        • weirdvisions

          I was referring to her being a purveyor of tripe. As I said to Bluedog, the report was going fine until she began to put identity politics before personal moral conscience.

          I don’t actually have a dog in the same sex marriage debate for instance but it doesn’t mean I think people who object to it are necessarily wrong.

          • That’s okay then.

          • weirdvisions

            😀

        • Politically__Incorrect

          Looking at her photo, I’d say he is being a little unfair on the tripe hounds.

    • chefofsinners

      What we are seeing are the desperate ranting of a person given an impossible task, viz: to get the whole of humanity to like each other. After being paid a big salary for a while, the spotlight now shines on Ms Casey and answers are expected. Solutions that sound fine after a bottle of wine in Islington when surrounded by Godless morons don’t quite cut it in the real world. ‘Stop people being religious’. ‘Make them promise to uphold British values and not bomb us’.
      Has any of the government’s Tsars ever achieved anything? Or met with a happier ending than Nicholas II?

      • When did imposing gender “equality” (whatever this means), approval for homosexuality, and acceptance of abortion become British values? Casey has managed to attack “socially conservative” (i.e. orthodox) Christians, Muslims and Jews.
        Stop all people being religious and make secular humanism the new State religion.

        • Holger

          When did … gender “equality” … approval for homosexuality, and acceptance of abortion become British values?

          Acceptance of abortion became a British value during the period of Labour government in the 1970s.

          Approval of homosexuality came in the late 90s / early 2000s, also under Labour, although it had been widely accepted in the more educated layers of society since the mid 1980s.

          Even Thatcher and her socially conservative government with their infamous Section 28 couldn’t stem the pink tide. In fact they arguably helped it to flow faster as the public reacted instinctively against overt homophobic discrimination.

          Gender equality is a British value that’s harder to pin down in terms of dates. The first signs of a shift in public attitudes away from the blatant sexism of the past came in the 1970s. Margaret Thatcher, once more an unwilling innovator despite her socially arch-conservative views, gave massive impetus to the women’s movement by proving that a woman could do just about anything as well as, if not better than a man.

          Thatcher’s infamously haranguing and unsympathetic character also proved that traditional stereotypes of women as caring and nurturing were similarly outmoded. More than anyone, she set the stage for the idea that gender is an acquired characteristic. If a woman could be that cold, implacable, ambitious and personally unpleasant, what did the term “feminine” really mean? What the socially conservative like to call “gender theory” flowed directly from there.

          Is it currently accepted as a British value? I’d say it’s in the process of being accepted, but we’re not there yet. For once the law is in advance of public opinion, but the idea of gender fluidity still meets with considerable opposition in certain layers of society.

          Generally the further down you go, the less acceptance you find. Within the middle class, those who express strongest opposition to transgenderism tend to have recent links to the working class. Proletarian ideas of masculine strength and feminine nurture are deeply rooted in the traditional division of labour among manual workers, and even when the lifestyle that inculcates these attitudes is left far behind, the habits of a lifetime die hard.

          Once the generation that fueled the Miners’ Strike of the Thatcher era dies out, attitudes will swiftly change and gender fluidity will become as accepted as any other modern advance. We’re on the cusp of it now and probably only a very few thousand people stand between the transgender community and full acceptance. But as, in the main, these people are 70+ in terms of their age, it’s only a matter of time. And not much time at that.

          So don’t worry Happy Jack. You won’t have to lament changing values for very much longer. Where you’re going – well, where we’re all going, only some of us rather sooner than others – there can be no values to worry about. Either you’ll end up in paradise where you’ve been promised eternal bliss and therefore won’t be troubled by what’s happening here on earth. Or you’ll end up in hell where one imagines you’ll be far too preoccupied with your own situation to worry about anyone else. The only other alternative is oblivion. And how can you lament if you don’t exist?

          Not long to go now, eh?

          • Bernard from Bucks

            Very well said – agree… except for the last line. 🙂

          • The Explorer

            Linus has had a lot of practice on this Blog saying things like this. By now he has them off pat.

          • CliveM

            I note he’s still in denial phase. It’s all very ‘Goundhog Day’.

          • The Explorer

            He may not know who he is, but we do. Calling him Linus speeds up the recognition process for other readers.

          • Little Black Censored

            I’m being slow here. Are Linus and Holger the same? I do hope so, because otherwise there would be two of them.

          • The Explorer

            Holger is Linus’ latest name for himself since he deleted himself as Oisin.

          • The Explorer

            “Even Thatcher and her socially conservative government with their infamous Section 28 couldn’t stem the pink tide. In fact they arguably helped it to flow faster as the public reacted instinctively against overt homophobic discrimination.” The public didn’t repeal Clause 28: New Labour did.

            As New Labour muddled along without credible opposition, disgust with politics on the part of the electorate reached the point whereby fewer and fewer people voted. Labour, by its last term, represented the direct views of a smaller and smaller part of the population.

            Give the public the opportunity, and they might well reinstate Clause 28. That’s why we have a system not of making our own decisions, but of electing politicians to screw things up on our behalf. British politicians are well aware of how dangerous it is to let the British public have a direct vote. When that happens, you get things like Brexit.

          • Holger

            New Labour was elected by the public with a clear mandate for change. The abolition of socially regressive legislation like Section 28 was part of that mandate.

            When the Irish public was consulted on the subject of equal marriage, those who felt strongly enough about the issue to bother to vote, voted massively in favour.

            There is no reason to believe the British public would vote any differently.

            As for Brexit, just because your views coincide with a slim majority of British views on that one particular subject doesn’t mean they’ll support you in all of your beliefs. The Brexit vote was not a question of Christian morality.

          • The Explorer

            New Labour was elected with a clear mandate for change, and the mandate diminished year on year. With New Labour’s third term only 30% or so of the electorate bothered to vote. Labour was running the country with the approval of 18% of the electorate.

            The Irish vote is a good point, and indicative of how far Ireland has moved from its Christian origins.. One interesting issue, though, is how many votes were cast by those living outside the country who were flown in to vote courtesy of George Soros.

            My point about Brexit had nothing to do with Christianity, but about how different voting methods can produce different outcomes. Given a chance to vote, a slim majority of Brits voted to escape. But if MP’s had voted instead on behalf of their constituents, MPs would have voted for continued captivity.

          • Little Black Censored

            Section 28 stopped local authorities promoting perverted behaviour. Who except for perverts would have wished them to promo?te it

          • William Lewis

            “Approval of homosexuality came in the late 90s ”

            Homosexuality is accepted but not approved of by the majority. I don’t believe it will ever be approved of because of its inherently unreproductive and unnatural character. It seems particularly dehumanising that a person’s identity should be predicated on their lust.

            So,

            Toleration, yes. Acceptance, mostly. Approval, no.

          • Holger

            Gay identity is predicated on love, not lust. You know, the thing Christians are supposed to feel for their fellow man but can never seem to accord to anyone but their own reflection in a mirror.

            It seems very sad to me that Christians justify their own feelings of romantic and sexual attraction by calling it “love” while everyone else is just full of lust. The disdain for all human experience they themselves haven’t felt is palpable. Their contempt for their fellow man even more so.

          • William Lewis

            You are confusing agape and eros. Unfortunately these are not easily distinguished in English.

          • Holger

            No, I am not confusing agape and eros. Romantic love contains elements of both.

            The love that gay couples feel for each other is in every way similar to the love between straight couples. Yes there is sexual attraction, but there is also agape or selfless love.

            To deny this is to deny the reality of gay relationships as they are lived by gay couples and witnessed by those around them. It’s an attempt to reduce homosexuality to the level of bestial instinct. It’s both dehumanising and profoundly homophobic.

            In effect when you make such ludicrous claims, you’re acting just like KKK members who claim that blacks don’t feel higher human emotions but are driven only by baser instincts like lust and greed and anger.

            Nobody doubts the KKK is racist. Who can doubt that you are homophobic? This is why you’ve so comprehensively lost the debate. Anyone who knows a gay couple can see that their relationship is based on the same mixture of agape and eros that all romantic relationships are based on. It’s so evident that if you can’t see it, it’s because you won’t.

            Your own archbishop has admitted to being stunned by the quality of the gay relationships he’s encountered. But not you. No, dogma has blinded you to what’s glaringly obvious to everyone else.

            To be honest, I feel sorry for you. To be held prisoner by such dehumanising beliefs is a fate I wouldn’t wish on anyone. It permits you to see those you hate as at best sick, at worst subhuman. There may be a difference in content between your beliefs and Nazism, but in form they’re identical: dehumanising your opponents lets you persecute them without conscience.

            This is Christianity at work. Every bit as pernicious as Islam or any other homophobic religion. You may not advocate pushing gays off tall buildings, but you validate the homophobia of those who do. And if they repent and say sorry, you’ll rush to forgive them. They’ll be your best friends. All you had to do was condemn gays and then stand aside and let them do your dirty work for you. Problem solved and no blood on your hands, eh?

            Oh yes there is. Every homophobic word of every homophobic priest or pastor is drenched in blood. By condemning gays you give permission to others to kill, maim and persecute them. You ALL have blood on your hands and you don’t give a damn about it. If there really is a God who’ll punish you for your unrepented sins, I predict you’re in for a shock when you stand before his throne. “Murderer!” he’ll say. “Get thee hence. I do not know you.”

          • William Lewis

            You confused agape and eros in your previous comment when you said that Christians were supposed to feel love for their fellow man and equated that to gay romantic love. These are not the same.

            In any case, I have nowhere suggested that homosexuals cannot feel/express agape for each other. This is another of your convenient fictions. However, as a Christian, I also believe that two heterosexual men (or women) can feel/express agape for each other. If we accept your definition of romantic love as containing both agape and eros and if we accept that agape can be between two people irrespective of their sex, sexual orientation or eros then the defining characteristic of a homosexual identity, or a heterosexual identity, is the eros (or lust) of the individual.

            The rest of the hyperbole that follows on from your confusion is a typical Linus rant and usually signals that another reincarnation event is imminent. Hopefully, I have sped up the process. It surely cannot be long until you reach Nirvana now?

          • Holger

            Two heterosexual male friends who feel agape for each other do not share the love of spouses. Agape love in a spousal relationship is more than mere friendship. It’s a deeper, more exclusive bond. It has to be or your entire argument falls apart.

            If there’s no way to distinguish between spousal agape and the agape you feel for a friend, then the only thing that distinguishes a spousal relationship is eros. So you’re also defining heterosexuals by their lust.

            Is defining yourself as a heterosexual “dehumanising” too? It must be if your argument is to make any sense.

          • William Lewis

            My sexual lusts are heterosexual but that is not my identity. That would be dehumanising if it was.

          • You made this way too difficult for Linus, William. To summarize, it’s ok for a man to feel love for another man, but not sexually. Can ne condensed to, “love anyone or everyone, but thou shalt not diddle a member (in both versions of the term) of one’s own gender.”

          • William Lewis

            True Avi but I don’t think that Linus takes too kindly to the “thou shalt nots” of this world. He’s more of a “one shall because one wants to” kind of guy.

          • Anton

            And you, by condemning evangelical Christians?

          • Holger

            I condemn those who encourage violence against gay people by labelling them as sick or abnormal or evil. They cause real harm to others by their actions.

            By all means condemn me for pointing out why you should be condemned. But in the UK no Christian is in danger of being violently attacked or killed for his faith. That’s the difference. Your condemnation kills. Mine merely exposes religious hypocrisy and hatred for what it really is.

          • Logic fail. Considering a behaviour “sick or abnormal or evil” is not a call for violence. The first is a clinical opinion, the second a statistical observation and the third, a theological perspective. What causes real harm are criminal actions.

          • Holger

            Demonizing a behaviour and encouraging the view that those who practice it are sick or abnormal or evil has one aim: to exclude those people from society and encourage others to treat them as pariahs and to persecute and even kill them.

            It’s also a way for a religion that claims to be non-violent to attack those who won’t conform to its edicts. Violence by proxy, or the manipulation of weak and ignorant into doing your dirty work for you. It’s how radical Islam carries out its terrorist attacks. They’ve clearly been studying Christianity very closely.

          • Little Black Censored

            Sick and abnormal (behaviour); not necessarily evil.

          • Anton

            Many Christian converts from Islam are in physical danger in the UK, such as Nissar Hussain.

          • Pubcrawler

            Not just converts: Pakisatani-origin Christians whose families have been Christian for generations also live in fear.

          • Pubcrawler

            “in the UK no Christian is in danger of being violently attacked or killed for his faith.”

            Yeah?

            http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/terrifying-video-shows-bradford-dad-attacked-by-pickaxe-thugs-for-converting-from-islam-to-christianity-1-7579804

          • Holger

            Another twisted religion exacting revenge on those will not obey its dictates.

            So let me modify my original statement. In the UK no Christian (unless he used to be a Muslim) is in danger of being violently attacked or killed for his faith.

            Are you a former Muslim? No? You’re safe then, aren’t you?

          • Pubcrawler

            My circumstances are irrelevant. Your claim was incorrect. Your modified one is little better.

          • More logic fails. For example, a false equivalency; “[y]ou may not advocate pushing gays off tall buildings, but you validate the homophobia of those who do.”

            Fascists advocated for making trains run on time. Those who bitch about their train being late validate fascism.

          • Inspector General

            What does the phrase 500 over 7 years remind you…

          • Doctor Crackles

            Abortion has never been accepted. Take away the funding and it will die out.

          • Holger

            Well there’s naive and then there’s plain ignorant. I fear you fall into the latter category.

            One of the reasons abortion was legalised was to put a stop to backstreet abortions, which had been happening since the dawn of time and which often resulted in the death or permanent injury of the women undergoing the procedure.

            It’s been estimated that the overall rate of abortion hasn’t changed greatly since its legalisation. We just have better statistics now that the number of abortions is accurately recorded.

            Apparently what you want to do is return to a situation where abortion was swept under the carpet. If you can’t see it, it can’t be happening, eh? And who cares if a few tens of thousands of women die of sepsis or are maimed for life? They’ll deserve it, won’t they, the murderous sluts? Serves them right!

            Conservative Christianity really is showing its true colours today, isn’t it? It insults and defames the gays, hoping to provoke the nearest thug or Muslim into disposing of them. It advocates the return of the backstreet abortionist so that uppity women who dare to want control over their reproductive destiny can also be eliminated.

            Who’s next on your hit list?

          • Doctor Crackles

            Ad hominem, full of assumptions and hair dryer-esque.

            The abortion act never intended to give abortion on demand. You are giving your age away referring to back-street abortions.

            The Gosnell case has revealed to ordinary people the hideous nature of this industry. The tide is turning.

          • Little Black Censored
          • Inspector General

            Transgenderism will split the militant LGBT movement in 2 and both parts will sink together locked in vicious combat.

            The signs are only too apparent. First a ‘Drop the T’ on line campaign, which attracted a few tens of thousands to sign a petition. Followed by a ‘Keep the T’ which attracted not that much more.

            So LGBT is stuck with their mentally ill wing.

            Excellent!

            Oh yes, some pleasing news from Pink Hole….
            —————–
            An all-female group of MPs led by Labour’s Stella Creasy this week attempted to secure reform on the issue, tabling an amendment to the Children and Social Work Bill to make lessons on “sex and relationships education, same-sex relationships, sexual consent, sexual violence, and domestic violence” mandatory in all schools.
            THEY FAILED!
            http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/11/tories-vote-to-block-compulsory-lgbt-inclusive-sex-education-but-promise-reform/
            —————-

          • Interesting, Inspector. Transgenderism is already splitting the radical femist rank and file as well. After all the battles, you going to have dudes in dresses, aka “men without vaginas,” wandering into exclusive ladies’ clubs, demanding to be taken seriously.

          • Inspector General

            All the feminists are slowly lining up against these men in skirts, Avi. It’s just a question of time now. You’ll be hearing of TERFs soon enough (Trans Exclusive Radical Females)

          • As in, “get off my TERF, bee-yatch!”? Is this a common term amng the girls or a unique Inspectorism?

            PS I’m not getting either email or site notifications on new posts. Odd.

          • Inspector General

            Nor is the Inspector, Avi. TERF is queerspeak…

          • Are you watching now Inspector BBC2 transgender Kids: Who Knows Best?

          • Inspector General

            Thanks for that, Marie. Caught it in time, and now it’s on hold. A lot to digest from it. Desperately sad stuff, but one cannot accept it is right because it is not at all natural and everything you need comes from the laboratory and injected daily or courtesy the surgeons knife.

            The Inspector knows what he is talking about. When he was 9, he was sure he was a gastro-intestinal surgeon and sent his CV off to various hospitals. Fortunately, the NHS do not tend to employ child surgeons. Well they do, but there’s only a couple of them…

          • Yes children go through phases of wanting to be other than they are Inspector, for them to be taken seriously and given life changing hormones and surgery is wrong and unethical.

          • Change the record, Linus.

      • David

        Nicely summarised Chief Chef !

      • Martin

        CoS

        I seem to remember drought Tsars causing floods.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          I seem to remember Tsars were given one way tickets to Ekaterinburg…

          • Martin

            Mrs P

            Nearer your time than mine I’m afraid.

      • dannybhoy

        ” to get the whole of humanity to like each other…”
        Love that and of course it is impossible.Even us Christians struggle to like each other, let alone other human beings..

    • Jon of GSG

      That makes me think of C.S. Lewis’ idea that, at some point, there will be a false religion (perhaps he meant The false religion, I can’t remember) which they will call something attractive like “British Christianity”.

  • PessimisticPurple

    “…it is not okay for Catholic schools to be…anti-gay marriage”? Or, to put it another way, it’s not okay for Catholic schools to be Catholic.

  • chefofsinners

    Some interesting analysis of government Tsar appointments here:
    http://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/10/28/government-tsars-need-to-be-accountable-too/

  • wisestreligion

    Casey’s report was initially represented as challenging the PC consensus as it actually admitted there was a problem with Islam, though a blind bat could have told us that.
    However under Liberal Atheism one is only allowed to criticize Islam if one simultaneously takes a swipe at Christianity, which Casey has duly done. Herein is the totalitarian deceit; the Christianity which is at the heart of real British values is decreed to be extremist. The real roots of our culture are to be cut down and bundled up with the evident hostile weed of Islam and to be sacrificially burnt as extremist rubbish in front of the public for their proper education.

    The scale of Muslim immigration allowed by our liberal superiors over the past few decades has presented an impossible challenge. The solution? Establish a new belief system to be imposed on all, and to endow it from the start with the mantle of legitimacy which is the protection of British Values. Sounding authoritative, except most of these values are peculiar to middle class Liberal atheists of our generation.

    So the only sexual standards allowed are those of the generation raised since the invention of sex in 1963. The previous two hundred generations of Western and Judaic civilization can be dismissed as extremist bigots.
    Everything has to be called Equal even if it is not, and can never, be the same. That way we pander to all client minority groups that might self-describe as being underprivileged.

    It is to be hoped that the people do not cotton on to the truth that the new belief system, to which we may be required to take an oath, is just another religion, but more intolerant and …. Dare we say it – more Extreme!

    • michaelkx

      Please sir said the boy
      at the back of the class, “is the beast of revelations alive and
      well , and wearing a dress”.

  • Malcolm Smith

    Perhaps the Catholics (and the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists etc etc) should tell her, in no uncertain terms, that it is “not okay” to say “homophobia” and anti-gay marriage is “not okay.”

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      This will not happen, dear Malcolm. There will be nothing said from Lambeth, and all the others will render common sense unto Caesar. I note Louise Casey carefully avoids the word ‘Muslim’ despite the obvious reference, but is happy to name ‘Catholics’…no specific mention of the C of E as it is a given that it will do as it is told.

      • Debs

        Exactly what I was thinking. The M word is studiously excluded in all these sorts of reports and not until someone has the guts to mention all religions will any of this be addressed.

        I am quite happy to assimilate with any one but you need a level playing field. And as for the idea of swearing an oath of allegiance ,give me a break.If only it was that simple….

    • DERMOTRE

      Lock that man up immediately. You will only say what we permit you to say. (Sarcasm of course). The lowest form of wit but it’s all I have left.

    • I am sick of hearing simpletons wasting opportunities to speak out in defence of conscientious homophobia, whinging instead about semantics, protesting that they are not “homophobic”, when they have golden opportunities to proclaim, from their various platforms, equality for homophobic people, expressing outrage at the attempts to demonise perfectly law-abiding minorities who merely happen to be homophobic, and even to eradicate their entire conscientiously homophobic cultures from the face of the earth, especially when the means of this cultural genocide involves the state coming between children and their homophobic natural parents, as in A v Cornwall (the #GaggedDad case).

      • Inspector General

        Keep this under your hat. The little publicised downside of having HIV, as 1 in 7 gay London men do…
        ———————
        http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/aids-hiv-medication-side-effects#1
        ———————

      • wisestreligion

        Homophobes are in the majority globally, though you would ever guess that from the media. If you tried to take a poll in the UK I doubt you could get reliable answers to “Are you now or have you ever been a homophobe” for fear of the McCarthyite establishment.

  • Mike Stallard

    The gradual shift towards a one party state micromanaged by the unelected staff at No 10 is mirrored on Conservative Home today in a post by Oliver Norgrove.
    http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/01/oliver-norgrove-may-must-not-be-allowed-to-use-brexit-as-cover-to-infringe-on-our-liberties.html

    • David

      You’re right. What May is doing is, in peacetime terms, fundamentally unBritish and hugely unconservative. But perhaps she thinks she is at
      war ?

    • Terry Mushroom
      • Old Nick

        This chap is afraid that press regulation might bankrupt local newspapers by making them pay libel costs. Round here all the local newspapers are owned by the Daily Mirror. Frankly, the sooner they go bankrupt the sooner there will be an opening for someone to produce something that actually informs the public.

        • Terry Mushroom

          Happily see Mirror go to the wall. But paying libel costs applies to the best as well as the worst.

        • Debs

          Ours by the Guardian.

  • Albert

    Everyone is equal, so long as you do what we say.

  • wisestreligion

    Casey shows how our confused contemporary Western culture has inverted the truth in its search for new moralities to fill the void left by the expulsion of Christianity. It is actually homophobia that is normal (phobos = aversion to, not hate) and homosexuality which is aberrant.

    It is interesting that the LGBT lobby, while regarding themselves as part of the enlightened scientific rational new order, are not keen on scientific study of their condition. The results tend not to be “correct”.

    Besides the obvious lack of complementarity and procreativity in same-sex relationships the nature of the relationship in male homosexuality is quite different because of the nature of the male sex drive. Monogamy, which is intrinsic to marriage, is rarely to be found long term in male homosexual relationships. So, throwing monogamy away, how does Cameron claim that his SSM does not change and dilute marriage? The religion of Equality trumps truth.

    As evidence, authors of The Male Couple, psychiatrist David McWhirter and psychologist Andrew Mattison found that only 9% of the male couples in their sample were actually monogamous, but none of the couples with a relationship lasting more than five years were sexually exclusive. McWhirter and Mattison consider monogamy to be a homophobic stage that gay couples pass through and out of; in other words, McWhirter and Mattison consider promiscuity to be definitional to male homosexuality. And, by the way, the authors are both homosexual themselves.

    Meyer and McHugh published their major study Sexuality and Gender a few months ago. They concluded “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence”. Yet the liberal elite show total intolerance to anyone suggesting that homosexuality is acquired and not innate since it weakens their insistence that homosexuality be regarded as normal and that non-Liberal views must be suppressed.

  • Alicia Sinclair

    If only Christians would walk out on ALL State-compliant crap like Street Pastors, Family Counselling, Green Transition stuff-indeed ANY forum where the thick, liberal church have let the State use them for free childminding and to bless their fetid provision.
    The rainwater tax began this-as soon as the Church cares more about its Thought For The Day slot that The Gospel as left to them-then it deserves to die. The likes of Casey are freeeloading empty headed creatures of convenience and impeccable liberal idiocies. The Church sure as hell have taught her nothing. Look at what they offer those of us who go every week to listen to the likes of Glasgows Provost, or John Bells Iona Community types.
    This church who lets the likes of Casey force them to bake gay cakes, removes crosses from the hospital chapel is incapable of being improved-some it is being removed instead.
    Jesus is going nowhere-but his church has already gone to hell.

    • You are conflating different meanings of the word “church”, Alicia, with shocking effects.

  • chefofsinners

    No doubt Louise Casey will be equally exercised about our British Value of democracy. She will be keen to ensure that all schools are working hard to counteract those influences which would try to subvert the will of the people as expressed in the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit referendum, the election of Jeremy Corbyn and the Scottish independence referendum.