jacob rees-mogg bigot
Politicians

If a bigot can’t be PM, why should one be allowed to become an MP?

Jacob Rees-Mogg walks into a TV studio. Grand Inquisitor Piers Torquemorgan has wheeled out his rack; his beatific assistant Susanna Reid has greased up the Judas cradle. Heresy is not merely suspected, but presumed. The heretic must be exposed; his abhorrent views combatted, for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.

Reid: What are your views on same-sex marriage? Is that something you support?

Rees-Mogg: I’m a Catholic, and I take the teaching of the Catholic Church seriously…

Reid: There are plenty of Catholics who support same-sex marriage.

Rees-Mogg: …both faith and morals. But marriage is a sacrament, and the decision of what is a sacrament lies with the Church, not with Parliament.

Reid: Okay, does that mean that you oppose same-sex marriage?

Rees-Mogg: I support the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Reid: And can I just establish, do you oppose same-sex…

Rees-Mogg: I support the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Torquemorgan: But that means you oppose – I mean, I’m a Catholic, and I actually don’t agree with the Catholic Church…

Rees-Mogg: Well that’s fair enough…

Torquemorgan: But you do?

Rees-Mogg: I support the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Reid:: Do you oppose same sex marriage?

Torquemorgan: Why are you afraid to say you oppose it?

Rees-Mogg: The teaching of the Catholic Church is completely clear. But it’s…

Reid: You voted against it, didn’t you?

Rees-Mogg: I did. The marriage issue is the important thing. This is not how people arrange their lives; it’s that marriage is a sacrament, and a sacrament is under the authority of the Church, not of the State. This is exactly that Thomas More made in opposition to the marriage of Henry VIII and Ann Boleyn.

Reid: So religion plays a big part in your politics, it seems. Do you think that gay sex is a sin?

Rees-Mogg: Um… again… on the issue of sin, it is quite clearly under the teaching of the Church not for me to judge. I very strongly feel that I should not judge what other people do. If you think – if you want to be religious this early in the morning – if you look at the woman taken in adultery, what does Christ say? That he who is without sin cast the first stone. It is not for me to cast stones.

Torquemorgan: So you’ve just hidden – not hidden – but used…

Rees-Mogg: No, I haven’t…

Torquemorgan: No, I’m going to re-phrase that. You have used your Catholic belief to rather than say you oppose same-sex marriage, to say you support the Catholic Church’s teaching. The Catholic Church…

Rees-Mogg: Well…

Torquemorgan: The Catholic Church believes that gay sex is a sin, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask you, as indeed Tim Farron was asked, and it caused him a lot of damage, just a straight question, whether you think it’s a sin.

Rees-Mogg: I think I’ve answered the straight question, that is that the teaching of the Church in matters of faith and morals is authoritative, but it is equally within the teaching of the Church that it is not for me to judge others.

Reid: Okay, so if you were Prime Minister…

Rees-Mogg: Hold on just a moment…

Reid: …would the teachings of the Church take precedence over your political views?

Rees-Mogg: These matters within the House of Commons are free votes: they’re not party votes; they’re not an issue of party politics. Um, so…

Reid: But you are being tipped as someone who would lead a party…

Rees-Mogg: No, no, no…

Reid: …and potentially become Prime Minister…

Rees-Mogg: But, but, but…

Reid: …of a multi-faith country.

Rees-Mogg: Hold on, hold on… None of these issues are party political. They are issues that are decided by Parliament on free votes. They are not determined by the Prime Minister. There’s no question of any of these laws being changed: there would not be a majority in the House of Commons for that. But why I emphasise the teaching of the Church is that I want to make it clear that I am supporting something, not opposing something. That is to say…

Torquemorgan: Same thing though, isn’t it?

Rees-Mogg: No, no, it’s not actually. It’s subtly different. I don’t want to criticise people who lead lives that are different to mine. But equally I don’t want to divert from the historic teaching of the Catholic Church…

Reid: Okay…

Rees-Mogg: …so if I were, say, to oppose, I would be inadvertently condemning people, and I don’t…

Torquemorgan: So what is your view on abortion?

Rees-Mogg: I’m completely opposed to abortion. Life begins at the point of conception…

Torquemorgan: So why are you prepared to say you’re opposed to abortion but not opposed to same-sex marriage?

Rees-Mogg: Because it’s a completely different kettle of fish. That with…

Torquemorgan: It’s a Catholic teaching.

Rees-Mogg: No, we – no, hold on, it’s a different kettle of fish, that with same-sex marriage, that is something that people are doing for themselves. With abortion, it is something that is done to the unborn child, and therefore it is different.

Reid: Are you completely opposed to abortion in all circumstances?

Rees-Mogg: Um… yes, I am.

Torquemorgan: Rape and incest?

Reid: Sexual violence?

Rees-Mogg: I’m afraid so. Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception, and I think it is wrong…

Torquemorgan: So if a woman is raped – say you were prime minister, and a woman is raped by a family member, right, you would say she had absolutely no right to have that baby aborted?

Rees-Mogg: No, she would have a right under UK law.

Torquemorgan: But you wouldn’t agree with that right?

Rees-Mogg: But that law is not going to change.

Torquemorgan: But what’s your personal opinion?

Rees-Mogg: My personal opinion is that life begins at the point of conception, and that abortion is morally indefensible.

Torquemorgan: You would make her have that baby?

Rees-Mogg: Well, I wouldn’t, because that wouldn’t be the law of the land.

Torquemorgan: I understand that, but…

Rees-Mogg: But this is very important. No, no, this is really important

Torquemorgan: But you know that Tim Farron, for example, it basically depth-charged his leadership campaign, when he became leader, almost immediately, because he was challenged on his religious beliefs and people didn’t like it.

Rees-Mogg: Well, he’s a Liberal Democrat, and the LibDems have a very different tolerance. It’s what we were discussing earlier, oddly the Conservative Party is much more tolerant of religious faith than the LibDems are. The LibDems pretend that they’re liberal but they could not cope with having a Christian as their leader. I think the Conservatives are much more tolerant of religious faith, and so they should be. It’s all very well to say we live in a multicultural country – until you’re a Christian, until you hold the traditional views of the Catholic Church, and that seems to me to be fundamentally wrong. People are entitled to hold these views, but also the democratic majority is entitled to have the laws of the land as they are, which do not go with the teaching of the Catholic Church, and will not go with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Reid: Unfortunately there we must leave it, but it’s fascinating getting to know you, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Torquemorgan: You’re going to get a lot more of this now.

Rees-Mogg: I thought we were going to talk about Brexit, but there we go.

Torquemorgan: You know what, come back. Let’s talk again about Brexit. You’ve become now a fascinating political figure in this country, and you are going to get challenged on a lot on your personal views, and it’s interesting to hear them.

Rees-Mogg: I am very happy to be challenged on my views, and to be a loyal son of the Catholic Church, a loyal Conservative, and a loyal subject of Her Majesty.

Cue outrage, indignation and the wrath of enlightened liberals everywhere: bigot, bigot bigot…. “Rees-Mogg’s religious faith is used to excuse his appalling bigotry. He is a Catholic and this kind of fundamentalism is always anti-women, but for some reason we are to respect it. I don’t. It has no place in public life,” writes Suzanne Moore in the Guardian. In a different context and speaking of someone else (though the censorious parameters would doubtless extend to include Jacob Rees-Mogg’s views), Owen Jones writes in the, um… Guardian:

He should remain free to express them wherever he chooses: in his home, in a pub, standing on a soapbox in the street, distributing his own vile leaflets. That does not mean he should be granted a platform by broadcasters to disseminate his harmful bile. Being provided with a platform is not the same thing as free speech, however much it is falsely and disingenuously portrayed as such. If someone refuses to lend you a megaphone, they are not infringing your right to say what you believe: they are simply not offering you their own resources to amplify your views to a broader audience. The millions of people who never appear on TV or radio and are never provided with newspaper space to promote their views are not having their right to free speech undermined or attacked.

The left is waging war on free speech, screeches the populist right on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet its interpretation of free speech is: “The right to say whatever I like about minorities without facing any challenge.” Any criticism of their expressed prejudices is treated somehow as an attack on their free speech. Like oppressors throughout history, they portray themselves as the ones who are really oppressed: they are free speech martyrs, besieged by an intolerant leftwing rabble.

The one freedom they seem to truly care about is the freedom to incite bigotry; this freedom trumps the freedom of minorities to live unencumbered by prejudice, threats to personal safety, and discrimination. Words do indeed have consequences. The vilification of immigrants in the EU referendum led Britain’s small minority of abusive bigots to believe they had been legitimised and now had a mandate: hate crimes soared on Britain’s streets as a result.

Bigot, bigot, bigot…

The man must never become leader of the Conservative Party, let alone Prime Minister.

Bigot, bigot, bigot…

His views are abhorrent, medieval, prejudiced, anti-women, anti-equality…

Bigot, bigot, bigot…

anti-gay-marriage, anti-abortion, anti-climate-change, anti-immigration…

Bigot, bigot, bigot…

…backwards, fascist, hater, nasty, right-wing…

Bigot, bigot, bigot…

There’s no plausible defence, because there’s no intellectual nuance. Oh, you can try: “Mogg is a Catholic,” writes fellow Roman Catholic Freddie Gray in the Speccie. “He thinks marriage is a sacramental institution for the union of men and women. This may be hard for many gays to accept but it is not automatically homophobic.”

Oh, but it is! It is!

Don’t you see? If you oppose same sex marriage, you’re a homophobic bigot. If you oppose abortion, you’re a misogynistic bigot. If you oppose uncontrolled immigration, you’re a racist bigot. If you’re concerned about what Muslims get taught in Wahhabi-funded mosques, you’re an Islamophobic bigot. If you support Brexit, you’re a xenophobic bigot.

Bigot, bigot, bigot…

It has become the cry of the secular sharia: the infallible law of the illiberal liberals who seek to crush all dissent and censor every utterance of Christian orthodoxy from the public sphere. It is designed to silence dissonance: there is simply no debate to be had if it might incite hate or hurt feelings. The only views which are worthy of broadcast airtime are those which don’t offend against the zeitgeist: the objective is to elevate sexual equality and human rights to suppress unaccommodating religious orthodoxy and oppress the recalcitrant religious conscience. “Socially conservative moral views are now teetering on the edge of criminality,” observed Charles Moore a few years ago. It has become unthinkable that a committed Christian (ie one of devout faith and orthodox morals) could ever again become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

And soon, no doubt, it will not be possible for one to be selected even as a Conservative Party candidate. All MPs and everyone in public life will be sifted by the emerging new Test Act and required to assent to the precepts of the new secular sharia, swearing fidelity to its immutable creed of sexual uniformity and gender equality. This is the new quasi-religious truth: heretics will not be tolerated. So, sadly, Jacob Rees-Mogg must ultimately go to the stake.

God bless him, along with all loyal and faithful Christian bigots everywhere.

  • dannybhoy

    Well said Jacob Rees-Mogg, and he makes a point that devout Christians of every background seem not to have clearly made…
    “It’s all very well to say we live in a multicultural country – until you’re a Christian, until you hold the traditional views of the Catholic Church, and that seems to me to be fundamentally wrong. People are entitled to hold these views, but also the democratic majority is entitled to have the laws of the land as they are, which do not go with the teaching of the Catholic Church, and will not go with the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
    That’s where we all should stand;
    ‘According to the teachings of our faith these things are wrong and harmful to society, and we condemn them. But as citizens we accept that the laws of the land allow it.’

    • bosco49

      Mark me. The real knife-in-the-back will be delivered soon by the media-mad ‘merciful’ Iscariots of JRM’s own Catholic Church.

      JRM is heroic. His will be what true Catholics refer to as a ‘dry martyrdom’.

      • Cressida de Nova

        How restrained of you – I could think of stronger terms for heretics posing as Catholics. 🙂 JRM is inspiring,I agree. He should have the respect and admiration of genuine Catholics. I don’t think I will ever become accustomed to the number of enemies of the Church flourishing in our ranks bent on division and destruction.

        • bosco49

          “Be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if tell Thee that ten should be found there ? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” Genesis 18:32

    • Dr John Lockley

      It’s good to have in JR-M someone who will stand up for established Christian beliefs and take on the (il)liberal left head-on.
      I find it fascinating how we have political correctness preached at us constantly by secularists – yet that same political correctness doesn’t seem to extend to the upper class, to the well-off, or to practising Christians. Hardly equality-driven, is it?
      What is perhaps even worse is that Christians are increasingly being told that they are not fit for public office by virtue of their beliefs – but are then immediately criticised as hypocrites when non-Christians think they are deviating from Christian values in other areas of life. Society simply can’t have it both ways: it can’t choose to approve convenient bits of Christianity when it feels like it, but then reject the rest out of hand.

      • Cressida de Nova

        I think Christians must come to terms with the fact that a war is being waged against them and has been for some time now. Society can have it as many ways as they want depending on who is running the show and Christians are not in the box seats.
        Solutions…we should be searching for them before things get even worse.Prayer + decisive action.

        • dannybhoy

          Prayer is essential and so is action. It is a spiritual war being fought in the physical realm. We need to spend time in the presence of God both alone and in unity with other believers.

      • dannybhoy

        “Society simply can’t have it both ways: it can’t choose to approve convenient bits of Christianity when it feels like it, but then reject the rest out of hand.”
        Oh but they can!
        “18 ‘If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If you belonged to the world,[a] the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world—therefore the world hates you”
        John 15:18-25 (NRSVACE)
        Those who are anti Christian as opposed to non Christian are determined to reject God and His rule, Jesus and His gospel. I think our nation is currently reaping what it has been sowing, and hostility towards Christians will definitely grow.

  • saintmark

    “I thought we were going to talk about Brexit, but there we go.” an important lesson learnt, no doubt

    • Albert

      Yes. Liberal fundamentalists decided JRM is just a little too popular, so they had to go for him. Apparently his honesty and integrity is a disability from public office. It is marvellous to see him tweet the interview and the line …Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. in response.

      • Cressida de Nova

        He is an inspiration.I admire him for having the courage of his convictions. Politicians with integrity are a rarity. God bless him.

        • dannybhoy

          I also admire him for the same reasons. Whether or not he would make a great leader or PM I have no idea. I thought Theresa was going to shine and look at the shoewreck she has made of her political leadership… ;0)

        • Cressida de Nova

          I retract the above statement. I have just been informed that JRM has publicly announced that he would attend a gay wedding if he were invited to one. Just another creepy politician after all without an ounce of integrity. Extremely disappointing.

  • Albert

    We have to face facts: liberalism is rapidly becoming a kind of fundamentalism.

    The truth is however, that if one takes, probably the most controversial view expressed here: no abortion in the cases of rape, JRM simply follows the principles everyone holds to their logical conclusion. How precisely is it liberal to support the innocent child being killed for the guilty father? To develop this, how is it liberal for a pregnancy to be terminated because the child is female, will be gay (if that could be established), will be disabled has a Jewish father etc.?

    The saying “There’s none so illiberal as a liberal,” doesn’t just apply to the intolerance of liberals, but to the opinions they express too.

    • CliveM

      Albert

      We are all bigots now.

    • Linus

      It’s liberal to allow a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because she is a sovereign individual and sovereign individuals are judged to have the right to self-determination in a liberal society. An embryo is not a sovereign individual. It’s an insensate clump of cells that depends on the body of the woman carrying it for life.

      When a foetus becomes capable of independent life then it becomes a sovereign individual and gains the right not to be terminated. But until this point, it is judged to be a part another sovereign individual’s body and therefore falls under her sovereignty.

      You can’t outlaw abortion without stripping women of the right to exercise sovereignty over their own bodies. And this is something a liberal society will never agree to.

      An interesting development in one of the most liberal of Western societies could see abortion removed from criminal jurisdiction altogether in New Zealand. The popular Labour politician Jacinda Ardern, who may be that country’s next prime minister, supports a policy of total decriminalisation of abortion, ie. abortion on demand for any reason as a basic human right. So if she is elected, and Rees-Mogg defies all likelihood to form a government in the UK and promptly outlaws abortion, British women who can scrape together the price of a ticket to the South Pacific will still have options.

      • Chefofsinners

        And by the same logic you are a very slightly less insensate clump of cells, sustained by society, the earth and the sun. Whence cometh your right to sovereign individuality? Why should it be a crime to terminate you?

        • Linus

          Poor deluded Pixtians, always looking for absolute moral dictates. You all have an authority fetish, don’t you? “Dominate me, o All-Powerful Sky Pixie!” should be your basic prayer.

          My sovereign rights are the result of human consensus, not the arbitrary dictates of a fictional sky pixie. Modern Western humans have decided that personal sovereignty is a basic right around which our societies should be ordered. We have also decided that it should be a crime to murder sovereign individuals. No sky pixie delivered these laws from on high. We worked them out for ourselves. As social animals we need to follow basic rules in order to live together in relative harmony. The rules we choose to live by are those that have been tried, tested and found to balance the needs of society against the needs of the individual. What other rules can there be? Pixie commands written on tablets of stone?

          So,where are these tablets of stone, then? And where’s your proof a pixie carved laws onto them?

          • Chefofsinners

            Ah yes, human consensus. So every time a swing voter changes their mind, your morals change. 50 years ago it was therefore right for homosexuals to be sent to prison.
            Morals written on tablets of sand. There was a parable about that. Two builders. You may remember.

          • Linus

            Perhaps you don’t know what the word “consensus” means. It doesn’t mean a majority of one vote. It means a general agreement supported by all or virtually all.

            50 years ago sending gays to prison was just as much a violation of personal sovereignty as it would be today. Society had by that stage adopted the principle of respect for personal sovereignty as a fundamental value, but hadn’t yet worked through all of the consequences. Now it has, which is why anti-gay laws had to fall. There was no justification for them.

            Our society’s values are not built on sand but rather on a very solid foundation of personal sovereignty. Pixtians on the other hand change their minds all the time. First marriage is forever, then divorce is OK. Women used to be subject to their husbands, now they’re equal. The priesthood was a male preserve, now women can join. Slavery used to be perfectly acceptable, now it’s forbidden. The list of Christian about-turns is endless, which is hardly surprising when the sand your faith is built on shifts so often. Of course the cracks start to appear.

          • Chefofsinners

            Laws in a democracy stand or fall on a majority of one. Consensus doesn’t come into it.
            Your ‘very solid foundation’ of personal sovereignty is under attack everywhere you look. If you’re young or old or disabled or Christian, your views count for less.
            But Christian values have not changed – each individual is still of infinite value in the eyes of God. This is why JRM was referred to in the Commons this afternoon as ‘the honourable member for the 18th Century’. Divorce is not OK, all Christians have always been priests, slavery was abolished by Christians. Christ is unchanging, but anyone can see that society’s morals are ever shifting. That queasy feeling is motion sickness.

          • Martin

            Linus

            Don’t be silly, how can everyone have ‘personal sovereignty’. From the cradle to the grave we are all subject to the opinions and whims of others.

            Your problem is that you don’t understand that while men’s opinions may change, the facts remain unchanged.
            Woman was created to be the helper, not the leader.
            There is but one priest, the man Christ Jesus.
            Slavery was never acceptable.
            Sex is for a man and a woman within marriage

            You mistake human opinion for the truth.

          • writhledshrimp

            Linus, being poor in spirit, is therefore blessed. I for one rejoice in that and hope to see him in heaven.

          • Martin

            He’ll only be blessed if God decides to save him, just like the rest of mankind

          • DespiteBrexit

            “Human consensus”. So, basically, what works. No, not even that, the prevailing zeitgeist. And you really think that makes a superior basis for telling everyone what they are allowed to think?!

            Strewth …

      • DespiteBrexit

        I wish someone had aborted you.

        • Linus

          There speaks a true Pixtian.

          • DespiteBrexit

            Doesn’t feel good, does it? Yet you think that a sentient creature just like you should be murdered for the convenience of the mother. One that had no say about being given life and is innocent of all wrong.

          • Linus

            Embryos are sentient, are they?

            Some pretty ignorant comments are routinely made on this site, but that one has to rate as one of the most absurd I’ve ever heard.

          • DespiteBrexit

            I didn’t use the word “embryos”. I was actually referring to the fact that you are sentient now. Back to school for remedial reading lessons for you.
            Abortions do most certainly happen at a stage when even the most head-banging of pro-death advocates cannot claim that the baby is unaware. And, although there is some consensus that pain is not felt much before the 24-week mark, there is also some evidence that it could be felt sooner; it is not certain. However, even this misses the point. An ability to detect external stimuli is not the same as sentience. Given that we don’t even begin to understand the fundamental nature of consciousness, we cannot possibly be sure at what stage a baby becomes sentient.
            If you want to advocate the right of a woman to suck the brains out of and rip the limbs off another human being to maintain her lifestyle, then knock yourself out. Just don’t expect everyone else to regard that as a mark of civilisation.

          • Linus

            I advocate for the right of women to make up their own minds about whether they want to continue with a pregnancy or not. The decision is theirs and theirs alone. Their bodies, their call.

            There is no chance that a tiny minority of fundamentalist Pixtians will be able to overturn abortion laws that are broadly supported by a large majority. So scream about it all you like – it won’t make any difference – except to harden peoples attitudes against Pixtians and their bigoted, hate-filled, illiberal attitudes.

          • DespiteBrexit

            God, I feel really sorry for you. I must be dreadful having such a shriven, hate-filled, barren, narrow-minded soul.

          • Linus

            Looking in a mirror, are you? Not surprised you hate what you see.

            I can flee from you. You can’t flee from yourself.

          • DespiteBrexit

            Yet you choose not to flee. Obviously I have an irresistible fascination.

          • Albert

            The decision is theirs and theirs alone. Their bodies, their call.

            But the abortion isn’t carried out on the woman is it? Therefore, the “My body, my choice” argument spectacularly backfires and becomes and argument against abortion.

          • Linus

            Yes, the abortion is carried out on the woman. An insensate clump of cells is removed from her uterus.

          • Albert

            Is the foetus of say 37 weeks an insensate clumps of cells? And do those cells have the same DNA as the mother?

          • Linus

            No, a foetus of 37 weeks is sensate. This is why 24 weeks of gestation is the usual limit for abortions in the UK. Only in cases where a choice has to be made between the life of the foetus and the woman bearing it is abortion allowed after this point. The woman gets to choose who survives. It’s her life, so it’s her choice.

            And yes, every cell in the foetus’s body carries the DNA of the woman who is bearing it. Unless she’s a surrogate, of course.

          • Albert

            Are you in favour of abortions where the foetus is sensate?

          • Linus

            I am in favour of no abortions. Neither am I against them. Abortion is not my issue to be in favour of or against. I’m not a woman, nor will I ever be a father. I will never have to voice an opinion about whether a woman should or shouldn’t terminate her pregnancy.

            What I do support is a woman’s right to make up her own mind about her own reproduction. It’s her body, she’s a sovereign individual, so it makes sense to me that what goes on inside that sovereign body should be under her sovereign control.

            In that sense, were there ever to be a referendum on the subject of abortion, I would vote for the option that guaranteed women the fullest control over their own reproductive destiny.

          • Albert

            If the argument is of the “I’m not in the position of X, therefore, I cannot comment on X” then it would still follow that abortion is wrong, because no one is in the position of the foetus, nor will they be.

          • Linus

            The argument is “women have the final say over what happens to their bodies”, so it isn’t up to you to tell them what they’re obliged to do.

            Where do you get off dictating to women what they have to do in order to comply with your moral code and conscience? If a woman does not want to be pregnant, it is her absolute sovereign right to take the steps necessary to terminate a pregnancy. Neither you nor a spotty, dorky Conservative politician can stop her.

            Long before the introduction of modern abortion laws, women were terminating unwanted pregnancies by whatever means open to them, often putting themselves at considerable risk and sustaining life threatening injuries as a result. Abortion won’t disappear if the likes of you and Jacob Rees-Mogg succeed in pulling off a coup d’état and reducing women to the status of serfs who are bound to obey the will of their fathers, husbands and priests. It will merely be driven underground. Which will probably be enough for you, because what bothers you isn’t abortion itself, it’s the fact that the law allows women to make their own decisions against your will. That’s the crux of this issue for you: control.

            Well as things stand, you have no control. Learn to deal with it. You have little choice.

          • Albert

            The argument is “women have the final say over what happens to their bodies”, so it isn’t up to you to tell them what they’re obliged to do.

            That argument must be established, and it can be established on an prior principle, namely, the sovereignty of the body. But as the abortion is not carried out on the woman (since she is not aborted and what is has different DNA from her), the argument fails to defend abortion and actually opposes it. So it isn’t up to you to give a woman the right to kill the foetus and it is contradictory for you to do so on these grounds.

          • Linus

            Only sovereign individuals enjoy personal sovereignty. A foetus that is not sufficiently developed to be viable outside the womb is not a sovereign individual. It has no identity and no ability to make its own choices. It is an adjunct of the body of the woman who carries it until such time as it is capable of independent life. Until that time, it falls under the personal sovereignty of the woman on whose body it depends and she gets to make all decisions relative to its continuing development. This is only fair. It’s her body, so it’s her call.

            Our legal systems recognise this fact by not according personhood to the foetus. Rail against this fact all you like, but women have the final say over whether their pregnancies continue or not. Foetuses are not people and therefore have no rights. You are a person and have rights over your own body. But you have no right to tell women what to do with theirs. The fact that you want to marks you out as a bully and a control freak who wants to dominate others and force them to conform to your moral standards.

            The “pro-life” movement are nothing but patriarchal fascists. Personal sovereignty isn’t enough for you. You want sovereignty over everyone else too.

          • Albert

            Only sovereign individuals enjoy personal sovereignty. A foetus that is not sufficiently developed to be viable outside the womb is not a sovereign individual.

            So actually it seems we are partly agreed. The issue is not whether a woman has such rights as to take the life of her unborn child as such. Rather our disagreement is that you deny that it is an unborn child.

            The difficulty with your position (as far as I have read) is that it seems like a set of discriminatory positions, arbitrarily imposed to excuse the abortion.

        • Pubcrawler

          Now really, there’s no need for that.

      • Albert

        she is a sovereign individual and sovereign individuals are judged to have the right to self-determination in a liberal society. An embryo is not a sovereign individual. It’s an insensate clump of cells

        But a new born baby is not a sovereign individual, and, whatever the foetus is, it is not just a insensate clumps of cells.

        • Linus

          A new born baby is indeed a sovereign individual, however the law places the exercise of that sovereignty in the hands of its parents. And a foetus most certainly is insensate until it develops physical means of sensing and reacting to stimuli.

          • Little Black Censored

            You are making up the rules as you go along.

          • Albert

            A new born baby is indeed a sovereign individual

            What do you mean by “sovereign” and why?

            however the law places the exercise of that sovereignty in the hands of its parents

            The law does not place the child there. The law is not prior here. The law simply prevents the natural state from being interfered with – within limits of course. Parents cannot kill their babies.

          • Linus

            Parents can and do kill their babies. If you think that’s impossible then you’re even more deluded than I thought.

            Sovereignty is the recognition of each individual’s right to self-determination. Every adult individual in our society enjoys that right. In the case of children, their sovereignty is exercised by their parents until they attain their majority.

            The law can’t “place” anyone anywhere. The law is not a sentient individual and therefore cannot act or “do” anything. The law is merely an agreement between members of a society to act in certain ways in certain circumstances.

            Our mode of reproduction involves mixing the genes of two individuals who are then deemed to bear common responsibility for their offspring. This sometimes takes place in the context of a pair-bonded relationship and the pregnancy is planned and wanted. Sometimes however, reproduction is the result of a sexual encounter between two unbonded individuals and the pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted.

            In both cases it falls within the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman to decide whether she wants to have a baby or not. This decision may or may not involve discussion with the man whose sperm has caused the pregnancy depending on the type of relationship they have. The man’s opinion may influence the pregnant woman’s decision, but barring a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, it’s ultimately up to her whether the pregnancy proceeds or not. It’s her body, so it’s her call.

            If she does decide to proceed with the pregnancy, when the baby is born, society deems it to be her responsibility to look after. As it has issued from her body, the child is considered to belong to her. The child’s father will be deemed to have some form of responsibility also, although exactly how much depends on a variety of factors. If he’s living in a pair-bonded relationship with the mother, he’ll generally be accorded full and equal parental rights with her. If not, some limitations may be placed on his parental rights to take into account the nature of his relationship with the mother and/or his desire to exercise parental authority over the child.

            If the father is on cordial terms with the mother and wants to exercise parental authority over the child, he’ll generally be given greater rights than if he’s in conflict with the mother and/or doesn’t want to exercise parental authority over the child. As society deems the primary care-giver in cases of dispute to be the woman who bore the child, when agreement can’t be reached amicably between her and the child’s father over how involved the father will be in the child’s upbringing, society in the form of a court of law will intervene and impose a settlement which may restrict the father’s parental rights in what the court considers to be the child’s best interests. Although this may be seen as a violation of the father’s personal sovereignty, the individual most affected by parental conflict is the child, therefore the child’s needs must be prioritised, it being a basic principle of personal sovereignty that an individual’s right to do what he likes can be restrained when it causes harm to others.

            All this to say that whoever exercises a child’s personal sovereignty during its minority, it must be exercised with the child’s best interests in mind. Some aspects of the exercise of that sovereignty may therefore be restricted, eg. a child’s parents (or guardians) are not allowed to brutalise or neglect it. They are also not allowed to kill it, although if the child is suffering from an incurable and agonising disease they may, in humane societies and with the agreement of trained medical professionals, hasten its death in a humane manner in order to spare it unnecessary suffering. But these are exceptional circumstances. The usual responsibility of parents is to prepare a child to exercise its own sovereignty when the time comes. This is how our species deals with integrating new members into society, just as other species opt for communal upbringing or even abandonment according to the specific requirements of the environmental niches they inhabit.

            Children are usually raised by their parents because that’s who we are. And we are who we are because that’s how we’ve evolved. Sky Pixies are a strange by-product of that evolutionary process, the complex intelligence we’ve developed giving us fertile imaginations and an ability to visualise things that don’t exist. When we realise that what we imagine isn’t real, we use our intelligence in a healthy and beneficial way. When we let ourselves be deluded into thinking that our fantasies are real, we misuse our intelligence in an unhealthy and harmful way. Religion is just that: an unhealthy and harmful misuse of the imagination. As we evolve further I think we’ll leave it behind. And it won’t be a moment too soon.

          • Albert

            Parents can and do kill their babies. If you think that’s impossible then you’re even more deluded than I thought.

            Obviously, I meant legally.

          • Linus

            Learn to be a little more precise in your language then. I’m so used to hearing outrageously deluded statements from you that even the unlikeliest interpretations of your poorly worded claims become possible.

            If this is how you explain your faith to your flock no wonder they’re so confused.

          • Albert

            Learn to be a little more precise in your language then.

            The meaning of most communication is in the context. You had this:

            however the law places the exercise of that sovereignty in the hands of its parents.

            Obviously, then, my reply is in the context of the law.

            I’m not reading anything further of your post.

          • Linus

            You say you don’t read my posts but I know you do. But go ahead and lie about it. And then beg for forgiveness from your Sky Pixie. Or not, probably. You can never sin can you? Sin is just for others.

            This blog is the atheist’s best ally. With Pixtians like you showing the world who you really are, you bring your religion into far more disrepute than I could ever do.

            No wonder baptisms, marriages and funerals in church have fallen by 50% over the past 12 years. That’s a French statistic, but I’ll wager the figures are broadly similar in England. When people see who Pixtians are, they flee from you and your miserable little Sky Pixie. Your church is doomed.

          • Albert

            You say you don’t read my posts but I know you do.

            I think you’re a narcissist to be honest. That’s why you think I pay attention to what you say.

          • Linus

            Honest? There isn’t an honest bone in your body. You’re a pathological liar. That’s why being a priest is your ideal job.

          • Albert

            It is hilarious what you think you know about me.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Quelle surprise Albert ! Bless me Father…LOL !

          • Linus

            Not as hilarious as what you think you know about yourself.

            I’d tell you you weren’t the navel of the universe if there was the slightest chance you could understand me. But lost as you are in the narcissistic worship of your own idealised reflection, there’s little chance you will.

      • Little Black Censored

        Abortion kills; if it doesn’t, then it has failed, and the human being who was supposed to have been destroyed goes on living and takes its place in society. Reductionist language like “insensate clump of cells” is designed to avoid speaking the truth.

      • alternative_perspective

        I personally don’t accept that concept of sovereign individuals in the way you argue.
        Firstly the idea that we exist as totally autonomous beings is simply untrue. We didn’t bring ourselves into being, nor did we nurture or develop ourselves. We were educated by others, others fed and cared for us until we became of age and even then our continued existence is as part of a community.
        This brings us to the second half of this argument. Sovereignty is relative. North Korea is the most sovereign nation on Earth but we certainly do not hold this up as a model for national identity and action. We all exist to one degree or another in a system of interdependencies where we “pool” to use a pro-EU euphemism, our sovereignties.
        Our incomes are dependent on our employers, on our employees and the market to which we sell or serve. Our mental health is dependant on friendship and human interactions, our nourishment on the provision of food by an entire supply chain and when we fly from a-to-b we radically submit our autonomies to the authority of the airline and pilot.
        In short personal autonomy and sovereignty is relative and context dependant, it certainly is not absolute; as such the extents of personal autonomy are culturally agreed and therefore in a permanent state of flux and open to debate.
        There is therefore no good reason for assuming a woman has some inalienable right to absolute autonomy over her body or that the human, with distinct DNA, growing within her has none until 24 weeks. That is merely the current settlement.
        It is my personal belief that in generations to come, when society has suffered a fertility crisis; matured further and better understands both our interconnectedness and dependence; a mood change will sweep across the public and abortion will come to be looked on with similar horror to how we view the Nazi treatment of “inferior” beings and the eugenics movement today. I genuinely believe that in two hundred years time the very concept of abortion will be abhorrent and people who promoted it as a “human right” will be seen as monsters.
        Our current civilization will be considered primitive, base and cruel because society was so callous and self-obsessed that it promoted sexuality over humanity. That life was reduced to a commodity, an inconvenient bi-product sexual liberty and that women felt they had no option but to abort a child.
        The nations will look back at its collective history and hang their heads in shame. Great, great grandchildren will quietly talk about their forebears who had an abortion or who promoted it as a right as though the were talking about slave owners, Nazis or white supremacists.

    • chiaramonti

      Note how the abortionists always choose the least common reason for abortion to vent their fury rather than addressing the tens of thousands that take place every year for no reason other than mere inconvenience. Is there anything in this world more unjust than the fact that the prospect of a potential human being surviving until birth should depend on the “choice”of another. You survive – you don’t! So a potential Royal offspring is a child in the womb; another is a mere clump of cells! Let Channel 4 show the actual abortion of a 20 week foetus and see how the public reacts. It will never happen, of course. Bringing home the reality of abortion might disturb their sanitised ideas.

      • Little Black Censored

        “You survive – you don’t!”
        Just like the good old “selections” by the Germans.

        • Albert

          Yes, this is why abortion is actually anything but liberal.

      • wisestreligion

        I have looked for the percentage of abortions that are the consequence of rape and I cannot find such figures, which is interesting in itself. Abortion enthusiasts who rush to discuss the rape scenario are implicitly admitting the weakness of their case for the 99%.
        They try to make the argument about un-raping the victim: abortion will ameliorate the crime. In truth the compounding of one crime with another, against an innocent baby, perpetrated by the woman herself can lead to further long term psychological harm, while the birth of a baby can provide healing. That does not fit in with the liberal agenda, however, so it is ignored.

        • chiaramonti

          That’s because it is so low that is does not signify in the statistics.

  • ‘Secular sharia’… I like it.

    Any other biting phrases like this?

    • John

      George Orwell has taken most of them as he was the first to see it coming; newspeak, thought police, big brother…

    • John

      “The SS” is a handy abbreviation.

  • IanCad

    God bless him indeed!! A man not at all backward in declaring his principles, and also making it quite clear society is far safer under the rule of a tolerant Conservative administration. Truly, the statists are just one loudmouth away from persecuting those who don’t share their inquisitorial mindset.
    I do think though, he was foolish in emphasising his catholicity. Fine for him at the start, to state his denominational affiliation but he should then have dropped the word “Catholic” and used “Christian” instead. It would at least have eased the concerns of the militant Prods.

    • dannybhoy

      Hm.
      Perhaps.
      If there were enough of them to worry about upsetting….
      ;0)
      I think our God in the implementation of His divine plan for this world, is doing a new thing among us Christians.
      I think He is encouraging us to respect each other’s devotion to Him, even if we disagree, He is encouraging us to express encouragement and recognition of the good and right things that we do in His name; and He wants us to actively work together in solidarity where we can.
      It doesn’t mean we abandon our doctrinal differences, but it does mean we start getting to know and learn to love each other as redeemed sinners for whom our Lord died and rose again.
      They will know we are Christians by the love we have for each other rather than the doctrines that keep us apart.
      (And actually it was in dialoguing with our Happy Jack that I began to think about this).

      • IanCad

        Funny – if it wasn’t so sad. Even so, history paints the Roman Church with a dark stain – not undeserved – and most secularists do have those unpleasant facts floating around their dim minds and will vote accordingly.
        Prayers for Jack. I wonder if Cressy has an update?

        • dannybhoy

          Yes, I was brought up to believe that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, and certainly there have been terrible things done in the name of Christ throughout Church history until the present day. But there are also many Catholics who genuinely love God and seek to serve Him, just as we have many Protestants who hold high office and despise the Gospel of salvation.
          I would say that there are people who don’t understand salvation in the same way I do, of being born again; but I cannot doubt their devotion to how they do understand the faith, and that is where we start to find fellowship.

        • Cressida de Nova

          Dark stain? You must be referring to the promiscuous serial killer king who founded your religion.
          Jack will be out of action until next month. I will keep everyone informed when I hear some news. Prayers for your own personal enlightenment might be a good idea as well.

          • Manfarang

            Enlightenment? To become Buddhist.

          • Little Black Censored

            I consider “your religion” to be a discourteously dismissive phrase.

          • len

            A History of the Popes makes Henry look like a pussy cat.

    • Albert

      he should then have dropped the word “Catholic” and used “Christian” instead. It would at least have eased the concerns of the militant Prods. That is – if he is seriously seeking to lead the Tories into any future national election.

      Or may be he is just being utterly honest, even against his own interests. Moreover, because so many Christians are so flaky on these kinds of matters, it is more honest to say “I am a Catholic, and I believe Catholic teaching, which is that abortion is always wrong” rather than “I am a Christian and I believe Christian teaching, which is that abortion is always wrong”. No one can doubt the first statement, but plenty who identify as Christians are quite content to side with Herod and deny the second statement.

      • IanCad

        Your point is very well taken Albert.

        • Albert

          Thank you! What I really like about the man is that it is so obvious that he is being honest and has integrity because he is so honest against his own interests.

  • If you oppose same sex marriage, you’re a homophobic bigot. If you oppose abortion, you’re a misogynistic bigot. If you oppose uncontrolled immigration, you’re a racist bigot. If you’re concerned about what Muslims get taught in Wahhabi-funded mosques, you’re an Islamophobic bigot. If you support Brexit, you’re a xenophobic bigot

    The traditional family, respect for life, an homogeneous population, Christianity, accountable government. Cultural Marxism demands that the godsends which helped make Western civilization the most successful the world has known must be done away with. The current state of the West is testament to the intelligence, determinedness and organizational ability of its enemies.

  • Sarky

    Like i said on the previous thread, when everything becomes offensive, nothing is.

    • Mike Stallard

      Me, I am fed up with being a suspect. If people have filthy minds with which they insist on sharing and bullying other people into compliance, that is their problem before God.

  • If Jacob Rees-Mogg is forced out of politics, can we make him Archbishop of Canterbury? Please?… if only Justin Welby was prepared to go on TV and say something like this!

    • Simon Platt

      I’d be all in favour of a Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury.

      • not a machine

        I would be in favour of one that’s believes in Jesus Christ and ensures all those beneath him wish to follow the faith ….

      • Chefofsinners

        Swap you for a Protestant Bishop of Rome. Oh, sorry, you’ve already got one.

    • Albert

      Good idea!

  • Dreadnaught

    I would hazard a guess that JRM is the only honest MP in Parliament.

    • Sarky

      Look at how Tim Farron squirmed and avoided answering the exact same line of questioning.

      • Dreadnaught

        But there was no good reason why he should have – he stuck to his principles and that is to be admired.

      • Inspector General

        Don’t think Farron was broken hearted to have resigned. He knew that he’d probably have lost his seat next time round if he stayed leader…

        You see, in just 2 years, his majority collapsed from 8949 to 777.

        There seems to be a peculiarity about the Lib Dems. There is no such thing as Lib Dem supporters by conviction as such, or at most painfully few. The people who are elected under that flag and who retain their seats do so because they are high profile ‘doers’ in the constituency. Well known locals. When Farron’s time was taking up by leadership duties, he just wasn’t around to do much for Westmorland and Lonsdale and his popularity suffered. The electorate is smarter than given credit for. Anyway, who in their right mind would support by conviction some of the Lib Dems outlandish ideas?

        • Manfarang

          A stronger economy is an outlandish idea?

          • It is if you implement the ideas of the Liberal Democrats!

          • Manfarang

            Free trade and pro-business.
            The Liberal Free Church industrialists created an economic powerhouse. The others came along and de-industrialized the UK.

    • Dolphinfish

      Don’t get carried away. He’s still a Tory, and Westminster is still rotten to the core of its existence.

  • magnolia

    Their mode of questioning looks to me like bullying and harassment. It is neither polite nor civilised. People have a right to choose their own words to answer questions, not to be aggressively harassed into using the terminology of the questioner.

    Mainstream TV has a very chequered and disgraceful past in which sexual harassment was given a virtually free rein. They should be hanging their heads in shame at the headstrong sexual obsessions they have fostered and sometimes encouraged, often to the level of repeated child sexual abuse. They even allowed abusers to become gatekeepers- i.e. Jimmy Savile. Instead they think they can adopt a lofty pompous self-righteous tone, and never apologise to their audience, we the non-celebrity proles. They cannot.

    • Little Black Censored

      Bullying and harassment indeed! Especially since he had been invited on to talk about something quite different.

  • Richard B

    Thanks and have linked in with my re-blog of Revd Gavin Ashenden’s letter submitted to the Times. This is noteworthy in view of what prophetical voices are bringing about the shaking of church and of society.

  • Philip Rosen

    Well, if Britain is a multi-cultural society, I wonder what the Moslem views of homosexuality, abortion and same-sex marriage are, and whether Piers Morgan and the Guardianistas would as loudly condemn it.

  • Dolphinfish

    Guardian readers truly are the most bigoted hate mongers on the planet. Oh, they talk a big noise about “tolerance” and “compassion”, but ultimately, they are tolerant only of that which they find tolerable and compassionate only towards that which they deem worthy. I never open the Guardian website these days because every time you click on it you increase their value to advertisers. I stopped posting on it because the moderators were simply taking down anything which did not agree with the Guardian line. I don’t mean posts which were threatening, abusive or libellous, I mean anything, no matter how reasonably argued, which did not agree with them. Such post simply disappeared. It was positively Orwellian. And that is what “progressives” would like to do with the rest of the world. These people are sinister and dangerous. They have to be fought at every turn. Perhaps a good place to begin would be to prosecute the Guardian under the Trade Descriptions Act for its scandalously named “Opinion is Free” section.

    • James60498 .

      I agree with you 100% about Guardian readers.

      However let’s not forget that there are a number of Telegraph writers who would receive a warm welcome should they ever join the Guardian.

      • Royinsouthwest

        The trouble with newspapers that were regarded as right of centre is that their new journalists will have been indoctrinated at university with the same sort of opinions as the students who go to work for the Guardian or the BBC.

        • James60498 .

          An article listed on the Home Page of the Telegraph website right now.

          Headlined
          “My son became my daughter and I couldn’t be prouder”

          • Busy Mum

            Thanks for the article which I just skimmed through. I pity the 21 year old who is being betrayed by his own mother, of all people.

            There is a children’s book called ‘The Art of Being Normal’ which is freely available in school libraries and was on the promotional table in Waterstones last time I was in.

            The story is all about a boy becoming a girl and then continuing the ‘relationship’ with the previous girlfriend which works out so much better now that the hero(ine) is being ‘true to him(her)self’. The book ought to be withdrawn under Trading Standards, if for no other reason; it is certainly not about being ‘normal’. The boy in the story is from a female-dominated household, no dad in sight.

            The DT article doesn’t mention a father of this 21 year old…..

          • Little Black Censored

            Are you suggesting he must have had one?

          • Busy Mum

            Whoops!

      • Little Black Censored

        They have just appointed a brilliant new one to take charge of the Brexit department, Dia Chakravati. She is interviewed in the latest Telegraph Brexit Podcast (no. 20); do listen.

    • Little Black Censored

      Just to read the Guardian headlines is a depressing exercise; almost every one a sneer or an attack on something.

  • Broadwood

    This response from Gavin Ashenden on the Times cartoon on this story – http://ashenden.org/2017/09/07/a-letter-submitted-to-the-times-for-publication/

    Good work, Gavin!

    • Dolphinfish

      I am not entirely sure the cartoon was meant to mock Rees-Mogg. It could be interpreted as a stab at the thought police who speak “inclusiveness” out of one side of their mouth, and scream “bigot” and “hater” out of the other whenever anyone who sees things differently appears.

    • dannybhoy

      We should pray for Gavin. Whether through his Christian conscience or the calling of the Lord or both, he has left one avenue of service and is moving into another.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Gavin Ashenden missed out one thing for which he should have criticised the Times – the cartoon sends out a subliminal message that a foetus is something to be aborted, in other words, a useless burden.

  • John

    Next leader of the Tories please! An actual proper Conservative who isn’t on a mission to make the government look like Ken Livingstone’s GLC.

  • David

    Well done Jacob Rees-Mogg.
    All but the blind, exceedingly dim and cowed can surely see now that so called ‘liberalism’ has become a most intolerant, dictatorial belief system. Yes it is truly a “secular sharia”. It needs to be challenged by all who love true tolerance and freedom.

  • Linus

    Of course Rees-Mogg is a homophobic misogynistic bigot. And of course other homophobic misogynistic bigots hate it when he’s exposed as such, because it means they too will be exposed and like all bigots, they don’t want others to see them as they truly are.

    “I support the teaching of the Catholic Church” means “Who cares if a woman suffers giving birth to the child of her rapist? Her feelings count for nothing. All that matters is that a baby should be born because our Sky Pixie wants more adoration and who knows, that baby might grow up to adore him.” It also means “Who cares if gay people suffer from loneliness and isolation because of the lifelong unwanted celibacy we demand they endure? Their feelings count for nothing. All that matters is that penises must only ever come into contact with vaginas (and only then if both have had our special magic words chanted over them) because our Sky Pixie designed them that way and nothing he designed must ever be used for any purpose other than those that WE approve of. We get to decide what those purposes are because we are perfect examples of what Sky Pixie intended humanity to be. Gays have no say because they’re inferior factory seconds.”

    Those are Rees-Mogg’s beliefs in a nutshell. He won’t admit to them because he knows that to do so would be political suicide. So he stonewalls and trots out “I support the teaching of the Catholic Church” without elaborating on what that teaching forbids.

    Fortunately the press has got his number. Whatever messages he wants to convey will be drowned out by the incessant demands of journalists for him to clarify his position and explain exactly what he means by “I support the teaching of the Catholic Church”. If he refuses to, he’ll come across as dishonest and evasive and the press will slaughter him as they slaughtered Farron. If he explains himself, all possibility of presenting himself as an electable candidate with broad appeal will be gone forever.

    Another bigot bites the dust. And his supporters gnash their teeth and tear their hair and shriek about the rights of bigots to be bigoted and how dare their victims object?

    They don’t go down quietly, but they do go down, and at the end of the day, that’s all that matters.

    • Inspector General

      If ever anyone following Cranmer ever doubts that man on his own is a terminally corrupt animal, in part attributable to your presence here, there’s something else to consider…

      That a chosen way of hedonism cursed by disease and mental anguish, which also includes meeting strangers in city churchyards at midnight for the purpose of anus sex, now has the moral edge over the teachings of Christ is so astonishing one doubts even the most far fetched of fiction authors would ever have dared to put in print for fear of being accused of ‘losing it’.

    • DespiteBrexit

      Oh the irony.

    • Slack Alice

      Your ignorance and bad manners detract from any genuine point of view you might have had. You chose to read the blog, and you spent time crafting your post. You have shown us the best of your talents and you are not in the least bit embarrassed by the infantile nature of your insults.
      No one of any average intelligence needs to have it “elaborated” as to what the RC faith teaches about Marriage or abortion. Those below average intelligence can always google it.
      If this is how you think about Catholics, you must be consumed by rage at the muslims.

      • Linus

        Pixlims are honest about hating us. Pixtians lie, cheat, tell us they love and respect us and then, if they succeed in winning our confidence, beat us over the head with their homophobic doctrines with the express purpose of driving us to despair, or better still, suicide.

        Give me a Pixlim any day. I can fight an honest opponent.,

        • Inspector General

          It’s not just Christians that hold a poor opinion of your practices…

          You see, the reason the gay uprising has been so successful and that you currently enjoy such support among the young, is that they just don’t know the half of it. Maybe not even a tenth. But it will come out, all of it, and they will.

          Coming soon: the Truvada Ten Thousand. When that breaks, not even the BBC will be able to suppress it…

    • I admire JRM’s honesty and openness about his faith, it’s a pity Tim Farron didn’t have the same courage and ability. JRM is a very intelligent man, sadly not given enough airtime to finish what he had to say. He should have another chance but with a more intelligent interviewer. Those ghastly, one track minded TV hosts are obsessed with same sex ‘marriage’ and that everyone should agree with it. They and you are the intolerant bullying, bigots.

      Nature has decided what body parts are used for which purpose, but you homosexuals in your disordered state are trying to turn nature on its head to justify your harmful activities, and if anyone doesn’t approve you stamp on them.

      • Linus

        I have body parts that I can use for a variety of different purposes. The only “unnatural” uses of them would be if I were to try to use them to do things they can’t do.

        Your problem – and it’s a massive psychological wound stemming from a case of narcissism so profound that you really do believe that you are the fount of all knowledge for all mankind – is that YOU have decided what is “natural” and taken it on yourself to condemn anyone whose opinion differs.

        There’s only one way to react to your kind of blinkered bigotry and that’s to tell you to feck off. You can’t be reasoned with because your bigotry does not stem from a place of reason.

        Of course you won’t feck off because you’re driven by an intense desire to make others obey you. But if you persist in trying to force us to limit our behaviour to acts that you approve of, our only alternative will be to administer a number of hard slaps until you finally realise that self-preservation means you’re going to have to stop trying to interfere in our lives.

        In cases such as these when all else fails, might is right.

        Jacob Rees-Mogg has just experienced the first in a series of very hard slaps that will eventually teach him to leave us in peace. He has a choice before him: to accept that politicians must keep their religious views to themselves on pain of losing the confidence of the electorate, or to carry on preaching Catholic dogma to a people that rejects it and will, as a consequence, reject him.

        Media presenters like Piers Morgan understand what’s at stake here: personal liberty as opposed to religious dogma. They will keep pounding away at Rees-Mogg until he cracks. If he wants a future in politics, he’s going to have to start moderating his publicly expressed positions. Otherwise his profile will be that of a crackpot leader of a crackpot micro-minority. It’s his choice.

        • ‘The only “unnatural” uses of them would be if I were to try to use them to do things they can’t do.’

          O come on Linus. So a paedophiles use of his body parts is natural. A rapists use of his body parts is natural. Indeed every wickedness we humans do involves our body parts. All are natural, and by natural you imply acceptable?

          • Linus

            Paedophilia and rape infringe the personal sovereignty of their victims. This means they can be banned as personal sovereignty trumps the right to individual fulfilment.

          • So the only problem is the sovereignty of the individual. Bestiality is natural and acceptable apart from the rights of the animal. Incest of any kind is fine as long as those involved are consenting (adults).

          • Linus

            Bestiality, eh?

            So you’ve fallen in love with Flossie the Cow (or Bertram the Bull) and want official recognition of your relationship, do you?

            There’s one slight problem though. They’re only your feelings. Flossie the Cow (I’ll assume it’s her) can’t tell us how she feels so all we have is your declaration of love for her. This isn’t enough to establish that a reciprocal relationship of love or even sexual attraction exists between you. We’ll need Flossie to give us her side of the story too. Independently, so we can be sure you aren’t influencing or leading her.

            I assume she’s a British cow, so we’ll need her testimony in English (or Welsh, or Gaelic if you go cow-molesting in those parts of the country) in front of a parliamentary committee. She’ll have to submit to cross examination and be able to answer complex questions about her feelings for you and the impact that being forbidden from marrying you, or having regular sex sessions with you, has on her life.

            You might want to suggest to her that she admit to feelings of hopelessness too. The spectacle of a suicidal cow sobbing into her handkerchief could not fail, I’m sure, to move the hardest-hearted MP. They’d vote down the bestiality law unanimously. Well, all apart from Jacob Rees-Mogg of course. But then we know that he’s just a professional naysayer.

            So there you go. The ball’s in your court. The LGBT community managed to get the law changed and the same options are open to you. If you follow the same path as us, first of all you’ll need to come out as a cowosexual, then you’ll need to found a pressure group and start lobbying MPs for a change in the law. I doubt you’ll be successful because you’ll never be able to establish reciprocal consent, in which case your bid will fall at the same hurdle as that of pædophiles. But you could have a try.

            As for incest, I tend to agree that an incest law is a bit pointless. Coercion by a parent is covered by rape laws and the risk of inbred offspring is palliated by genetic testing and abortion. If two adult siblings or a parent and their adult child want to have sex, it’s nobody’s concern but theirs. But the law as it stands forbids it.

            So there’s another campaign for you. Come out as an incestosexual, form a pressure group campaigning for decriminalisation, lobby parliament and see how far you get. Again, I don’t rate your chances because I don’t think there are enough incestosexuals out there to change public opinion on a wide enough scale. But who doesn’t dare, never wins.

            Good luck to you, although I don’t envy you a bigamous existence shuttling backwards and forwards between your sister’s bed and a cow byre in some muddy shire. Unless you shack them both up together. And of course you’ll then have to get up another campaign and fight for polygamy, or one of your loves will feel terribly let down.

            How exhausting it must be to be you!

        • You go against nature at your peril, but that’s your choice when all is said and done.
          If JRM stays true to himself he will be the breath of fresh air so badly needed in politics now.
          We need leaders who will stand up for our Judeo-Christian culture and freedom of religion.

          • Linus

            How exactly can I “go against nature”? What you really mean by that is “if I do anything YOU disapprove of.”

            The omnipotence fantasies of hate-filled Pixtians are the worst kind of passive-aggressive religious delusion. Forced to watch others refusing to obey you, all you can wish on them is pain, ruin and revenge in some fantasy future when YOU will be all-powerful. You’re like children who, when other children won’t play by their selfish and self-serving rules, shriek “you’ll be sorry, my daddy’ll get YOU!”

            Off you go and sulk in your corner dreaming of the day when you’ll be able to make me pay for my insolence and disobedience. A dark corner where you trouble no-one else is the best place for you.

          • You’ve got a faulty switch or you deliberately choose to do so either way you need help.
            Nature’s rules aren’t my rules, they are God’s. That’s one thing all religions can and do have in common, the survival of the species.
            Have you never looked at plants and animals and fellow human beings in wonder at their synchronicity with something higher.

            Why does the cat come into season at a certain time for a certain time? Why do plants die off then regrow and bloom again? The switch for the hormones to activate the process has been triggered but by what? The earthly conditions. Humans reaching a certain age of growth the switch is flicked on and the hormones activate or in your case faultily as there is a disorder. But who flicks the switches at the various stages of our lives? What determines the life span of everything? It’s got to be God.

          • Linus

            No faulty switches in me. Inside your brain however, there’s definitely been a short circuit.

            We are what we are because of billions of years of evolution. There is no Sky Pixie. If I’m wrong, let me see the proof. And by that I mean real physical evidence, not pontificating, self-serving statements like “it’s got to be Sky Pixie.”

    • John

      When I was growing up, sodomy was a criminal offence.
      Then it was legalised.
      Then it was relentlessly promoted as good for you.
      When Labour introduced civil partnerships about a decade ago there was a specific clause saying that they were not to be referred to as “marriage” though they conferred exactly the same rights. No one batted an eyelid; eminently sensible and fair.
      Then David Cameron foolishly forced legislation on the nation to change the name of civil partnerships to marriage. Some protested, for you cannot change the nature of marriage any more than you can pretend that a two storey house is a bungalow.
      Now, saying what was perfectly sensible and acceptable a decade ago causes outrage and makes you Genghis Khan.
      In ten years time, buggery will be all but compulsory. For is it not grossly offensive and homophobic to be repulsed by the prospect of being sodomised?

      • Linus

        Be as repulsed by gay sex as you like. You have every right to feel exactly as you wish to feel about it. It marks you out as a homophobe and a bigot but there’s no law against that.

        I understand that bigots and homophobes are furious that they no longer have the right to bully the LGBT community and make our lives a misery. Bullies hate being neutralised. But your anger is making you unwise. By shrieking like hysterical schoolgirls about homosexuality becoming compulsory, you render yourself utterly ridiculous and show just what a bad loser you are and how right society is to regard you as vicious, evil and hateful.

        You really are your own worst enemy. So much so that if you weren’t as contemptible as you are, it might even be possible to feel sorry for you. As it is, all I can do is laugh and reflect that a psychotic Pixtian is endlessly entertaining, in a look-through-your-fingers, cringe-worthy kind of way.

        • Chefofsinners

          Sexual repulsion is not under the control of the individual any more than attraction is. When these urges are acting correctly they avert unhealthy and unproductive acts. When perverted they are destructive. Whether perverted or not, mankind has a moral responsibility to control sexual urges.
          These are facts, not marks of bigotry or phobia.

          • Linus

            As I said, be repulsed by any act you like. Repulsion is not a crime.

            What is a crime is deciding that your personal morality applies to all of mankind and attempting to impose it on us.

            If you believe gay sex to be perverted, don’t have gay sex. But if you try to force your neighbour not to have gay sex when he believes it to be perfectly acceptable, you’ll find yourself in deep trouble. You have no right to interfere in his life. If you try, he has a right to stop you and ask society to prevent you from attacking him again.

            Society gives each individual the right to make his own moral choices and to act on them. Only if those moral choices harm others is that right restricted. You want to restrict moral choices only to those you approve of: ie. to impose your morality on everyone else. In reality you’re nothing more than a petty, if impotent, wannabe dictator.

            By all means live out your impotence fantasy by hating everyone who won’t do what you want, but I think you’ll find that most people will get very bored with you very quickly. If Pixtians find themselves increasingly isolated, ridiculed and shunned, there’s a reason for that. Who wants to be around the Asperger’s boy who’s always right and never wrong and hurls abuse at anyone who dares to do anything in a manner he doesn’t approve of?

            Johnny No-Friends the fundamentalist Pixtian only has himself to blame for his predicament.

  • Dolphinfish

    I’m told it used to be a time when people actually knew how to argue a case articulately. I suppose it was something that was necessary to the times, like knowing how to darn a sock. But why would anybody need to know how to darn a sock today when you can just throw it away, or argue a case where you can just call your opponent a bigot?

  • Inspector General

    Excellent, Cranmer, Excellent!

    Your Inspector is old enough to remember when politicians were first invited to appear on these current affairs programmes. Wilson, Heath, Thorpe to name just the party leaders of the time. There, in grainy black and white, these men and women, Barbara Castle comes to mind, were posed questions with dignity and the respect due them for the office they held, whether in or out of government. There’s only one person left now who would be accorded such consideration. Prince Charles. That’s it. Just him. Everybody else is fair game now. From the Prime Minister all the way down.

    So why do it? It appears the Rees-Mogg was thrown a lure of talking about Brexit. He won’t be doing that again, we hope. For none of the devious rotters. And here’s the reason why…

    Men who aspire to greater office cannot use the televised media to further their ambitions. It’s now like appearing in court on a charge. You are in the studio to answer for daring to have an opinion. That’s how it must seem to the viewing public. Rees-Mogg didn’t even know what the charge was. He soon found out it was for capital offences. Bigotry. Blasphemy too. For he condemned himself verbally for rejecting progressive opinion in favour of his own ideas. Which he says are influenced by the RCC. Obviously, he can’t expect to be allowed to live, er, hold high office, we’ll call it, after that. Can he?

  • Inspector General

    Here’s what should have happened…

    “Mr Rees-Mogg. Can we interview you in a televised studio on, erm, the issue of Brexit”

    “No”

    “What!”

    “Radio studio or nothing”

    “Well, alright then”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “For the fifth time, Mr Rees-Mogg, is gay sex a sin? Is it? We demand you tell us!”

    “It is not for me to condemn…”

    “Mr Rees-Mogg, for the sixth time, is gay sex…”

    “Interview over”

    “Sorry Mr Rees-Mogg, what did you say?”

    “Interview over. I’m not sitting here in this chair as you shoot the same question at me until you get the answer you want. Good day, sir”

    “Well, that’s it listeners. Mr Rees-Mogg has left the room. He has transmoggrified political radio interviews as we do them. No more bullying tactics. What a magnificent fellow!”

    • Linus

      Actually this is rather a good idea. Candidates are supposed to be given equal airtime, but if a politican chooses to walk out of an interview, he voluntarily relinquishes his right to address the audience, which can’t be deemed the media’s fault.

      If every interview with Rees-Mogg starts with “Is gay sex a sin?” and he flounces out, not only will his message never get across to the public, but his opponent will romp home unopposed.

      I sincerely hope you’ll be his campaign manager, old bigot. With you in charge he’s dead in the water.

      • Inspector General

        Men of mystery do better today. Stay away from the cameras. Keep the electorate in the dark about you. Let the others appear and show themselves for what they are, vote grubbing pathetics. Mystery and suspense, handled right, and he takes over from May.

        • Linus

          Honestly, you really should apply to be Rees-Mogg’s campaign manager. Turn up to the interview in a moth-eaten tweed jacket stinking of pipe smoke and camphor (standard issue in the IG wardrobe, I should think) and you’d be a shoo-in.

          • Inspector General

            One’s price would be too high. For example, one condition is that a heavy be sent for you, to break all your fingers.

          • Linus

            While it wouldn’t surprise me if a British politician were to send “heavies” to deal with critics in foreign countries, the idea that one of them would take such a risk at your behest is laughable in the extreme.

            You really do have delusions of grandeur, don’t you, old bigot?

          • Inspector General

            Not really. More of a desire that you endure the same pain typing out your rot as the rest of us do in reading it…

          • DespiteBrexit
          • Inspector General

            We must stand up to this militant gay tyrant on Cranmer’s site, sir. As must society at large. The will is most certainly there. Let the floodgates of opposition open…

          • Linus

            So it’s urinary incontinence now, is it, old bigot? I knew chronic alcohol abuse and obsessive masturbation would get you in the end. I wonder if you smell as bad as you sound?

          • Inspector General

            There was a time when Scotland Yard would send over two detectives armed with revolvers to apprehend a gay revolutionary like you. It will happen again…

          • Linus

            Scotland Yard has never had jurisdiction in France. Any attempt by the British authorities to apprehend a French citizen on French soil would be treated as a violation of French sovereignty and provoke a diplomatic incident that Britain really does not need now that Brexit negotiations are underway and things are going badly for you.

            Deal with your impotence, old bigot. Yours personally and that of your has-been country.

          • Martin

            Actually sending some agents of the Crown to the continent to bash a few foreign johnnies might improve their manners in the negotiations.

          • len

            That’s the style!.

          • Manfarang

            There was a time when the British police was unarmed. They didn’t send armed plainclothesmen to foreign countries. You must be thinking about the RIC.

          • Chefofsinners

            I believe there are certain clinics where you can obtain treatment for that…

          • Little Black Censored

            “Bigot” – what a popular word that has become!

  • carl jacobs

    Am I a bigot? Well, yes, according to the god of this age. Do I give a damn about that judgment? No, I don’t. What authority does it possess? None whatsoever.

    Own the offense.

    • Albert

      Well said, I think the question of whether the world will hate us was resolved along time ago, and by an authority that counts for infinitely more than these liberal fundamentalist espousing regulation issue opinions.

      • carl jacobs

        The irony is that we are essentially being charged with heresy. “How dare you reject the received truth of the age!” If you ask for an authority behind that truth, however, you will never receive an answer.

        • Albert

          Yes, this kind of liberalism is a uniquely irrational position.

    • alternative_perspective

      No you are not, even to the “gods” of this age.
      Bigotry is irrational prejudice. You reasons are neither irrational not prejudiced. They are reasoned, considered and based on a broad base of evidence.
      The only reason the left use the term bigot is because so few know what it means and it has a hard guttural stem ending – so one can really inject invective in to the accusation.

    • len

      Just made that 20. Bigot.

  • Sir John Oldcastle

    We had a poster advertising a visit by SPUC to us on Sunday next torn down on Wednesday. I’m wondering whether to Report it as a hate crime. But, the question will then go, can a bigot be the victim of a hate crime?

    • Chefofsinners

      JRM sure has been.

      • Sir John Oldcastle

        We think that, but we are also bigots, so our opinion doesn’t count, now does it?!

        • Chefofsinners

          I’m a really big ot. You’re probably just a medium.

          • Sir John Oldcastle

            I live in South West London, most people found here think I’m a nutter and an almighty large bigot because of my Biblical morality views. That makes you ginormous!

          • Chefofsinners

            Living among moral Lilliputians doesn’t make you a giant. Mine’s bigger than yours so there.

    • Slack Alice

      The fact that Suzanne Moore could have her editor’s approval to publish such venomous insults – not only to JRM but to Catholics and Christians everywhere – proves that Hate Crime is not a crime when it is only ordinary white, religious or conservative people who are the subject.

  • Chefofsinners

    The incisive accuracy of all that JRM has said is proved by the frothing convulsions, the vitriol and fury with which it has been met. There has been a conspicuous absence of reasoned responses. This is what happens when a creature of the night is dragged from under its stone into the light of truth and every repulsive detail of its evil essence is exposed.

  • Murti Bing

    To quote the Inspector, “Excellent, Cranmer, Excellent!”

    Excellent indeed! One for the reference library.

    And well done Mogg!

  • nieciedo

    There is a distinction between the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and the secular civil contractual relationship called “marriage.” They are not the same thing. As an obvious example, persons in a secular civil marriage can get divorced and then enter into a new secular civil marriage with other people. Persons bound by the Roman Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, validly confected, cannot be released from that union by anything but death. If this gentlemen is proposing that his beliefs about the Roman Catholic Sacrament should for some reason affect or have bearing on the secular civil institution, thereby denying access to that institution to a non-negligible subset of the population, then there is cause for concern.

    • Inspector General

      But he’s not, silly.

    • BigMach

      Rome is in error. Jesus sanctioned divorce in the case of adultery. Furthermore, there is no ceremony for marriage laid down in the scripture. The ceremony is a procedure that societies have used to signify the union. It is the act of conjugation that makes you married in the eyes of scripture.

    • Little Black Censored

      “Confected” – a nice piece of professional jargon.

  • not a machine

    I find Mr Jacob Rees Mogg MP an interesting person and skillful politician , I don’t quite understand why Suzanne Moore , terms him a thoroughly modern bigot , he has a catholic faith , and surely those with a Christian faith can stand as mps ,and live and work in parliament as they fit in as belief.
    I ponder if we need a new term for Christian faith ignorance …..in journalism …..?

    • Royinsouthwest

      Suzanne Moore would obviously regard the generation that won the Second World War as comprising a bunch of bigots. Intellectual and moral pygmies (no offence meant to genuine Pygmies) think that they can bolster their status by tearing down people who are far better than them.

      • not a machine

        I am always surprised by how drunk any of us can become on the new and rather ungreatful for good work done past .I see your point Royin southwest ,there is a sort of liberal facist fashion , I am still having a think about ,why history tells us such things end badly , noting many cultures fell when they became undone ,useually by fraud and oppression .

    • David

      “a new term for Christian faith ignorance …. in journalism..?”

      Perhaps, Christophobic ?

      • Dominic Stockford

        Or how about ‘bigot’?

        • David

          True, but what kind ?
          We need to be more specific and defend those who hold traditional Christian beliefs, so what about …
          “A Christophobic bigot” hits the nail !
          Any improved offers out there ?

          • Little Black Censored

            The term should have connotations with illiteracy; a whole language is missing from their lives and outlook.

      • not a machine

        mmm tricky one Christianophobic ? mmm yours is grammatically better

  • Slack Alice

    Absolutely brilliant article. Spot on, not only in its intellectual analysis, but also for the way it describes the actual experience of millions of “bigots” in the UK,m just trying to live their lives and teach their young how to be good citizens.

    • Demon Teddy Bear

      But the game is only possible because the left control the broadcast media as thoroughly as Goebbels.

      • Merchantman

        The left are indeed a nazty bunch.

      • David

        Yes that’s the point here.
        Just read a Christian book arguing in terms of the individual, the family and wider society, and using very realistic social and psychological examples, just why the classical Christian ideas on sexual morality have far better outcomes that the post-sexual revolution ones.
        But it is impossible to get such well thought through ideas out to the public and start a genuine debate because all the levers of communication, the media, are controlled by forces determined to undermine western society, whilst stuffing £ notes in their own pockets.
        The way to convince some of the people, and then only the more thoughtful, observant ones, which usually means older, because they are less ruled by instant self-gratification impulses and out of control emotions, is by things reaching a pretty low state to act as a warning. But even then how do you spread the message
        wider ?
        This is why individuals like JRM, who are excellent speakers as well as role models, and in the media spotlight, are so important. Jacob did well and survived.

  • Manfarang

    “The LibDems pretend that they’re liberal but they could not cope with having a Christian as their leader. I think the Conservatives are much more tolerant of religious faith”
    Tim Farron enjoyed the support of most Liberal Democrats it was when ne was attacked by the media he couldn’t cope. Most Conservatives believe in money (Mammon) not God. Thatcher and the Good Samaritan remember.

    • Royinsouthwest

      The Liberals will be tolerant of Christians who keep quite about their views as Farron did to a considerable extent. I do not, for example, recall him speaking out in support of the bakers who were fined for declining an order from a “customer” (quite possibly an agent provocateur) to bake a cake with a slogan endorsing gay “marriage.” However Tim Farron did do the right thing in the end and by resigning drew attention to the intolerance of the (il)liberal media.

      • Manfarang

        “We are all sinners.”

  • The LGBT lot are thick it would seem, they just don’t stop and think about what JRM said at all. They immediately flare up and have now hijacked his twitter account plastering it with pictures of homosexuals kissing and the like in a petulant outburst.

    • David

      I suspect that many of the LGBT activists are emotionally incontinent and immature people. However I am sure that there are many quiet same sex attracted ones out there, who whilst experiencing same sex attraction, do not use that particular factor to attack the rest of the world with their ideology.

  • Bruce Wearne

    Assuming the report of this “grand inquisition” by these two journalists is accurate, I cannot help but wonder what would have been the headlines, let alone the future phase of this inquisition, had the noble parliamentarian turned to them and asked some difficult questions, then following up with statements that clarified his own view. The discussion’s constricted nature simply allowed one of the inquisitors to allege he hadn’t let it all hang out – as if he were able to do so under such duress. Take for instance this answering question: “And what do you two understand concerning the normative place in which sexual intercourse should take place in human life?” When they replied with some inane response of the order of the former Tory PM extolling the legislative virtues of “extending love”, legislating to give love free reign etc, he then could “innocently” point out that in his view, from his Roman Catholic standpoint, that sexual intercourse is only possible between a man and a woman. Whatever is made possible with highly cultivated “sexual play” does not change that reality. Moreover as taught by Jesus, the Apostles and then the church in line with that, marriage is only ever a male-female union and sexual intercourse is given to us to take place within marriage. And before the inquisitors took breath he might add: “Those who consider homosexuality as an abnormal and unhealthy, form of relationship as I do, should nevertheless as part of Christian discipleship as citizens, work to uphold the civil rights of all citizens, including those who practice homosexuality, just as they would uphold the civil rights of practicing heterosexuals who violate their marriage bonds or engage in premarital heterosexuality. And it needs saying that the civil rights of those who do not believe marriage to be a civil right, like I do, whether Roman Catholic or not, also need to be upheld and protected. Thanks for the post.

    • I agree Bruce. I have been thinking for a long time that it’s time for the tables to be turned during these inquisitions – for that is what they are – and for the arrogance and self-righteousness of the inquisitors to be punctured in full public view. JRM did well in difficult circumstances. He thinks well on his feet and was in any event not expecting this tyrannical tirade on this particular subject.

      The greatest sin of all for these people is for anyone to think that something is sin at all. God, if He exists, must be a Hedonist because He must be created in our image. Any other idea is preposterous and certainly is not “love”.

      The problem is further exacerbated by the declaration from the likes of Grand Inquisitor Piers Morgan, that he is a catholic too and disagrees with the teaching of the church. He fails to understand that he may well be a catholic, but he is unlikely to be a Christian too. He doesn’t have the experience of Christ in him the hope of glory and how that totally changes one’s perception, reception and attitude to God’s written Word. Oh dear!

      • Bruce Wearne

        Thanks for the reply John. My concern is not so much to turn the tables in argument but to make a coherent public statement that gives clear expression to a Christian political view of marriage, family, household, friendship. That is a task of basic Christian discipleship and as Christian members of the polity we need to develop such a discussion among ourselves if we are to engage in debate with others in mass media settings. Rees-Mogg does give a good example, but such clarity is needed by us all. Indeed if we can find the way to do so we might find ourselves even “more under the pump” by these inquisitors. Here in Australia the bogus survey that is being delivered next week is a device to rescue “both sides” of politics from their failure to be genuine political parties. The public justice for all response should be “No” to the survey itself and yes to a completely different kind of politics, one which is unashamed to promote public justice for all in the way I suggested above. A comprehensive respect for our responsibility in public policy development as part of our task to form a genuine Christian political option will take decades …. Last week I could have directed you to my blog developed over 10 years but WORDPRESS hijacked my work by festooning with its rainbow flag frame – and so I have decided WORDPRESS is no platform for genuine political debate. I have quit leaving it to its neo-colonial “Marriage Equality” manipulations.

        • You are right Bruce, that is exactly what we need. The problem remains that the theological illiteracy of modern western societies is so dire that “the church” is unable to present a coherent unified godly position.

          I am sorry to hear of the desecration of your work by WordPress. The supposition that we all want to celebrate people sexuality is all consuming it seems. Could you not host it privately on your own server? You can do so for less than $10 a month these days. That way although you would be using WordPress they will not be able to tinker with it. Just a thought – I don’t mean to interfere.

          • Bruce Wearne

            Yes my own server may have such a facility … I’m working on it and I’ll keep you in mind when it’s finally ready to reappear …

            I’d say that a big problem is that so many Christian “leaders” have become Biblically illiterate because they treat the Word of God as a theological encyclopaedia – that as much as anything else is part of the story when we try to understand what has taken place. Same-sexmarriage embraces a view that sexual intercourse should be dissociated from marriage. But the New Testament honors marriage and the marriage bed.

          • Little Black Censored

            Tiscali don’t draw attention to it but they give you free webspace, quite enough for a blog; but you have to persist and burrow through their website to find out about it.

    • Little Black Censored

      When the interogatee does attempt to turn the discussion round he is usually rebuked with “Ve vill ask ze questions”. I have witnessed this technique several times. There are too many bullies doing this work; Jo Coburn is a notorious example. Morgan and Reid are two of the worst. O’Brien, Evan Davis – Oh, this it too depressing.

      • Pubcrawler

        None of them fit to loosen the sandals of Brian Walden.

  • Plasterer

    Off topic, but have you seen these “12 principles for a 21st century conservatism”? Interesting to discuss here, I should think. It’s the “Toronto professor who won’t say xhe” guy, who is actually far more interesting (and erudite) than the image projected by the press.

    1. The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid.

    2. Peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and to war. In
    consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual
    impulse and idiosyncrasy.

    3. Hierarchies of competence are desirable and should be promoted.

    4. Borders are reasonable. Likewise, limits on immigration are
    reasonable. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that citizens of
    societies that have not evolved functional individual-rights predicated
    polities will hold values in keeping with such polities.
    5. People should be paid so that they are able and willing to perform
    socially useful and desirable duties.

    6. Citizens have the inalienable right to benefit from the result of
    their own honest labor.

    7. It is more noble to teach young people about responsibilities than
    about rights.

    8. It is better to do what everyone has always done, unless you have
    some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise.

    9. Radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a
    time of radical change.

    10. The government, local and distal, should leave people to their own
    devices as much as possible.

    11. Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary
    bedrock for a stable polity.

    12. We should judge our political system in comparison to other actual
    political systems and not to hypothetical utopias.

    • David

      That list presents as well thought through and sound. The fact that he has 12 points makes me, as a Christian, chuckle somewhat.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I fully concur

    • Busy Mum

      Re points 8&9…..
      ‘My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change: for their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?’ Proverbs 24 vv 21&22

  • bluedog

    Jacob Rees-Mogg was fortunate that his inquisitor was the performing seal Piers Morgan and not somebody sharper. Once PM had launched the topic of abortion and once Mogg had declared his absolute opposition, consistent with his Catholic faith, the following exchange should have taken place:

    PM: Accepting your sincerity in opposing abortion, can I ask you a hypothetical question?
    JRM: Of course
    PM: Your wife has been safely delivered of six children. Let us assume that the rhythm method causes a seventh pregnancy and the doctors predict the impending arrival of little Septima and Octavia. But there’s a catch. Your wife is manifesting pre-eclampsia and the risks of carrying the twins to term is judged to pose a mortal risk to their mother. The doctors recommend termination of the pregnancy, sooner rather than later. Your reaction?
    JRM: Umm. I fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church.

    • Paul H

      Septima and Octavia – PMSL

      Hope JRM is enjoying his fish lunch

      “How many divisions has the pope?” Josef Stalin

      • bluedog

        Thank you so much. It’s only taken four depressing hours for somebody to see the joke!

    • Little Black Censored

      “Sixtus” doesn’t mean sixth. That would have been Sextus. He is named after an early Pope, I think.

      • bluedog

        But would you Christen your child ‘Sextus’? Answer is probably not.

    • A hypothetical on a hypothetical. bluedog! Rees-Mogg would have refused to entertain a hypothetical question.

      • bluedog

        Hypothetically.

        • Ha! Of course, hypothesizing is what we do best here, but to hypothesize further, if Rees-Mogg didn’t get suckered in with the questions on Gay marriage, it would be a strong, plausible hypothesis, one approaching a credible theory, that he would have firmly rejected entertaining a hostile hypothetical.

          • bluedog

            You’re right. Hence my hypothetical phone call from Mrs Rees-Mogg, whose response to learning that she was to be sacrificed on the altar of Catholic dogma was hypothetically unprintable.

  • David

    It’s timely for someone to start a petition to curb the deliberately rude behaviour of that ‘interviewer’ Piers Morgan and uphold some basic courtesies in public life.

  • michaelkx

    Bigot, bigot, bigot. They cry being the biggest Bigot they should Know. Chinese proverb, he who points accusing finger should remember that three fingers are pointing back wards. aaah so..

    • bigot
      ˈbɪɡət
      noun
      a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

      It seems that those calling bigot the loudest have a poor grasp of both semantics and irony!

  • Ronnie Crawford

    The Liberal Alliance party in Northern Ireland has banned anyone opposing gay marriage from standing as a party candidate at any election.

    • saintmark

      How Liberal of them

  • mollysdad

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

    An Act for the Better Preventing Papists from Sitting in Parliament, for the Suppression of Homophobia and Such-Like Enormities of Popery, and for Connected Purposes.

  • Don Benson

    For me the undeniable success of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s performance was not in the exact content of what he said (which was fairly minimal in terms of elucidation), it was in his relaxed refusal to duck and weave in the face of coercive insults. I rarely see day time TV so I’m not sure what that particular audience would make of it but the Mogg’s coolness under fire beats wordy technique hands down: only brain-dead tribal clones could fail to appreciate the power of his response and, therefore, the true depth of character of the man. That is what earns true respect from all decent people.

    • Little Black Censored

      All the more impressive for being taken off guard.

  • Paul H

    I do admire Jacob Rees-Mogg – he has simply astounding levels of self assurance and rational ability. I hope he goes far.

    • bluedog

      ‘you cant get away from the fact that the line has to be drawn legally at the point the baby is capable of independent life.’

      Would that be 18 or 21 yo?

      • Busy Mum

        It’s nearer 30 now, I think:)

        • Paul H

          You’ve been watching Logan’s Run

          • Busy Mum

            I haven’t!

        • Chefofsinners

          Maturity does not develop until the age of 25 according to today’s Lamy report by the self-deprecating David Lamy, aged 23 and three quarters.

          • Busy Mum

            Don’t be so radically absolute. Maturity and independence are totally fluid concepts now.

          • Chefofsinners

            Beer. There’s a fluid concept for you.

          • IanCad

            To expand Chef: The Lammy Review was the work of David Cameron and was heralded as an “Independent” review of the treatment of black subjects within the judicial system.
            Talk about the wolf judging the wolves! Next stop – Reparations.

    • Little Black Censored

      As it isn’t a “fact”, just something you have asserted, we don’t need to consider getting away from it, whatever that may mean.

      • Paul H

        Well its certainly a fact that it is the basis for the current law, but since neither of us want to get away from it lets not fall out

  • seansaighdeoir

    Unfortunately that is exactly where we are and its only going to get worse. But we must fight it and fight to win and not go to the stake meekly because soon we will not be able to be Christian and have a role in public life. If we are not quite there we are very close and that time is coming.

    If the current trajectory continues for say another 20 or 30 years we could see such people going to camps for ‘re-education’.

    Already it is socially unacceptable in the media to voice views against abortion, SSM, Islam or gay sex. As you rightly state we now have labels for people committing these sins. This is the sin of being Un PC.

    Very soon if not already it wont be acceptable to have any views of a Christian, conservative or libertarian standpoint.

    You will become an unperson.

    • Cullerchris

      I think you are unduly pessimistic. I think the liberal establishment, while not on the run, are very much on the defensive. They deluded themselves that they represent the majority (in their own restricted social circles they do), but Brexit and Trump ripped this delusion away. They are left to fall back on hysterical name calling and denial. They are in trouble and in the grip of panic. The LIberal consensus is broken. God be praised.

      • seansaighdeoir

        Perhaps but I don’t see any evidence for the consensus being broken. The liberal narrative IS the MSM and this is where the battle will be fought.

        Trump won an outstanding victory but I believe the MSM could end his presidency tomorrow – its just biding its time.

        Cultural Marxism is the orthodoxy of the day and whilst individuals are voicing criticism of that they don’t have the power to challenge that consensus. There will imho need to be a grassroot movement before that happens but as America shows that will be an unhappy process.

        • The MSM in the US, at least, has a low rating for credibility, around 20 percent. If it could end he presidency, it would have done so. It certainly would have been able to even a decade ago, when the competition from the new media was much weaker.

          • Sarky

            One thing Trump (the cheeto) has done is open people’s eyes to ‘fake news’.
            Although his idea of fake news is anything written against him.

          • Well, almost everything written about him is negative. Positives, like economic and regulatory successes, which are quite impressive, get omitted, unless spokesmen or Trump himself issue media releases which can’t be ignored. Even then, they are buried by panels of commentators who try to shred these into pieces. If you were to keep track of American MSM, Fox News excluded, you’d see patterns of surreal bias and outright unhinged lying. I don’t ever recall seeing such levels of this sort of maniacal journalism. The problem with this is that by shooting its own credibility, the media is no longer able to act as the necessary system check. That’s a very bad situation.

          • Chefofsinners

            Spot on. The MSM’s nemesis is social media. It is being bypassed and is increasingly irrelevant. No coincidence that the MSM is sprouting hashtags and keeps reporting what’s trending on Twitter. It resembles an old guy in a sports car, hanging around with the youth trying to be cool. While they snigger at him.
            See how it has seized on the concept of ‘fake news’ as its last hope of finding a meaningful role in the new world order.
            It was the lapdog of the elite and it grew fat and lazy. Now it’s been kicked outside because it has become decrepit and incontinent. It whines outside the door for the privileges it has lost, scrabbling to chase down the zeitgeist and drag it in like a dead bird. Are you pleased master? But the world has moved on. There is a new puppy.

          • Well, if I’m spot on, where’s my uptick? Here’s yours, cheapskate!

            I suspect that the reason the MSM is freaking over Trump is not just Trump himself, with whom it could easily keep a good business going by attacking him with moderate, but incisive reporting and light comedy (and there is plenty of material there), but because the Dems under Hillary with Barrack in the background were on the cusp of suppressing the New Media with legislative acts cobbled together and already iniated by the Obama-Clinton Alinsky-ite coalition. Watch for what Steve Bannon will do; my bet is that he’ll be a major disruptor of the MSM. He has a major backer and has moved out of the White House, while enjoying Trump’s ear even more so than when he was inside, as true to his character, Trump feels guilty for not backing a good loyal buddy against the “West Wing Democrats” …tough to do so against his own daughter and son in law!

          • Chefofsinners

            Cheapskate? No, it’s just an uptickal allusion.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are trying to bring the new media to heel under the guise of combatting “fake news” and “hate speech.” The owners and managers of Facebook and Google, which owns You Tube. have left of centre views and will collaborate with governments if they think that most Internet users will stay with them.

          • seansaighdeoir

            True people are much more aware now of the MSM.

            But already Youtube are demonetizing independent vloggers and the major players have much more reach than independent bloggers. The MSM still set the narrative and that is crucial.

            I think the only reason the MSM are holding off regarding Trump is because the moment is not one of their choosing. I hope however that I’m wrong.

          • You’re right in the the MSM is still dominant, but without some sort of legislative support to prop up and protect their monopolies, such outlets who play a supporting role, like YouTube, Twitter or Facebook face potential challengers who will at the very least at least offer alternatives and dig into their market shares.

            If you were to spend any time being exposed to the North American media, you’d quickly chuck the very idea that they are capable of holding anything back for even a few hours just to run a few basic source and fact checks. They have tried every cockamamie attack, right down to Trump’s wife’s shoes and keep on trying, oblivious to the contempt and loss of credibility. They are in a bubble, where a small cadre of leftist activists have wrapped the media in a fog of delusion, allowing them to think they still have a monopoly on opinion, evidence notwithstanding. Not everyone who reads, listens to or watches their stuff believes it; many, like me, do so out of the kind of a cringing fascination one feels when watching YouTube vids of people doing dangerously stupid shit. Then, there is the bottom line, because given the trends, eventually, the already evaporating big money will run out and the competition will coalesce, ending their monopoly.

          • seansaighdeoir

            Yes I agree with the gist of your first paragraph the problem is that through the stranglehold of the media the liberal meme has morphed far out into public / private life.

            You will will have seen recently the Google engineer fired for having a view different to that of the liberal orthodoxy. Nothing he said warranted such a response and showed Google to be intolerant of normal views. This has been coming to the tech companies for some time. While the MSM may be losing power the ‘message’ has spread. To work for corporations it will be necessary to support this liberal meme.

            It will take a massive change to get the hate speech / PC legislation of the statute books. Who will be willing to lead the charge against that?

            I was hoping that Trump would be the man but he is under such attack that it is difficult to see how sustainable his presidency is.

            I spent a month in the US this year and as I most get my news from independent sources found it impossible to spend any time with the inanity of the MSM.

            You’ve obviously got a stronger stomache!

    • Dominic Stockford

      As I said elsewhere in this thread, one notice advertising SPUC’s 50 Anniversary tour visit to our church on Sunday has already been torn, down. I expect more, and probably worse, before the end of Sunday.

      • seansaighdeoir

        Yes its frightening how many people are ‘triggered’ by such events. An alarming rise in intolerance from the liberal tolerant left. I guess they don’t do irony…

        • Dominic Stockford

          They do ‘different opinion’ even less…

        • Royinsouthwest

          People who are “triggered” deserve to be shot!

  • len

    ‘Freedom , Liberty, and Equality,’ are all great concepts, as long as you believe’ the right thing’.
    This seems to be the current position with society
    It is mainly the media which is controlling peoples minds by controlling speech.Positively Orwellian.

    • Chefofsinners

      You are free to think exactly what we tell you to think and you will retain your liberty so long as you agree with us. This rule applies equally to all races, genders, sexual orientations and most religions.

      • Sarky

        Got a feeling its all going to come tumbling down soon.
        We are at a point where actual racism is on the same level as tesco selling blue t-shirts to boys and pink ones to girls.
        When offense is taken to everything, outrage loses its power.
        I live in hope that the majority of people are like me and can see through the stupidity of a situation that will eventually cause the opposite of what these people are trying to achieve.

        • IanCad

          Patience! Patience! Sarks. Things are bubbling to a peak.
          David Lammy is helping things along quite nicely.

          • Sarky

            I give it 10 years max.

          • Chefofsinners

            Prophecy now, is it? Glad to see you embracing the faith, brother.
            The apocalypse of St Sark of Suffolk. Doomsday: 8th September 2027. Repent, ye workers of iniquity, for the end is nigh.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Ah the Lammytations of Jezzemiah…

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          A lot of this progressive outrage is metropolitan – it cuts little mustard in Shropshire.

          • Chefofsinners

            I’ve never been to Little Mustard in Shropshire. Is it nice?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Not as nice as Pratt’s Bottom…

          • Dominic Stockford

            Or Piddletrenthide, or Piddlehinton. Beautiful places. Or the river Piddle, come to that.

          • Chefofsinners

            Ah, the historic seat of Piers Morgan’s family.

        • Chefofsinners

          This day has salvation come to Sarky’s house. Almost.

          • Sarky

            Seen the light?? I’ve always had this view. There are battles that need fighting everything else is a distraction.

          • Chefofsinners

            Glad to have you onside, you bigot.

          • Sarky

            I think my battles are ones you may not agree with.

    • IanCad

      Except for the fact that “Liberty” and “Equality” are mutually exclusive. That does not bother the leftist mind very much as they are adept at creating their own reality.

      • Merchantman

        Until recently few would have cried ‘Equality!’ as they rose against Tyranny but instead equality has morphed into the new tyranny itself.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Equality before the law, certainly. Equality otherwise, no thank you.

      • len

        Gods Law is to be upheld above the laws of man.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          Muslims would argue the same, though they of course dance to a different tune (or they would if dancing wasn’t haram).

          • len

            Muslims do some sort of weird sword waving dance round a glowing orb.I saw Charlie join in with this once and Trump (no Charlie didn`t Trump! ) Trump was there at this dance thing at a different time I believe?.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I have been pondering in what form the Anti-Christ will take and frankly it is a toss up between Piers Morgan and Gary Lineker.

  • When Jacob Rees-Mogg laid down his political life for the lives of those most marginalised, irrelevant and despised of human beings – the children of rapists – he imitated Christ in a way quite unparalleled in my lifetime.

    But the problem is this: we could make JRM king of the world tomorrow and it wouldn’t make much difference.

    The pathology is personal, public and social, it is institutional. The warfare rages on a spiritual level, not a party political level.

    The question – for all those wishing to see him installed as PM or leader of the party is this – what would it achieve, other than to exhaust him, age him and demoralise him?

    At a time when the pathology is organic rather than at the level of executive power, we need people with influence, not power. People who can change minds, who can change hearts, who can show, lead and illuminate.

    • Dominic Stockford

      All perfectly reasonable. However, with people with true principles, openly spoken, leading things, at least there is a ‘player in the game’ for those who follow Biblical morality.

    • William Lewis

      Good comment.

  • Chefofsinners

    Thanks, Smogg. Replace the words “the Catholic Church” with “the bible” and you’ve got a good template for use by Christendom at large.

    • Manfarang

      Including the Apocrypha.

      • Chefofsinners

        Yes indeed. Bel and the Dragon, and Chicken Licken and Noddy Goes to Israel.

        • carl jacobs

          Surely you are referring to Chicken Little.

          • Chefofsinners

            British blog. Our rules.

          • carl jacobs

            Oh. I see. I thought it was just a typo. I didn’t realize the Brits used the wrong name. My mistake.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Shall we start the ‘aluminium wars’ ?

          • carl jacobs

            The British rationale …

            “Aluminium, for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound.”

            http://www.lostinthepond.com/2013/02/why-do-americans-pronounce-it-aluminum.html?m=1

            American efficiency is not much concerned with classical sounds.

          • len

            I always wondered what that strange metal yanks were talking about , then realised it was only aluminium

          • len

            You say aluminium.
            We say aluminium,

          • Chefofsinners

            Do you play an aluminum harmonum in your condominum? I just can’t get it into my cranum.

          • carl jacobs

            You realize this entire post is irrelevantium?

            [Note my effort to reach out across the divide by using a British spelling with a classical sound.]

          • Royinsouthwest

            The ending -ium in the name of an element denotes a metal. Aluminium is a metal and therefore the British spelling is correct.

            The exception to this -ium rule is helium but it was detected in the sun before being found on Earth so scientists did not know whether it was a metal or non-metal when they gave it its name.

          • carl jacobs

            You mean like iron? And gold and silver? And copper? And zync?

            Anyways the name was chosen not to indicate a metal but because it sounded sophisticated. And the accent on the third syllable just does not work right. Remove the extraneous “I” and put the accent on the second syllable. Much more natural.

          • Royinsouthwest

            I did not say that the names of metals had to end in “ium.” Metals like copper, zinc, tin, gold, silver and iron have been known from the time of the early civilisations and therefore their names do not conform to any system. Many centuries later, after the systematic study of chemistry, as distinct from alchemy, began and new elements were discovered, chemists had to invent names for them and so they started to distinguish metals from non-metals by using the suffix ium in the names of the former.

            What do Americans call sodium, potassium, lithium, strontium, uranium and plutonium?

          • carl jacobs

            Tantalum. Molybdenum. Platinum.

            Aluminum is actually an older name than “aluminium”.

          • Chefofsinners

            The thing is, day dawns in Britain a good six hours before it reaches you. The Lord God creator knew what he was about. These things are symbolic, not that you will understand. Not for six hours or so.

          • len

            Us Brits have our ways, not always right, but they are ours 🙂

      • Dolphinfish

        I think the word you’re looking for is “deutero-canonical”.

        • Martin

          How can something be secondarily canonical. Either it is canonical or it isn’t.

          • Chefofsinners

            How can a dolphin be a fish?

          • Dominic Stockford

            I refer the very honourable member to my reply to Martin, above.

          • len

            Definitely fishy.

          • Dominic Stockford

            It isn’t.

          • Gregory Morris

            Deutero-canonical lacks authority but may be commendable reading none the less. Ben Sira was deemed non-canonical even though it was more orthodox than Ecclesiastes which was deemed canonical despite its controversial contents. The 2nd canon or measurement is not as exacting as the first one but it is still a canon nonetheless.

          • Martin

            Gregory

            “Ben Sira was deemed non-canonical even though it was more orthodox than
            Ecclesiastes which was deemed canonical despite its controversial
            contents.”

            But it is not part of the Jewish canon, hence cannot be part of the canon.

            Either something is God’s word or it is not, it cannot be secondarily God’s word.

          • Gregory Morris

            Yes. That is fine as far as it goes. The Rabbis declared that the Song of Songs and Chronicles defile the hands. That is a round-about way of declaring them holy. Others do not defile the hands and are out of that particular category. A canon is a yardstick for measuring. By another measure Ben Sira and Tobit etc are worthy to be read and may have a measure of authority eg as a historical witness but do not command the same authority. They may still however be authentic. There are different Canons and the secondary canon is an important witness cited in the New Testament.

          • Martin

            Gregory

            Saying that they are canonical means they are God breathed. Something cannot be secondarily God breathed.

          • Gregory Morris

            The word Canon means that the books have been measured against a standard. The standard is not orthodoxy but authority. However there is another standard of books that are worthy to be read and preserved and these we find in the deuterocanonical works. They are quoted in Jewish and Christian writings and are worthy of esteem. They may quite safely be read even by Plymouth Brethren such as myself.

          • Martin

            Gregory

            The canon is the books that God has caused men to write, it is not what men have judged to be so.

          • Gregory Morris

            The first statement is right though it does not necessarily follow that God did not cause men (and quite possibly women as well) to write things that are not in the Canon. The New Testament and the early Church accepted the Septuagint as the authentic OT whereas St Jerome quite rightly insisted on a return to the fountainhead of the Jewish Canon. However the variant versions of OT books eg the additional texts in the Greek version of Jeremiah indicate that differing versions of Biblical books existed side by side – the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria would have accepted the authority of LXX.

            In the end, the Church had to decide which NT documents could be received as Canonical. The letters of Peter, Hebrews, James and the letters of John have all been regarded with suspicion. The Song of Songs has been a candidate for expulsion by a great many Christians and Jews but providence and that is the important word, providence and discernment have kept it in. Rabbi Akiba said that the day that the Song was given to Israel is worth more than the sum of all other days. Deo gratias.

          • Martin

            Gregory

            Jerome was one of the few who had sufficient knowledge of Hebrew to understand what the Jewish canon was. No one waited for a conference to decide which were the books of the New Testament, they were using them and so knew what they were.

        • Manfarang

          Or even Antilegomena.

    • chiaramonti

      And Piers likes to claim he’s a Catholic! But not one who accepts the teaching of the `Church on this and other issues. Another a la carte catholic?

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        A Blairite Catholic, perchance?

    • Peasant Farmer

      Indeed, the weak point in his response was ‘the church teaches that….’ rather than ‘the bible teaches that…’

      However, given that he was bounced into it before 8 am when he thought he would be speaking on Brexit, keeping his calm in the face of Morgans inane interruptions, he did an excellent job. His provocative tweeting of the video afterwards showed extra character.

  • SonoView

    …Er…..Em….. Isn’t our Head of State both a Christian and the Head of the Church of England. I believe she is also “Defender of the Faith”.

    Off the The Tower with her, I say!

    • len

      Not a lot of’ defence of the faith’ going on nowadays?

      • Norman Yardy

        She does her best to maintain her right to rule and influence.

      • SonoView

        How true!

        But at least she confesses her faith in her Christmas broadcast.

        • len

          Better than nothing I suppose?

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        there will be even less under Charles III (or George VII) …

        • Dominic Stockford

          So much less it will be none. Articles 13 and 14 of the 39, you cannot defend what you do not believe.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Ah, like Diane Abbott being in charge of the Home Office and border security?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Exactly so.

        • len

          Charles will be a disaster all round.That’s why his mum is clinging to the throne.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Perhaps, when the time comes, we should have her stuffed and wheeled out on state occasions.

  • Et_Expecto

    Jacob Rees-Mogg s my hero. It is a pity that there are not more like him.

  • len

    Rather ironic that’ the inquision’ is being used against a Catholic?.
    Not that I approve, I support anyones right to free speech, and to follow any religion or political party unless said party advocates violence to achieve its aims.

    • Norman Yardy

      Free speech and also a right to be heard on the media as part of a balanced broadcasting and publishing media.

  • Haigha

    I like Rees-Mogg, but his answers on gay marriage were a bit of a cop-out (he was more forthright on abortion). If his reasoning really were merely, “The Catholic Church says X, and I’m a Catholic, therefore I believe X,” then I think that would be problematic in a political leader. The Catholic teaching on gay marriage (like its teaching on abortion) is not a matter of faith, but of moral reasoning. If he agrees with Church teaching, it should be because he agrees with the Church’s moral reasoning, not merely because the Church says so.

    I suppose he thought that if he could pass his position off as an incidental part of his identity, for which someone else is responsible, it would be more likely to be tolerated. But those days are gone. Conservatives (large and small “c”) need to hit back hard with reasoned argument in these situations. It certainly won’t make things any worse, and it might persuade some people on the margins.

    • Little Black Censored

      I think he was entirely right to be brief (not that he had much choice). Since his belief about marriage is part of his religious faith, and therefore, according to modern orthodoxy, private, he had no need to elaborate on it, simply to assert his acceptance of British law.

      • Haigha

        It’s related to his religion, but, as I already pointed out, it’s a matter of moral reasoning, not a matter of faith.

        • Norman Yardy

          Moral reasoning is a human thing, faith is based on scriptural issues.
          Homsexuality and abortion are both covered by scripture therefore faith.

          • Haigha

            No. There are moral assertions at the bottom (e.g., “it’s generally wrong to kill an innocent human”), but the Catholic positions on abortion and gay marriage are both reasoned positions based on the discernible nature of reality. It’s not like the Trinity or Transubstantiation.

          • Dominic Stockford

            If one accepts that the positions are, as you say, ‘based on the discernible nature of reality’, then they are easily overturned by someone with a different discernment of reality. If they are based, as Norman says, on ‘scripture therefore faith’, they can only be disagreed with by someone who rejects God and his word, *because* they reject God and his word.

          • Haigha

            However subjective and disputable the nature of reality may be, it’s certainly *more* objective and *less* disputable than revelation. A few centuries ago, arguments from scriptural authority may have been more persuasive than reasoning from shared premises. But that’s not the world we live in any more.

          • Dominic Stockford

            So you deny the Scripture as being divinely inspired truth then, you must do to say such a thing. What exactly do you then base your Christian faith on, if indeed you call yourself Christian. There is nothing else except the ideas of men, which clearly don’t point to God, as we are sinful and corrupted in every part of our being by that sin.

          • Haigha

            “So you deny the Scripture as being divinely inspired truth then, you must do to say such a thing.”

            No, my post is perfectly compatible with the belief that the Bible is divinely-inspired truth. The question is, what sort of argument is better for persuading those who don’t believe that. Revelation is purely subjective: there’s no common frame of reference by reference to which someone who hasn’t shared in the revelation.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Revelation isn’t subjective – it is clearly laid out in the Bible. There are two groups of people however, those who have been reborn by the Spirit, who pretty much get what its on about, and those who haven’t, who don’t.

          • Haigha

            Of course it’s subjective: either you receive the revelation or you don’t. The fact that it’s in the Bible isn’t proof unless you already believe that the Bible is true.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The information in the Bible is fact, just as, for instance, the existence of Barclays Bank is a fact regardless of whether someone believes it or not. Thus it is objective.

          • Haigha

            Metaphysical assertions are subjective because they are intrinsically unknowable, unlike the existence of Barclays Bank.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The existence of God and His creation of the universe is not a ‘metaphysical assertion’, it is a fact that some do not see. Just like other facts that people do not see. The existence of Barclays Bank is deniable by those who will not and cannot see it. As with the existence of God, those who don’t really accept it will argue as you do.

          • Haigha

            That’s silly. We can walk into Barclays Bank together. You can bang your head against the walls of one of its branches. There are experiments we can do together to prove or disprove its existence. The hypothesis that it exists is therefore falsifiable. There’s no experiment we can do to prove or disprove the existence of God, much less the specific metaphysical doctrines of Christianity.

          • Dominic Stockford

            An Orang-Asli can do none of those things with/to Barclays Bank. and if he could he might still deny that it is Barclays Bank, as opposed to simply being a building for some other purpose. Those who do not accept a truth are perfectly capable of denying a truth even when it is presented to them on a plate. The Gospel is true, the existence of God is true, they are facts. I refer you to the words of Paul from Romans:

            “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

          • Haigha

            Most people outgrow this sort of puerile reductionism. The hypothesis that Barclays Bank exists is falsifiable. We can walk into Companies House and look for its charter. If no charter exists, then that is evidence that Barclays Bank does not exist. We can look for its branches, and attempt to conduct transactions through its payment systems. If no such branches exist, and transactions cannot be conducted through its payment systems, then that’s more evidence that it doesn’t exist. There’s nothing comparable you can do to prove that God exists. You may assert that the existence of God is evident from creation, but the assertion isn’t falsifiable.

            And the fact that some people may deny the obvious does not mean that nothing is obvious or knowable. You can deny that a 16-ton weight exists, but you will still die when it’s dropped on you. That’s how we know that it exists.

          • Dominic Stockford

            You’re denying the Scriptures. And by saying I am indulging in ‘puerile reductionism’ you are mocking God and His Word. I suggest you read Job Chapter 27 for further factual information on God’s likely response.

          • Haigha

            Again, the question of my personal faith is entirely separate from the question of epistemology. I could have the faith of a saint, but there’s no conclusive way for me to prove the truth of my religion to an atheist or a Buddhist. In contrast, I can prove the existence of Barclays Bank, or a 16-ton weight, to any person of good faith and normal intelligence.

          • Dominic Stockford

            You continue to deny the Word of God. Writ large, there, we are told ‘They have no excuse’ for not knowing God. God is a fact, undeniable, it says.

            There is no point continuing this discussion whilst you do so.

          • Haigha

            If the metaphysical claims of Christianity were as obvious as you seem to think, why in the world would we even need the word “faith”, and why would it play such a prominent role in Christian doctrine?

        • Little Black Censored

          Do you know better than JRM what his belief about marriage is founded on? Your “pointing out” something doesn’t make it so.

          • Haigha

            I know what the position of the Catholic Church is founded on, and I’m quite confident that JRM does as well.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        I agree

    • I sort of agree with you, and I would (and could (and do)) certainly make “reasoned” arguments against “SSM” and abortion.

      But actually, it’s quite enough, and quite legitimate, in a democracy, to say that my Church disagrees with abortion &c and therefore I want the law to reflect my religious beliefs.

      After all, atheists (albeit crap atheists), have no problem asserting their doctrines into law without any further justification.

      • Haigha

        I agree that it’s sufficient for a voter: there’s no difference between a Christian or a Muslim trying to get his religious principles enacted into law and (say) a feminist trying to get her pulled-out-of-the-ether ideology enacted into law. My point is that it’s unsatisfying for a politician, and unlikely to persuade those who aren’t coreligionists.

      • Dominic Stockford

        But should it really be about what ‘his church’ teaches? Surely it is about what God teaches in his revealed Word? That would have far more weight. What one church or another teaches differs from day to day, what the Bible teaches remains the same for ever..

    • He wasn’t given a chance to fully explain his own moral reasoning, they didn’t want to hear any intelligent moral reasoning in the interview.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Sorry, I am aghast at the very idea that Piers Morgan and accompanying strumpet have any conception of moral reasoning….

  • Top-notch post, YG.

  • Maureen O’Brien

    YG: an interesting discussion. I hope I am not the first to point out that the “beliefs” of this so-called “bigot” were (and mostly still are) the mainstream beliefs of the Church of England and most Christian religions (not to mention most of the Jewish faith) and the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

    • michaelkx

      you said “overwhelming majority of Muslims.” you wait till the Muslims have the majority, then we will have a LGBT hung on every street corner. see what sharia law said about LGBT, if you think I am OTT.

  • HedgehogFive

    Since this thread majors on abortion and homosexuality, may I share a couple of thoughts which came to the Hedgehog, possibly while hibernating?

    Some years ago, the American Psychological Association (or whatever) declared that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness. This may seem to have been a politically motivated decision, but was it more the case that they could not admit that they could not do anything about it?

    Four or five centuries ago, many women were burnt as witches, quite often because of the superstitious belief or malicious false accusation that they had caused miscarriages in women or cattle.

    With that in mind, what does one make of prominent people such as Hillary Clinton and her associates, who in our scientific age, without any recourse to superstition or subjection to malicious accusation, make it their business to encourage women to opt for termination of pregnancy, even going so far as treating it as a matter of “empowerment”?

    • Inspector General

      Militant LGBT gangsters in suits are currently bullying the World Health Organisation into accepting that Transgenderism is not a mental illness…

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      No Hedgehog, the Hildabeast is a witch…

    • IrishNeanderthal

      but was it more the case that they could not admit that they could not do anything about it?

      “The doctors decided Bunbury couldn’t live, so Bunbury just . . . died.”

      What would happen, though, if an effective and non-drastic medical intervention to reverse homosexuality were discovered?

      • Chefofsinners

        Or if a test were developed for homosexuality in the womb?

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    We could do with a three-dimensional prime minister instead of the dreary cardboard cutout we have a present.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Or any of the dreary pretences we have had for ooh, about 20 years or so.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Indeed, dear Dominic…one wishes we had someone of the mettle of Alexander VI in St. Augustine’s chair instead of the succession of Rag, Tag and Bobtails we have endured since flog’ em Fisher.

    • Hi

      Well exactly and JRM is your fellow if you want that!

    • CliveM

      I’d settle for a competent one.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Fi, sir, you ask too much!

    • Hi

      As a P.S. , a new Benjamin Disraeli would be cool, as me and my partner have recently been to Hughenden , so like me yellow was his favourite colour. Britain could do with another Sephardic prime minister. Like in the 21st century , make the Queen into Empress of Jupiter, protecting Jews,pass massive paternalistic social reforms, define British Conservatism for a generation and have respect from foreign powers, whilst expanding the British space Empire , post brexit. As the Chancellor of Mars said at the Congress of Olympus Mons “this Jew: he is the man!”.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Ah yes, Disraeli loved yellow and his favourite flower was the primrose. I am all in favour of your futuristic suggestions, dear Hannah, and am delighted you are joining in with my serving of flapdoodle!

    • Chefofsinners

      I wonder whether she even has one dimension? This is a creature which morphs to whatever shape is expedient.

  • No, I didn’t. Although such magnanimity would depend on Morgan’s current comportment. Wouldn’t surprise me though, as Trump was always a Democrat, although most of his misjudgment can be attributed to his need to keep the ruling class close-by for business reasons.

  • Chefofsinners

    Rees-Mogg may very well become Prime Minister. Not through any campaign on his part but because the media are repeatedly highlighting everything that is attractive to voters about him. Having made this mistake once with Trump, one would think they had learned. But now the feeding frenzy is rolling, they can’t stop the fake outrage. The “you can’t possibly vote for this guy” line keeps coming and it inevitably makes the electorate say “oh yes we can”. In the same way that Hillary and Obama are responsible for Trump, Susanna and Piers are making a Mogg premiership truly credible.

  • The latest from Rev Dr Ashenden JRM and news from the Russian pilgrimage.

  • Richard Hill

    When the Government recognises co-habitation as the same as marriage for most practical purposes, surely politicians could get out of the marriage business altogether.
    It seems that there are a few areas, such as inheritance, where formal marriage is still legally important. Change the law to make these few co-habitation also. Otherwise let people do what they will. God can judge them.

    • Chefofsinners

      The heart of this problem is that the secularist has no grounds for his morality other than popular opinion. Thus once a majority takes a particular view and a law is changed, he sees it as an established truth, approved by the highest authority he knows and therefore a moral matter. He then quickly rediscovers his natural tendency to judge and blame others.
      Democracy was only ever a system of government, but it has become an arbiter of truth in the absence of any alternative. Cue moral outrage against religious people, who choose a different moral authority. Thus the God-given sense of right and wrong is twisted and misdirected at God Himself.

      • Christopher Shell

        Well said.

  • GraceGuerilla

    I’m fascinated (and equally disturbed) watching the media narrative of the UK subtly shift. Since when did opposing abortion become ‘bigotry’? Groups like Planned Parenthood in the US have long celebrated abortion as a ‘freedom’ and a ‘right’ but only recently (it seems), has raising concerns about it, become the new ‘bigotry’. What’s next, I wonder?

  • Christopher Shell

    So a person who does not want babies to be killed is the lowest of the low.

    That is not only untrue – it is the exact opposite of the truth. ,The lowest of the low is obviously the one who does want babies to be killed.

    The obviousness of this point is why they shout so loud, to try and drown the weakness and self-contradictoriness of the ‘argument’. A case of ‘argument weak at this point – shout louder’.

    • The Duke of Umberland, England

      Without revelation mankind does not know if it be high nor low.

  • Christopher Shell

    Why does Jacob Rees-Mogg bring religion into it, let alone as the actual basis?

    Not killing humans is justice 101.

    That man plus woman produces child is biology 101.

    That means a lot of people failing their primary school elementaries.

    • carl jacobs

      Because religion is how you arrive at the understanding that other people have intrinsic value even when that understanding doesn’t serve our immediate interests. The pro-abortion argument does not depend upon (or even really care about) a biological determination that an unborn child is not a living human being. Indeed, I have had pro-abortionists admit the contrary and then proceed to compare the unborn life in question to that of a mosquito. This is a fair comparison for the non-religious advocate because ultimately he can find no ontological difference between man and mosquito. They are both random events devoid of eternal consequence.

      Without God there is no authority capable of establishing that other men are not fit objects to be used for our own advantage. Philosophy and argument do not have the authority to bind the conscience against the will.

  • Christopher Shell

    And please tell me that these people are not committing the philosophical fallacy of chronological snobbery. They think, even assume, than anything old or archaic is **therefore** bad.

    That must mean that everything in the modern world is good. But even they don’t believe that.

    The sun is much more archaic than any of the things mentioned. But is the sun cold because it is old?

    This mistake of theirs is useful in determining their intellectual level.

  • magnolia

    Inevitably they are weakening the word “bigot” through massive overuse. It will soon be so watered down as to lose 90% of its pungency. This semantic shift is something few of those who bandy the word around get. You cannot change rationality and reality through pejorative or upbeat labelling for very long. Words are markers and just shift meaning, again and again. But many never learn this,even when words are their trade. Never considered linguistics, I guess.

  • Kevin Lawlor

    He was asked a question about his personal views. As I understand it, this is a free country in which people are allowed free speech. That opinion may not be the opinion of others, but he is allowed to have that opinion! If they don’t like it, then they should’t ask those questions. He was not putting down women or equality. As I understand the definition of the word ‘bigot’ it means ‘intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.’ In no way was he being that way, he was simply expressing his personal view because he was asked it!

    • carl jacobs

      Don’t think of it as a charge of intolerance. Think of it as a charge of heresy. Then everything makes sense.

      • Kevin Lawlor

        Dictionary definition of heresy: = ‘belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.’ His views therefore would not be heresy as Christian doctrine would be against killing babies in the womb and would state that marriage is between one man/one woman. So in no way was he being heretical.

        • carl jacobs

          They are accusing us of heresy against Modernity.