muslim problem
Freedom of Religion

The problem with ‘The Muslim Problem’

Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of The Sun, wrote an article yesterday gracefully entitled: ‘Now Philip Hammond is finally Out he must shut the door behind him and take control over our laws, our trade and especially immigration‘. It was all fairly standard Brexiteer fare until the last section, which segued into the thorny issue of child abuse gangs and the fact that they tend to stem from a particular community. Kavanagh writes:

The common denominator, almost unsayable until last week’s furore over Pakistani sex gangs, is Islam.

Thanks to former equalities chief Trevor Phillips, and Labour MPs such as Rotherham’s Sarah Champion, it is acceptable to say Muslims are a specific rather than a cultural problem.

One of the Pakistani perverts starkly identified the gulf between some Muslim men and the white British women they regard as prey: “They are good for one thing, for me to f*** and use like trash.”

Trevor Phillips did indeed say it’s time to call a spade a spade: he thinks it’s wrong to call them ‘Asian sex gangs’, which is altogether too discursive, not to say a little evasive and rather racist, and so we ought instead to refer to them as ‘Muslim sex gangs’, because:

It insults the largest single ethnic minority group in the UK – Hindu Indians who consider themselves Asian and the many East Asians who have the UK their home.

Neither group has been even remotely associated with these crimes.

What the perpetrators have in common is their proclaimed faith. They are Muslims, and many of them would claim to be practising.

It is not Islamophobic to point this out, any more than it would be racist to point out that the most active persecutors of LGBT people come from countries where most people are, like me, black.

It isn’t entirely clear why ‘Muslim sex gangs’ should be more acceptable to Trevor Phillips than ‘Asian sex gangs’, for Muslims are as diverse and variable in their worlds as Asians are in theirs. What is to be gained by tarnishing the faith of the peace-loving Ahmadiyyas or that of the pure and tranquil Sufis just because of a few recidivist Sunnis? Would Baptists really tolerate the chronic and global cases of systematic child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church being termed ‘Christian child abuse’? But Kavanagh likes the proposal, because:

British authorities have long deliberately disregarded Muslim sex crimes — soon likely to be a racist offence itself — including outrages such as female genital mutilation and “honour” killings.

Such contemptible treatment of women, including Muslim women, is not just despicable — it would have been inconceivable here on such a scale only a few years ago.

He longs for the day when the UK Government is back in control of UK immigration, and muses: “What will we do about The Muslim Problem then?”

The Muslim Problem?

Germany had a Jewish problem in 1933. Jews weren’t forming sex gangs or mutilating their own girls, but they were accused of ruining Germany by conspiring to liquidate German wealth and capital for their own uses. When Hitler determined that their presence was no longer conducive to the national interest, they were rounded up and dispatched to the ovens, as they were throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Does The Muslim Problem have a comparably effective Final Solution? Is Trevor Kavanagh expecting Philip Hammond and Liam Fox (or Amber Rudd and Theresa May) to round up Pakistani sex gangs and deport them to, um… Pakistan?

That wouldn’t actually be an unreasonable punishment for lawless Pakistani immigrants. And while we’re at it, we could take back control of our borders (and empty quite a few prison cells) by deporting all foreign nationals who break the law of the land or otherwise offend against British culture and democratic customs. But we read that the Newcastle sex gang was “mostly British-born, of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish backgrounds”.

What do you do with British-born ‘Muslim sex gangs’? Re-education? Castration? Lock them in Room 101 with a herd of pigs and force-feed them bacon sandwiches?

You see, that’s the problem with The Muslim Problem: it discriminates against one specific faith community and incites ill-feeling towards all members of it. It inclines toward crass caricatures of Muslim identity and dehumanises the faithful, loyal and peaceful followers if Islam. To paraphrase Trevor Phillips: it insults the followers of the second-largest religion in the UK, the vast majority of whom have not been even remotely associated with these crimes. Just as the definition of the Jewish Problem consigned millions of Jews to torture and murder, so the articulation of The Muslim Problem will cause a backlash against all British-born Muslims and those of other countries.

Now is not the time for knee-jerk journalism stoking anti-Muslim sentiment: the solutions to these societal tensions are to be found in the pursuit of theology; in robust comparative religion; in the fearless pursuit of Christology versus Prophetology. As the Rev’d Dr Gavin Ashenden wrote a few months ago, ‘We need to talk more about Jesus and Mohammed and less about Christianity and Islam‘. The divine mission is to witness to God’s truth, not to denigrate any of those who are made in His image.

And we certainly don’t need to convey to all Muslims that their existence or mere presence is a ‘problem’, for that way lies the validation of hatred, prejudice and faith suppression. If the problem was Jews and their Torah yesterday, and it’s the Muslims and their Qur’an today, why not Christians and their Bible tomorrow? The potential for all people of faith to be cast as outsiders or ‘others’ is ever-present. The ever-enlightened liberal-secular inquisition must forever deal with the ‘problem’ of religion, for we have all been judged and found wanting.

  • ardenjm

    I guess he meant something defeatist – that the time would come when we’d understand why Ferdinand and Isabella did what they did.
    But if you can tell us where Sunni Islam has been successfully integrated into a pluralistic society without militating ever more aggressively for special status and, once at around 10% of the population, not containing radicalised elements acting out seemingly random acts of terror and violence against kuffir (all of which totally unsuspected by family members, apprently) – well, that would be an encouraging start.
    Good luck with that.
    Because there isn’t one.
    Anywhere.
    At anytime.
    Ever.

    So, yes, there is, indeed, a problem with Islam, a problem with Mohammed – child rapist, marauder and probably tool of Satan (duped or otherwise), and a problem with an impossible to predict proportion of the Muslim population.

    Anything less frank than this is the Coca Cola Teaching The World to Sing version of Christianity that has made the Church of England what it is today.

    (I note in passing, that Holy-Communion-thieving-at-St-Peter’s-Basilica-Rome Cranmer couldn’t stop himself from making the egregious jibe that homosexual (like himself) priests within the Catholic Church going after adolescents should tar all Christians with the same brush. When in fact his analogy is that all Muslims shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush – but he makes pains never to exonerate the Catholic co-religionists of the crimes of their homosexual clerics.)

    • Stig

      1 John 4: 1-3.

      • Anton

        Well chosen. And remember that “antichrist” means “alternative messiah” (“anti” has a wider meaning in Greek than “against”).

        • ardenjm

          Hence this passage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

          675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

          676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.

          677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

          • Anton

            I agree with a good deal of that exegesis.

    • Anton

      When you go to a party, do you seek out the host to insult about the decor?

      • ardenjm

        Oh I’m sure he can take it.
        He stuck his hand in a fire voluntarily after all.
        He’s a strong boy.

        • Anton

          I’m sure he can too. Whether he should have to is another matter. What do you understand by the word “etiquette”? And can you back up your assertions?

          • ardenjm

            It means that I can be shown the door.
            As I fully expect I shall be – depending on how thin the skin is that I’ve offended.

          • Anton

            There’s a difference between speaking the truth regardless of consequence and gratuitous insult. Even if what you say is true, why do you consider it needed to be said on this thread? Are you seeking a form of martyrdom inside your own head?

  • Anton

    What Your Grace is silent upon is the attitude of the Quran toward these things, as interpreted via the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Familiarisation with Islam’s scriptures and founder brings assurance – unhappily – that it is legitimate to speak, if not of a generic Muslim problem, then certainly of a problem with Islam.

    Once again, I call for Islam to be recategorised as a political movement. Then the government can begin to consider appropriate action.

  • IanCad

    Yes YG!! We need to be very careful. We the people, are a fickle bunch, much given to over-reaction. History holds lessons but is rarely heeded. It doesn’t take much to turn the mild man into a beast. One of the first steps is to equate the Muslim faith with the Antichrist and thus wring from Holy Writ the justification for persecution, banishment and interdict. Cool heads are needed.

  • EDLmedia

    Where do you get the idea that Muslim sexual abuse of English girls is a Sunni phenomenon? There have been convictions of Iranian abusers in Banbury, Blackpool, Chelmsford, Liverpool, Manchester, Oldham and now, last week, Newcastle. Surely they are not also Sunni?

    • dannybhoy
    • Little Black Censored

      This is a disappointing post from Cranmer. The very nature of Islam is evil. The fact that most Moslems are not also means that they either do not practise or do not understand their religion. Those that follow it rigidly are sociopaths.
      One way towards dealing with this problem might be to insist on a critical study of the Koran, etc., in schools, so that everybody, including moderate or nominal Moslems, would have some idea of what that religion requires: its attitude to anything non-Islamic – people, laws, governments, women – is poisonous; not only cultural but inseparable from theology.

  • Damaris Tighe

    Although I think that orthodox Islam is a problem (and the Sufis and Armadiyas are not orthodox), I’m not comfortable with isolating grooming gangs as simply a ‘Muslim’ problem. I suspect that in these cases religion and social class interact. A large portion of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigration came from backward rural communities, brought in to work the northern textile mills. They brought their Muslim peasant attitudes with them and taught them to their children – toxic attitudes that we don’t usually see from educated, urban Pakistanis such as Imran Kahn and the heart surgeon who had an affair with Princess Diana (although these men have more traditionalist views than western men).

    • ardenjm

      Proportionally far fewer from Bangladesh than Pakistan, I believe.
      One could therefore speculate that the nub of the issue is whatever ethnicity make up the majority of the Pakistani population (here in the UK): Punjabi I’m guessing.

      Question is – are there rape gangs in France made up of Muslim Arabs, rape gangs in Germany made up of Muslim Turks and rape gangs in Italy made up of Muslim Somalis?
      Are there, likewise, rape gangs in India made up of Muslims going after non-Muslims?

      We need the wider picture.
      As always: just the parochial perspective skews our view.

      • Coniston

        There have been a number of articles recently about the 70th anniversary of Indian & Pakistani independence. Most have pointed out that Pakistan is a failed state.

  • Charitas Lydia

    Cranmer completely fails to see the religious motivation behind rape and the sexual humiliation of the kuffar. Nobody has claimed that ‘all Muslims’ are the problem. What is clear is that all the men who committed these crimes were Muslim and they raped only infidel white girls.

    • dannybhoy

      To destroy their self esteem, to humiliate and degrade and ultimately dominate.
      Remember Asia Bibi..
      http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/05/01/pakistan_sc_declines_early_hearing_of_asia_bibi_case/1309349

      • Charitas Lydia

        Absolutely. Cranmer is whitewashing Islam. He does not see that other non-Asian Muslims like Albanians, Somalians and Eritreans have also been involved in the rape-gangs in Britain. His entire argument collapses on the basis of the evidence.

        • Indeed. Muslim is a better term because unlike Asian it actually picks out what they have in common and what they use to justify the abuse.

    • Yes he is evading the point that certain teachings of Islam are part of the rationale and motivation for these behaviours. The link is causative not incidental.

    • bluedog

      It’s rape jihad, pure and simple.

  • Mark

    If there is one “specific” which has been staring us in the face for far too long, it is mosques. A few “hidden camera” investigative documentaries have shown some awful stuff going on, covering everything that has come into our society as a concern, from “kill apostates” to “Do not mix with non-Muslims” to “White women are trash” to “Jihad against the West is an obligation”. Many of these in Channel 4 Dispatches “Undercover Mosque”.

    A radio caller (Muslim) at the weekend, said he’d heard the views of some imams, regarding the victims in the Rotherham case, in that “they deserved it, and led on the ‘good men’ “. This may only be one call, and some could say, “who knows if that was a Muslim?” but surely Muslims also have a reason to be concerned and can and should show that concern.

    Sometimes it’s said that only 20% or so of Muslims actually go to mosques, when we are led to believe everyone does it(!) Of course not all do, but in some areas, it is a hub of society. I’m tired of hearing that leaflets calling for the death of Ahmadis, or disparaging Western society, have been found in certain mosques. I’m also tired of never hearing the outcome. We do need to know what goes on, and the time to regulate has long since passed.

    Would it be “Islamophobic” to regulate mosques, given the extraordinary situations we have in society now? Not to me, but some would call it that. Of course there is a danger that there would be a tantrum, demanding the regulation of all places of worship, even though we’d have absolutely no reason to do so. I would also bring madrassas into this. What on earth is said to young children in some? Where do their teachers come from? Once again, every now and again, something awful pops up.

    These men who raped the girls seemed to have such a terrible view of white girls (perhaps non-Muslim because apparently the Sikh community also suffered at some point). Did these men bring that with them from Pakistan (if born there)? If born here, where did they get that attitude from? Some claim it’s the general “Western way” of women wearing skimpy clothes. Well, define “skimpy” and then explain why it does not have the same effect on any other group in society, as it appears to have among some Muslim men.

    • Marcus Stewart

      Prisons too are an issue – a significant minority of inmates are Muslim, and, as has been reported in the media, there is heavy proselytising in some prisons by Muslim gangs. Whether inmates are ‘radicalised’ in any number I don’t know, but it’s an unhealthy phenomenon. Many of these men will, of course, re-offend; and a growing proportion of Muslim (or convert-to) inmates are foreign nationals, who may have a threatening agenda.

      • Mark

        Prisons are a huge issue. Then we get the report that radicalisation books are on offer in the library! Sometimes, you could not make things up.

  • dannybhoy

    “But we read that the Newcastle sex gang was “mostly British-born, of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish backgrounds”.

    What do you do with British-born ‘Muslim sex gangs’? Re-education? Castration? Lock them in Room 101 with a herd of pigs and force-feed them bacon sandwiches?”
    But do they regard themselves as British? Islam demands loyalty to the faith, not to a nation -especially a non Muslim nation, with its man made laws and monarchy.
    If we look at it another way; say from the angle of what this country has traditionally stood for, we can see that actually Islam and democracy, and Islam and human rights/equality, and Islam and Christianity, and Islam and Judaism, do not have a great deal in common.
    The Jews in Muslim nations were mostly treated badly, as not even citizens. That’s why there are hardly any Jews left in Islamic nations.
    The Christians in Muslim nations have been and even more so now, persecuted and abused (whilst we Christians observe and tut tut into our tea cups btw.)
    So can integration work?
    Only if the majority of Muslims living in Britain are willing to properly embrace our traditional national values, our Monarch, our military, our laws; and reject those in their communities who wish us harm
    And if our politicians regain some balls and start reasserting the preeminence of British law, the full imposition of that law, British traditions and customs, and implement deportation or exile for those who won’t accept or break those conditions..
    I also believe that if our government is bent on retaining the overseas aid programme (with money they have taken from British tax payers), they must impose strict terms and conditions to protect and improve the lives of Christians and other minorities in countries where they are being persecuted.

    • Coniston

      The government has no interest in persecuted Christians abroad. It doesn’t really want or like the ones who are here, who keep harping on about religious freedom, the right to object to SSM and abortion, etc.

    • Little Black Censored

      Dannybhoy, (is the H sounded?) that is an excellent comment.

      • dannybhoy

        ” (is the H sounded?)”
        Dhepends how far awhay you are… :0)
        Thankyou.

  • EDLmedia

    “It isn’t entirely clear why ‘Muslim sex gangs’ should be more acceptable to Trevor Phillips than ‘Asian sex gangs’ …”
    You will have to ask Mr Phillips. But I note that there have been convictions for sexual abuse offences here in England of Muslims from Eritrea, Somalia, Morocco, Slavs and Muslim converts from the Caribbean.
    “Asian” is nothing more nor less than a politically correct term contrived to avoid more accurate terminology that will likely upset some Muslims.
    Two years ago the Serious Case Review of one of the Oxford grooming/abuse trials recommended that:
    With a significant proportion of those found guilty nationally of group CSE being from a Pakistani and/or Muslim heritage, relevant government departments should research why this is the case, in order to guide prevention strategies.
    It is a pity that no one has had the courage to pick up that recommendation and research it rigorously. We’ll be going round in circles until that project is completed.

  • Father David

    Concerning Brexit – David Davis was hopeless this morning on the TODAY programme on the wireless, the interviewer ran rings round him as he blustered away. Tell the truth Double D – you haven’t got a clue what to do next and the clock is ticking away and you haven’t even yet agreed how much to pay in the Divorce Settlement.

    • Anton

      You don’t want to give away your negotiating position to the media.

      We’d be mad to fall for the EU’s demand to settle a payment before we know what we are getting for it.

      • Father David

        The madness is surely evident on the part of those politicians who are hell bent on withdrawal from the E U. We certainly don’t know what we are getting after spring 2019. I still hope and pray that sense will prevail over the sheer lunacy of leaving the EU.

        • IanCad

          Oh! For a down arrow!

          • Little Black Censored

            Isn’t that a down arrow next to the up one? If not, what is it – but it would be interesting to see how many down ticks commenters were getting.

          • Anton

            Try it. It doesn’t work as it used to.

        • Merchantman

          Why your fixation, for that is what it is, with the EU? I can remember clearly pre Common Market Britain. It was not a failure. We had an independant and coherent Legal System and a National Parliament answerable to the people rather than Eurounelectedables and a nation far more at peace with itself than we see today. The churches had respect too.
          I’m not glossing over how many things have improved ,but nearly all are improvements we could have made if we had remained outside the EU. Those springing from within the EU have largely been burdens and not in the long term interest of the British.

          • Father David

            It’s most encouraging to see Farage frothing at the mouth again in response to our latest EU proposals concerning the “Temporary Customs Union”. Anything that annoys Farage must be a good thing as he helped get us into the current mess in the first place.

          • Anton

            We notice your ducking of questions on the issue.

          • Little Black Censored

            That is what all those people do, shift ground when they are losing the argument.

          • dannybhoy

            I don’t think we’re in a mess. I think we’re on our way back to sovereignty, secure(r) borders and better controlled immigration. If we manage to put in place policies which will encourage our young to study for the professions we currently poach from countries who really need their skilled medical professionals, that will be a good thing.
            If we can encourage our own people to have bigger families instead of importing them, that will be a good thing too. If we can once more foster a sense of non -Jingoistic pride in our country and build a country worth making sacrifices for -as previous generations did; that will be a good thing too.
            You know, it makes old Danny laugh the way for example the media will laud the sense of patriotism and national identity in other nations; but excoriate it in our own..
            https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jun/16/rugby-union-lions-nz-maori-haka
            https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Argentines-so-proud-of-their-country-given-that-it-is-so-undeveloped

        • Sarky

          Well that’s another prayer that went be answered. Ever heard of ‘short term pain, long term gain”?

        • David

          Why do you have what appears to be an emotional fixation on a political empire that denies even the Christian roots of europe’s culture and seeks to replace our UK’s, roughly Christian based Common Law system with a secular Napoleonic Code system ? Do you actively seek to undermine the last vestiges of this country’s Christian legal heritage ?

          • Little Black Censored

            Do you really think he is “Father”? There is a “Father Todd” something-or-other who writes to the Spectator in a similar manner; perhaps they are the same person.

          • David

            I just don’t know if he is a “Father” in the Catholic sense. But I’ve noticed that he delivers his statements, always without evidence, and when you request some, he is silent.

        • Little Black Censored

          You wouldn’t have known what we should have got if we voted to stay in. Courage! We shall be in charge of our own country; are you afraid of that?

    • CliveM

      Nicely on topic.

      • Marcus Stewart

        Maybe not entirely fair: rightly or wrongly, many Brexiteers are such precisely because they see rampant immigration as the cause or contributor of the matter under discussion, and of the political correctness that prevents sensible discussion of it.

    • David

      You are being rather naive, perhaps deliberately. He can’t refuse to be interviewed, because of his role, and he certainly can’t reveal any of his hand, or objectives, before he knows what is in his opponents hand. Have you never negotiated anything complex ? I suspect, perhaps not.

    • Little Black Censored

      You and I seem to have heard different versions of that interview. The interviewer kept insinuating that the British negotiators were incompetent or divided or unprepared, and kept asking what we were “offering” to the EU, while Davis was coherent and courteous but firm in his replies. Your BBC-Guardian account of the situation is wildly off-beam, as you and they are going to find out.
      Not that this is anything to so with the subject at hand.

    • HedgehogFive

      I read that David Miliband has described Brexit as an “unparalleled act of economic self-harm”.

      But is it not the case that when people self-harm, a likely cause is their being or having been in an abusive relationship (with partner, parent, or whoever)?

      • Anton

        Unparalleled? Three times since the war Labour has been ejected from office with the nation’s credit card maxed out.

  • Broadwood

    Mark Durie, an Anglican minister and theologian with great first-hand experience of Islamic cultures, has written and talked extensively on this topic as someone else posted on this blog elsewhere recently.
    This talk that he gave on this very issue is a good place to start. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TS0AHERNaI&t=532s

    • Coniston

      Also read his book – ‘The Third Choice’.

      • Broadwood

        Yes, I have it! Invaluable.

  • the second-largest religion in the UK

    As a member of one of the political parties which brought Muslims to Britain, and which is now restricting our freedoms to ensure that Islam flourishes here, perhaps Your Grace could explain why it is necessary to Islamize what was a Christian land.

    Brother Nathanael, the Christian convert from Judaism, calls it the Great Transformation, which ‘ushered in the obliteration of Western national distinctiveness and the annihilation of its European Christian roots. For what began as international commerce has grown into a compost of creeds, cultures, races and lifestyles that drown out our once unified, Christian society.’ His video, ‘The Coming Of The Anti-Christ’, is here.

    • David

      Brother Nathanael is, I find, an excellent commentator on many of our present problems,

  • I idly wonder how the media would report it if the sex-gangs had all been white, British born and regular at church. I’m sure the Christian connection would not have been downplayed.

    Many people, myself included, feel that the truth is being suppressed by the media. Christians must be people of the truth, even when it is uncomfortable or against golden calves of the day. Yes, it’s wrong to demonise people. But brushing the problem under the carpet will ultimately do more harm.

    I wonder what Gavin Ashenden, whom you quote, would make of this piece…

  • CliveM

    I think it problematic to try and draw a parallel between the Nazis views on Jews and Trevor Philips view on naming the members of these rape gangs as Muslim. The Nazis had no basis beyond prejudice for their views, whilst Trevor Philips comment (in proper context) can be justified.

  • carl jacobs

    The “Jewish Problem” was construction upon a foundation of race. The “Muslim Problem” is constructed upon a foundation of ideology. They are not therefore analogous. It would be more correct to analogize Islam to “The Communist Problem”. Islam is an ideology that is wholly antithetical to Western culture and Western civilization. If you wish to keep Western civilization you must maintain dominance over Islam. To the extant you lose that dominance you will also lose the things you value in the West. The question is “How do you maintain that dominance?”

    Secularism seeks to trivialize and privatize religion on the assumption that it is incidental. It assumes that all people are inevitably converging upon a Progressive Ideal that is independent of religious identity. This is a terribly foolish assumption but one that Secularism is incapable of surrendering. It would mean admitting that religion is not incidental. That’s the trap in which the West presently finds itself.

    What’s the solution? I haven’t a clue. But if you let things continue to drift, you will drift right into a “Final Solution” to the “Muslim Problem”. Because there is no possible coexistence between Islam and the West. Culture must remain all the one or it will become all the other.

    • Mark

      I must admit that the “Secular” thing, at least to me, seems an intangible thing, where you can’t point at a “leader” or a “manifesto” or anything like that, and has become a morphing of society, like organic growth, especially in the drop of people claiming Christianity and more claiming “no religion” or “atheist” on the census.
      Maybe there is a book somewhere that would explain that to me. But if people turn away from religion whose job is it to prop it up? And at the same time Islam, we are told, is going in the other direction. I’m not sure if that is really true (outside of birth rates) but it is certainly not helped by our media and authorities being terrified of it, while “Islam” is hugely anti-secular.

      • carl jacobs

        Nothing is going to prop up Christianity in Europe. It’s dead. The question becomes “What religion will replace Secularism when the existential fear of demographic and cultural displacement becomes too great for Secularism to manage?” That religion will be malignant and neopagan. From it will come the “Final Solution”.

        The problem is not a Muslim takeover. The problem is the ideology that will arise to confront the possibility of Muslim takeover. That will be the judgment.

        • Phil R

          Too harsh. Christianity is evolving. Nominal Christianity (what has been described as the mushy middle cannot sit on the fence any more). Churches are growing in the U.K. And Europe, but they tend to be evangelical and orthodox.

          Even in Rural Wales we have outgrown our new modern Church and we meet in a large lecture theatre. We are growing and will perhaps soon reach 1000 members but smaller CinW congregations are closing fast.

          A changing pattern rather than demise

    • bluedog

      ‘ But if you let things continue to drift, you will drift right into a “Final Solution” to the “Muslim Problem”.’

      Shouldn’t that be ‘we’ rather than ‘you’. If the Netflix programme Designated Survivor is anything to go by, US Muslims are becoming a very prominent influence in US society.

  • George Whale

    1. The prophet Mohammed raped his third wife Aisha when she was just nine years old.

    2. Mohammed is held up by Islamic teaching as “the perfect man” to emulate.

    3. Perhaps this is part of the explanation for the ‘coincidence’ of child rape-gangs in Britain being almost exclusively Muslim.

    4. The latest batch of predators – this time from Newcastle – included not only those of Pakistani origin, but also Bangladeshi, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish. Very different cultures, but same creed and same sadistic contempt for white British children.

    5. “What do you do with British-born ‘Muslim sex gangs’?” The politicians invited the rapists’ parents here. The British people never wanted them, so morally why do we have responsibility for them? These vermin have destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of English girls and their families. Capital punishment is the only just punishment for the worst of the offenders. Hang them, shoot them, electrocute them, throw them off buildings… who cares, as long as they’re removed?

    6. “… dehumanises the faithful, loyal and peaceful followers if Islam.” The problem is, wherever these saintly creatures go in numbers, they take their attack dogs with them. Do you know of any sizeable Muslim population in Western Europe that does not have terrible problems with Muslim killers and rapists? Note also that countless terrorists have been the offspring of your unblemished moderates.

    Nobody knows how to separate the sheep from the wolves, because they are of the same blood and the same core belief system. You can’t have Islam without Muslim terrorists and Muslim rapists, the two go together like shit and flies.

    Islam will have to go. Sorry moderates, but we value our children’s lives more.

    7. “…the solutions to these societal tensions are to be found in the pursuit of theology; in robust comparative religion…”. That will stop Ali and his chums mass murdering the next crowd of kids at a pop concert, will it? Give me strength.

    • Mark

      1. Technically true (if anyone wants to believe anything in the religion)
      2. True
      3. I agree it may well have an effect
      4. True (although haven’t Sikh kids been targetted in the past, therefore “non-Muslims” as targets?)
      5. I’m not for capital punishment
      6. It’s a fair question
      7. Some imams say “the solution is more religion”. Apparently because devout religion makes people perfect. I do not go along with that at all.
      This is based on “the perpetrators (rapists/terrorists) are not religious at all”. This is just a defence of the faith, often obviously untrue, and I spot many non-Muslims falling for it.

  • I do wish people would stop thinking of Islam as a religion and only a religion. It is not. Islam is a political ideology which seeks totalitarian control over the world and is prepared to use violence and terror to achieve this ambition. Islam deems all non-Muslims to be inferior members of the human race just as the Nazis viewed the untermensch. Islam’s attitude toward Jews, homosexuals and women is remarkably similar to Nazism as well. Islam was established by a warlord and Islamic “scriptures” when stripped of religious overtones are essentially the most efficient blueprint for war and supremacism the world has ever seen. Our epochal problem in the West is that Islam is now in the West where it is fanatically protected by the Western elites for reasons perhaps known only to themselves. Islam will demographically overwhelm us within decades and if we wish to survive as a people and a culture we must remove Islam from the West. If anyone has a better idea I would love to hear it – as long as it is not suicidally silly, such as talking more about Jesus, which is as much use today as it was in 1939 when we were confronted by much the same ideology. We are at a 21st century Chamberlain / Churchill moment and we really need a Churchill.

    • Mark

      The “system” thing I agree with and is easy to see if you carry no faith baggage at all.

      There must be a “spiritual” outlook somewhere and if that can be genuinely described, without the “system baggage” I’d be willing to listen. Also, the quite obvious route for “Muslims” in the West is to take the route of Jews and become in the majority, secular. Some say that’s impossible, but I don’t think it is, because we have that evidence with another religion which has the same sort of orthodox thinking, albeit without the “system” attribute.

      But how do you “remove Islam from the West”?

      • That’s the problem, isn’t it. How do we stop the problem we already have?

      • A humane way of doing it is to make practicing Islam illegal. Most Muslims will leave. Is this harsh? No harsher than making Christianity illegal in Saudi Arabia, which of course it is. If we do nothing we will have to physically fight in years to come. Or our children and grandchildren will.

        • Mark

          Would you be happy if you could find a model where the majority of Muslims became secular? Is our society strong enough to do that, or too weak? Why did it happen to the Jews? Has anyone written on this, or is it a totally different situation, and for it to happen to Muslims impossible?
          There are, as you will know, secular liberal Muslims trying quite hard to challenge the orthodoxy. Would you give them any support, based on the probable fact that this country will not make Islam illegal anytime soon?

          • Anton

            What is a secular Muslim, please?

          • Mark

            My old work colleague Mohammed (whose family escaped the Islamic revolution in Iran). A pint down the pub, and ham-topped pizzas, and in very long work hours, never showed any inclination to nip off and pray. Religion never mentioned and just a regular, professional bloke.
            Some will say (especially conservative Muslims) that he couldn’t possibly be Muslim because of that. And unfortunately, that way of thinking is growing with non-Muslims. And when non-Muslims start thinking like the conservatives, that makes it even harder for people who want to break away from the orthodox/conservatives.
            Were my Jewish friends, who had bacon sarnies and didn’t attend the synagogue (but had a Bar Mitzfah), “not Jewish”? They certainly were not orthodox, which is pretty much what I’m getting at.

          • Anton

            And would you accept as Christian someone who says he is but never goes to church, supports same-sex marriage, etc?

          • Mark

            Yes.

          • Anton

            Would you accept the claims to be a woman of someone with an XY genotype and testes?

          • Mark

            I know where this is going. My brother says he’s a chicken. The doctor told me to take him to the psychiatrist, but we need the eggs.

            I leave physical claims out of this. The “transgender” thing is getting quite ridiculous. On that note, I suppose you would say that I therefore do not have a point about someone declaring their religious affiliation. The way I see “religion” is varying degrees of adherence. They can do what they like. Unfortunately we are in the days where people kill others for not being “that devout” according to them, so I’m not sure why you’d even approach it.

          • Anton

            I get to define my own beliefs but I do not own the category of those beliefs, do I? Category ownership is collective.

          • Little Black Censored

            Good question! That is another conflict approaching, though nothing to do with Islam, so it won’t be dangerous.

          • Nomis

            Your pork-eating, alcohol-drinking, non-praying Muslim friend is very laudable, but why does he bother calling himself Muslim at all? Perhaps your friend does believe in Allah but chooses not to follow Sharia. That would make him a bad Muslim in the orthodox sense, but providing he doesn’t forsake Allah he will get into paradise eventually; it just might take a while longer.

            The problem is how to distinguish between the Muslims who are simply hedging their bets and those who would literally die for Allah.

            A critical analysis of the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions) and the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) can’t fail to conclude that Islam is a supremacist, totalitarian, political ideology imbued with divine credence. Islam is not a religion in the same sense as Christianity or Judaism and we must stop treating it as if it were.

            David Wood’s monologue on the three stages of jihad is worth watching for those that haven’t seen it.

          • Mark

            Of course (regarding the absolute analysis of Islam). Back in the late 90’s I never talked to Mohammed about religion and had no reason to. It would be interesting to have a conversation today but not seen him for years. He wasn’t around at 9/11 and I wonder what conversations might have cropped up.

            I’ll take the opportunity to mention another. A contractor at our place Saleh, was sartorially smart, clean shaven, thick wavy hair and once again, no religion ever came up. I can’t mention pub visits because I can’t remember, but no rejection to invites as far as I can think back. Pretty much in an IT environment, you don’t get religious conversations anyway.
            Even so, his contract ended and he went off somewhere. A few months later, sitting at my desk, I looked up and there was a bloke, shaven head, big unkempt beard and white robes. I had to look twice because it was him. He had been to Mecca. I was quite taken aback at the change and may have shown that in my glance. He was only on a quick visit and I never saw him again. Perhaps the hair came back, along with the smart clothes, or at least I’d like to think so.

          • I am sure there are any number of Muslims who would like to retain the nice bits of Islam whilst discarding the nasty bits. Unfortunately, the fanatics control the moderates. They have done so for 1,400 years and it ain’t going to change within the next 30. After that, it is Goodnight Vienna unless we find a Sobieski.

          • Little Black Censored

            I’m with the fanatics here, even though they ought to be strung up. They are honest about the true nature of Islam.

          • IanCad

            The “Pales of Settlement” in Russia and Europe led directly to the Holocaust. Within those areas the Jewish people maintained an life entirely separate from the host country. With their own Beth Din courts, different languages and customs, it was a time bomb. The parallels with British Muslim communties are obvious and ominous.

          • CliveM

            Where they given an option? In many countries they weren’t.

          • IanCad

            The history of options given to the Jews were more really tactics designed so they could be killed or robbed at pleasure. Alternatively, the convert or die scheme, at least offered the prospect of survival for the compliant.

          • CliveM

            Your original comment was a bit ambiguous it seemed to imply they were isolated by choice and the resulting anti Semitism was to some degree a result of that.

          • IanCad

            Yes Clive! I could have made it clearer but I assumed the term “Pale” would be understood to have been a governmental edict.

          • CliveM

            Sorry for my ignorance!! ☹️

          • IanCad

            Let me make it clear!!! There is no ignorance demonstrated in your misunderstanding of a rambling post.

          • Manfarang

            The Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia is aside from Israel the world’s only official Jewish territory.

          • IanCad

            Thanks, Manny. I didn’t know that. Will Google it later.

          • Hi

            That’s like suggesting Pitcairn is the world’s seventh day Adventist state!

          • Hi

            All hail the Soviet! And so successful after the demise of communism half a million Jews opted for Israel instead.

          • Manfarang

            Well it is a bit cold living in Siberia in the winter.
            However others have opted to live on bread and margarine in Israel.

          • Hi

            Siberia is holiday destination for Martians . Very hot for them.

          • Manfarang

            Its not too bad in the summer. I have always wanted to take the Trans-Siberian train back to Europe.

          • Hi

            Rubbish ! Absolute ignorance of history and antisemitism.

          • IanCad

            What!!!???

          • Hi

            Russia was arguably the most antisemitic country before and after the revolution , after Nazi Nazi Germany. The pale of settlement was not by free choice but by government decree and still subject to vicious pogroms and if you left said pale you had to convert to ortho Christianity. So people lets put seventh day Adventists into Suffolk as their pale.

            In the nineteenth century in western/ northern Europe there occurred a thing called Haskalah or Jewish enlightenment. In short this is when Jews began to obtain citizenship of these countries. To wit reform Judaism developed which was a way of trying to “integrate ” into German (then American) culture. Despite th success of Reform Judaism in Germany in integrating Jews and German culture , this did NOT stop Hitler and Nazi Germany or fascism across Europe. Jews were even, even when “assimilated” , considered to be as alien as the Jews in Russia’s pale of settlement.

          • IanCad

            Yes Hannah! My only gripe would be about singling out the Russians. There is something within the Eastern European and Prussian soul which is quite horrible.

          • carl jacobs

            The German Jews were the most assimilated in Europe. Where did the Holocaust start? I can’t quite remember.

          • IanCad

            Assimilation does not necessarily equate to safety within a community where you are, through discipline, enterprise and fortitude, by far the most successful kids on the block. In fact, quite the opposite – remember Uganda.

          • Hi

            Uganda has some well cool Jews :
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I7YwtWe_gKk

          • IanCad

            Interesting vid Hannah. My reference was – perhaps you knew – to the Ugandan Indians who, again through a disciplined and robust character, became the elite of the country.
            There is nothing like success to bring out the worst in those who don’t achieve it.

          • Hi

            I have a sister in law who is of Ugandan Indian Jewish heritage.

          • Manfarang

            The Ugandan Asians were economically dominant but didn’t assimilate that much. Many regarded Britain as the mother country holding as they did citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

          • IanCad

            But so did all Ugandans consider Britain as a shelter from the storm. Assimilation – or at least, blending in – is very difficult for prosperous folk in the midst of relative poverty.

          • Manfarang

            Most Ugandans were citizens of Uganda. Some Asians did hold Ugandan citizenship but decided to leave anyway.

          • IanCad

            I believe at independence Ugandans were offered the privilege of holding a British passport, if they so chose.

          • Manfarang

            Anyway I knew some of them. They were nice people and they were Muslims, They were very grateful to be in England even if they were told they didn’t have qualifications when they applied for jobs. They went on to set up their own businesses which were successful.

          • carl jacobs

            Btw. You do realize that Hitler blamed International Jewry for starting WWII. That’s hardly something that could be effected by an isolated community in the Pale of Settlement.

          • IanCad

            It didn’t start with Hitler. The Kaiser suggested that gassing would be the best solution (1921?) Jewish people have never prospered by giving one another haircuts. Their vigour and enterprise did not admit of them trading only within the settlements. Always they have been the objects of jealousy and resentment. The fact that they were – in the main – usually to be found in one place made them an easy target for those who would do them ill.

          • carl jacobs

            You said the Pale “led directly to the Holocaust.” How can that be true when the people who conceived of the Holocaust did not develop it when in proximity to the Pale of Settlement? In fact the exact opposite is true. There was no Pale in Germany and yet that is where the Holocaust was conceived.

          • IanCad

            Carl, the Holocaust was the German fulfilment of the aspirations of most of Eastern Europe. Germany didn’t do pogroms – they don’t go for quick fixes.
            The Germans are a special people. Disciplined conformist, obedient and strong. it is they who have made America great. You should thank God the British got there first and bequeathed to your country the principles of the Common Law, your Constitution and your love of liberty.

          • carl jacobs

            What are you talking about?
            Germany from 1933 to the start of war was one big pogram. The laws of the state were designed to strip Jews of rights, deprive them of property, and drive them from the country. What do you think Eichmann was doing in the 30s?

          • IanCad

            Carl, To diminish the Holocaust to the level of a pogrom is to sanitize the full horror of Germany’s dark past.

          • carl jacobs

            The Holocaust started after the war began. It was an evolved policy.

          • IanCad

            It didn’t have very far to evolve Carl. When Kaiser Bill in 1919 could speak openly about the gassing of the Jews the road to extermination had been started down.
            We do history no service when the Nazi regime is assigned all the blame. The German people did very well with their claim of ignorance to the evils of the holocaust. The world swallowed it whole – or so it seems.

          • Little Black Censored

            These secular Moslems have kept very quiet. Either that, or there are very few of them.

          • You didn’t get a straight answer to the “how do you remove Islam” question did you?

      • wisestreligion

        Practically, how do we deal with the Muslim Problem. First, we can start by halting mass Muslim immigration. The Chatham House survey showed support for this in every European country. Stop digging the hole deeper. Poland and Hungary sensibly value their Christian culture and don’t take in Muslims.

        Secondly, we don’t need to make it easy to live as a Muslim in Britain. We are an animal-loving nation, so no halal. No burkas. Then the devout Muslims might decide life would be better in a more suitable, Islamic country. They have 50 to choose from, and I am not yet counting Sweden and France.

        Third, no victim status for Muslims. Stop listening to whingeing by Muslims or, as is more often the case, by the white Leftists who have adopted Islam for their portfolio of victim causes to get self-righteous about. Life here is not to their liking? Hardly surprising. This is not an Islamic country, full stop.

    • Ludwig Cromwell

      For the reasons the elite act in this way read Thomas Sowell esp. “The Vision of the Anointed” and “Intellectuals and Society”

    • Little Black Censored

      You are right, and this has all happened in Europe before – twice, I believe, or is that wrong? It is like waiting for the shoot-out in a Western. Tommy Robinson is warning us about this, but is treated as a enemy by the authorities and opinion-formers.

    • We need a get together with the Russians, they have experience in dealing with the Muslim problem when they had all the violence with the Chechens. They now have them contained in Chechnya under a leader who respects the Kremlin, and there is peace. Russia also has a growing population of Muslims derived from other areas and countries which they seem to keep under control and there is peace.

    • Anton

      We need a lot more than a Churchill. He led a people that was relatively moral. The British today aren’t. Some of us suspect that Islam’s rise is impending divine judgement for what we have become. Before we get a Churchill, we need a Wesley.

    • Maureen O’Brien

      The reality is the fact that Islam is a nation. It has its own culture, its own laws — and most importantly — its own monetary system. Denying the obvious is not good for anybody.

  • IanCad

    The wretches who rule us, the leftist equalitarians, the antichristians, the education industry, the press and the media; all the diversity fools and their fellow travellers, the police and our judiciary, have cowed the public for too long. Common-sense has departed the land. This situation should have never transpired.
    All the remedies to cure this sick evil are written in our codes. More than sufficient laws are available to put a halt to this nonsense right now. A wholesale cleansing of those at the top of our institutions is the first step.
    Our politicians have failed us, the remedy is up to us. We need to snort and stamp our feet. We have no Second Amendment to scare them with. Democracy only works for just so long as the public is mindful of our liberties.

    • Anton

      The public has been bribed with its own money. We need to restrict the franchise.

    • The Duke of Umberland, England

      In this post-Christian age – all that matters to the public is peace and prosperity for one more day. The foreseeable difficulty with that trajectory is that when calamity arrives, and Wisdom mocks, the price to be paid will be exhorbitant.

      • IanCad

        In general I agree; However. I cannot reconcile a public, the free time of whom, is almost entirely occupied with the vicarious pleasure of watching the utmost violence, depravity and immorality night after night on TV, with their presumed longing for peace and prosperity. We live in a sick, sick age. I do believe the horrors observed – even though impersonal – hardens the soul of those watchers.
        It is but a short step from the thought to the deed.

        “…. the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…” Genesis 6:5

  • Marcus Stewart

    One thing we can be depressingly sure of: the CofE, through both political correctness and naivety, has nothing of any use to add to this debate, rather making matters worse, since its contributions are (i) embarrassing; (ii) irrelevant to those experiencing the ‘Muslim problem’ directly, since bishops, like politicians, don’t live cheek by jowl with those they claim to know, understand and empathise with.

  • Dreadnaught

    If the problem was Jews and their Torah yesterday, and it’s the Muslims and their Qur’an today, why not Christians and their Bible tomorrow?

    I am surprised at this statements from Cranmer; usually precise in the essence of his messages yet now offers a muddying the water with references to Nazis and their crimes, on a topic that is with us now. His tone suggests to me that he regards ordinary British people as somehow so ill-informed or complicit in acting as the equivalent of Hitler’s willing idiots, for an imaginary totalitarian, anti-religious movement agenda. It is unworthy of his position to suggest that they are susceptible to be so easily influenced by tabloid journalism as he seems to think they are.

    Paraphrasing Trevor Phillips is not the best way of opening a discussion seeking to explore opinion on what is, or is not, something that is peculiar to Britain and its Muslim sex gang rapists. Phillips when in his equality role was in my opinion, guilty of laying down the foundations of political correctness which drove open discussion of sensitive issues from the public square. Phillips’ previous contribution is partly why we have the problem now, of trying to come to terms and address clearly, what to do about criminality that is emanating from one specific element of the British population. It’s not knee-jerk journalism that is insulting or even stoking resentment against Muslims, but the clear and unequivocable fact that it is men from this group that are the agents responsible for growing anti-Muslim feeling in the UK.

    But it’s not just the UK is it?

    This is world-wide problem and it is happening wherever Islamic culture holds a presence and authority. The reason for this is the deliberate ambiguity of standards written in the Koran and the examples of Mohammad in the Hadith that motivates of how men are to treat women as a group. Rape is the weapon of conquest; and that’s how Islam keeps its Jihadis happy and justifies their actions in the minds of the perpetrators.

    If Christian theologians were capable of resolving this issue they would surely have done it 1500 years ago. Today’s British rump is barely capable of boiling a kettle without calling for discussion beforehand.

    • Charitas Lydia

      When people are clutching at straws they use Hitler and the Jews. This is precisely what Cranmer is doing to support his bogus case.

    • dannybhoy

      Trevor Phillips was originally all about blaming a thousands year old British Isles people for being suspicious of, and less than welcoming to those who came from other parts of the world. He said it was institutionalised racism, that the police were racist etc etc. That was when he was involved in the Uk’s Commission for Racial Equality which morphed into the Equality and Human Rights Commission..
      He was well paid. Anyone involved in the government sponsored/taxpayer funded efforts to move us towards a multicultural society was well paid.
      His commonsense got the better of him and he began to admit that actually the project wasn’t working too well.

  • Albert

    Would Baptists really tolerate the chronic and global cases of systematic child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church being termed ‘Christian child abuse’?

    Absolutely amazing and disgusting that after all the child abuse, failed safeguarding procedures and cover ups going on in the CofE Cranmer decides to say that. Any honest Baptist would have to say that although they are not responsible for Catholic abuse, they have certainly got to admit there is a problem in their own community. For example, here’s an article in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/29/protestants-abuse-catholics-methodist-church

    and then there’s this:

    http://prospect.org/article/next-christian-sex-abuse-scandal

    In fact there’s loads of stuff on this, but it’s just easier to pretend that this is a Catholic problem not a universal one. Unfortunately, that puts children at risk, as well as being untruthful.

    • ardenjm

      As I said in my post at the start of the replies:

      (I note in passing, that Holy-Communion-thieving-at-St-Peter’s-Basilica-Rome Cranmer couldn’t stop himself from making the egregious jibe that homosexual (like himself) priests within the Catholic Church going after adolescents shouldn’t tar all Christians with the same brush. When in fact his analogy is that all Muslims shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush as the terrorists – but he takes pains never to exonerate the Catholic co-religionists of the crimes of their homosexual clerics.)

      And meanwhile this from the Royal Commission on Abuse in Australia:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-40920714

      The commission heard that 7% of the nation’s Catholic priests were accused of abusing children between 1950 and 2010. [60 years]

      It also heard that 1,100 abuse complaints were made against the Anglican Church of Australia between 1980 and 2015. [35 years]

      People in glass houses and all that…

      • Anton

        What’s all this about Cranmer and Communion in Rome?

        • ardenjm

          He went to St Peter’s in Rome and at Communion time went and received Holy Communion.
          Then boasted about how he had done so on one of his blog posts a few years back – how he had hoodwinked the Church by doing so.
          It was cheap.
          I called him out on it multiple times.
          He never apologised.
          And he blocked me for being a militant Catholic – by wiping any posts I made on his old site.
          I fully expect him to block me on disqus on here before too long.

          For all that he gets right on pro-life issues, Europe and the general moral decadence of our times on the Catholic Church he has really seriously twisted notions. Twisted not (just) because he is an anti-Catholic bigot who never fails to put a dig in (as he did here) but because – as evidenced by the Holy Communion theft – there is a part of him that does actually recognise the authority of the Church. He just can’t get over his heretical opinion whereby he must dictate (magisterially) the conditions by which he will come to her.

          In short it’s pride, the old sin. And he hates me for calling him out on it.

          But the sneaking of Holy Communion, crowing about it and feeling so self-righteously justified in doing remains a particularly shabby low-point in Adrian Hilton’s life.

          • Anton

            What if a protestant were to ask a Catholic priest if he might take Communion, the priest says Yes, and the protestant gratefully does so?

          • ardenjm

            The priest shouldn’t because our churches are not in communion – and the priest should gently point this out… Above all because one of Protestantism’s key beliefs is that the Catholic Mass is a blasphemy so there is no reason why they should want to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. (Unless, of course, they are receiving it on their own subjective terms, which, of course, is precisely the problem within Protestantism.) These Lutherans express the attitude you’re describing perfectly:

            Watch from 3,58,, for about 20 seconds. V funny.

            Of course – under certain exceptional circumstances a Protestant may receive Communion (imminent death, for example) but that’s a dialogue between the Priest and the individual to have.

            None of these things applied to Cranmer’s visit in Rome. He was quite open that he did it out of petty spite.

          • Anton

            But I didn’t do it out of spite when I asked and the priest said Yes. The arguments about sacrifice derive, obviously, from confusion over chronos and kairos.

          • ardenjm

            The priest was being kind – possibly in a misplaced way. And no doubt saw your sincerity but presumably didn’t quiz you on your beliefs.
            It always comes down to this: my terms or God’s terms.

            If you believe what the Church teaches – then come into communion with the Church and receive Holy Communion. If you do not then why do you want to receive Holy Communion in her – other than on your own terms – which is indeed like coming into someone’s home and telling them how to receive you.

          • Nightblogger

            Of course he might say, ‘I do believe what the Church teaches’ and take communion on that basis when he is in any branch of the Church Catholic – even those which try to take it upon themselves to bar access to other baptised christians. It is surely right to obey God rather than man? Furthermore the ‘error’ of certain ‘kind’ Roman priests, particularly on the continent, to allow, or even encourage Christians from other denominations to receive the sacrament is widespread. Even concelebration of RC and Anglican Priests at a shared Eucharist is not unheard of.

          • ardenjm

            Sure.
            God is the judge: of both Catholics who receive unworthily and non-Catholics who receive deceitfully.
            But the teaching is what it is and we have a duty to communicate and uphold it.
            No-one is being ‘barred’ from anything: Why would any Protestant who believes what Protestantism teaches ever WANT to receive the Catholic Mass? It’s a blasphemous act. Unless, of course, you’re the kind of protestant who doesn’t believe in anything much at all. In which case the Church is very clear that you shouldn’t receive Holy Communion anyway. Good grief! Do people no longer fear God? “Eating a condemnation on themselves!”

            As for those “concelebrations” you speak of: utterly forbidden by the Church and illicit. Shame on those who facilitate them! And I especially fix my eyes on the prelates of the Catholic Church who approve of such an abuse.

          • Nightblogger

            As you say, God is the Judge. However, you have decided you are the judge in this matter and feel free in condemning Cranmer for receiving the Eucharist, in accord with his conscience, and for doing in Rome what the Romans do. I suggest a little more graciousness and leaving the matter to God – unless you are proposing some sort of inquisition at the altar rail for everyone. My own practice, despite not feeling under any sort of authoritative ban from the Church of Rome, is generally not to receive in a Roman Mass unless I may do so anonymously without causing offence. Having done so I wouldn’t presume to publicise my receiving of Communion for the same reason of not wishing to offend those with more sensitive consciences.

          • ardenjm

            He knew that the Church asks for non-Catholics not to receive Holy Communion.
            He knew that he disbelieves what the Catholic Church teaches on Communion.
            He brayed about it afterwards for having pulled the wool over the eyes of the Church.

            I’m afraid your gloss that he was doing something worthy and following his conscience is entirely specious. He was doing it precisely so that he could brag about doing so afterwards.

            The whole business was shabby and petty and spiteful.
            End of.

          • Inspector General

            Cranmer, the unfortunate fellow, is a member of a church that by the time its finished with itself, will be a humanist feminist gender free cat venerating coffee morning. He may well decide to become a Roman Catholic while he still breathes. With or without you on his back…

          • Anton

            Now that I know you have kept mice, I am going to tolerate no more shafts from you at cat-lovers without response, Inspector. You have been warned…

          • You’re not wrong there Inspector.

          • Nightblogger

            Ah, but he’s not a member of ‘a church’ but of ‘The Church of Christ’, which despite the claims of certain denominations, transcends any mere human institution. It is the Church of Christ, not the Church of England, nor the Church of Rome.

          • Nightblogger

            Yet it is It is ‘The Church of Christ’, not the Church of England, nor even the Church of Rome. We recognise only one authority, and it is not merely a human one.

          • Little Black Censored

            I am beginning to feel some sympathy for Cranmer in this matter. Ardenjm reminds me very much of an RC called Mundabor, who used to set everybody right on Damian Thompson’s blog.

          • Anton

            I was staying in a land where I didn’t have the language and my host took me to their Catholic church. I regard the row over whether the Mass is a sacrifice as due to confusion over chronos and kairos, and I therefore regard Mass as a valid form of Communion. So I asked the priest, making sure he knew I was a Trinitarian non-Catholic Christian. Had he said No I would have regretted it but would have shown no resentment. He said Yes and I was glad of it.

          • ardenjm

            Then he was being hospitable and you are being a little evasive: if you don’t believe what the Church teaches why would you want to be in communion with her and thus receive Holy Communion?
            I just don’t understand, I’m afraid.

          • Anton

            What Christ did is a continuing sacrifice in kairos-time but a one-off sacrifice in chronos-time, and I think the sacrifice dispute is merely a misunderstanding about that. I disbelieve transubstantiation but don’t believe it necessary for a Communion to be valid. (NB I accept in full that there is something supernatural about Communion, but don’t believe that the supernatural aspect lies in any transformation of the elements.) I wished to drink with my friends in remembrance of Christ and his sacrifice, and I was graciously permitted to by the priest, to whom I was upfront. I don’t see that I am being evasive, but feel free to enquire of me further on the subject.

          • Doesn’t Holy Communion transcend the Church? Aren’t we saying by taking it that we are in communion with Jesus and God via a Christian Church or a religious person who shares belief in them.
            You’re splitting hairs a bit. Christians are supposed to be in harmony. Squabbling detracts from attempts to solve The Muslim Problem.

          • ardenjm

            “Doesn’t Holy Communion transcend the Church?”
            No. It is the Sacrament of Christ’s Real Presence (which transcends the Church) but that doesn’t mean that all communions of all the different Christian groups are somehow united on that transcendent level. Sorry.

            “Squabbling detracts from attempts to solve The Muslim Problem.”
            I agree. Although, historically, Protestants were generally on the Muslim side against the Catholics and Orthodox anyway. So, you know, I’m not expecting much from the Protestants and the post-Protestants that have emerged from them.
            I should add that the nominally Catholic French were equally despicable. But at least they never called themselves “Catholics for the Sultan” in the way the Calvinists of Holland did. Nor did they write to the Sultan thanking him for keeping the Spanish busy in the East in the way Elizabeth I did…
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_and_Islam

          • Manfarang

            Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh shared the Eucharist with Father Daniel Berrigan.

          • Malcolm Smith

            It would never occur to me to ask the priest’s permission to take communion in a Roman Catholic Church (or any other!). For heaven’s sake ! (And I mean that literally). It was Christ who invited me to His table. The priest is just His agent.

          • ardenjm

            Then you run the risk of eating a condemnation on yourself.
            Communion isn’t what you make it, think it, feel it to be. (It isn’t about you.) It’s about what it IS. And if you are not in communion with Christ’s Body the Church – if you disagree, deny, or otherwise sin against charity – against Christ and His Body the Church then, in fact, no amount of “Lord! Lord!” (cf Matthew 7 vs21f) will justify you for having communed unworthily (“not discerning the body” as Scripture puts it.)
            And the same goes for the (many!) Catholics who receive Our Lord in Holy Communion unworthily.
            We should approach the most sublime mystery of Our Lord’s Body and Blood Soul and Divinity in the Real Presence of the sacrifice of the Mass (do you believe that’s what it is, even?) with “fear and trembling.”

          • Inspector General

            “We should approach the most sublime mystery of Our Lord’s Body and Blood Soul and Divinity in the Real Presence of the sacrifice of the Mass (do you believe that’s what it is, even?) with “fear and trembling.”

            You’d think God Almighty could have used you as an OT sword wielding angel. But no. Here you are, instead.

          • ardenjm

            “It is a fearful thing to fall in to the hands of the Living God.”
            Not the Old Testament. But the wonderful Letter to the Hebrews.

          • Inspector General

            And so we are encouraged to go to God’s house, where we shall experience fear and tremble as a result. Because we are, after the Original Sin, God’s wicked and defying illegitimates. His bastard creation that is doomed from the moment it takes it first breath in this sinful world. He will take His revenge on us all, will he so. But in the meantime, there’s the mass.

            You are no Christian, ardenjm

          • ardenjm

            Your quarrel isn’t with me.
            It’s with Scripture and Tradition.
            And thus with God.

            Take it up with Him.
            I’m not a Universalist. Perhaps you are.
            Hell is real. We can easily end up there.

            Thankfully there is Purgatory – let’s just hope we all manage to get there:
            “tout est grâce…”

          • Inspector General

            It cannot be denied that some suffer on this earth. Be it by physical, mental, or environmental, and the latter includes the predation of evil men.

            But it is a trial. Few are spared trial, if any.

            But God’s house. Let us find relief in there, and be in communion with the Almighty. And let us not deny from any childlike gang nonsense.

          • ardenjm

            Fine. So you are a universalist.

            Good to know.

            Like I said, your quarrel is not with me, therefore, but with Our Lord’s teaching (and, arguably, His Passion and Crucifixion) with Revelation more generally – and thus the Church’s dogma – and the constant witness of saints (including the most merciful and compassionate amongst them) down the ages.

            So I wish you well.

          • Inspector General

            Look, old chap. One’s apologies for one’s attitude last night. One is saddened by inter Christian sectarianism, you see. Your views are hard, but they are sincerely held. And thus deserves a certain respect.

          • ardenjm

            Pax.

          • magnolia

            The mind is its own place, and in it self
            Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n.
            (Paradise Lost Book 1)

            Sorry but humans begin to find their destination here; hence inaugurated eschatology.

            Suggest you loosen up a bit, and remember God is more than the sacrament is.

            Much, much more. There will be no Eucharist in heaven. But the genuine real presence.

          • ardenjm

            I’m not an evangelical nor a follower of Oscar Cullman, sorry. Inaugurated eschatology is one more protestant innovation.

            And I do grasp that God, being changeless, isn’t “hurt” by my sin nor Cranmer’s – He is eternal beatitude and we cannot spoil His Wedding Feast (even should we choose not to be there.)

            If I go for the jugular it’s because it reveals the character of the man: Cranmer never misses an opportunity to attack the Church. It’s a conviction he’s had for many years and he’s never, to my knowledge, repudiated it since he first got called out for it over a decade ago:

            https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/mar/04/election2005.uk

            Mr Hilton outlined his view that European integration would lead to a “Catholic Caesar presiding over the [British] Protestant monarch” in an article, headlined Render unto the Pope, published in the Spectator in August 2003.

            “The issue of European religious union is one that has been concealed even deeper than the plans for political union, but the ratchet towards a Catholic Europe is just as real,” the article claims.

            “A Catholic EU will inevitably result in the subjugation of Britain’s Protestant ethos to Roman Catholic social, political and religious teaching.”

          • magnolia

            No, inaugurated eschatology is not a Protestant invention. That is an absurd suggestion. Scripture, Reason and Tradition all teach us the same. I could enlarge, extensively, but I feel it is not a great use of my time.

            Furthermore if your concept of the Real Presence is correct, you are becoming more like Christ through regular eating of the bread and wine, so we should see a thoroughly Christlike attitude in your comments on this blog. You are not a great advertisement for the accuracy of your belief thus far.

            On the other hand popcorn sales are skyrocketing….

          • Little Black Censored

            You have said “sorry” at least twice, without meaning it. You say you go for the jugular, presumably because you can’t help it. “It’s what I do” – like the scorpion in the fable.

          • ardenjm

            With the grace of God even my deeply entrenched wickedness can be converted.
            Something to pray for.
            Misericordias Domini, in aeternum cantabo…

          • Little Black Censored

            Not a universalist but an ultramontanist.

          • ardenjm

            Me? Yes. But not an ultra-ultramontanist. The Pope is the guardian of the magisterium in accordance to Revelation in Tradition and Scripture. He can’t just invent, re-interpret or ignore at whim. A Pope who persisted in proclaiming a Fourth Person of the Trinity would be, by virtue of his formal heresy, no longer holder of the office. Hence all the trouble of how Amoris Laetitia should be interpreted. Pope Francis knows that the only Catholic interpretation is the one given in the 5 dubia. He, personally, Jorge Bergoglio, wants to change the Church’s teaching. But he knows, qua Pope, that he can’t without divesting himself of the office. “Solution?” – say nothing…
            The controversy will be dissolved by his death and resolved one way or another by the next Pope: either he’ll be formally heretical – in which case we enter into schism and, possibly, the End Times – whereby a small remnant will remain who will elect a Catholic Pope, or, he’ll interpret AL in a Catholic way and the liberal modernist heretics will either submit or militate against the Church – as, in one way or another, they’ve been doing for the best part of 100 years anyway.

          • IanCad

            I’ve kept out of this brouhaha until now. Hell!!?? You mean the place where the ignorant believed they would go to if they didn’t behave?? Get tortured for eternity? The superstitious myth that has parted the poor and gullible from their purse? An affront to sacrifice and mercy of a loving God. Praise the Lord! The vile doctrine is being rejected at last.
            Purgatory!!?? Hellenistic superstition. Another nice little earner for a crafty priesthood let loose amongst an innocent and credulous flock.

          • CliveM

            Hi Ian,

            Like yourself, this is an argument I typically stay out of. Generally its destructive, achieves little and fails to recognise the many strengths that each tradition has. It also pigeonhole’s people into them and us. But I have come to the conclusion that the main problem is the RCC’s claim to infallibility (once it is able to come to an internal agreement as to the position it wants to take). Even the most charitable interpretation of the basis for this ‘claim’ has to recognise that it is at best tenuous and at worst self-serving. But for me the major problem with it is that it has trapped the RCC into beliefs that it finds difficult to support, but is unable to change, as to do so would bring the edifice crashing down. Put simply, they have to defend a lie, because to admit to the truth would completely undermine it.

            Its why I’m a Protestant. Not because I have a problem with the Priesthood (I don’t), or Transubstantiation (I can understand the argument in support, identify its biblical basis, but ultimately disagree), or its Marianism (which I personally feel it’s a bit of an eccentricity) or finally its veneration of relics (frankly bizarre). No I’m a Protestant because, for all its many flaws, it allows for honesty and the RCC’s position on infallibility doesn’t, indeed can’t.

            As an aside what does a member of the Magisterium think on the day of a vote? “Today, I can do no wrong, TODAY I will be infallible “! Imagine the let down if he votes for the losing side!

          • ardenjm

            Hell, yes and Purgatory.
            I’m glad you kept out of the brouhaha until now.
            Let’s hope we can all so easily keep out of Hell.

            Kyrie eleison.

          • Anton

            Thankfully He will not take revenge on those who believe in his son Jesus Christ, the man who is also as divine as He is.

          • CliveM

            You appear to be trying very hard for a form of ‘virtual ‘ martyrdom.

            It’s not the same you know.

          • Inspector General

            What the hell is going on here!!

            If Cranmer wants to commune with God in a Roman Catholic Church, we should be honoured for his presence there. The RCC is NOT Christ’s door heavies…

          • ardenjm

            Well, franky, IG, along with the rest of your half-crazy invariably mistaken notions the only response to this latest offering is:

            Whatever.

          • Inspector General

            It’s up to you. If you want to post like some mad thing that should be tethered on the end of a chain in a backyard, off you go.

            As for being banned, if that embittered old woman Linus gets a free ride on this site, then your continued unhindered presence is assured.

          • ardenjm

            apologies – i mistook you for someone else

          • Linus

            Not that I want to defend the fake archbishop (fictional sky pixie forbid!), but “Holy Communion theft” is a ridiculous accusation. If communion is distributed to all and sundry but the Church piously expects those who aren’t fully paid-up members to abstain, it’s living in cloud cuckoo land. Which is no surprise, I suppose. That has, after all, been its place of residence for over two thousand years.

            If the Church wants to restrict access to communion, the onus is clearly on the Church to establish eligibility before distributing it. That’s how exclusive systems work. Requiring each person to “self-police” is nothing short of laughably naive.

            I know little of Anglican practice, but I’m under the impression that by their lights, the fake archbishop did no wrong. As I understand it, anyone and everyone can receive communion in an Anglican church. So why shouldn’t an Anglican take communion in a Catholic church? If he believes it’s just a symbolic gesture, where’s the problem?

          • ardenjm

            Even if you want to dismiss the spirituality of it you can certainly see the human petty spite in the gesture and then crowing about it afterwards.

            The self-policing the Church invites ALL (Catholics and non-Catholics alike – since Catholics have to be in a state of grace in order to receive Holy Communion) is precisely meaningful if you believe that your actions are to be judged by God ‘in die irae’.

            And your last sentence is one more appeal to the primacy of subjectivity which is precisely the error of the last 100+ years.

          • Linus

            Spite? You mean the emotion you’re showing by denouncing the fake archbishop on his own blog?

            By all means tell us he’s spiteful. But so are you. So am I come to that. But the difference between us is that I accept spite as part of the human condition. It can’t be magicked away by kowtowing to a tuppeny ha’penny idol.

            Christian, go deal with your own spite before denouncing the fake archbishop for his, or me for mine. If not we’ll have to add hypocrisy to the list of your unrepented sins.

            As for me, I don’t believe in such a thing as sin, nor in the sky pixie who defines it so, therefore I can be as spiteful as I like. Given how other people react to spite however, it isn’t generally a good idea to show too much of it because this will provoke enmity, which can make life rather more difficult than it needs to be. Unless of course one is dealing with Christians, who are so completely spiteful (and hateful, and prejudiced, etc) that spite is often the most appropriate response. Fight fire with fire, after all.

          • ardenjm

            You define ‘spite’ for me and then proceed to tell me what I’ve done with the meaning you’ve given me. Presumably because you needed to hear the sound of your own voice.

            The more intelligent response would have been: ‘what do you mean by ‘spite’? Rather than by telling me that it means ’emotion’.

            It doesn’t.

            Obviously.
            It means wilfully and maliciously – with calculated intention to cause harm.

            Now. In this instance, my emotion (anger – which I think is righteous) isn’t inhabited by a calculated intention to cause harm. There’s no wilful malice in what I said. Correction: there was one but only one: when I insisted on outing Cranmer as homosexual. But this was because I lacked kindness and magnanimity in that moment. For the rest, however: no, not by malice.

            For the rest of your post – I’m afraid I can’t follow you up into the rarefied atmosphere of your moral high ground. But when you deign to lower yourself and condescend to me at my level I’m sure I shall be happy to cross swords with you.

            Mind how you go. Take care of your high horse up there, too. Its hardly done anything to deserve you for a rider.

          • Linus

            Pedantry won’t save you at this late stage of the game. If I allow that spite isn’t an emotion but rather an act motivated by emotion, you’re still every bit as guilty of it as anyone else who ever posted on this blog. Trying to spin your malice as righteous anger is a typical Christian strategem. But even holier-than-thou anger doesn’t justify a vendetta against someone for following his own belief system and harming nobody while doing so.

            The fake archbishop’s attitude to taking Catholic communion may offend you, but unless you can prove that he’s harmed someone by his actions, pursuing him in vengeance is a willful act of spiteful malice on your part. And no: the causing of offence by demonstrating contempt for a religious belief does not constitute harm. The law reflects this. There is no blasphemy statute.

            As for you outing the man, an accusation does not establish a fact. If it turns out to be true, he’ll be just another gay Uncle Tom who’s stupid enough to buy into a religion that hates him. If not, we can add the bearing of false witness to your growing list of unrepented sins.

            If he is gay, there’s no shame in it, of course. But if the fake archbishop is the kind of gay who feels it necessary to hide the fact because he is ashamed of himself, and you’ve outed him in order to capitalise on that, then what better proof do we need of your malice and spite?

            What kind of a person are you? A Christian, that’s what. You try to hide your malevolence behind a mask of loving kindness, but I doubt that many are fooled. You’re too evidently a nasty piece of work.

          • ardenjm

            “Trying to spin your malice as righteous anger is a typical Christian strategem.”
            Keep up, Linus. That’s precisely what I didn’t do: I distinguish between my comments motivated by anger and those motivated by a lack of magnanimity. No spin going on here – other than your desperate attempt to pronounce.
            But pronounce you insist on doing. So let’s carry on.
            Oh – and an emotion isn’t the same thing as an intention – no matter how much you try to insist it does. It’s very important you understand this because it’s precisely this that doesn’t make us accuse animals and little children of wrong-doing even when they act out of emotion (or to use even more accurate language, ‘passion’). The angry bull or terrible 2 year old isn’t held responsible for their actions because these actions aren’t informed by an enlightened will: they are reacting (emotionally) not acting (with intention, still less malice.)

            So, again, try to keep up: you try to accuse me of doing wrong after I’ve acknowledge my wrong-doing. To which the only response is, “err, yes, that’s what I already said.”

            “but unless you can prove that he’s harmed someone by his actions, pursuing him in vengeance is a willful act of spiteful malice on your part.”
            I was asked to clarify my remarks. I clarified and said what I continue to think – to those, like yourself, who think there’s nothing to it. Since you do not have Faith you see a man taking a piece of bread and no more. This qualifies you to comment as much as it qualifies any German to comment on French without speaking the language. In short: you can use as much bluster as you like but you literally have nothing meaningful to say. (I’m not surprised you’ve never noticed that before. Everybody else has, however.)

            “then what better proof do we need of your malice and spite?”
            You could ask me. I’d tell you myself.

            “What kind of a person are you? A Christian, that’s what.”
            A sinner – trying to follow Christ, actually.

            “You try to hide your malevolence behind a mask of loving kindness”
            No, I don’t. MANIFESTLY I don’t.

            “but I doubt that many are fooled.” Why should they be? Unless they’re as dim-witted as you and refusing to see the evidence before them it’s as plain as the nose on their faces.

            “You’re too evidently a nasty piece of work.” Oh I’m much worse than that. I am in constant need of God’s mercy and grace and the forebearance of my peers. Without that mercy of Christ I’d be much, much worse, to boot. Again, you’re saying nothing that I do not say myself.

            You have nothing to add to this (or possibly any) thread other than your evident quasi-onanistic pleasure of sounding off.
            Feel free to pleasure yourself, therefore.

          • Linus

            ardenjm is another graduate of the the Jesuit School of Sophistry, I see.

            When faced with an opponent who won’t give up, he tries to adopt a superior tone and accuse him of an inability to follow sophisticated arguments. Phrases like “you really must try to follow” and “try to keep up” seek to establish him as some kind of intellectually superior teacher. He tries to pass himself off as faster, more agile and generally better than his opponent, who is denigrated as a stupid wanker unworthy of being listened to.

            This is real Christianity in action. I should thank him for treating us to such a bald and blatant example of it. There is no love or compassion in ardenjm’s posts, just self-worship, pride and sufficiency. He is his own god and what a nasty, small and unpleasant little sprite it turns out to be.

          • ardenjm

            So I replied examining the difference between intention and emotion and how that changes moral responsibility.
            Linus decides to reply uniquely with ad hominem.
            It speaks volumes about the paucity of Linus’s arguments.
            Tant pis:

            “This is real Christianity in action.”
            Err. No. It’s me in action – a very poor Christian indeed. As I’ve acknowledged all along.
            I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I didn’t realise you were so fragile. Readers of this blog take note: Linus is a sensitive snowflake who needs a safe space. Don’t trigger without warning.

            “When faced with an opponent who won’t give up, he tries to adopt a superior tone and accuse him of an inability to follow sophisticated arguments.”
            Oh dear Linus. Wasn’t I clear enough? I really just meant YOU.

            “his opponent… is denigrated as a stupid wanker unworthy of being listened to.”
            I’m redundant here. You convince people of the truth of this all by yourself every time you post.

            May the truth set you free and all that.
            Mind how you go.

          • Linus

            More mindless abuse from a half-trained Jesuit, who clearly wasn’t paying much attention when attending his “Manipulation 101” lectures.

            Words like “fragile” and “snowflake” say it all. He was kicked out of seminary for utter incompetence and has now enrolled in Mundabor’s “Torquemada Training College For Rooters-Out of Heresy and The Shouting Down of Error”.

            Courses include “101 Top Insults For Hurling at Heretics” and “Defence Against The Evil Clown and His Minions”. No sign of remedial English on the syllabus yet, more’s the pity.

          • ardenjm

            Hmmm.
            If it were mindless you wouldn’t bother reacting to it.
            That you react to it rather gives the lie to everything else you write.
            If you feel able after your meltdown to get back to substantive arguments rather than this pearl-clutching emoting I’ll be happy to do so.
            But if you still feel the need to carry on doing ad hominem, don’t let me stop you, I just won’t bother replying until you put something down that is more than personal attacks. For example, perhaps you’d like to engage with these perspectives – which you’ve avoided up until now preferring to attack me rather than my arguments instead:

            Thus: an emotion isn’t the same thing as an intention – no matter how much you try to insist it is. It’s very important you understand this because it’s precisely this difference that make us NOT accuse animals and little children of wrong-doing even when they act out of emotion (or to use even more accurate language, ‘passion’). The angry bull or terrible 2 year old isn’t held responsible for their actions because these actions aren’t informed by an enlightened will: they are reacting (emotionally) not acting (with intention, still less malice.)

          • Linus

            The ad hominem attacks have been coming from you. I merely said you argue like a poorly trained Jesuit. That’s not an attack so much as an observation. The poor quality of your arguments and their lack of all tactical finesse speak for themselves. They don’t need me to add further insult to the injury they already cause you.

            You on the other hand chose to accuse me of being a “sensitive snowflake” (ad hom) guilty of “quasi-onanistic pleasure of sounding off” (more ad hom).

            I think I’ve worked it out though. You’re about 16, aren’t you? That would explain the emotional outbursts and half-understood Jesuitical jousting tactics. Either that or you’re in your second childhood. And sinking fast.

            Come back when you’re all grown up and can string together a coherent argument. Or if senility is your problem, come back and haunt me when your spirit is shut out of heaven and they won’t even take you in hell. You’ll have nothing to do but wander the earth for all eternity, so you might as well have a crack at scaring me. I warn you though: I’m known in my family as a failsafe eradicator of spectres and poltergeists. Cousins from Scotland to Portugal have called on me to spend nights in rooms so haunted that guests run screaming from them at 2am vowing never to return. Not only have I never seen the slightest trace of ghostly activity, but following my stay, nobody is ever troubled by phantoms again. So if you’re willing to face oblivion, bring it on.

            What else will you have to do?

          • ardenjm

            Please note that when I invited you to engage with substantive ideas on emotions, intentions and what malice is you decided to revert to talking only about me…

            End of.

          • Linus

            No denials, I see. So I’ll assume my guesses are accurate enough.

            And as for your slur (for thus was it intended – when a homophobe calls someone a homosexual, it’s never meant as a compliment) against the fake archbishop’s sexual orientation, I shall assume it’s merely a bitchy little adolescent’s attempt to besmirch the reputation of someone who’s rapped him over the knuckles for immature behaviour in the past. As you offer no proof of your allegation, it can only be dismissed as a feeble attempt at revenge. Hell hath no fury like an hysterical teenager scorned.

          • ardenjm

            I’m sure Cranmer is very grateful to you for your loyal support.

          • Linus

            Whether the fake archbishop is a common garden self-worshipping straight or a self-loathing closet case is his own affair and has nothing to do with me. All I know for sure is that he’s a homophobic right-wing Christian and as such, no matter what his sexual orientation, he gets no loyalty from me.

            What I find suspicious about you is your manner of alleging that he’s gay while offering not a shred of evidence to back up your claim. It reads and feels like a personal (and unpleasantly hysterical) vendetta. Something we generally only see from hormonal teenagers.

            Are you gay? Did you make a pass at the unfortunate Hilton only to be rejected and is this your revenge? Or are you a woman in the same position? I’ve seen clips of him talking and can only say that whatever your gender and sexuality, I don’t understand the attraction. But there’s nowt as queer as folk, I suppose…

          • Little Black Censored

            “This is real Christianity in action.”
            That is unfair in general, and in particular to many who post comments here.

          • Little Black Censored

            Gosh, what a sweet little soul you are!

          • Little Black Censored

            For the first time ever, Linus, some one has managed to get me on to your side. You will never convince some one who, whilst believing himself (perhaps unconsciously) to be the final arbiter of truth, claims the authority of the church for his opinions, thus exercising his judgement whilst claiming not to be doing so. For an honest person there is no escaping the need to make up one’s own mind, with the best information to hand. Putting is all on the Pope is a classic abdication of personal responsibility. (If that is “protestant” then, with a small P that is what every one should be, religious or not.)

          • Linus

            And the obvious rejoinder is that personal salvation is bunkum because how can you be sure you’ve made the right decision? Who made your conscience so perfect it can infallibly tell the difference between truth and error? And if it is perfect, why doesn’t your Protestant neighbour agree with you? Because he’s not as perfect as you, right?

            Catholics believe in a universal standard they attempt (not always successfully or entirely) to adhere to. Protestants believe that truth is what their conscience tells them it is with no reference to a central magisterium.

            Both positions are equally ludicrous. The Catholic one because consensus doesn’t equal truth, merely consensus. And the Protestant one because you all disagree and you can’t all be right, so who’s to say you are and your neighbour is not?

          • Anton

            Plenty of hypocrites in the church, yes. And room for one more, if you care to join us.

          • dannybhoy

            “If communion is distributed to all and sundry but the Church piously expects those who aren’t fully paid-up members to abstain, it’s living in cloud cuckoo land. ”
            You miss the point mon ami. The bread and wine are symbolic as you know of Christ’s sacrifice of His body and blood as our Pascal Lamb, the Passover Lamb.
            It only has real meaning for those who believe Christ did indeed die so that all their sins could be forgiven ans a new life begun through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
            So for non believers it would have no meaning. The Catholic Church would not allow an Anglican to receive the elements because the Anglican is not a Catholic; but he could be offered a blessing.
            I personally see nothing in the bread and the wine beyond symbolism.

      • Little Black Censored

        The essential difference being that Christianity itself is good, Islam itself bad. No Christian who commits these crimes can justify them by reference to divine command, Moslems can, without feeling any guilt or shame. See how these gangsters conduct themselves in court, arrogant throughout.

        • Richard Hill

          This is a key issue and has to be repeated again and again. The Koran explicitly says “a man is permitted to beat his wife” (in some circumstances). Senior Muslim clerics confirm this. There is a dark side in most of us. All that is needed is “permission” from some authority to release the badness within us. I remember a quotation…”for good men to commit evil, all it takes is religion”.
          The worst thing is that senior Christian Clerics give credibility to their Muslim counterparts, thus providing a chain of permission for evil deeds.

          • Merchantman

            In that case senior Christian Clerics are abandoning Jesus and joining a with a false christ.

      • Albert

        A good post. I’d second Anton’s request for information on Cranmer and communion.

        • Ivan M

          It is on his his old blog, you will have to do a search for it. It wasn’t so much about the Holy Communion as it was about the larger claims of the RCC to exclusively determine Catholicity and Salvation. At that time Pope Benedict was in charge, and Cranmer obviously felt that some guerrilla action was needed to prick the German’s claim to be the head of all Catholics including Anglicans, whose Queen he disdainfully referred to as nothing more than a renegade satrap, or something to that effect. All very entertaining stuff and all very much waters under the bridge.

          • Albert

            Thanks Ivan, but what did he do with the Eucharist?

          • ardenjm

            I answered this in subsequent explanation under your original question. It’s all there above (or below).

          • Albert

            I can’t see it, could you be so kind as to repost under this one, please?

          • ardenjm

            You need to read this in the light of the links that follows it:

            He went to St Peter’s in Rome and at Communion time went and received Holy Communion.
            Then boasted about how he had done so on one of his blog posts a few years back – how he had hoodwinked the Church by doing so.
            It was cheap.
            I called him out on it multiple times.
            He never apologised.
            And he blocked me for being a militant Catholic – by wiping any posts I made on his old site.
            I fully expect him to block me on disqus on here before too long.

            For all that he gets right on pro-life issues, Europe and the general moral decadence of our times on the Catholic Church he has really seriously twisted notions. Twisted not (just) because he is an anti-Catholic bigot who never fails to put a dig in (as he did here) but because – as evidenced by the Holy Communion theft – there is a part of him that does actually recognise the authority of the Church. He just can’t get over his heretical opinion whereby he must dictate (magisterially) the conditions by which he will come to her.

            In short it’s pride, the old sin. And he hates me for calling him out on it.

            But the sneaking of Holy Communion, crowing about it and feeling so self-righteously justified in doing remains a particularly shabby low-point in Adrian Hilton’s life.

            https://www.spectator.co.uk/2003/08/render-unto-the-pope/
            https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/mar/04/election2005.uk

          • Albert

            I’m afraid it’s all very Anglican. I started posting here because I noticed him say something quite unfair about Catholicism. But he never retracts or apologises. Perhaps he thinks he’s infallible.

          • ardenjm

            The irony is, if you look at where the support for the EU amongst Catholics comes from it’s invariably amongst the most liberal – and closest to Anglicanism.
            Pope Francis, for example. Ironically, even the Pope can remember to be Catholic: he recently insisted that Catholic hospitals in Belgium not do euthanasia. The liberal Catholic response came swiftly from van Rompuy – that Rome needed to know its place. Now, ironically, Rome “knowing its place” is PRECISELY the point of view Cranmer adopts – and in that article in the Spectator 14 years ago, gave in to the fantasy that the EU was all part of a Papal plot to take over the world. He utterly misread the Signs of the Times. The very impetus that drives Brexit: to be free from a coercive unaccountable power is the same as the anti caesero-papist “independence of the Church” arguments articulated by the Catholic Church ever since Pope Leo the Great turned back Attila the Hun, through the Investiture controversies, down to the tortured renegotiations and concordats as the Church tried to find a way of creating a modus vivendi for the faithful with revolutionaries of different stripes.
            But there. Cranmer has his Black Legend narrative which, like the Dwarves at the end of (Anglican) Lewis’s Last Battle, he prefers to believe rather than reality.

          • Albert

            Splendid post. Van Rompuy’s Tweet was very silly.

          • Anton

            It is possible that the Roman Catholic church, in the time of John Paul II, regarded the EU project as something that it might hitch a ride on, and that His Grace’s Reincarnation was writing against that eventuality. Events have moved on and it is now clear that the EU is virulently secular and will have no truck with Rome or any other Christian denomination.

          • ardenjm

            Oh don’t get me wrong: there are many elements within the Catholic Church who, progressively apostasising from the Faith, give in to the promise of secular messianism that the EU project most certainly promises and which the Catechism passages I shared with you tell us is the work of the spirit of antichrist.
            It’s also found in literary form in Vladimir Soloviev’s Three Dialogues written at the turn of the 20th century that predicted the United States of Europe and its President – who is the Antichrist. The wonderful Michael O’Brien bases his potboiler pager-turner ‘Father Elijah’ on that premise. (Worth a read if you like thrillers.)

            But those with a sound sensus fidei recognise in the EU project precisely a kind of deception that takes us away from the Gospel and from Christ and which is deeply hostile to the Church. What causes greatest distress is to witness – for the first time in many, many long centuries – a Pope who is so compromised in his teaching of the Faith that he has lost the trust of so many of the Faithful. Still, Our Lord knows what He is doing. It is His Church, after all. And His promise is true: even in spite of the worst Popes we’ve ever had, the rock on which Our Lord built His Church has not seen Hell prevail against it.

          • Anton

            Yes, Soloviev’s Short Tale of Antichrist is by far the best eschatological novel, short though it be. It beats Benson’s Catholic Lord of the World and Watson’s protestant books In the Twinkling of an Eye and The Mark of the Beast, also published in the first decade of the 20th century. All three are far better than the eschatological trash novels that have become popular in the present century.

            Soloviev’s tale:

            http://web.archive.org/web/20060112121614/http:/www.praiseofglory.com/taleantichrist.htm

          • Little Black Censored

            “Perhaps he thinks he’s infallible.” There are several such in this discussion, Albert, as I expect you have noticed.

          • Ivan M

            He received the Eucharist, in the manner in which in which it was to be received, or at least in the manner in which in the mass of Catholics I’ve seen, including myself, receive it. He was of course scornful of the RCC claim to have an exclusive right on the Host, which is to be expected given that he is an Anglican. ardenjm is just winding things up.

          • Albert

            That is so confused. To receive communion while denying what it signifies (unity) and without charity and humility.

          • Ivan M

            There was ‘unity’ but not on the RCC’s terms, I don’t see anything wrong with it coming from a representative of a church that also claims Apostolic Succession. Humility is due to the Host and only secondarily, but not necessarily to the the RCC. Anything else is between Cranmer and God.

            I would like to point out by way of context, that the rules for receiving Communion became tightened after the publicity surrounding Bubba Clinton receiving Communion in South Africa. It was only after that, announcements were regularly made that “Communion is only for baptised Catholics.” Prior to that I am certain that countless heathens had received it (say in India) as a matter of course, thinking that it was just the equivalent of the ‘prasadham’ they get in their Hindu temples.

          • Albert

            It has always been impossible for non Catholics to receive communion, hence a split is marked by a break in communion.

            It is totally confused for non-Catholics to receive communion in this way. For the unity, just is the unity with that body, so it is contradictory and arrogant to say “I am in unity with you but not with you.”

            Anything else is between Cranmer and God.

            But that is the thing that communion never is. It is never an individualistic thing, it is always a community thing, and once that is understood, the ridiculousness and arrogance of this sort of thing is apparent. It is never up to anyone in receiving communion to be sticking two fingers up to anyone else – least of all the people giving communion.

          • Little Black Censored

            Not entirely true. If an Anglican (say) is out of reach of his own church he may be admitted to communion in a Roman Catholic one; that is so common on the Continent as to be quite unremarkable. It doesn’t work much with the Orthodox, however.

          • Albert

            Yes, I was speaking generally, although the conditions are stricter I think than you say here. For example, the communicant must believe the Catholic faith about the Eucharist, which Cranmer, I assume, does not.

          • donadrian

            I was given permission to receive holy communion at Mass in Spain forty years ago as I satisfied quite strict criteria, most significantly that I was out of reach of an Anglican church for a considerable length of time and that I believed what the Catholic church teaches about the Eucharist. I was very grateful for this permission and so have always refrained from receiving communion when, for instance, I am on holiday on the continent or attending RC churches in this country (and so not absent from my own church for a prolonged period), as I would be conscious of abusing the hospitality I had been given when I actually needed it.

          • Ivan M

            I understand your points somewhat, but that is the way it was. As Little Black Censored implies, it was the concern with ‘black magic’ that drove much of the security around the Eucharist, not that non-Catholics will receive it. You can attribute it to laxity, and failure to enforce norms, but the non-Catholics themselves did not mean any harm.

          • Albert

            I’m not denying that. I’m sure that non-Catholics still receive communion in good faith. But knowing that the local Church does not allow it, but doing it anyway, is entirely different.

          • Terry Mushroom

            “…but the non-Catholics themselves did not mean any harm”. I’m sure you’re right. Another way of considering why non-Catholics are reminded that they should not receive is because they should be true to their own beliefs.

            Have a look at the Eucharistic Prayers. In different ways they make clear that the Mass is a sacrifice, offered in union with the local Bishop, the Pope, the angels and communion of saints, and Our Lady. There are prayers for the dead.

            The Catholic Church’s position is that it is inconsistent to reject some bits and yet believe one is receiving in unity when plainly one is not. As Albert said, the Mass is about community. not the individual.

            At my parish Sunday Mass, two non-Catholics cross their arms, shoulder to shoulder, to make clear that they don’t wish to receive. And the priest or deacon gives them a blessing. So far as I’m aware, this is a common invitation to non-Catholics including weddings, First Communions and Requiem Masses.

          • Ivan M

            I agree with your point that having been made clear, non-Catholics should not be receiving Communion. But the case is dicier with Anglicans, since they too claim to be a species of Catholic and claim Apostolic Succession.

            For example I would not have any issues receiving Communion at an Orthodox service, since I believe that the same powers granted to a Catholic priest is granted to the Orthodox priest.

          • Terry Mushroom

            “…the case is dicier with Anglicans, since they too claim to be a species of Catholic and claim Apostolic Succession.” No, it isn’t.

            It is intellectually inconsistent to receive Communion at a Roman Catholic Mass when one isn’t in communion with the diocesan Bishop and the Pope. The Eucharistic Prayers make clear that this is part of what Communion is about.

            .Anglicans may claim to be ” a species of Catholic”. But they do not claim to be the species in union with the local Bishop and through him, to the Pope. So it doesn’t make sense to receive Communion celebrated in union with the local Bishop and Pope if you reject them.

          • Ivan M

            Then I suppose receiving Communion from an Orthodox priest, is similarly illicit. But that was not, until now the way I see it. I see the the Host as the Body of Christ. Anyone who receives it unworthily is of course asking for trouble, but at the same time I do not feel much by way of Communion with any of my fellow parishioners. But now that you have pointed it out, I accept that you have superior arguments.

          • Terry Mushroom

            The Host is the Body and Blood of Christ, soul and divinity. You are quite correct. For the avoidance of doubt: there’s no suggestion of non-Catholics being unworthy to receive! All of us are in need of healing!

          • Anton

            You might check out what he said in his own words rather than the summaries of others who are hostile to his act.

          • Albert

            That’s rather difficult to do, but the general principles are unaffected. The idea of naughtily taking communion, to make a statement, does not need details to be understood.

          • Anton

            But you are taking even that from the words of others.

          • Albert

            Obviously, if the claim is false, my conclusion does not follow.

          • Little Black Censored

            Swallowed it, presumably. Nobody has accused His Grace, hem-hem, of practising the dark arts.

      • Ivan M

        Cranmer has mellowed with age. His anti-Catholicism no longer has that Proddy nastiness. He has grown wiser with age.

  • wisestreligion

    What is the “Muslim problem?” That my young children will be living in an Islamic Britain in their 40s, on current demographic trends. For me that is a big problem, and a much bigger problem for the next generation. We must distinguish between a commitment to religious freedom and the religiophobic refusal to address the big questions of religion that determine the basis of our culture.

    Allowing freedom of religion within our nation does not mean we must be blind to the religion of immigrants and refugees wanting to live in our country. Indeed, for a happy country, we should welcome those with affinity to our Christian history and culture. That is far more important than checking if immigrants have professional qualifications or a decent amount of money in the bank.

    We have a duty to think about how immigration may change our country. If we can see that it has changed it, and is continuing to change it, for the worse then ditch the political correctness and lets think what sort of Britain we want our grandchildren to live in.

    Since the Tower of Babel incident the world has benefited from living in diverse countries with their own traditions, languages and ways of living. You can travel around the world and see strong local cultures with appropriate government and legal systems.

    There is an inverse relationship between multiculturalism, on the one hand, and freedom and happiness on the other. To get people of very different cultures to live together under the same government, the state has to interfere more heavily as referee. Look at the erosion of our freedoms through hate crime and diversity legislation that have accompanied open borders under Blair and Cameron.

    For human beings, the history of their nation, tribe, family is essential to their identity. Cultural Marxists, however, see people as units, to be stripped of their historic identity and re-moulded into an academic utopian formula.

    To the Left, religion is a private little hobby, to be kept personal. They would no more assess immigrants’ religion than they would give preference to, say, stamp-collectors over bird-watchers. If you widen the definition of religion, as we should, to include the amorphous belief system of the progressives, then we see the real threat to religious freedom. For all their talk of diversity, the progressives have a religion of their own that they are set on imposing on the world. Other, more open, religions are to be subject to the over-riding rule of the superior Progressiveness. Christians and Muslims will not accept that, and we had better make it clear sooner rather than too late.

    The unquestioned march towards the dehumanized, polysexual, big State utopia might be stalled by our Christian leaders if they pointed out that such a society is incompatible with the Christian faith. Most Britons still, while not having a live Christian faith, would hesitate to side against Christianity. But we are betrayed by our quisling Anglican clergy who refuse to stand against a competing, enemy religion – and I mean Progressiveness. If Christianity continues to be slowly pushed out of the public space the next generation will be caught up in a ghastly battle between Progressiveness and Islam. These two religions, both currently in the ascendency in a doomed pact, are both opposed to religious freedom. The degeneracy and delusion of the former will prove no match for the ever-warlike Islam.

    • Little Black Censored

      WR, you have nailed it.

      • dannybhoy

        It’s great comment.
        I read in Douglas Murray’s recent book “The Strange Death of Europe where he poses the question of believers in diversity,
        “At what point will you say we have enough diversity? Will it be at 35% ethnic diversity?
        45%?
        65%?
        Or will it be when the original native ethnic group is an insignificant 10%, and no longer matters..?”

      • Anton

        Note to His Grace: as happened with another post a few weeks ago, this one of wisestreligion’s is stuck at “awaiting moderation”…

        • chiefofsinners

          Which removes the option of replying to it. Most unfortunate, because even reading it from Arizona, it’s a great comment.

          • Anton

            Ah, there you are. What was it that you and a friend said in confession in St Peters?

          • chiefofsinners

            Resurfacing momentarily before heading down the Grand Canyon on vessel handcrafted by the Navajo from twigs and the body parts of endangered species.

            It was “Forgive me Father, for I have sold indulgences to the poor all over Europe and used the money to build myself an enormous church in the middle of Rome.”

          • carl jacobs

            How fortunate is Chef. Now that he’s been in the States, he won’t want to go back. Before long he’ll come to accept that driving on the right side of the road is both natural and normal.

          • Anton

            But not conducive to longevity here.

          • Chefofsinners

            All very interesting. I am told the idea was written on gold tablets by an angel called Moroni, whose statue appears on every corner in this barren land.

        • Bizarrely it went to ‘Spam’. Now released.

      • James60498 .

        As I can’t reply directly to WR, I trust you won’t mind me using your comment to say to him “Brilliant”

        I don’t know whether this has appeared on this site, but well worth a watch, I believe

        • wisestreligion

          That linked Mark Steyn post makes one think. People have no idea how the demographics of Muslim growth are playing out. He gives the example of Austria which will be majority Muslim at school age in 30 years, and that cohort grows up, continuing to outbreed, taking the majority far above 50% later this century.

          • James60498 .

            The problem is that most people don’t understand more numbers than what they get paid and what they spend.
            The idea of the effects of multiplication along those lines make no sense to most people. And then how many people want to listen? And the politicians don’t want to discuss it.

            Using the birth rates that he gives

            Starting at 90% to 10% Muslim with birth rates of 1.75 per Muslim (nowhere near Erdogan’s call for Western Muslims to have 5 per couple) and 0.65 for everyone else.

            Just one generation down the line that becomes 77% to 23% and next 59% to 41%. You see where this is going. Fast. OK total population will be slower to move but this is the number of births.

            And of course those are percentages. Take the raw figures and there is a 25% total reduction over the first generation. That of course won’t be acceptable and so the gap will “need” to be filled. So even if the Muslim birth rate slows down a bit the figures are still very meaningful.

  • EDLmedia

    You have decided to capitalise , “The problem with ‘The Muslim Problem’ “
    Yet it was called the ‘Judenfrage’, and that doesn’t translate as ‘problem’ at all. It’s often translated as the ‘Jewish Question’, but in fact the “Jewish Issue” is closer.

    • Mark

      Unless I misunderstand your point, it is capitalised because it was capitalised in the original “The Sun” article.

  • Manfarang

    The stand taken by representatives of the Catholic Church towards the Mafia phenomenon has been inconsistent over the years. Until the 1980s, the general position of the highest hierarchies of the Catholic Church had been of acquiescence towards, and even tolerance of, the Mafia. For example, in 1964, the Cardinal Archbishop of Palermo, Ernesto Ruffini, openly claimed that the Mafia was nothing more than an insignificant minority of criminals and a slander spread around by communists to dishonor Sicily.

  • Inspector General

    Fellows, time to wheel this out again…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    It’s Islam by population percentage and their interaction with everybody else within a country. If you’re faint hearted, read it from the end backwards. That’s the nearest you’re going to get to a happy ending!
    https://balaamsarse.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/how-islam-manifests-based-on-percentage-muslim-population/
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    But does it apply to Britain? Of course it damn well applies to Britain! We are not immune. No country is apart from Israel, and we are not Israel.

    Went over to the Muslim Council of Britain site today. Expecting to read heart breaking regret over the Newcastle atrocities. Not a sausage. Why should there be we might ask….it’s approved Islam in action apparently. As the book instructs! Carry on chaps might have been the message. It isn’t. There’s no mention of Newcastle at all, just the usual whining about Islamophobia. They’re pretty upset about Manchester mosque, you know…

    No mention of Islam’s victims strikes this man as very cold. Perhaps it’s a case of ‘if you are in the right, then why regret anything’. One hopes not. Nor would one like to consider that the killings were to honour Allah. That would be unfortunate.

    Anyway. It all leaves an Inspector wondering what the MCB online site is for, apart from maintaining the line of ‘hard done us’. Any representative available to inform us per chance?

    • Anton

      Inspector, you take a very high view of the Creator God, you believe that man is just his plaything, you believe Jesus is a very high Being but is short of being divine in the same way as the Creator… your theology is exactly that of Islam, you know.

      • Inspector General

        Not like the view taken by the 12 apostles then…

        • Anton

          “My lord and God” – Thomas, John 20:28, in front of Jesus and the rest.

          • Inspector General

            Interesting. The surprised retort of one man results in the Trinity…

  • Inspector General

    I say! wisestreligion has been flagged!

    Somebody doesn’t like what he’s put. Come on flock, uptick our man!!

    • wisestreligion

      Thanks for support, Inspector. My comment is still there. It was probably just flagged for verbosity. I didn’t use rude words, apart from Islam.

  • Inspector General

    Ah! Civil partners, eh. That’s the ticket. Your Inspector was always for that for gay types. Not marriage.

    • Linus

      Civil partnerships are discriminatory. A straight couple can’t have one. In this day and age, that’s unacceptable.

      • IrishNeanderthal

        I wonder if Gordon Brown stopped that because of the projected deferment of Inheritance Tax.

        • Linus

          Whatever the motive, it’s discriminatory. If same sex couples are allowed civil partnerships, opposite sex partners should be allowed them too.

          • Anton

            Nature too is discriminatory in certain ways. To whom will you complain about that?

          • Linus

            What do you mean by “Nature”? Mother Nature? She doesn’t exist so she can’t discriminate against anyone.

            Nature is merely a word we use to describe the form and characteristics that evolution has endowed us with. It is not a sentient being.

            Discrimination necessarily involves sentient decision-making, but as no sentient being we know of has guided our evolution, no discrimination can be said to have taken place. Your big nose or your breasts or your penis are nobody’s fault. They just are.

            If you want to rail against evolution, go ahead. It won’t listen. It doesn’t have ears or any other means of detecting the sound of your whining and even if it did, the fact that it has no brain, sentience or self-awareness would probably mean it wouldn’t feel very guilty. Because of course it can’t feel anything…

          • Anton

            My views on evolution are not what you suppose, but I don’t wish to divert. What I mean is that same-sex relationships differ from opposite-sex ones in certain ways that legislation cannot change.

          • Linus

            Legislation makes no attempt to change the nature of either same or opposite sex relationships. It merely forms a framework for their legal recognition.

            The marriage laws are essentially contract laws and any two individuals, be they men or women or one of each, can sign a contract. Once bound by a contract, their rights and responsibilities may differ slightly depending on their morphology, but the same law still binds them together. Different laws or kinds of contract are not needed. One size fits all because it’s so very flexible.

          • Anton

            True. And evasive of the point I made.

          • Linus

            Every relationship between every couple, gay or straight, is unique. Marriage accommodates them all. As should civil partnership. Each couple should be free to choose the type of contract that suits them best. No type of contract should be restricted to one particular group.

            End of story. There’s nothing about a legal marriage that makes it unsuitable for same-sex couples and nothing about a civil partnership that makes it unsuitable for opposite-sex couples. We recognise this here in France. But in the UK you continue to discriminate against straight couples.

            Good thing you’re leaving the EU. You just don’t understand the concept of equality, do you? You’re not happy unless you’re discriminating against someone.

            Odd people…

          • Anton

            We agree that it’s a good job Britain is leaving the EU.

          • Linus

            I was against it at first, but now that I’ve had time to consider it, better a suspicious neighbour than an unfaithful wife.

            As long as you cough up your share of the marital debts, stay on your side of the ditch and stop that unpleasant habit of nagging us whenever you think you’re right and we’re wrong (which is to say, always), we should be able to enjoy a perfectly cordial, if somewhat cold and distant, relationship. You won’t be family any more, you see. So keep your distance.

            Oh and as for the marital assets, the judge tells me that as you walked out on the marriage, you don’t get a bean. We keep it all. As you agreed to abide by his arbitration when we got married, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

            Have a nice life. Enjoy it while you can. Trump’s on his way and we know where he likes to grab single and divorced ladies. Married ones too, probably. Better keep your doddery old queen out of his way. Shove the Parker-Bowles woman in his face. That should cool his ardour, although we know what she likes to get up to with other women’s husbands, so you never know.

            Melania, git yer gun… Pistols at dawn in Grosvenor Square. I back the Slovenian. Caroline Murat lived there for many years and taught them all about being sly and self-serving. They can look after themselves.

          • Anton

            We shall work out whether we owe anything at the END of the negotiations. Nice try by the EU to insist the UK pay a sum to be agreed at the start of the negotiations, but who is daft enough to pay before you know what you are getting? I’m perfectly happy to run the clock down.

          • Linus

            You have no choice in the matter. You’re just some random Brit with lots of opinions and no power.

            Your government has the power, byt given its poor showing in your last election, it hardly has a sweeping mandate. Indeed it’s unlikely to last the course until Brexit. In which case there will be a new election and a new government that may try to renege on the Brexit commitment. If so, your perfect happiness won’t last long, whereas whatever happens makes little difference to us here in France.

            Personally I hope you leave – you’ve never been committed EU members and there are few people as tiresome as the British with their self-righteousness and total faith in their own propaganda. Europe will be a much nicer place without you. But if you stay, I won’t gnash my teeth and tear my hair. I’ll just think it’s a shame we didn’t get rid of the riff-raff after all, but such is life. C’est la vie, in fact. Il y a pire dans la vie qu’un connard de Rosbif.

            We’re not as obsessed with you as you are with us. Go, stay, do what you like. Only please, if you do stay, consider going to an AA meeting or two. Closely followed by Weightwatchers. When you come to France on holiday, you’ll take up less space in public places that way. And you’ll vomit and soil yourselves less in the street.

          • Anton

            You seem pretty obsessed with us, given the time and effort you put in here.

            Things have certainly got more complex since Theresa May nearly lost the election she called. But Brexit will happen because the leader of the Labour party was a lifelong anti-EU man (for ultraleftist reasons!) who only got to be Labour leader by pretending otherwise. Since the election he has tightened his initially weak grip on the Labour party, and although most Labour people are anti-Brexit he makes his MPs vote for it. Together with the Tory Brexiteers, that gives Brexit a huge majority at Westminster. Some strange tactical alliances are being forged at the moment.

            Due to the infighting about Brexit within the ruling Tory party, the UK is unable to offer a coherent negotiating position at table with the EU, and everybody is complaining about that. Not me; I think it’s great. As things stand we shall be thrown out of the EU the year after next having triggered the 2-year period in spring of this year, and nothing will have been agreed at the negotiating table. Our lead negotiator is a good man but he might be hobbled by anti-Brexiteers in the Tory party, so this chaos suits me fine. The EU will blink first. They say they won’t but they will. All we ever hear from in the media are EU career politicians, not the businessmen that influence them behind the scenes. But influence them they do.

          • Linus

            It’s the ideas discussed here that interest me, not the people. You could be British, American or Japanese for all I care. But the fact that most of you are British doesn’t bother me. In fact it’s an advantage. Online conversations with the British are so much more hygienic than the face to face variety. You never know how much beer a Brit has downed before you start talking to him (or her, most of the women are just as bad). The risk of projectile vomiting or poor bladder control is always present and real, although it must be said that the reek of alcohol can be a boon when it masks the stench of poor dental hygiene. None of this poses a problem when conversations take place online. Not for me at least.

            Of course, you’re not British, are you? Most white South Africans I’ve met have been reasonably clean. They even brush their teeth on a regular basis. But boy do they drink. Binge-ingly. They’re at least a match for the British on that front. So I’m glad that a thousand kilometres of fibre are interposed between you and me during our exchanges. Breathing in pure alcohol fumes is so very bad for respiratory tract.

            And as for whether Brexit will happen or not, I don’t know and, as I said, I don’t really care. As it will do you a great deal more harm than it will us, it’s you who should be worried. You personally are not because you actively want to see economic collapse. You’ve said it before: the more desperate people are, the more likely they are to turn to the sky pixie for comfort and solace. So Brexit will be, as we say in France, tout bénef for you.

            Was that the rationale behind apartheid? Keep ’em poor so they’d have something to pray to the sky pixie about? If so, the experiment failed in your homeland, didn’t it? Now you want to repeat it in the UK. Queen Victoria must be spinning in her mausoleum. The Boers’ will get their revenge!

          • Anton

            What on earth are you on about? Like you I am cautious how much personal detail I give on blogs but I have stated here before that I am English born and bred and live in England, and never have I said anything to the contrary. Your view that I am South African confirms that most of what you put up here is just poor guesswork.

          • Little Black Censored

            They could be married in a registry office.

          • Linus

            They might not want to be married anywhere. They might want to be civil partnered instead of married. Indeed there’s a British couple that has challenged the discriminatory nature of the Civil Partnership Act in court. They don’t want to be married. But they do want to be civil partnered. Why can’t they be?

            So much for British justice.

      • Inspector General

        You are discriminatory. You have hatred for Christ. As for your ‘unacceptable’ you buggers don’t have the reins of power yet.

        • Linus

          You can’t discriminate against an imaginary being. And as for not having the reins of power, who needs them when those who hold them accede to your demands and give you what you want?

          • Inspector General

            You are bloody hopeless at philosophy. God, as a concept, is an established fact. Homosexuality as a natural lifestyle concept is an established fact. You can choose to accept and believe in the former, the latter, or both. But what you can’t do is deny either’s existence.

          • Linus

            You are bloody hopeless at reality.

            In order to establish a fact you need to prove it. I can prove the existence of homosexuality by providing as much evidence as you like for it. Clinical evidence based on recorded, confirmed human behaviour and physiological response.

            Where’s your evidence for god?

          • Anton

            What would you accept?

          • Linus

            Verifiable evidence based not on hearsay but on identifiable and measurable physical phenomena.

            Shouldn’t be too difficult for your sky pixie, should it? After all, he’s supposed to be omnipotent. He’s also supposed to have provided such evidence ad infinitum in biblical times and even quite recently. Burning bushes, pillars of flame, the destruction of entire cities with fire and brimstone, flashing his rear end to various prophets, getting dumb animals to speak like rational humans, magically transforming water into wine, causing his babymomma to float about in a bedsheet before ignorant peasant children … the list is virtually endless. And do we have a single piece of incontrovertible evidence that any of these “miracles” ever actually happened? Do we ‘eck as like.

            Taking one of them as an example (Mary’s supposed appearance before three peasant children at Fátima – I recently visited an aged aunt who lives near the shrine, so the “facts” of this particular story are reasonably fresh in my mind), I can think of any number of ways she could have left us with hard evidence she really was there and really was who she said she was.

            She could have shown herself to the multitude rather than just three infants. Multiple corroborating eyewitness accounts are of some value in establishing facts. She could have let herself be photographed or have given a blood sample or a lock of hair for forensic testing. She could have hung about for a few years allowing others to see her and verify her presence and superhuman nature. After all, what are a few years or even a few decades to someone who’s supposedly immortal? If she really wanted us to believe, she could have brought along a folding chair and parked herself under that cork tree permanently. If she were still there shining with a blinding light and looking like a 20 year-old girl with a peaches and cream complexion after a century, we’d have to conclude that something unusual was happening, wouldn’t we?

            But no. We didn’t get any of that. All we got was a story told by three peasant children about an apparition that nobody else saw. Apparently some did see a branch move, but whether that was the result of an invisible robed woman prancing about on it, or rather a plan hatched by the children’s dirt poor but not entirely stupid families involving ropes and a good deal of heaving, we shall never know. We have no hard evidence to support – or exclude – either theory.

            In the absence of evidence, Occam’s razor is the best test to apply to any claim. The simplest explanation is generally the right one. And what’s simpler? The poor resorting to fraud as a means of improving their lot? Or an invisible woman showing herself selectively to only three individuals in a crowd of thousands? How did she do it? Target and pinpoint the light sensitive cells in the retinas of thousands of eyes simultaneously and edit out her image using some kind of psychoactivated Photoshop software? Surround herself with some kind of cloaking device and teleport refracting lenses into the eyes of the children that enabled them to see though it? Can you imagine how complex either task would be? Are either of them more likely than common, garden fraud?

            Show me a measurable, verifiable miracle and I’ll be forced to believe in it. Show me a host tested and verified as a wheat-based product by indepedent teams of researchers that becomes human flesh when a priest chants his magic incantations over it. Show me this in real time without opportunity for substitution, dissimulation and fraud. That should do the trick.

            And BTW I don’t mean the so-called Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires, where the host that was purportedly transformed into human heart muscle was left unattended and unsupervised for many hours and then sent to New York for analysis. That’s another example where manifest fraud is the simplest and most plausible explanation.

            I’m still waiting…

          • IanCad

            I have to give you credit Linus. Your knowledge of biblical teaching and of biblical errors is quite wide, certainly more so than many embracers of the Word. Still don’t quite get why you’re so hostile, or more accurately, contemptuous towards us believers. Did a Christian play you false at some time?

          • Linus

            You all play us false all the time. You condemn others from on high while turning a blind eye to your own weaknesses and failings.

            Christianity is responsible for so much misery in the world. As are Islam and most other religions. But this is a Christian blog, so I concentrate my fire on the most appropriate target.

          • IanCad

            Big difference between criticism and condemnation.

          • Anton

            Some of those you had better ask Catholics about. Thy and I share, however, faith in a creator God and in the biologically impossible resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

            We’re back at Hume now. If a miracle happened, how could you ever know unless you were there, given that you’d disbelieve the reports of others?

          • Linus

            If a miracle happened and was appropriately tested and verified by multiple, independent and plausible witnesses and the evidence was made freely available for anyone to consult, there would be little room for disbelief.

            I used the example of the eucharist only because Catholics claim that it’s a miracle which occurs over and over again and that anyone can witness it merely by going to Mass. The problem is they’ve never shown any convincing evidence that it IS a miracle. Just because they say it is, doesn’t mean they’re right. The emperor’s new clothes, and all of that…

            From a Protestant point of view, the relatively rare and anecdotal nature of your miracles is indeed problematic. If the point of miracles is to persuade people to believe, then we must draw the conclusion that, if miracles are real, the fact that only a few people see them means they’re only meant for those people. If they were meant to persuade everyone, they would leave hard evidence behind them.

            This all plays into Protestant ideas about the “elect” and predestination, so why it should pose a problem for you, I don’t know. If you see a miracle, you’re saved. If you don’t, you’re not. What could be simpler and more calculated to appeal to a Protestant’s sense of being “special”?

            If witnessing a miracle were a requirement of being saved for Protestants, you’d all have seen one. Whether you had or not. Of that we can be sure.

          • Anton

            It’s not a requirement. You are the one who are insisting that!

          • Linus

            I said “IF witnessing a miracle were a requirement…” It may or may not be, depending on whatever sect, cult or minuscule churchuscule you belong to. I don’t know and I don’t know why you would expect me to.

            What does your sect believe? You should tell me rather than expecting me to tell you. What does The Reformed Church of The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch (or whatever you’re called) believe? I have no idea. But I’m pretty sure your beliefs are different from those of The Evangelical Church of The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, and that you both condemn The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches of The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch for idolatry, heresy and imperfect knowledge of artillery, being that your way of pulling the pin is the only god-approved way of pin-pulling and everyone else has got it wrong and will burn in hell for it.

            Am I on the right track?

          • Anton

            Yes and No. If you want to know what I believe, read the Bible. There are plenty of committed Christians in the church systems you mention, but also some whose commitment is to the system rather than to Jesus Christ.

          • Linus

            I could read the bible and come up with a belief system that had little or nothing to do with your beliefs. Indeed that’s what many churches have done.

            It’s not the bible that counts. It’s your interpretation of it. Which differs from many others.

            What makes you right and them wrong?

            Oh of course … because you’re you, so how could you be wrong?

            That’s what it all boils down to. Sheer self-worship. God is what YOU believe him to be.

            Utter piffle!

          • Anton

            How keen you are to avoid reading it!

          • Little Black Censored

            Now that whatsisname seems to have gone, you have turned unpleasant again. That is almost a relief.

    • Hi Inspector ,

      *gasp*, are you feeling o.k.?

  • CliveM

    I know , but usually he’s sensible.

  • Radford_NG

    Most of these men are from Mirpur ; and would have been Indians if the Indian Army had managed to advance another 25 miles before the cease-fire created The Line of Control.

    • bluedog

      One can foresee a Line of Control being established this side of the Hindu Kush.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    Regarding the Geordie language, I have often wondered if “dunsh” is a variation on the word “dunt”, used in Ireland and Scotland for impact between persons or cars.

  • CliveM

    I blocked Linus a while ago, there is only so much self adulation I can put up with.

    • IanCad

      I just gave him an uptick!

      • dannybhoy

        I just gave you one! I think Our Lord is speaking into our Linus’s heart, and I would not at all be surprised if he becomes a truly born again Christian.

        • Linus

          I would be very surprised.

          After all, why should I be the first person in history to stumble upon firm, irrefutable, verifiable evidence of the sky pixie’s existence? That’s the only thing that will persuade me. No evidence = unproven theory, after all. And in the case of Christianity, utterly ludicrous unproven theory.

          Wild stories about Y chromosomes forming spontaneously in a virgin female’s uterus and the reanimation of necrotic flesh do not a viable theory make. Christians can’t even produce any plausible mathematics to support their outlandish ideas. I regard the notion of quantum strings and branes as unproven theories too, but at least there’s some mathematical support for them so while remaining unproven, there’s a possibility they could be true. Show me an equation that supports the existence of a beardy and invisible three-bodied sky fairy who sits in judgment on us all and fries those of us who don’t come up to scratch and then I’ll have to admit the possibility that he might be there. But until I get hard evidence that he is, I still won’t believe in him.

          • Anton

            Just about every equation of physics, actually. You won’t find a term in an equation that corresponds to God, but then you couldn’t infer the existence of a worm from any equation either, because the ontology of biology is not intrinsically mathematical – that’s physics.

            When you study mathematics – and I mean pure mathematics – you learn that there is such a thing as beauty in the subject.

            Why is it that the mathematical expression of the laws of physics is consistently the most beautiful mathematics?

          • Linus

            Define beauty. By your definition it seems to mean “what I like”. More evidence of your religious ego-centrism?

          • Anton

            Beauty is as difficult to define in mathematics as at is among women, but you know it when you see it. There is a consensus among mathematicians, and it has nothing to do with me.

          • dannybhoy

            God is love, God is holy, God is righteous, God is compassionate. He does not want anyone to perish, no matter how wretched or sinful.

            Acts of the Apostles chapter 17 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

            22 Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26 From one ancestor[i] he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God[j] and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28 For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said..

            The way that you will get your evidence is through asking Him in all seriousness to prove Himself to you Linus. I know through the faith That I have that orders my own life, that God knows all about you, understands you completely and wants you to become one of His children.

          • Linus

            You can quote scripture until you’re blue in the face for all the good it will do. It proves nothing. It’s just unsubstantiated words.

            I as an individual will get no proof of anything. I may get what might be termed evidence, but until that evidence is extensively reviewed and verified by others, it does not constitute proof.

            This is Christianity’s, and more particularly Protestantism’s, biggest weakness. A reliance on personal “revelation”. It’s so illogical. How can an imperfect being have perfect understanding of anything? It’s only via exchange with others that we can arrive at truth.

            If I were to receive evidence of god’s existence, no matter how convincing it might seem to be, my first reaction would be to show to others and let them test it. If multiple independent verification confirmed my initial findings, I would then be forced to believe. But until that happened, the possibility that I might have made a mistake, or misinterpreted a vital piece of data, or merely been hoodwinked by a manipulative charlatan would be all too real. I am not infallible, so if believing in god requires me to think I am, I’ll never believe in god.

            God needs to prove himself to us all if he wants me to take him seriously.

          • dannybhoy

            If I were to receive evidence of god’s existence, no matter how convincing it might seem to be, my first reaction would be to show to others and let them test it. If multiple independent verification confirmed my initial findings,

            To my mind you overlook a number of things that Anton could probably explain more exactly than I can. However here are three from my own list of things that I think you overlook.
            a) Can you definitively prove how the universe came into existence?
            b) Can you definitively explain how out of unlimited time plus chance plus mindless matter the beauty and order of our world arose?
            c) Can you explain how the detailed and complex genetic information that determines what each cell should do came to be written?
            My fourth question is
            ” If there is a God and He gave human beings free will and self determination, how could He possibly provide infallible and verifiable proof of His existence to every human being without removing that same free will and ability to make real decisions?

          • Linus

            a) No of course I can’t. There are various theories about how the universe began, some of which are supported by significant amounts of solid data, and others of which are based on pure human invention. The most scientifically plausible theory is called the “Big Bang”, which explains very plausibly the evolution of the universe from circa 200,000 years after it came into existence until the present day. But before then, everything is a mystery. Indeed much of what comes after is just theory that depends on things that haven’t yet been proven to exist, like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But the theory is so convincing that it remains the most plausible explanation.

            We don’t have any sure knowledge about what happened during the first 200,000 years of tne universe’s existence. This is because there wasn’t yet any light, and light gives us our only means of gathering data about the early universe. We may therefore never know how it sprang into existence. But that’s OK. Why should we? Curiosity seeks answers but is owed nothing. We’ll discover what we discover and whatever we don’t discover will remain a mystery.

            So when I’m asked “how did the universe begin?” my answer is “I don’t know and neither do you. But it’s here now and I’m rather glad of that fact. Aren’t you?”

            b) Enough evidence for the operation of evolution exists for us to be pretty confident about how the universe came together and how we evolved within in. There are gaps in our knowledge, certainly. But what we do know is far more plausible than magic gods and miraculous creation myths.

            I can’t say for sure that your sky pixie didn’t wave his magic wand and create us all. But you can’t say he did. You have no proof of it whereas I can point to significant and consistent evidence for the operation of evolution. So I prefer my theory to yours. At least mine has some supporting evidence.

            c) Genetic information wasn’t written down before the cells that contain it came into being. To write something down, you need a pen, or a quill, or a stylus of some type. You also need the intelligence to know how to create, and the morphology to able to use such a tool, the ink and paper on which to write, and of course the sentience and curiosity that enable you to discover such information in the first place. None of this could have existed before the genes that make its existence possible had evolved. I mean, how many intelligent and curious rocks have you ever met? How many intelligent and curious spirits? What’s that you say? Can’t hear you … oh yes, just as I thought. Zero.

            The very first beings to write genetic information down were us. At least as far as we know. If you want to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with magic sky pixies, be my guest. I’ll wait for facts, thanks.

          • Anton

            We use present-day observations and our knowledge of the laws of physics in order to extrapolate backwards in time. It is on that basis that we believe the Big Bang theory – the first scientific theory to speak of the arbitrarily distant past, and it asserts that the universe had a beginning, just like the Bible does (and a lot of pagan mysticism doesn’t). Asking what happened before the Big Bang is meaningless, because “before” is a time-word yet time itself began in the Big Bang. (Einstein showed that time is closely related to space, and space certainly began in the Big Bang since the Big Bang is growth from a point – albeit not growth INTO a pre-existing vacuum but growth as meaning that adjacent points grow further apart.) Asking what happened before the Big Bang is rather like asking what is north of the North Pole – an analogy that is mathematically quite close, actually.

            This deals with the “who created God?” regress problem, of course. The question assumes that God was created by a meta-god BEFORE God created the universe, but “before” is a time-word, as I said, and that is meaningless without reference to the universe.

            The Big Bang is based on Einstein’s theory of gravity and does not take quantum theory into account. We do not yet have a consistent theory of quantum gravity, so it is not clear how much quantum theory will modify this account during the earliest moments of the Big Bang. All claims of such are speculation, of which there is perhaps too much today. Let’s get a theory of quantum gravity first.

          • Linus

            Well, quite. The acquisition of knowledge is a long, slow road. At no point in that journey are we obliged to stuff the gaps in our knowledge with magic sky pixies pulled out of thin air. We can just say “we don’t know … but we’re trying to find out”.

          • Anton

            Scientists indeed say just that, ie “we don’t know … but we’re trying to find out”. But they are trying by using the scientific method, which didn’t come from nowhere. It rests on the assumption that the universe CAN be comprehended by man, for a start, and it supposes that experiments ARE replicable.

          • Linus

            No, it rests on the assumption that we’ll TRY to understand what we can. It doesn’t say we’ll be able to understand everything.

            The scientific method came from humans applying the intelligence that we evolved via interaction with our environment to issues related to our relationship with our environment. It’s an evolutionary response to a given set of circumstances.

            What else could it be?

          • Anton

            It’s a human response to our environment, to be sure, but it still rests on the assumption that the universe CAN be comprehended by man and that experiments ARE replicable.

          • Linus

            Again no, it rests on the assumption that we’ll TRY to understand the universe. We have no guarantee of success. And as for experiments not being replicable, if they’re not, we might as well give up now. But as everything we’ve discovered so far tells us they ARE replicable and our first attempts at carrying out experiments on other worlds (Mars, the Moon) seem to confirm this, I see no point in abandoning the search quite yet.

          • Anton

            OK. WHY are experiments replicable and the universe comprehensible by man?

          • Linus

            Why not? There doesn’t have to be an overriding reason. That’s just the way things are. Experiments are replicable and always give the same results, or at least our perception of them always sees the same result. And we understand the bits of the universe that we know, or at least we understand what we’re capable of understanding. There may be much that passes us by..

            Quantum theory say there may be something like 10 extra dimensions existing alongside the 4 that we can sense. If so, so what? We have no knowledge of what, if anything, they contain. So they don’t concern us. Worrying about them won’t help us live our lives.

          • dannybhoy

            “So when I’m asked “how did the universe begin?” my answer is “I don’t know and neither do you. But it’s here now and I’m rather glad of that fact. Aren’t you?”
            Very good! You see, you can be really pleasant when you’re not in hyper scornful mode.
            b) Enough evidence for the operation of evolution exists for us to be pretty confident about how the universe came together and how we evolved within in. There are gaps in our knowledge, certainly. But what we do know is far more plausible than magic gods and miraculous creation myths.
            Agreed except that our conclusions differ. As I said, Anton could give you a far more detailed opinion of things than mine, but I just wanted to show you that even ordinary people like myself with average intelligence prefer real facts to talk of sky pixies and beardies..

            c) Genetic information wasn’t written down before the cells that contain it came into being. To write something down, you need a pen, or a quill, or a stylus of some type. You also need the intelligence to know how to create, and the morphology to able to use such a tool, the ink and paper on which to write, and of course the sentience and curiosity that enable you to discover such information in the first place.

            “The building blocks of life (proteins, ribosomes, enzymes etc.) are formed at the direction of specific nucleotide sequencing in DNA, the largest molecule known. In humans, DNA contains as many as 10 billion atoms. The adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine bases in DNA are linked in a particular order to form the genetic code containing the master plan for every organism. The information in DNA guides and instructs the formation of proteins; without it, protein formation would be a haphazard, hit-or-miss proposal. The nucleic sequence in DNA is informational.”

            http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/why-the-information-in-our-dna-points-to-the-existence-of-god/
            As with theories on the origins of the universe the real issue is how and why these things happened and resulted in order; whether in physics or biology.
            We can look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions.
            The evidence can either support the theory or weaken it.

            “British philosopher, Dr. Antony Flew, was a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate. However, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid. In a video interview in December 2004 he stated, “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.”1 Prominent in his conclusion were the discoveries of DNA. Here’s why.

            DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program.

            In the photo on the left, you see that a computer program is made up of a series of ones and zeros (called binary code). The sequencing and ordering of these ones and zeros is what makes the computer program work properly.”

            https://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html

            Now you may not agree -or want to agree with his conclusions, but the evidence is not in dispute; only the theories of how and why.

    • Have you watched Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus though?

      • CliveM

        I have never even heard of it!

    • Hi

      Well two of the ” big beasts ” of this blog clashed. I thought of a movie reef. Then Kissinger ‘s quip about Iraq and Persia
      .

      • CliveM

        Linus a ‘big beast’! Purleeeaaaaaaasssseee…………..

  • Susan Chapman

    I think you are underestimating the scale of ‘the Muslim problem’. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor for North West England, said that the cases prosecuted so far are just the tip of the iceberg and that he estimates 100,000 ‘new’ girls are raped and drawn into sexual slavery every year. One senior police officer said that the abuse is happening in every town in the country – “Wherever there are Muslims, there is child abuse”. She estimated that in one area, 6 out of 7 Muslims knew about, or took part in the abuse. Police have admitted they only have resources to charge the ringleaders, not everyone that had sex with the girls. As convictions have only happened recently, and the abuse is estimated to have started in the 1980’s (although I know of an 8 year old girl dragged from her school playground and raped by 5 Pakistani men in the 1960’s) the Muslim community, quite correctly, had the impression they would never be held to account (“You can’t do anything about it, the police will always protect us”) and raping white children seems to be established as part of their culture. A problem indeed.

    • bluedog

      Truly shocking.

    • bluedog

      It’s extraordinary that this post has not received the attention it deserves. Quite apart from the blog host’s bizarre apologetic favouring Muslims, the sheer scale of the criminality being described is horrific. It seems likely that a largely number of the 100,000 girls allegedly raped by Muslim men each year are minors. Now there are currently high penalties for child porn, but isn’t industrial scale child rape worthy of similar penalty? Why were the authorities not prepared to investigate the allegations by the chief prosecutor in North-West England? Who was the Home Secretary at the time? That’s right, it was the Prime Minister, secure in her genteel Home Counties bubble and untroubled by the gross abuse of the daughters of the working-class. This thing stinks to high heaven. Hopefully some politician with a working moral compass will pick this up and pursue the matter.

  • Father David

    All this current Brexit Backtracking is most encouraging. I’m getting the impression from the politicians that “We didn’t really mean it!”

    • Anton

      The reason it will happen is that Corbyn was a lifelong committed Brexiteer who had to pretend otherwise to get to be leader of the Labour party. Now he is ascendant inside Labour he can do what he likes. Brexit will happen.

      I don’t feel your pain.

      • Father David

        I’n not aching but yearning for common sense to prevail. In the meanwhile I take comfort and solace that we seem to be heading for the softest of Soft Brexits and am let wondering what is the point of it all. Taking up so much time when our nation is facing so many other opportunities and difficulties

        • Anton

          To be governed from London not Brussels is no small thing.

          • Father David

            It all depends who is actually doing the governing in London but Mrs. May and her motley crew don’t actually inspire confidence, least of all in their handling of the Brexit negotiations, to date..

          • Manfarang

            Doing Washington DC’s bidding is more to the point.

          • bluedog

            So you would prefer to be governed by Juncker? Or Barnier? Or Merkel?

        • Mike Stallard

          I so agree!
          The government and Foreign Office and the rest of the -ocracy all, I am told, voted Remain. And now, by delay, issuing meaningless statements full of very long sentences and abstract nouns, and shutting up, they are drifting towards Associate Membership.
          It will be deadly. In return for “normality” in the economy, we will be told what to pay and how often. We will have lost all influence in Brussels. The slightest deviation – zoom! – trade simply cut off.

          • Anton

            Tosh. Trade benefits both sides and they aren’t going to cut off their noses. WE are hearing only from EUcrats, not continental businessmen. But big business pulls many strings, there as here.

          • Sarky

            Cant imagine german car manufacturers allowing anything to hamper their trade.

          • Linus

            German car manufacturers are still reeling from the diesel emissions scandal. Suitably chastened, they’re in no fit state to dictate anything to anyone.

            They’ll take a hit from reduced sales into Britain anyway. As your economy tanks, demand will dry up with or without a tariff agreement. It will probably dry up faster without one, but as the chances of there being one are diminishing day by day (see the EU’s amused response to May’s latest desperate plea), they’re just going to have to bite the bullet and work on developing new markets.

            They have the brand presence to do it and China and India both beckon. The Chinese and the Indians won’t be driving British cars, that’s for sure.

          • Anton

            For someone who doesn’t believe in prophecy you sure do a lot of it yourself.

          • Linus

            One needs to be a prophet to understand that the Chinese and the Indians won’t be driving British cars, does one?

            You have a very low bar for the status of prophet.

          • Anton

            I don’t wish to comment on the subject of low bars.

          • Pubcrawler

            The bar in the White Swan, Conington, is deliberately low for the convenience of wheelchair-using regulars. It’s a tad awkward for the ambulatory, but one gets used to it.

          • Manfarang

            Regarding China, at the luxury end of the sector, the Germans are the dominant force. More than 70 per cent of the 2.2m premium vehicles sold in China last year were German, led by Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz.

          • Linus

            Well there you go. The Chinese market isn’t growing as fast as it was, but there’s still a lot more potential there than in Britain’s faltering economy. The Chinese middle class is five to six times bigger than the UK’s entire population, and growing fast.

            Something tells me Brexit is very much a side issue for German car manufacturers.

          • Manfarang

            The Asian market generally has the most growth potential, Car ownership in the West has reached saturation point.

          • bluedog

            Something tells me that 7.5% is a larger number that 6.5%. Comparison of German motor exports to Britain and China respectively.

          • Linus

            Something tells me the upside in the Chinese market is far, far bigger than the entire British market.

            If tariffs mean the Germans can’t sell into Britain, they’ll sell elsewhere. They have no serious competitors in the luxury end of the market, except perhaps for Japan, but then the Japanese are always going to find it hard to persuade the Chinese to love their products.

            Meanwhile where will Britain be sending all the mid-range products it used to export to Europe? Will Australia suddenly increase its population tenfold and take everything you can send?

            That’s the kind of miracle you’re going to need. Better start praying now, no?

          • bluedog

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, or so they say. With the IMF sounding warnings about the level of indebtedness in the Chinese economy, the current British market is worth more to Germany than the Chinese market. Of course, in the long-term the Chinese market has far greater potential. But reaching that potential demands a degree of economic and political stability that may prove beyond China. As the writer has noted before, we have yet to see Trump take action to curb Chinese imports, as he has threatened to do. Trump seems to be a mercantilist at heart, rather than a free trader.

          • Mike Stallard

            Well, we shall see. Remember that M. Barnier, Guy Verhofstadt, the Spinelli Group and M. J-C Juncker are ideologues and certainly not going to dirty their hands with “trade”.

          • Anton

            They like to think they are in charge but they get their orders behind the scenes.

            Things have certainly got more complex since Theresa May nearly lost the election she called. But Brexit will happen because the leader of the Labour party was a lifelong anti-EU man (for ultraleftist reasons!) who only got to be Labour leader by pretending otherwise. Since the election he has tightened his initially weak grip on the Labour party, and although most Labour people are anti-Brexit he makes his MPs vote for it. Together with the Tory Brexiteers, that gives Brexit a huge majority at Westminster. Some strange tactical alliances are being forged at the moment.

            Due to the infighting about Brexit within the ruling Tory party, the UK is unable to offer a coherent negotiating position at table with the EU, and everybody is complaining about that. Not me; I think it’s great. As things stand we shall be thrown out of the EU the year after next having triggered the 2-year period in spring of this year, and nothing will have been agreed at the negotiating table. Our lead negotiator is a good man but he might be hobbled by anti-Brexiteers in the Tory party, so this chaos suits me fine. The EU will blink first. They say they won’t but they will. All we ever hear from in the media is EU career politicians, not the businessmen that influence them behind the scenes. But influence them they do.

          • Mike Stallard

            Anton, I very much hope you are right.

          • Father David

            True, how very true and most perceptive.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          The will of the people should prevail, methinks…

          • Father David

            So then, you wouldn’t be averse to a second Referendum to test the temperature of the “will of the people”? Seeing as how the last result was so very close.

          • Linus

            What?

            No…

            If you decide to jump off a cliff and chicken out at the last moment, what does that make you?

            Have the courage to stand by your decisions. But do empty your pockets before you plummet down the cliff-face, won’t you? We’d like to have something to remember you by.

            The Germans will take the lion’s share of your banks, but we French will get a few and all your EU institutions as well. The smaller countries can fight over the rest. There won’t be much – a pauper’s estate, as it were. But any little keepsake is welcome.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            “we French”?

            Gisela Stuart, who grew up in Germany and only moved to GB at the age of eighteen, said:

            “Schadenfreude is a German word to express a very British emotion.”

          • Linus

            Gisela Stuart should pull her head out of her Teutonic behind and see that Schadenfreude is common to all people, not just the Germans and their English cousins (well, cousins in at least part of their blood – you know, the bit they didn’t get from clod-hopping Celts).

            France is full of Schadenfreude at the moment. The slightest mention of Britain has us all falling about in laughter even as we wince compassionately at your pain. Whenever you make a Brexit proposal, we almost split our sides.

            We’re still shaking uncontrollably from the after-effects of May’s most recent stand-up routine. Can it get any more absurd, we’re wondering? And the poor woman doesn’t even realise she’s a laughing stock…

          • IrishNeanderthal

            That may all be true, but I was not referring to peoples as a whole.

            Simply that you do not come across as being very French to me.

          • Little Black Censored

            Pleasure in the misfortune of others. It is the principle that the Guardian wishes to live by, but the misfortunes have to happen first, so they are devoutly wishing for them.

          • bluedog

            Every glass is half-empty in the eyes of the Grauniad. Such a deeply depressing philosophy of life.

          • Father David

            The analogy of the cliff is just right. We are indeed heading for the cliff edge with the dangerous sea and rocks below. Yes, it does indeed result in making the U K into a corpse, as a result of the perilous jump with other E U nations seeing what is in the Last Will and Testament. But hold on, Linus, we haven’t had the Divorce Settlement yet and I fear that’s not going to be cheap.

          • bluedog

            The Divorce Settlement is likely to be extremely generous to the UK ‘cos the EU 27 are incapable of reaching unanimity. If they can’t agree, there will be no payment at all. This being the case, if there is one nation with which the UK needs a bilateral trade agreement, it is Germany as proxy for the EU 26. The Germans currently maintain that they won’t break ranks, but fear of losing the British market just as the Chinese economy slows down may concentrate Teutonic minds. You can’t lose 15% of your export business and avoid a depression. Merkel’s migrant folly has fatally weakened Germany society, and a high level of unemployment would see the German ummah facing more than rubber bullets when they revolt. German pragmatists like Schauble will have a Plan GB under consideration.

          • Father David

            “there will be no payment at all”! You ‘avin’ a larff?
            Obviously you belong to Boris’ “go whistle” brigade.

          • bluedog

            How do you know how much to pay a party when that party doesn’t know how much it wants to be paid? Anyone can see that, except…

            Best to pay nothing rather than have one’s generosity rebuffed.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Ah that is EU style democracy…keep em voting till they give you the result you want. no sir.

          • Father David

            Well, dear lady, you must know that is how they do things in the General Synod. The liberals didn’t get the vote they wanted to ordain women to the priesthood first time round when Coggan was Primate – so they had another successful vote in Carey’s day. Same thing happened with regard to women bishops – it failed first time round in Rowan’s archiepiscopate and so they had to wait until Welby was seated on Augustine’s throne before they successfully voted for the innovation.
            You’re not telling me that if the EU Referendum vote had gone the right way (i.e. a Victory for Remain) – Farage would have quietly retired to DUNRANTING?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Synod? Hah…a gathering of prodnoses, lesbians and Christo-Marxists intent of damaging the Church beyond repair. Don’t talk to me of the Synod.

          • Father David

            Oh, touched a raw nerve there have we? However, dear lady, on this, we agree but personally, I’d use more temperate language in describing what you refer to as “a gathering of prodnoses, lesbians and Christ-Marxists”
            Thinks, I can’t bring to mind any speeches made at Synod by your beloved, remind me when did he last speak and what did you tell him to speak about?

          • Anton

            General Synod only came into existence in 1970; how can a Victorian bishop speak at it?

          • Father David

            Tell me then, how does a Victorian bishop’s wife know about the General Synod, the Charlottesville disturbances, The Waltons and President Trump? The dear lady seems remarkably well informed about happenings and occurrences of the 21st century. Perhaps she has a crystal ball?

          • Anton

            What does it prophet a woman?

          • Father David

            To get back on track – did you know that there were 25 prophets mentioned in the Koran and 21 of them are figures from the Holy Bible? All male, of course, but Our Lady (that’s the BVM not Mrs. Proudie) is held in high regard by our Muslim friends.

          • Anton

            You make her sound like a car by calling her that! My preferred (protestant!) appellation for her is Mary the blessed mother of Jesus.

          • Father David

            BVM not to be confused with BMW. I prefer THEOTOKOS – “Mother of God”

          • Anton

            “Bearer of God” is actually what it means.

          • Father David

            Fancy a self-confessed Prot knowing that!

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Barchester is twinned with Brigadoon….get with the programme

          • Father David

            But surely Brigadoon only appears once every hundred years and your apparitions are weekly, courtesy of Dr. Cranmer – ever thought of going menstrual?
            “get with the programme” – How very David Cameron (said by the then PM after the vote to reject women bishops – Dave wanted the C of E to fall in with the secular programme and so a second vote was held and the C of E meekly fell in with the programme. Nice one Dave, can we now have a Second Referendum please to reverse “another fine mess you’ve got us into”?), we now have a relaunched Mrs. Theresa “strong and stable” Dismay – all fresh from her time in the Alps, orating on an aircraft carrier (wot – no planes?) wanting Mr. Speaker to somehow allow Big Ben to keep on striking for the next four years. A silent Big Ben somehow seems to symbolise the state of our nation as we head towards the EU Exit door.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I do not have raw nerves, only common sense’

          • Father David

            Was it the great A Einstein who once said “Common Sense in nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before age eighteen”?

          • dannybhoy

            The Bishop of Liverpool at an LBGT++ celebration..

            and Archbishop Sentamu rejects authority of Bible in Church’s mission to serve the community,,

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Indeed dannybhoy…indeed…

          • IanCad

            Can’t but think of the Priests of Baal when I see the BoL prancing around.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            And do you live at ‘Stillcarping?’

          • Father David

            Sound idyllic and I’d gladly remove there in the unlikely event of you ever writing a carp-free column.

          • James60498 .

            so, if sufficient people have been bullied by the BBC and other remoaners to actually vote to stay, when do you propose to have the next vote?

          • What don’t you understand about the result of the EU referendum that we had where we the people who knew what we were voting for voted TO LEAVE THE EU?
            It’s not the best of three you know.
            If we don’t leave the EU and that means really leave not just in name only, there will be riots.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Only if the same principle applies to every general election there ever is…again and again and again…and as for the Linus comment, you are wasting your time dear Frog because I have blocked you. When you can bring yourself to be civil I might engage, but as there is more chance of a snowball surviving in Hell…

          • Father David

            But the same principle does apply – we regularly have General Elections “again and again and again”. In fact, in my life time there have been no fewer than 17 General Elections, that’s one every 17 years. Dave’s idea of a Fixed Parliament of 5 years didn’t seem to last very long. Mrs. Dismay called one after only two years in order to increase her majority (Stop tittering at the back there!)
            Has Linus been put on the naughty step? What for? Do tell!

          • Linus

            Absolutely. The British voted to commit economic sucide, so let them.

          • bluedog

            Ah, spoken like a Gallic statist who doesn’t begin to understand market economies.

  • Mike Stallard

    I have found that, on the whole, Muslims are in the same position as the CoE was seventy years ago when I was a kid.
    There were strict rules – you did not disrespect the Queen. You did not mix with the opposite sex (sic). You did not talk about sex at all – but a lot went on behind the scenes which we never mentioned except when among people of your own sex. Perverts were there all right. Cyril the Pull was Medical Inspection officer for the West Town Boys’ Club. There was a Scoutmaster or two…
    God? Never mentioned. But heaven help you if you held your knife wrong, said Haich instead of aitch etc etc. And there were certain things that were haram too. Ladies’ bits were simply off limits at all times. Divorce was right off the chart. Eating the wrong food, too was wrong: e.g. garlic or rice(except for puddings) or spaghetti (except for Heinz). And deliberate attempts were made with ruining cabbage.
    And everyone went to some kind of church or chapel. We didn’t really believe it, but we didn’t dare question it either. And people who attacked any of this – any of it – were “bullied”.
    Now?
    I write this to encourage.

  • len

    ‘The problem with the Muslim problem’ is something that cannot be solved unless the root of the problem is discovered and dealt with.
    The problem with the Muslim problem is in fact the problem with’ fallen man.’
    Fallen man will do anything but deal with the real problem which is himself. Religion will give man the illusion that he is’ OK’ with his God.
    Gods remedy for fallen man is far more radical .God executes the man and gives him a new heart and a new nature.
    Any religion which endorses the old nature, and the evil acts which accompany the old nature, is an enemy of the God of the Bible.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    But I fear it is going to be ‘Christians and the Bible’ pretty soon…

  • Midleton_Very_Rare

    I wandered onto this site by chance, following an obscure link on http://www.going-postal.net but I think I’ve wandered into a madhouse.

    Call yourselves “Christians”?!

    Whatever happened to “Love God” and “Love your Neighbour”?
    Nothing else matters, and everything else is meaningless shite.

    • Maalaistollo

      They’re really quite nice (well, most of them are) once you get to know them, and I think Shiite has two ‘i’s’ in it.

      • Anton

        We even get Islamic weather now – it’s Sunni or Shite.

        • Manfarang

          It’s the will of Allah.

      • dannybhoy

        A kind and realistic comment, but he really did mean ‘shite’!

        • Little Black Censored

          Well, you know the language.

          • dannybhoy

            It’s the fault of the Irish..

    • Busy Mum

      Being Christian means believing that Jesus of Nazareth was – is – the Christ, the Son of God. It does not mean being ‘nice’ and quietly looking on whilst ones neighbour follows the broad path to destruction. To do so means the same end result for oneself too.

    • magnolia

      And what preventative measures do you propose against those who would like to blow up, run over, behead,groom, rape, prostitute or less alarmingly fleece (dhimmi tax) their neighbour? Or are you just going to let it all drift by unless it affects one of your own, hold “je suis charlie” placards, when you are patently alive and well and he isn’t, and then forget it all 2 months later? As that is how most people are…

      We have fair and just laws to protect us. All we need is the will for police, politicians, the media and the law courts not to downplay them nor ignore them, and for justice for all citizens, with none lesser touchable, for any reason whatsoever.

      To this Christian those groomed teenage girls are my neighbour, and have been grossly underprotected- – grossly…. Since when was not protecting teenage girls OK? It is barbaric.

      • Anton

        All true… but the worst underprotection of those girls was by their own parents.

    • CliveM

      Well not all do.

      Out of curiosity please explain what you’re objecting too?

    • dannybhoy

      It’s a website where Christians of all kinds of backgrounds, doctrinal beliefs and states of grace can engage and exchange viewpoints with each other and non Christians on all kinds of issues.
      It’s called “real life” my friend, and gives us all an opportunity to air views and have them questioned, rubbished and perhaps modified.
      We Christians have been doing it for a very long time…

      • David

        Well put Danny.

    • andrew

      When your daughter is raped and passed around Ahmed and his mates, come back to me with some of that love for one’s neighbour.

    • Inspector General

      But sir. As Christians, we do love our neighbours. Perhaps our failing is that we don’t love them as much as you do…

    • We love our neighbours, but why do we have to tolerate their violence and hatred of us? Love is not the cure all you know, that’s a very shallow attitude to have.

      • dannybhoy

        Agreed. Worthy of the pink and fluffy gospel. Tolerance is more important than Truth.

        • So it would seem and that’s not right.

    • David

      Does your love of your neighbour extend to covering up the plain truth if one of your neighbours does unspeakable, criminal things to young girls ?

    • len

      Is’ loving your neighbour’ leaving vulnerable girls to be abused?.
      That sort of’ love’ we can all do without.

  • andrew

    Kick them All out and back to Pakistan. The Pakistanization of British towns will only get worse, and it is not only sex crimes that Pakistani Muslims proliferate in. Why is sending a people back to their horrible homeland immoral, when aforementioned ppl detest christianity, propagate a fake religion we have been at war with since its inception, reject jesus and bastard his words and his legacy for their own ends, constantly agitate as a race and community against the kuffar, make UK cities feel like a lawless enclave of Pakistan, form gangs and disproportionately commit crimes along sexual, ethnic, religious and societal lines?!

    • bluedog

      The voice of experience. What you say is likely to form an unstoppable consensus as the nature of the problem expands along with the underlying Muslim population. There is now an irreconcilable conflict of values in the UK, and to deny that is facilitate and accelerate the defeat of British society and its replacement with that of Pakistan. It seems that some of us have forgotten the advice of the former Archbishop of Mosul, whose comments were also based on bitter experience.

  • andrew

    “the vast majority of whom have not been even remotely associated with these crimes.”

    Lmao. How do you know? In my experience Pakistani Muslims are sly, and excel at cloak and dagger tactics. We’ve already conceded that we’ll never known the true extent of Muslim community rape, because there are no official stats and the majority of cases were ignored. So how do you know the vast majority are peaceful and decent? Are they peaceful and decent if they quietly plot to agitate and subvert? Are they decent and sweet if they teach their kids all kinds of prejudice behind our backs? Promotion of sectarianism and surreptitious racism? Middle England is hilarious.

  • Anton

    The Labour MP for Rotherham, no less, has just been forced off the Labour front bench for writing in a newspaper last week in repsonse to the Newcastle scandal that “Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40952224

    Labour: Dhim and dhimmi.

    • That’s shocking, she should be re-instated. We do have a big problem with Pakistani men.

      • Inspector General

        She resigned, Marie. Perhaps she feels she failed as a Labour party member.

        • Who’s been pushing/bullying her?

          • andrew

            She’s a typical Pakistani. She’ll defend her own.

          • Anton

            Read the first paragraph of Naz Shah’s Wikipedia biography and it is not clear she would be behind this.

          • She complained about what Sarah Champion had written. I would think given what she has been doing, Sarah Champion is far better placed to know the truth of what’s going on and has been going on with child sex abuse by Muslim mainly Pakistani men than Naz Shah who seems more interested in the Jewish population.

          • Dreadnaught

            That should be Nazi Shah.

      • dannybhoy

        Check out how women are treated in Pakistan..

      • wisestreligion

        The Labour Party pushes out its Equality spokesman for believing that Muslims should be equal under the law.

    • David

      Yes shocking isn’t it when telling the plain truth results in a politician being rejected by their party. But having done this the Labour Party is now wide open for their cover-up approach to be roundly criticised by all decent people.

      • Anton

        According to a newspaper report she was told to resign or be sacked by Corbyn. Why didn’t she say “Sack me and watch the stink I’ll kick up”?

        • David

          “the truth will make you free”.

          Conversely hiding truth, especially when the innocent are being hurt leads to enslavement of one form or another.

    • bluedog

      Justine’s gone quiet all of a sudden.

      • wisestreligion

        Sarah Champion should cross the floor and take over the Equalities brief from the LGBT Marxist Justine Greening. And send Greening in the other direction.

  • Inspector General

    Fellows – Life goes on, and we must be ever vigilant for other dangers than Islam. Off topic but of the most serious concern to all. Militant homosexuals continue to be a great danger to our children…real children…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    No More Boys And Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? airs tonight on BBC Two at 9PM.
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/08/16/an-entire-school-class-raised-gender-neutral-for-bbc-documentary/
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    If they can turn our young against us – all is lost.

    For those who know the Inspector, he has stood aghast these last few years as the Gay Agenda makes excellent progress in this country, nay, the world. The reason for it’s popularity amongst the sane is that not enough is known about the condition and the agenda resulting. The above is an important part of said agenda. Watching programmes like this will illuminate…

    • The Devil is at work Inspector.

      • Inspector General

        The Inspector thinks we can relax, Marie. He recorded the program and is watching now. The so called doctor is of third world origin and is clearly out to make a name for himself in media, is the opinion. The headmistress may need a written warning, but again, that’s an opinion and its up to the local education dept. More may follow….

        • I also watched, it is to continue next week so they’re not giving up. Programs like this are only the beginning of the madness of re-programming and homogenising humans. There is just something sooo wrong in putting a little baby boy in a girly dress and giving him girls toys to play with.

          Whilst I’m not against women car mechanics and male make-up artists if people have natural talent for such, I don’t think it’s a good idea or healthy to weaken the specific natural gender traits by making children and young people feel uncomfortable and obligated to do things to satisfy quotas or make the LGBTQWERTY community feel better about themselves.

    • dannybhoy
    • Linus

      YOUR young?

      So what breed of malodorous and mangey biatch bore your whelps then?

      It doesn’t bear thinking about. A litter of the Inspector’s young infesting a dank cellar in some sink estate somewhere in the West of England. Will they survive once they’re weaned or will generalised genetic collapse claim their lives once their mother finally detaches them the teat?

      In any case, gender identity is the least of their worries. I doubt anyone would be able to tell anyway. If they look even vaguely human they’ll be luckier than the most optimistic of us could hope for them.

      Brexit or no Brexit, I urge the British authorities to take charge of these creatures and prevent them from crossbreeding with the general population. The Beast of Bodmin will be nothing in comparison. There could be a whole litter of Godzillas of Gloucester just waiting to sow panic and bloodshed across the country.

      • Inspector General

        Gender Identity. Yes, you have it. The latest madcap queer initiative.

        Do you know, your Inspector thought there would have been a full on assault against our young by you people after your SSM disgust of a victory. But no, what does he find instead..a civil war between LGBT and LGB.

        Enjoy!

        • Linus

          War, schmore …

          A few outraged feminists have found in trans women a new reason to be outraged. I’m happy for them. With all the victories they’ve clocked up over the years, they were running out of reasons to denounce injustice. And as they’ve built their entire personalities around the denunciation of injustice, not having any injustices to denounce was unsettling them terribly.

          They’re quite happy now they’ve found a new cause and will continue grumble away to their hearts’ content. I wish them well. They don’t actually do anyone any harm.

          Many trans women might dispute that. But I suppose my attitude is that we live in a diverse world and we all have to jog along together, so space has to be made for everyone. Just as I roll my eyes whenever you come out with one of your more extreme homophobic, misogynistic or racist comments, trans people should do the same whenever radical exclusionary feminists start to carp on about the importance of vaginal authenticity and the unacceptability of the Y chromosome. They’re allowed to believe whatever they like, but that doesn’t mean we have to take them seriously, just as few take you seriously.

          • Inspector General

            No no. You misunderstand. Half of your precious community are LGBT like you. The other half are LGB. Subtle difference. Does it need to be pointed out to you. The LGBs want to drop the mental cases. That’s their words, by the way. They are really really annoyed the T are now at the leading front. Furious would be a better word.

            Once again, out of left field comes the unforeseen…

          • Linus

            Correction, a small minority of the LGBT community, mainly consisting of radical exclusionary feminists and their cohorts, want to drop the T and be known only as LGB. They make a lot of noise about it and may therefore give the impression of being more numerous than they really are. But it’s a marginal movement. A couple of percent of us at most.

            You of course will want to spin this fringe phenomenon into some kind of LGBT civil war. It’s evidently a lie, but then most of what you say is, so nothing new there.

            As I said before, whenever you start to rant I merely roll my eyes and ignore you, so by all means rant away. Everyone here knows you as well as I do and although some will give you public support because they don’t care who they uptick as long as the comment is homophobic, the more honest among this blog’s readership will dismiss you as the mad old fool you are.

            That’s your role in life, didn’t you know? A bit like the court jester of ancient times. You prance and bray and gibber and we all laugh. Don’t feel downcast though. You’re very good at what you do. Take pride in what you are. You can’t be anything else.

          • Inspector General

            Well, let’s knock up a banner headline to help you digest the inevitable. In the style of Pink News hacks, of course…

            “All change: LGBT is becoming LGB and the reason is beautiful and adorable”

            What do you think? Do you like the inclusion of the word ‘change’ therein. Very ‘T’ is it not. Yes. One is rather proud of thinking to include that.

          • Linus

            Gibber away, old madman. As far as entertainment value goes, it’s of the variety that requires one to look through one’s fingers and cringe. But it can still raise a jaded chuckle. So do carry on playing the fool.

            It comes so naturally to you, doesn’t it?

          • Inspector General

            Now, Linus. The Inspector wants you to know the only reason he has gone to the trouble to assemble these links together is that he knows that when you read them, it will break your cold bent black heart. He wants that to be perfectly clear.

            http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/21/drop-the-t-from-lgbt/
            http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/06/why-its-time-to-remove-the-t-from-lgbt-5116737/
            http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/i-am-so-done-with-the-trans-outrage-brigade-why-im-supporting-drop-the-t/

          • Linus

            As if I would waste my time clicking on any link provided by you. I’ve seen enough images of Nazi rallies and KKK marches to know what they look like. My education in that respect is complete.

          • Inspector General

            Actually, it’s about your pre mentioned small cohort. And you will click on them. Out of curiosity of what’s happening in the real world, not your unnatural one.

          • Linus

            As I said, I don’t look at anything you link to. I know it will be intentionally and offensively homophobic and probably misogynistic and racist too. I have better things to do with my time than waste them looking at that kind of nonsense. And of course the powers that be monitor IP addresses that access the kind of extreme right wing propaganda you love so much. I wouldn’t want to get on their wrong side, now would I?

          • Inspector General

            But sir, they are links to words written by your people. You know, the chosen ones.

          • Linus

            If they’re in French, I wonder why you’ve linked to them. You don’t speak my language. You can barely speak your own. Are they subtitled? Perhaps the translation isn’t very good.

            No matter, as I said, I don’t look at anything you link to.

          • magnolia

            This is not as entertaining as Wafergate further down the thread with Arden J.M (minimus no doubt). Can’t you up the ante a bit and make it more lurid and emotive?

          • Anton

            You are deliberately underplaying this. For decades the gay claim against straight society has been “Born this way”, and the Trans claim that this is utterly false can have absolutely no accommodation whatsoever with that core claim. The psychiatric authorities in Western nations have moved in recent decades from espousing Straight to espousing Born this way and are now shifting to Trans. Regardless of which view is correct, you are caught up in a civil war whether you deny it or not. And civil wars are the nastiest kind.

          • Linus

            You know your opponent has lost the fight when his fantasies about your defeat start to take on a surreal and slightly hysterical quality.

            You might dream about an LGBT civil war, but in reality we’re as united against our common enemies (religious conservative heterosexuals) as we’ve ever been.

            Every goal we’ve set ourselves has been achieved in the face of really quite pitiful opposition. Only your fictional sky pixie knows why we were afraid of you in the first place, because we sure can’t figure it out. Once we realised how weak and easy to manipulate you are, the rest was easy. In less than a generation we moved gay into the mainstream, pitched your churches into a state of civil war and gained full public recognition of our rights and relationships. We’ve beaten you on all fronts and are now starting to gain acceptance of trans people.

            This was always going to be the most difficult phase of our task because you hate the trans community so much that in comparison your attitude to gays was quite benign. But little by little we’re getting there. At a speed that surprises even me.

            You know we’re winning again and this infuriates you even more, hence all the the dire warnings of revenge. But let’s face it: you’ve already failed. If you had any chance of success, white trash publications like The Daily Wail wouldn’t be publishing articles along the lines of “Phwoar, look at the t!ts on ‘er! Can ya believe she used to be a man? ‘Oo cares though? Ya can’t tell the diff’rence. I’ll ‘ave a go anyway…”

            Game, set and match to us, I think. Yet again. With one hand tied behind our back. Tell me, do you even understand the rules of tennis?

          • Anton

            Not a *team* sport, interestingly.

          • Linus

            Britain fields a tennis team for the Davis Cup.

          • Anton

            I’ve yet to see eleven-a-side tennis.

          • Linus

            Nevertheless tennis is as much a team sport as swimming, diving, athletics, etc. Your country sends teams for all these sports to the Olympics, after all.

            As a Christian you’re used to pronouncing dogmatically on the nature of things and then refusing to countenance all disagreement. This makes you doctrinaire, but it does not change the way things are. Tennis can be played by individuals for individual gain, but it can also be played by teams. I know that fact makes you uncomfortable because you have pronounced tennis not to be a team sport and your pronouncements carry (in your head at least) the force of divine law. But as I have proven you wrong, you’ll just have to think of it as a “mystery”, won’t you?

            Tennis is not a team sport but it actually is and only the Great Sky Pixie can understand why. That’s about the size of it, no?

  • Hi

    Sharknado 3 is my favourite !

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmYUt1-5Rg

  • Lucius

    Maybe there’s no “Muslim problem.” Instead, perhaps, it’s a “Christendom problem.” A strong Western man, confident in his faith and culture would not have permitted either the socio-cultural conditions (i.e., multi-culturalism and Western self-flagellation) or policy decisions (i.e., importing large numbers of persons from a culture that has been both competitive and combative with the host country culture for the past 1400 years) that have together given rise to the so-called Muslim problem.

    • dannybhoy

      There is a lot of truth in that. All civilisations reach a highpoint and then decline..

  • len

    It is a mark of something drastically wrong with a society that cannot, or will not protect its young and its vulnerable from abuse.

  • prompteetsincere

    The decline of Christendom and the rise of Islam within it both have theological roots, different roots, but the primary cause of the growing “Muslim problem” – “misogynistic,
    anti-Semitic and supremacist” in both root and branch. ‘Gatestone’ ‘s Saher Fares makes the Muslim case,”Is A Tolerant Culture Being Replaced By An Intolerant One?”
    August 18, 2017. Do not expect either the Western media or the PC Globalists even to read let alone inwardly digest.

  • Dominic Stockford

    I guess it is Finland’s foreign policy which has brought about the attack there today….

  • mollysdad

    The Muslim Problem is that Muslims have taken more sex slaves in the United Kingdom than in the Islamic State, and that they do so because their religion tells them that, lawful for them is “that which their right hand possesses”.

  • platoscave

    Google Muslim Prayers At Oldham Council Meeting.

    It’s a revelation just how far this Christian country has fallen.

    • DP111

      Note that the imam quotes Koran 5:32.

      Its pure Taqiiya. The quote refers to Jews and not to Muslims. Muslims are allowed to wage war (terror) in dar al harb.