Nigel Farage Suzanne Evans2
Democracy

The only Church mentioned by 'Judæo-Christian' Ukip is prefixed with Winston

 

For those who favour the secession of the United Kingdom from the European Union – and there are many millions who do, cutting right across the mainstream of political divides – Ukip offers festive mulled wine, mince pies and a roaring log fire, even throughout the balmy months of summer. They’ve also got The Sound of Music – or is it The Wizard of Oz? – playing on perpetual video loop. You can sing along with glee, like nuns and Munchkins with songs of praise and thanks; or you can snooze in stuffed contentment, like Ratty and Mole, with all your own nice things round about you. However you like to transport yourself to the planes of confidence in confidence alone, Ukip welcomes you to a land where you can make history; where your name will be glorified, and you can even be a bust in the hall of fame.

The Ukip General Election Manifesto is an impressive document, packed with pledges of social goodness and promises to restore the natural order. It is the song of a pilgrim people, if not a prayer of exhortation to lift the eyes of the nation to the hills, whence comes hope, comfort and rescue. There is patriotism, morality, virtue and a commonsense vision to rescue us from the depths of brokenness which David Cameron used to talk so much about. He doesn’t anymore. Maybe he thinks he’s fixed it all.

He hasn’t, of course. So Nigel Farage and Suzanne Evans will heal the nation’s broken borders, cure the bleeding economy, treat the NHS, rehabilitate welfare, revive the family, restore education, resuscitate housing, repair transport, rebuild defence, mend farming, fix fishing and rectify every wrong that has ever been inflicted on Englishmen since the foundation of the world accession of the UK to the EEC in 1973.

But there is a problem with this Manifesto: it promises too much; far too much.

If Ukip exists – as they say they do – to withdraw the sovereign UK from the bureaucratic and anti-democratic EU, what does that have to do with grammar schools? Or tuition fees? Or dementia research? Or the mental health budget? Or social care? Or housing rental? Or Inheritance Tax? Or war widows’ pensions? Or the Barnett Formula?

If you want to leave the EU but oppose academic selection, who do you vote for? If you want to leave the EU but support HS2, who do you vote for? If you want to leave the EU but favour subsidising Scotland, who do you vote for? If you want to leave the EU and scrap Trident, who do you vote for? Why would anyone who opposes the plethora of Ukip’s (secondary?) policies support them on the overriding single issue of rescuing Britain from being an offshore province in a country called Europe?

Moreover, for those who habitually prioritise these things, it is worth noting that while Ukip’s Manifesto talks vaguely about ‘Judæo-Christian’ beliefs (once), there is no mention of same-sex marriage, abortion or any other form of the moral life which transgresses the boundaries of Judæo-Christian orthodoxy. Do they concede that the culture war lost? The Conservative Party’s Manifesto does at least mention the importance of the Church (twice). The only Church mentioned by Ukip is prefixed with Winston.

But you can credit Ukip’s political paradigm with one virtue: they do, at least, have the courage of their convictions. It’s just a very great pity that they lack the conviction, discernment and insight to strategise latitudinally in order to achieve their desired super-objective.

  • CliveM

    It’s seems to be working for the SNP in Scotland. Their manifesto isn’t simply about Independence, it also includes a whole load of aspiration as well with regards to what it will do in Govt. There seems little doubt that their promise to create a Socialist Heaven on earth is part of the SNP’s and Scottish Independences appeal.

    Which says a lot about people’s ability to think rationally in Scotland.

    Thing is if you go into a GE with only a single policy, the question everyone asks is yes ok, you will give us a referendum, but what are you going to do the rest if the time? Having a full manifesto comes with risk, but how else do you fight an election with the ultimate aim (many years down the line) of forming a Government?

  • Old Blowers

    After speaking to my local mp the other day I expressed the hope I could support him as he seemingly loathes Camoron and supports David Davis but after reading and digesting the contents of UKIP’s manifesto I ‘may’ have to disappoint young Barwell. He is a fine ‘hardworking’ *CHUCKLES at mere sight of hardworking in a sentence now* MP but my heart is for a manifesto that is thatcherite as UKIP delivered yesterday…i.e. Firm but compassionate. As I explained to young Gavin, there are conservative unemployed as well as Labour or Lib Dem receiving welfare except we want to get off welfare and back to work as an ethos.

    I was asked to think how MRS T would told me to vote if UKIP held the balance from a tory majority? Well young Gavin, Mrs T would NEVER have allowed this to occur in the first place lad and she would have moved the elements to get UKIP back inside the tent without the loonies/fruitcake slurs!!

    Just came across a petition to get Nigel on 30th April question..Do all sign and get others to do also and lets get him hitting them hard before election day.
    https://www.change.org/p/bbc-involve-ukip-in-the-special-question-time-episode-on-30th-april
    Hope His Nibs allows me link as unable to remember chatroll login.

    Blowers

    • Signed it! Given the Beeb’s hatred of UKIP, it will take more than 10,000 names on the petition to get anywhere, so sign, brethren, and get your friends to do so.

    • Shadrach Fire

      Gavin Barwell
      (Croydon Central) voted in favour of Same Sex Marriage so I’m glad Blowers that you have gone off him.

  • Athanasius

    To be fair to Ukip (and I never thought I’d use those words), if they don’t address these issues, they’re a one trick pony, if they do, they’re doing too much. They can’t do right for doing wrong. And I would argue that the EU is the foundational bedrock of a particular mental landscape, one where deviation from the tightly defined prevalent political orthodoxy – be it in the field of health, education or law – will not be tolerated for a microsecond. To many people, none of these issues are approachable without first withdrawing from the EU.

  • bmudmai

    The fact is, we shouldn’t be voting a political party of for 5 years if they are only going to get us out of Europe. What UKIP have done, is shown how they will change the country if we vote to get out of Europe and have shown the benefits they believe we will have from this. They’ve made it look even more plausible. It’s a pretty good manifesto overall.

  • Old Blowers

    Your Grace states “But there is a problem with this Manifesto: it promises too much; far too much.” Is not aspiration what it is all about. Stretching to achieve and then beyond what has been achieved?

    The Tory manifesto merely offers wooliness, vagueness and that the people must show perspiration on the Conservatives (or the Tory Ordinariate of our lady of the Lib Dems as I prefer to call them now) behalf for the magic to happen, possibly sometime in the future but definitely every someday thereafter.

    Then from “If Ukip exists…(until)..a country called Europe?)” we get a silly argument from you that UKIP don’t truly get the gravity or the really deep things of adult politics, as if we who are disappointed with the Tory/liberal narrative are missing the point in some childish way. I have not heard any coherent argument for the Tory referendum that establishes any assurance they have one single and simple jot of an idea of what to do IF the country votes to leave…It’s all uncharted territory in removing the shackles of a political union we never asked for..So where are the supporters of the out argument in the Tory parties ideas then?

    “Moreover, for those who habitually prioritise these things, it is worth noting that while Ukip’s Manifesto talks vaguely about ‘Judæo-Christian’ beliefs (once), there is no mention of same-sex marriage, abortion or any other form of the moral life which transgresses the boundaries of Judæo-Christian orthodoxy.”

    Where are the Conservatives on any of this? Oh yes, they are the chaps that enforced it all after Blair put them in the place where they had to, to not be seen as ‘nasty’ and we had Lansley go behind the nations back to ensure no two doctors assent was needed, yes?

    “Do they concede that the culture war lost? The Conservative Party’s Manifesto does at least mention the importance of the Church (twice). The only Church mentioned by Ukip is prefixed with Winston.”

    The nominalism is shocking from the current tory crop as it seems the church is deemed mentionable only if letters are not sent to it by a gaggle of Bishops…and where is Cameron’s heart and soul-felt wishes towards we Christians over Easter..maybe it got lost in the post?

    But you can credit Ukip’s political paradigm with one virtue: they do, at least, have the courage of their convictions. It’s just a very great pity that they lack the conviction, discernment and insight to strategise latitudinally in order to achieve their desired super-objective.”

    And the Conservative manifesto does?

    Shamelessly blind conservativism, bit like a church saying it’s christian but denying virgin birth, He did miracles and He rose from the dead!!! Nothing can be changed to return to the straight and narrow without holding their feet to the fire or is this something that the spirit of Churchill and Thatcher cannot convince you must occur.

    Blofeld

    • Hmmm … good post Blowers. Jack notes working has sharpened the old grey matter up.

      One question – what on earth does this mean: “strategise latitudinally”??

    • Shadrach Fire

      Always a pleasure to read your comments Blowers.
      Our dear Cranmer may speak out against Cameron at various times on different issues but when it comes to an election, his true colours come to the fore and more by deriding the others, he comes out in favour of the dark blues.

  • Your Grace,
    I don’t know if deceased archbishops are eligible for OBEs, but should Cameron win, I’m sure yours will be in the post.
    How you can claim that the UKIP manifesto ‘promises too much’ when the Conservative one is offering everything but free beer and bigger pots to put it in, I can’t imagine.
    Moreover, I will not vote conservative while either Cameron or that chinless wonder Hugo Swire remain in office. To do so is to say that I don’t care enough about the anti-Christian policies that have been followed over the past five years. That same-sex ‘marriage’ is really not important; that gender-based abortion is merely peripheral; that experimenting with 3-parent babies doesn’t really matter.
    .
    ‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.’ I have spent enough time deceiving myself that the conservatives are the most congenial party for Christians. The manifesto could invoke the name of Christ in every paragraph and I still would not vote Tory. ‘By their fruit you shall know them,’ not by their words.
    Christians must not vote conservative. If we do, then politicians will have proof that we don’t care enough about Christian issues and they will trample all over what little is left of our Christian heritage. You have been warned!

  • Busy Mum

    Even if one disagrees with UKIP’s secondary policies, it is only by voting UKIP that one will get a say in all these other issues anyway.
    A vote for any other party is academic; if one wants to stay in the EU, one is willing to live under tyranny and accepts that one’s vote will have no effect upon decision making.
    Anyone who votes to live under tyranny does not value their vote and will deservedly lose it. Surrendering oneself to a dictatorship may be foolish, but to betray the rest of us at the same time is wickedness.
    Out of EU now – this is the only issue at stake. The other parties can make all the promises they like but will only be able to fulfil what the EU will allow them to do.
    We are at a fork in the road; we either get out and chart our own destiny according to the wishes of the people or we stay in and voluntarily submit to becoming serfs.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      To add to the sense of urgency, I understand there are moves afoot in Brussels to change the rules so that all other member states have to agree to any other member holding an in/out referendum. Sly or what? All this is to happen a few months before Cameron’s promised referendum.

      • Busy Mum

        Dreadful – and the younger generation are so apathetic and so ignorant of political history (it’s all social history now – poor little chimney sweeps, centuries of women’s oppression and all that sort of rot)- I am in a panic that the lion is no longer sleeping…..has the lion been finally killed? The EU has forced England to commit voluntary euthanasia….intentional oxymoronic statement there!

      • So what will they do if one ignores them? Invade? A trade embargo? Could get messy.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          I would guess the latter is the most likely. It is alarming to see how desperate the EU is to hold itself together. However, it looks like Greece is going to be the one start breaking up the party, followed possibly by others like Spain and Italy. I don’t usually wish misfortune, but I would be glad to see the whole EU experiment fall apart.

          • Busy Mum

            The word ‘democracy’ does not have Greek roots by accident…..

          • That’s when it will be at its most dangerous.

      • CliveM

        What evidence do you have for this? It would be interesting if you had a link.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          It was mentioned by the chair at our UKIP branch meeting. Sorry, I don’t have a link yet.

  • Andrew Hill

    Do the two references to the church in the Conservative manifesto compared with the one in UKIP really over-ride the rest of the content? The Conservative manifesto is a principle-free zone except for confirming that the country will continue to be under the thumb of the dreaded EU. In marked contrast, as the above article concedes, the UKIP manifesto does at least have a coherence based on a measure of conviction and principle. I fail to see how Christians with concern for the future of our country could vote for the Conservatives in preference to UKIP. I have to say that I for one was impressed with the presentation by Suzanne Evans yesterday morning, and the content of the manifesto on reading it in full – especially after the complete desolation felt after finding out the contents of the Labour and Conservative contributions over the previous two days.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    To the best of my knowledge UKIP has never claimed to be the “Christian” party. However, it’s policies are much more in line with Christian thinking than those of the Conservatives or any other party. Mention of “churches” is pretty meaningless. As we all know the CofE is barely representative of God these days, let alone Christians in this country. UKIP, unlike the Conservatives, do actually use the word “Christian”. Other parties are afraid to because of their fear of being aligned with a group of people who still hold some sense of morality and the resulting flak from the secularists.

    No manifesto is going to please everybody. I don’t agree with relaxing the rules and smoking and fox-hunting, but you have to accept that you won’t get everything you want. However, as I was told at a UKIP branch meeting, the party likes the idea referenda on all kinds of issues, including abortion.

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating YG. The Tories under Cameron have betrayed and alienated almost every true Christian in this country. They do not deserve the Christian vote, and they will certainly not get mine.

  • Anton

    “there is a problem with this Manifesto: it promises too much; far too much.”

    It is the only manifesto to have been audited by an independent organisation and found thereby to add up financially.

  • CliveM

    For all those UKIPers blithely assuming that because the sums add up, it means the sums are right, see link for a lengthy list of probably unsupportable list of assumptions etc where it could all go wrong.

    All the audit has done is said yes UKIP can add, what it doesn’t do is say “yes the assumptions that underlie these sums are correct”.

    http://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-ukips-sums-add-up-but-should-be-treated-with-caution-40284

    • Old Blowers

      Dear fella

      Of course assumptions are used…It’s called a business plan such that you would take to an accountant and verify it is a possibility that the sums of business strategy, costs and sales can be put into reality in starting up a successful and profitable business.

      The majority of savings etc to go into the plan assumes that we leave the EU and no longer contribute to membership and that lower taxes will mean growth of business and individual prosperity etc.

      Osbourne refused to say where extra billions to go to the NHS was coming from other than “trust us”. Who is doing the cloud-busting in this election other than the other parties and their manifestos.

      Blofeld

      • CliveM

        The majority of savings do indeed come from leaving the EU. However the link makes clear that to trade with the EU on the same terms as Norway (which is UKIP’s stated intention) this right will come with an annual fee. If proportional to Norways, this could amount to Billions. As UKIP understand this it is at least ‘interesting’ that they don’t include this in their figures?

        I’m not suggesting UKIP are any more dishonest then other parties. I just don’t believe they are any better.

    • sarky

      Isn’t that the same of all the parties?

      • CliveM

        Oh yes agreed. My point isn’t that they are worse, just that they are no better.

        It’s like before the LibDems went into coalition. The amount of sanctimonious cant that eminated from them and their supporters about their moral superiority in comparison to the other parties made me do the dry boke more then once.

        If UKIP actually come within spitting distance of real power it will be interesting to see how they react. Behaviour to date suggests they will be like everyone else.

        • sarky

          Got a feeling we’ll never find out!

          • CliveM

            Well the GE is so close that it is not impossible that they hold the balance of power. It will be interesting to see how they behave then.

  • Royinsouthwest

    I would be suspicious of any party that claimed to be a Christian party. What would a “Christian” policy be on the financial deficit? Should policy on taxation be decided by bishops or by Caesar?

    George Bush (the second one) made much of his Christian convictions but what shall it profit a man if he be “born again” and.then starts an unjustified war causing tens of thousands, if not hundred of thousands of deaths? His fellow war-monger Tony Blair also liked to mention his religious convictions when his chief spin doctor wasn’t at his side to tell him to keep quiet.

    • Busy Mum

      But don’t forget that Tony Blair was a ‘closet’ RC and his spin doctors knew it wasn’t safe for him to ‘come out’ until he had left office.

      • He is a Roman Catholic who doesn’t actually appear to follow Church social teaching or its moral teachings.

        • Busy Mum

          Otherwise known as a Jesuit?

          He was accepted into the RC church having spent many years leading this country astray. He had done the Vatican’s work well – the counter-reformation continues apace.

          • The Jesuits, in the main, are no longer Roman Catholic. There are a few exceptions but they went badly wrong some years back.

            What “counter-reformation” are you referring to?

          • Busy Mum

            Is the current Pope not a Jesuit then?

            I seem to recall you once recognised a quote from’The Secret history of the Oxford Movement’ by Walsh….and you ask me what I mean by the counter-reformation?!

          • Surely you’re not ‘blaming’ the ills of the Church of England on the Catholic movement within it or on the Vatican?

            Jack would trace its decline to its accommodation with Western culture and a desire to remain “relevant” in a secular relativist age, rather than members within it being Catholic in theology. Lambeth Conference 1930 and thereafter was when it set off on its path of modernisation and self destruction – and having accepted contraception, abortion, divorce and remarriage, next will come full acceptance of homosexual ‘marriage’ and also assisted self murder.

            As for Pope Francis, Jack believes (and prays) he is orthodox Roman Catholic who practices the Jesuit spiritual exercises without having gone all liberal like many Jesuits.

          • Busy Mum

            Children due in any moment so must rush……the CofE has indeed self-destroyed and will be judged accordingly. The RCC has looked on with delight – how do you explain the paradox of moral divergence being accompanied by ever warmer relations?

          • No delight at all. The Vatican was hopeful of reunion before the advent of women priests and would have been dismayed by this.

            The world requires close relationships between all Christians and others of good will, without compromising beliefs and traditions, given the perilous state of affairs we face world wide, wouldn’t you say?

          • CliveM

            There are enough enemies outside the body of Christ, without making enemies of those within the body.

          • Indeed …. in the political arena, orthodox Christians do at least broadly share the same morals and values.

          • CliveM

            Agreed……….again!

          • You should read some of Pope Francis’ addresses … Jack thinks you’d find them beneficial. A lot of traditional Catholics would disagree with Jack on this but hey ho …

          • CliveM

            Well I am impressed with him so far.

          • Busy Mum

            But if your tradition is coming between you and Christ? If your relationship with a fellow-Christian is closer than your relationship with Christ?

            The Vatican is quite happy to see the CofE fall into contempt because it suits it very well to appear as the bastion of morality…

          • If the rituals and traditions of the Church do come between a person and Christ then this is not because of these things but possibly an absence of understanding and/or grace. People advance spiritually in different ways. This is a part of Pope Francis’ criticism of some within the Church.

            The Catholic Church is not happy to see the Church of England decline so rapidly in Britain and throughout the world. Any contempt for Christ’s Body is damaging. Whilst the Church has its sins and its sinful men, its teachings have remained steady and long may they do so. Pope Francis, more than any pontiff in living memory, has spoken about the attacks of Satan and the influence of tangible evil in the world. He wants respect for all those with a relationship with Christ.

          • Busy Mum

            “He wants respect for all those with a relationship with Christ.” – as long as we all submit and let him determine whether our relationship with Christ is genuine.

            It’s the same idea as Imams ‘wanting respect for all people of the book’; there is no difference between Islamic taqiyya and Jesuit dissembling.
            Don’t forget that Satan will appear as an angel of light…..be warned.

          • The Pope is looking for people to accept Christ in their lives and accept His teachings through the Church.

          • Busy Mum

            Tut tut Happy Jack, don’t expect good Protestant busy mums to swallow that!

          • Come now, he’s under fire from traditional Catholics for these very reasons.

          • len

            Is the Pope Catholic……. or Jesuit ?.

          • Good question ….

        • CliveM

          Yes but he hasn’t actually changed his views, so they seem willing to accept him knowing he didn’t follow these teachings!!

          • Jack isn’t sure how closely one is catechised in these areas before joining the Church, as opposed to the message of salvation and Church dogma. Interesting question, though.

          • CliveM

            A case of the three monkeys do you think?

          • That description certainly applies to Cardinal Vincent Nicholls, who as the Archbishop of Westminster would Jack believes would have had initial responsibility for Tony Blair. No sure where he lives now. The Vatican tends not to excommunicate or publically withhold the Eucharist these days, leaving it to local priests and communicants to work these matters out unless scandal (stumbling block for others) is caused or threatened.

    • john in cheshire

      Perhaps the starting point could be Jesus’ views on usury. If it is accepted that the current banking structures are usurious then I’d suggest they have to be destroyed; firstly by abolishing private central banks and reserving the right to issue currency to the people in the form of the elected government. Maybe it’s worth a visit to the Harrogate Agenda website for a more succinct explanation of what I’m trying to say.

      • grutchyngfysch

        Aside from the assumption that centralisation is the obvious recourse, I’d agree: we’ve tended far too much to overlook the Scriptural prohibition on usurious practice (especially as for literally centuries it was secular law also).

        • What is a fair interest rate? Christianity never defined this when it accepted “money” was a commodity with value and also loans contained risk.

          • grutchyngfysch

            Scripture prohibits, and describes as an abomination, the lending of money for the purpose of gaining interest or profit. That’s fairly straight forward.

            The majority of commands against it are in the context of lending money to the poor – so there is an even stronger emphasis on the exploitation of those who are at the bottom of society. Loan sharks, quite evidently, are abominable in the sight of God (I assume you’ll not quibble with that).

            You could, I suppose, advance an argument that this means usury isn’t usury when the poor aren’t involved, but I don’t think this holds much water. The emphasis on the poor draws from the fact that in a Godly society only the poor should have *need* of a loan. We are commanded to live within our means and not exceed them with wealth we do not possess. “I have not lent, nor have I borrowed”, as Jeremiah said.

            So what would a usurious society look like? Pretty much like the one we’re in now: indebted and at the mercy of those who own the fields in which we work.

          • john in cheshire

            I believe the current system allows private banks; ie the central banks; to create currency out of thin air and then charge the nation’s government interest on this nonexistent money. So the interest rate is not the point, with this scam, any interest rate is usurious. Secondly, the other types of banks; eg HSBC,Barclays, the US banks,Deutsche Bank and all the rest throughout the world;are then permitted to operate what is referred to as fractional reserve banking where they lend money they do not have, so again, the interest rate is immaterial, these banks are effectively stealing our money and giving us worthless currency;pieces of cheap paper; in exchange. Hence my contention that the current system is based on usury.

      • It’s a deep rooted Scriptural view and when “usury” became redefined no explicit criteria were set for determining fair and reasonable levels of interest.

        What chance do you think any nation state would have up against the global capitalist and money markets, if it attempted the changes you’ve suggested?

        • grutchyngfysch

          I thought the RCC didn’t redefine Scripture, Jack…

          • It doesn’t ….
            Usury was a specific Mosaic law in a rural economy where money was either used or buried away. It had not ‘additional’ value as a scarce resource and so lending it at interest was taking advantage of another’s situation. With the advent of more complex cultures, money took on value as it provided a return and also lending carried risk. Hence a distinction between ‘usury’ and just ‘interest rates’.
            This claim of doctrinal change is frequently made by ‘progressive’ Catholics looking for changes in the Church’s moral teachings. It’s the same with claims about slavery and contraception.

          • Anton

            Under Mosaic Law Jews were permitted to lend to gentiles at interest, and Jesus told a parable in which the rich man, who represents at least part of the Godhead, castigated a servant for not putting money where it could earn interest. So it’s a bit more complicated than that.

            The relevant Mosaic laws are not those about usury but those about just weights and measures, and the transition from gold and silver coins to things looking the same but with much lower value of the metal in them, as minted by the State in a ripoff. And then receipts for coins changing hands and subsequently being printed by the State without the backing of precious metal coinage – another ripoff.

          • Hmmm …. Jack rather likes this insight into the Parable of the Talents.

            http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=3001

            Not a castigation for not being a “venture capitalist”.

        • CliveM

          In addition how will all the capital be generated to fund the society we live in now. There are reasons why counties that depend on Islamic banking practices are stagnant and third world.

          • Anton

            Corruption.

      • Dominic Stockford

        John hits the nail on the head – one of the key points in the Christian Parties finance proposals is exactly this – to take away the right to ‘make money’ from all but the central Bank of England.

        • CliveM

          What do you mean by ‘make money’?

          • Dominic Stockford

            As we discovered a few years ago banks don’t actually have as much money as they ‘lend’ and invest. Therefore they can go bust remarkably easily. Their lending and investing is therefore effectively creating money.

          • It’s a mega scam – like a pyramid scheme. It feeds the consumer driven economy by creating false need and funding this by debt. Eventually, it will crash.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Absolutely.

          • Uncle Brian

            It may crash or it may not. If it’s poirrly managed it will, if it’

          • Brian, how can it continue indefinitely? Unless there is major reform, and we’re talking root and branch, it cannot sustain itself.

          • CliveM

            Banks have been multiplying money for decades with no I’ll affect. Indeed it is a necessary function in releasing enough capital to enable companies, businesses and individuals to operate. Without this the economy will stall.

            There is a question about what level of deposit a bank needs to hold to ensure it can fund this and some banks got this spectacularly wrong, but it is a basic requirement of credit.

    • The Church’s role in not to govern but to outline Scriptural principles for prudential application by the State. As Jack recalls, the war launched by GW Bush failed to meet the criteria for initiating a Just War. To go to war on a “feeling” is dangerous.

      • CliveM

        To go to war on a lie, is even more so.

        • …. more a delusion, fuelled by the “feeling”, Jack suspects.

          • CliveM

            In my charitable moments I have always assumed that they had so convinced themselves that the weapons existed, that even though they knew they had no evidence (although the pretended they did), they assumed it would be found when they invaded.

            Of course part of the problem was the politicisation of the Security Services by Blair, undermining their independence.

          • sarky

            In my charitable moments I have always assumed that they had so convinced themselves that god exists, that even though they knew they had no evidence (although they pretended they did) they assumed it would be found.

          • CliveM

            Plagiarist………….

            What I can say with absolute confidence is that it is more likely God exists, then the Iraq was holding WMD at the start of Gulf war 2.

          • sarky

            Ha ha you may have a point! !!

          • Anton

            It depends what counts as a WMD. Senior Iraqi Air Force officer and Christian Georges Sada says in his autobiography (“Saddam’s Secrets” p258, published in 2006) that toxins and chemicals deadly enough to be classed as WMDs were camouflaged as disaster relief convoys and relief flights to Syria in summer 2002 following a natural disaster there, once Saddam decided that Bush’s rhetoric was serious. It is hardly surprising that Saddam had those weapons because the West showed him how, during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. What Saddam didn’t have was delivery systems capable of reaching the West in minutes, a claim that was repeatedly hinted at by Western politicians in their public arguments for invading at the time.

  • “But you can credit Ukip’s political paradigm with one virtue: they do, at least, have the courage of their convictions. It’s just a very great pity that they lack the conviction, discernment and insight to strategise latitudinally in order to achieve their desired super-objective.”

    Isn’t this how all new political parties start out – with a vision and full of hopeful ambition – at moments when the old political order is collapsing?

    • alternative_perspective

      Parties, like kingdoms are merely different forms of government; what we are witnessing is the evolution of government according to the same forces all other human institutions are subject to: it is anacyclosis in action. The parties are descending in to ochlocracy; we can readily observe the gradual, beastly emergence of the “tyranny of the majority”. Next stop – anarchy and mob rule and the eventual rise of some demagogue to establish a new Monarchy.
      Given though the spiritual context of the age and the trajectory of an ever closer Europe the next phase will likely be the last before the great and terrible day of the Lord.

      • Linus

        The demagogues all espouse a populist conservative program.

        Queen Marine or King Nigel? I can’t see it somehow.

      • You may well be correct, AP. Social and economic chaos does appear to be looming on the horizon and maybe a ruler will emerge with absolute power. Malign or benign …. ?

        Jack has been reading ‘Lord of the Worlds’ by Robert Benson and it has not improved his outlook one little bit.

        • Anton

          Benson got the politics wrong but who wouldn’t when looking 100 years ahead, and I don’t of course agree with his comments about nonconformism, but he understood secular humanism and its trajectory VERY well.

          There are also protestant and Eastern Orthodox endtime novels from the same era: respectively, Mark of the Beast by Sydney Watson (1910) and Short Tale of Antichrist by Vladimir Soloviev. The last of these is by far the best of the three.

          • Benson wrote it as a counter to HG Wells. It’s a remarkably insightful book – on many levels.

        • Andre´Kristian

          Valued sir! Please pardon my innocent figment, but what the deuce is a beachcomber? Is it perchance to be compared to a form a treasure hunter? With proper respect, I must try that sometimes 🙂 So far I have not been able to find a diddly squat.
          Well, all the best of luck with Your impressive work as a writer! To be perfectly honest, Your viewpoints are not quite compatible with mine, to use a euphemistic expression. However, I do admire Your eloquence! I sincerely hope this note will find You in the most excellent fettle. Please, would You do me the honour of bringing forward my cordial and fervent greetings to our mutual tiger, the dauntless, unforgettable and unrivalled master of all commenters! Respectfully Your Andre´;)
          PS. I say! Solely between the two of us, is His Lordship as handsome as I suspect he is?

          • Fond greetings, Andre.
            Lol …. is Happy Jack to become a “go between” in your shy advances towards the Inspector? Jack will gladly pass on your warm words. A “beachcomber” is a person who wanders on beeches to see what the tide brings in. Jack has a hobby; he collects driftwood and carves it into shapes he sees it.
            Ps
            It is widely rumoured men and women faint when the Inspector enters a room …..

          • Andre´Kristian

            Benevolent Sir Jack!
            Please accept my straightforward gratitude. I can fully well imagine the spectacular and pernicious effects our vigorous Lordship exerts on his immediate surroundings. Persons vehemently affected by his vital and devastating presence, falling equally in love and unconsciousness helter-skelter, pell-mell! Volcanic eruptions and demolished hearts to follow. The astonishing scenario of that battle-field has, needless to add, presumedly no visual effects on the Lordship himself. He merely makes a bored and blase´gesture, ordering his escorting lackeys to “pick the damned mess up”. The mere sight of those fallen are most certainly interferring with his aesthetical mind. “Effeminated dastards! Snort and bah!”
            Well, one cannot but worship and adore his excellent attitude. A magnificent nonpareil!
            With proper respect, Your poor little Andre´ 🙂 PS. Good luck with Your findings at the beach, sir!

    • Linus

      That’s certainly how Protestantism started. Then Atheism.

      Maybe in a couple of hundred years Ukip will be a fully fledged philosophy. At the moment it resembles something roughed out on the back of a beer mat.

      • Anton

        Which is precisely its appeal. Honesty with regard to the big picture and sort out the details later. Atheism is well into the collapsing phase now.

        • Linus

          So Atheism is collapsing because there were 5 more bums on seats than usual in your bleak little temple last Sunday, eh?

          Pauvre mec, you really do see yourself and your perfection of judgment as the centre of the universe, don’t you?

          Christians of all shades worship themselves through the projected image of Christ, but the devotees of miserable little Protestant sects with 10 members and pretensions of being the one true church have to take the cake as far as sheer pompous pride and self-belief is concerned.

          • Anton

            Perhaps you should look at your words and in a mirror?

          • The Explorer

            Interesting how Linus knows the nature of the building and the size of the congregation.

          • Linus

            What, you mean the 5 extra bums on seats in your church herald the utter collapse of the secular world and the triumph of your little Protestant cult?

            All this in direct contradiction of Christian prophecies of a great falling away in belief and the persecution of the Church? So the bible was wrong after all and only the great prophet Anton knows the real truth: that we’re on the brink of a Great Conversion rendering Armageddon and the Second Coming completely unnecessary. D’oh, I guess Jesus just got it all wrong, didn’t he?

            Honestly, it just gets crazier and crazier. You can’t even manage to give your myths internal consistency in the face of that ego of yours and its constant need for feeding. Above all Anton must be right, so if that means denying decades of reliable statistics on religious affiliation and even the prophecies of his own holy book, no glaring inconsistency or contradiction is too great, is it?

          • Anton

            I am talking about the shrinking of the atheist world as people realise that it is bankrupt in many senses. That shrinkage is not synonymous with the growth of Christianity, because there are non-Christian religions out there and they are making themselves increasingly felt.

          • The Explorer

            Feuerbach laid the basis for the great atheistic systems of Marx and Freud. With their collapse, disillusioned supporters have turned to the Greens. The Greens are the direct replacement for global Marxism in its war with global Capitalism. . Gaia worship could be seen as a form of displaced Freudianism. Nietzsche worship of the superman has probably mutated into trans humanism. .

          • “Christians of all shades worship themselves through the projected image of Christ …”

            Again, you judge others by your own self obsession and self love, Linus.

  • Terry

    You are being way too picky. The big picture is get Britain out of the UK. At least then it will be in a position to focus on the other things.

    • CliveM

      I’m assuming you meant out of the EU!!

      • Terry

        whoops!

  • Linus

    Get Britain out of the UK?

    I rest my case. It all boils down to education in the end. You have some, you’re worth listening to. You don’t, silence is golden.

    • My assumption from this is that you have no education, or are you the exception that proves the rule?
      .
      The continuing collapse of the Euro-zone has its compensations. With the Euro at an 8-year low, my holiday in Madeira is going to be wonderfully cheap. The only downside is having to step over the bodies of starving natives on my way to the fado evening. How there hasn’t been bloody revolution in some of these countries with their rates of youth unemployment is beyond me. The sad fact is that Greece, Portugal and Spain are never going to get their economies right until they leave the Euro. I don’t see why Britain should be obliged to go down with the sinking ship; it’s time to take to the lifeboat.

      • Linus

        Does being a Christian blind you to the point of not even being able to read? Since when were the initials UK pronounced “ee you”?

        Speaking of the EU, there are arguments for and against it and who’s to say that the economic situations of Greece, Spain and Portugal would be any better if the EU didn’t exist? We’re in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. Smaller economies fared worse than larger economies in the Great Depression and there was no common currency for everyone to blame their woes on then. The EU and the euro are convenient scapegoats when times are tough. But if you apply the principle that Portugal would be better off out of Europe with its own currency then it’s hard to see how that shouldn’t also apply to the UK. Scotland would be better off on its own, would it? The pound Sterling drags its economy down and you have to step over the starving bodies of the natives when you want to go to a ceilidh in Edinburgh, do you?

        Granted you do have to step over the bodies of the natives, but only because they’ve passed out in the gutter because of strong drink. One look at their waistlines will tell you they’re not starving. Quite the reverse. Economic and fiscal union with the rest of the UK has been very good for Scotland. European economic and fiscal union will be very good for smaller countries in the long term too.

        If Britain doesn’t want to be a part of that, it’s free to leave. And yet here you still are. A few intellectually challenged Christians and other conservative fantasists who live in the past will bitch and moan about that, but what power do you have to change it? The party that supports Britain’s withdrawal from Europe is tanking in the polls and can only hope to win a tiny number of seats at the next election, if any at all. Hardly shows massive public support for your insular, blinkered ideas, does it?

        And as for Britain leaving the UK: Britain IS the UK, you muppet. Or would you like to leave yourself? Who can tell what you think when you look in the mirror? I doubt the thoughts that run through your head reflect anything like the overweening pride and misplaced self-confidence that run through your posts, but surely a Christian isn’t contemplating suicide? I hope not.

  • Inspector General

    Damn blast of fresh air, is UKIP. It’s like someone’s finally opened the window, to let out the fug of our ever so sophisticate and supposedly ‘respectable’ political parties. or as the BBC might put it, UKIP have put a chair through the window.

    For those who’ve just realised UKIP is not an armed religious order, like the Knights Templar, well done! Do console yourself however that UKIP is walking in the right direction. Let’s tag along and see and help…

  • magnolia

    Which party is most likely to avoid us getting involved with Washington’s apparent desire to go to war with Russia?

    For me this is the key question as nothing much else matters once vapourised. What do his Grace’s communicants think?

    • Dominic Stockford

      There are three who won’t allow posturing and presentation and political antagonism to drive us into war. the Christian Party, the Christian People’s Alliance – both of whom couldn’t hold enough seats to make much difference even if they won them all – and, yes, UKIP.

      • CliveM

        Well you’ve missed the Greens.

        • Owl

          Thank God for small mercies!

          • CliveM

            Amen.

    • IanCad

      I wish you wouldn’t ask awkward questions.
      Unfortunately the party I support (Tory) is the most likely to shout the loudest and appeal to our history of past glories in order to curb the Russian Bear.

      • Busy Mum

        Our history of past glories only serves to make the present shame even more deserving of obliteration by said Bear or whatever other means God has determined for our punishment.

  • The Banana

    Farage is on record only last year saying that he would like something like the French system, where the legality of marriage is completely divorced (heh) from the ceremonial aspect, so it’s completely secularised.

    Seems the way forward to me. The only way to handle it without forcing someone to endure something they don’t want.

    • CliveM

      Why is that better? People can already have a secular wedding, why should some who want a faith wedding also be forced to have a secular wedding? Would like to be forced to have a faith one, so why do you think you have a right to inflict the banality of a secular one on those who don’t want it?

      As far as I can see it will only add to the financial burden of a marriage to many for no identifiable benefit.

      Another reason why I’m suspicious of Farage.

      • The Banana

        There would be no “secular wedding”, there would be you telling a bureaucrat what your status for purposes of taxation, inheritance and the like. A form to fill out and drop it at a desk and be on your way.

        … the cost of a registrar is hardly a big deal.

        • CliveM

          As these things already are dealt with, you still haven’t advised why this should benefit anyone.

          You say it shouldn’t be expensive, but why should anymore be paid for?

          • The Banana

            It would be no more expensive than it already is? And it would benefit all.

            Those who want to be treated as a couple by the state who the church doesn’t approve of won’t be hindered by the church.

            Churches who don’t want to endorse such relationships won’t have to.

          • CliveM

            You do know we already have civil weddings in this country, where not only do you not have a faith leader, you are not allowed by law to introduce any aspect of religion at all?

            You do know the Church is already meant to be protected by law, so that they don’t have to wed those they disapprove of?

            What you are calling for above already exists.

            You still haven’t outlined any benefits.

          • The Banana

            There probably aren’t any benefits for you, beyond getting the gay lobby off your back.

            However there are no drawbacks for you, and others will benefit. If the state gets out of marriage entirely, doesn’t even internally use the word any more a la France, then as far as rights are concerned it becomes a non-issue.

            As far as the law is concerned there should be civil partnerships and nothing else. If you want a ritual on top, that should have nothing to do with the state. No skin off your nose, and in the eyes of the law then gays will be fully equal to everybody else – everybody is happy.

          • Anton

            The underlying issue in this discussion is: what criteria should a relationship conform to for the State to recognise it as a marriage?

            I would say permanence, intimacy, public character not secret, and exclusivity between man and woman.

          • DanJ0

            In vaguer terms, the State is recognising a family unit whether or not the couple have children. The family unit is a fundamental social building block, hence State support.

          • Dominic Stockford

            And both Tories, LibDems and Labour say they want to ‘go further’ in that ‘liberalisation’. But what is ‘go further’ in practice? Where is there left to go except into incest, paedophilia, or bestiality?

          • Anton

            Polygamy.

          • Linus

            Funny how these discussions always bring out the Chicken Little in Christians. “The sky is falling! Gay marriage today means bestiality tomorrow! Squawk!”

            Tomorrow has dawned and guess what? No bestiality in sight!

            I know that disappoints you. It’s always hard to admit you were wrong. Humiliating too. It must be embarrassing for you knowing just how foolish your paranoid and panicky warnings made you look. But you were wrong. Where are all the polygamous marriages? Where are the men married to three cows and horse? They may be firmly fixed in your fevered imaginations, but elsewhere reality prevails.

          • Anton

            “Where are all the polygamous marriages?”

            That one has already been answered on this blog in the last 48 hours.

          • The Explorer

            If Chicken Little has read Peter Singer, then Chicken Little will be running all right. But not because the sky is falling.

          • The Explorer

            Polyandry. Polyamory. Polystyrene: hell, why not, if you truly love it? Polly parrot, watch out the next time we come near you with bird food! There might be a ring concealed in the middle of it.

          • Busy Mum

            ‘Vague’ is a good word to use.
            The family unit according to the state is now any number of people who live together for any amount of time – whether days, months or years – who may or may not be blood-relatives of either one or more of those other people and whose duty and obligations to those other people is non-existent as any imaginary links to those other people can be transferred at a moment’s notice (without consideration for any other person, as long as the state is aware) to any other person or groups of people in what the state recognises need only be a temporary arrangement too.
            You are vaguely right – the newly defined family unit is a fundamental social building block….. of The State.

          • It should – also for procreating and raising children – but all that was surrendered years ago.

          • The Explorer

            Civil partnerships for all, and a religious ritual on top for those who want it seems ideal. You get a certificate from the state for all legal purposes, and a religious certificate if you want one., The problem is that there are gays who want a religious ritual and certificate. They want the blessing of God on their union. That, I think, is where the future problem will be.

          • DanJ0

            “The problem is that there are gays who want a religious ritual and certificate.”

            Or perhaps a divorcee who wants a Roman Catholic one? It seems clear to me that that ought to fall in the domain of the religious body.

          • The Explorer

            The particular case I had in mind arose on ‘The Big Questions’ a while back. A lesbian vicar said she wanted to be married in church to her partner, and would be pressing for it.

          • Yes, but do you really believe homosexualists will settle for this?

          • DanJ0

            Homosexualist Christians, you mean. Well, I’ll support the religious organisations on this one. It ought to be up to the organisations as the theology is implicit. The State has no business there, subject to the usual qualifications.

          • Linus

            The State is very much in the marriage business here in France. The only legally recognised marriages are those performed by a state official in a town hall. It’s the Church that doesn’t perform marriages here. You can go to a church and have a nuptial mass after your civil marriage if you want one, but it makes no difference to the legal status of your marriage whether you do or don’t.

            In France marriage is a civil contract and there are no plans to change that.

          • The Banana

            It’s not even called marriage in France. It’s purely a contract, as you say. Hence why I say they aren’t in the marriage business.

          • Linus

            Wrong! It is called marriage. I will soon be married and my spouse-to-be will be my husband just as I will be his. In French we say “mariage” with one r rather than two, but the word means exactly what it means in English. A husband is a “marié” and a wife is a “mariée”. Again these terms have the same legal meaning as they do in English law.

          • dannybhoy

            Linus old pal, two husbands cannot in any way be regarded as a marriage.
            They simply forgot which church their brides were waiting at…

          • Linus

            We’re living in the 21st century, old bigot. Extinction awaits those who refuse to adapt.

          • dannybhoy

            You mean those who can’t procreate are doomed?

          • Linus

            And some people don’t recognize the second marriages of divorced people either. Who cares? They’re entitled to their opinion, but if they attempt to deny the married couple their rights under the law, they’ll pretty soon find where the line is drawn between individual freedom and religious liberty.

            By all means refuse to recognize my marriage. I couldn’t give a monkey’s what you think. And what you think will not change what my partner and I, and any other gay couple do in any way, shape or form. Your opinion is irrelevant to us until the moment you attempt to deprive us of the legal rights attached to our marriages. Until that happens you’re just another bigot we feel sorry for. If you do attempt to flout the law then the law will deal with you.

          • dannybhoy

            Linus,
            “Until that happens you’re just another bigot we feel sorry for. If you
            do attempt to flout the law then the law will deal with you.”
            So just to be clear, anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a bigot??!
            That sounds pretty condemnatory to me. You could have just said you think I’m wrong, but instead you threaten with the law. Very liberal, very tolerant.
            Am I or any other here intending to stop you going ahead with your plans?
            Of course not.
            As I said to Sam, Christians share their views, they don’t impose them. This is a Christian blog. Except for a very few your views are treated with respect.
            So why the hysterics? Why the threats?

          • Linus

            I threaten nobody. I simply remind you that laws are in place to punish discrimination against legally married couples, be they gay, or divorced and remarried.

            You infringe those laws at your own risk. It won’t be my fault if your business is closed down because you refused to bake a cake for a gay couple or provide a double bed for a previously divorced straight husband and wife. It will be your own fault for not obeying the law of the land.

            But of course you need a scapegoat, don’t you? So I’m to blame for those laws, aren’t I? It’s my fault that the British government believes in equality before the law and requires its citizens to respect its laws, isn’t it?

            That’s exactly the kind of reaction I’d expect from a scapegoating old bigot like yourself. I used those words to describe you because I believe they are richly deserved. Everything bad that happens to a bigot is always someone else’s fault, never his. And if you fall foul of the law, it will be my fault, won’t it? It won’t be yours for believing you’re above the law.

          • dannybhoy

            ???!!!!
            I think you’re suffering from pre wedding nerves Linus.
            It’s quite common amongst heterosexuals too..

          • Linus

            But according to you I’m not getting married. According to you same-sex weddings are a fraud and a farce. So how could my reactions possibly have anything in common with yours?

            Ah, I know. You forgot the crude inverted commas, didn’t you? You meant to say pre-“wedding” nerves. As I’m not really getting married, I can’t really be nervous about it. I must be nervous about something else. Could it be the grievous sin I’m about to commit against your imaginary god? Am I nervous about the terrible hell I’m condemning myself to in your fertile imagination? Are the make-believe flames you dream of seeing me roast in somehow roaring through my skull too?

            ‘Fraid not. Like most Christians you’re projecting onto me what your dogma requires me to feel without bothering to ask me what I actually do feel. It’s how your world works. In crazy Christian world, other people are just blank screens onto which you project your own emotions and motivations. You manipulate them like cut-out cardboard characters and they serve every last wish and desire of your make-believe god, don’t they?

            Go right ahead and continue playing your child’s game of telling other people what they believe and feel. You’re such an excellent illustration of how religion extinguishes reason that it’s almost like watching an animal in a zoo.

          • dannybhoy

            Just because I don’t and won’t believe in gay weddings, doesn’t mean I don’t want you to be happy Linus. I truly do. I wish you well in your life. That’s why I add my prayers to the others who pray for you.
            As you pointed out, the law says you can marry even if the Christian Church does not; so why should it bother you (and it clearly does), that the Christian Church won’t sanction your intended ceremony?
            If the definition of a bigot is someone who disagrees with us
            (according to your definition) then we are all bigots at some time or another.
            No, a bigot is not a passive state, but an active one. Like for example, those homosexuals who deliberately target Christian businesses whilst carefully tip-toeing past the Muslim ones…

          • Linus

            You see nothing clearly if you think I want to go through the mummery and nonsense of a Christian wedding. What would the point be? And what power does a priest have to do anything? Marriage is a voluntary state entered into by two individuals. It isn’t a gift from an imaginary god.

            There may be gay Christians who want to marry in church. If they want to adhere to a religion that hates them then it’s for them to deal with the consequences, not me. I’ve never maintained that the Church should be forced to marry anyone it does not wish to marry. As acts of the Church have no official or legal status (not in my country at least) it can do what it likes, just like any other private club or association. It’s up to the members to decide what the rules should be. As long as they don’t break any laws, why should anyone else care?

            Of course the rest of us can still laugh at all the nonsense you spout. But as long as you don’t try to impose it on us, derision is all you have to fear. I suspect that’s the ultimate nightmare of most Christians. And Muslims and Jews too. The fear of not being taken seriously haunts the religionist, probably because deep down he knows his faith is empty and can’t bear to admit it, so like the emperor parading his new clothes, he continues to flaunt his faith for all to see in the most ostentatious fashion possible. Your imaginary God help anyone who point out that he’s actually stark naked. Hell hath no fury like a Christian scorned.

          • dannybhoy

            “There may be gay Christians who want to marry in church. If they want to adhere to a religion that hates them then it’s for them to deal with the consequences, not me.”

            You keep on saying that Christianity hates gays..

            On what do you base that?

            Because we won’t agree with everything homosexuals want to do? A Christian doesn’t or shouldn’t, hate anyone. You have no objective evidence for this hate thing, only a rather feeble bigotry based on,

            “They won’t let me do what I want….”

            And again,

            “Christians fear not being taken seriously”
            That’s absolute nonsense Linus.
            It doesn’t bother us one bit that you don’t agree, as long as we share the Gospel with you. As our Lord Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

          • Linus

            Christians very clearly hate gays. You don’t treat people you love the way you’ve treated us for 2000 years. You don’t forbid people you love from having relationships, nor do you force them into loveless marriages with members of the opposite sex they neither love nor desire. You don’t tell people you love that the natural feelings they have for each other are an abomination and then burn them at the stake, imprison them or subject them to social ostracism. You only do these things to people you hate and want to punish or even exterminate.

            Not only are Christians full of hatred, they compound the offense by lying about it and claiming to love us. What they really want from us though is compliance. They want us to stop being who we are and start being who they want us to be. Only then will we be acceptable. In the perfect Christian world there would be no gay people.

            Well, guess what? We don’t live in a perfect Christian world and you don’t get to decide how other people live their lives any more. You can bleat about your imaginary god as much as you like but the gay community knows the truth behind the lies you spout about loving us. We’ve seen what that love really is. We’ll never be fooled again.

          • dannybhoy

            “Christians very clearly hate gays. You don’t treat people you love the way you’ve treated us for 2000 years.”

            Honestly, if I didn’t know you are an intelligent person this would be laughable!
            Show me from the New Testament where anybody is commanded by our Lord Jesus or any of the apostles to hate anyone, let alone homosexuals.

          • Linus

            What, you mean you did something on your own initiative for once instead of waiting for a commandment?

            Or maybe you didn’t need one. He made his attitude about us pretty clear when he called us abominations and condemned us to the fringes of your society. Your imaginary god, I mean. That being who doesn’t exist except as a channel for all your hatred and contempt for anyone not like you.

          • dannybhoy

            “He made his attitude about us pretty clear when he called us abominations and condemned us to the fringes of your society. Your imaginary god, I mean. That being who doesn’t exist except as a channel for all your hatred and contempt for anyone not like you

            You’re still doing it!
            Showing your bigotry I mean.
            Provide proof that I have hatred and contempt for anyone not like me..
            It’s stoopid and illogical Linus, and you know it.
            How many overt or covert Christians have you seen hanging around gay bars wanting to beat up gays because they hate them?
            Come on, how many?
            You’re making all this up because you can’t get Christians to endorse your plans.
            Why not go for a civil partnership anyway? You’re surely not planning on getting pregnant, so why go for marriage?

          • Linus

            Every word you write confirms your bigotry. Gay bars? Honestly, do you still live in the 1980s? Stereotypes have moved on since your day, but clearly you haven’t moved with them.

            I’ve been hassled by Christian bullies before. Generally not the emotionally manipulative type like you, but ordinary Christian guys ganging up on those they perceive to be weaker than them and different.

            I’ve certainly met Christian bullies online. This site is full of them. Their hatred and contempt of anyone not exactly like them are palpable. You’re one of the worst, mainly because your viciousness is hidden beneath honied words and false protestations of love and friendship. Even the open aggression of loathsome old thugs like Sad Jack is preferable to your toxic modus operandi. Try to make friends with the gays in order to gain their trust, the better to whisper your poison into their ears, eh?

            I wonder, how many gay people have you converted to Christianity? None, I’ll bet. We know all about people like you and can spot you a mile off.

            You stand condemned by your faith. You believe in a religion that says being gay is wrong and that gays must be punished by submitting to lifelong celibacy and living on the fringes of society, or by pretending to be straight and marrying someone they can never love. If your Church said that it was wrong to be black and that black people were not allowed to marry each other, you’d be rightly labeled as a racist and a bigot. And yet you claim that it isn’t bigoted or homophobic to punish gays for being gay and wanting to marry each other.

            Society has called you on your bluff. The characteristic most people associate with the word “Christian” is “homophobic”. People now see you for what you really are. They understand that when you say “love”, you actually mean “hate”.

            The very question, “why not go for a civil partnership anyway?” is shot through with homophobic hatred and loathing. Why am I insisting on contaminating the institution of marriage? That’s what you really mean. Why can’t I be satisfied with an ersatz, discriminatory and second class civil partnership? Precisely because its very existence is an example of how straights think they can tell us how to live our lives and what we can and can’t do. You can take your civil partnerships and shove them where the sun doesn’t shine. I’m getting married, just like anyone else who loves his partner. And the State will soon be validating that marriage. There isn’t a thing you can do about it. Soon I’ll have the same certificate you have and the equality of my relationship before the law will be confirmed. You’ll be no better than me.

            And that’s the one thing that really freaks you out, isn’t it? The idea that your perfection and superiority no longer have official recognition. Gays are no longer treated as unworthy and unvalued second class citizens and that just makes you mad, because you’re absolutely convinced you’re better than us, aren’t you?

            Ah well, whether you learn to live with it or not, equality is here to stay.

          • dannybhoy

            “You’re one of the worst, mainly because your viciousness is hidden
            beneath honied words and false protestations of love and friendship.”
            (Danny bursts out laughing..)
            Even my loving and devoted wife knows I don’t do ‘honied words.’
            I’m about as romantic and manipulative as a sick sloth…
            I speak to you nicely because I am nice. I do care that you will be happy because I know my Lord wants me to be happy, and that He loves you more than you love yourself.

          • dannybhoy

            “Every word you write confirms your bigotry. Gay bars? Honestly, do
            you still live in the 1980s? Stereotypes have moved on since your day,
            but clearly you haven’t moved with them….”

            Ho humm..

            Even an old boy like me can use Google…
            “London Gay Bars..”
            http://london.gaycities.com/bars/

            I draw your attention to just one that although it’s title offends me, as a Christian I wouldn’t want to go and boycott it or put it out of business as some of your pals might do to Christian businesses…

            “The Vault, Basement bollocks and cocks”
            Is that the kind of place a gay couple might take their kids to for a meal together in the name of gay education and equality?
            I so hope not.

          • dannybhoy

            Just because I don’t and won’t believe in gay weddings, doesn’t mean I don’t want you to be happy Linus. I truly do. I wish you well in your life. That’s why I add my prayers to the others who pray for you.
            As you pointed out, the law says you can marry even if the Christian Church does not; so why should it bother you (and it clearly does), that the Christian Church won’t sanction your intended ceremony?
            If the definition of a bigot is someone who disagrees with us (according to your definition) then we are all bigots at some time or another, most definitely including yourself!
            No, a bigot is not a passive state, but an active one. Like for example, those homosexuals who deliberately target Christian businesses whilst carefully tip-toeing past the Muslim ones…

          • The Explorer

            Hasn’t that been true of every century? Ever read ‘The Mayor of Casterbridge’? Adapt or die: first commercially, then literally. Survival of the Fittest didn’t start in 2000. Lucretius knew about it.

          • Linus

            Adapt or die has been with us since the first amino acids formed in the first hot springs. It will be with us until life no longer exists on this earth. It’s a basic condition of life: those who don’t adapt don’t survive.

            This is why Christianity will eventually fail. It pretends to lay down immutable and eternal laws, but nothing is immutable or eternal in this world.

            Trying to apply Christian morality to single cell organisms would be pretty senseless. And whatever we end up evolving into will develop its own moral code appropriate to the conditions of its own existence.

            Evolution can be physical and cultural and if our bodies are slowly changing (morphologically speaking), our cultures change far more quickly. The patriarchal faith that served a semi-nomadic pastoral culture no longer serves the needs of a society that has changed beyond all recognition.

            As technology can render a physically small and relatively weak woman every bit as capable of wielding power as a physically large and relatively strong man, ancient ideas of gender hierarchy become obsolete. And as reproductive technology makes makes it possible to create life from the gametes of any two or more individuals, ideas of what constitutes a “family” and “parents” will also change. Indeed with surrogacy and IVF they already are. Three parent babies are just a couple of years away. Same-sex parent babies just a few years beyond that. How can Christianity adapt to situations it can’t even imagine? By calling them anathema and calling on the faithful to exterminate them? All religions will eventually follow the path that Islam is carving out for itself: desperate attempts at jihad and extermination of what is considered to be unholy, followed by utter collapse as fantasy and superstition prove incapable of conquering cold hard reality.

            You’re living through the final years of religion as we know it. As we extend our knowledge to encompass the origins of life and figure out how to manipulate and even create it from scratch, the entire concept of god becomes meaningless. That’s the reality of “adapt or die”. We’re reaching the limits of religion’s ability to adapt to realities that deprive it of all meaning.

            The first self-replicating entirely man-made DNA has already been developed and once we figure out how to replicate other cell structures, artificial life will be a reality. How then will God be special and worthy of worship?

          • The Explorer

            A most impressive and lucid post, Linus. One of your best. One might say that ‘Adapt or die’ is an immutable and eternal law: However, immutable and eternal laws don’t exist; so it isn’t.
            Some thoughts.
            1. When cars came out, the maximum speed limit was 15 miles an hour. Now the slowest is 20mph. The form of the speed limit has changed, but the principle hasn’t. Depending on how you view it, an immutable law has been superseded; or is still in place.
            2. You are describing a ‘Genesis’ 3 situation. “Ye shall be as gods.” If God exists, God will intervene, as in the Tower of Babel. If God doesn’t exist, God won’t. But Man might.
            3. Historically, we’ve seen a hankering after Eugenics. Suppose a Hitler type got hold of the programme, with a blueprint for what sort of future human should be reproduced.? Don’t want to be a killjoy, but it could happen.
            4. You can adapt, but then die at the hands of those who don’t want to. Islam is superstition with internet access and firepower. It has adapted, while still retaining a Seventh-Century belief system. It could blow up the technology, or murder the scientists. Theodore Dalrymple cites the example of the Kennedy Hospital in Liberia. It was equipped to the latest American standards as a gift from the American people. But those staff who didn’t manage to flee civil war were shot. Apart from the walls, nothing remains. Even the beds have been systematically immobilised. The Liberians were afraid that if they accepted Western medicine, they would lose their ju ju. One instance in which superstition completely triumphed over cold reality.

          • Linus

            “Adapt or die” can’t be immutable because life isn’t eternal. It had a beginning and will have an end. The universe existed before there was life and will probably still exist when life is no more.

            The same is true for your speed limit example. Cars are not eternal, therefore the limits attached to their speed are not immutable. One can envisage a time when technological development will make whatever form of transport that succeeds the car essentially limitless in its speed capacity, at which point a speed limit will cease to have meaning. If you can move instantaneously from one point to another in the universe (Einstein’s “spukhafte Fernwirkung”, confirmed in 2010 by experiments at Geneva University where a photon’s quantum state was instantaneously teleported over a distance of 25kms) then speed limits become irrelevant.

            If your god does exist and the knowledge we’re gaining is putting us in another Tower of Babel situation, then time is running out for him to act. If the goal he doesn’t want us to reach is the creation of artificial life, we’re already a good part of the way there. So what’s stopping him?

            I don’t believe he exists and therefore can’t act to stop us from reaching that or any other goal, but the question you ask about ethics is still a fair one. Yes, the technology for creating life could fall into the wrong hands and could be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes. Just like atom bombs, the only protection we have against misuse is for the international community to act responsibly. So far we’ve avoided a nuclear war so we have proof that restraint is possible. But who knows what the future will bring? Utopia or dystopia or something in between? Based on our history, I tend to think the last of those three options is the most likely. The future will be a dangerous place, but then so are the present and the past. Why should that change?

            What’s clear is that superstition can’t triumph over reason in the long term. As we mature both as individuals and as a species, our minds are becoming more reasoned and more reasonable. There are exceptions and reverses of course and superstition can and does rear its ugly head, but the overall trajectory towards reason is clear enough to see. Again, this isn’t an immutable law as who knows in what way humans will evolve and how our consciousness will develop? But as things stand we’re moving along a path away from superstition towards reason. That’s our immediate future. So religion has hard times ahead of it.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you for your thoughts. Nothing there that I disagree with.

          • Inspector General

            In reality, your ideas exist only in blog form. You see, you have to convince the (heterosexual) system that is that there is some merit in your musings. People are just not ‘advanced’ as you, if you accept advancement in lieu of monstrosity…

          • Linus

            Society accepted test tube babies without even batting an eyelid, let alone shrieking about abominations. A few mad Christians had a fit of course, but who took any notice of them?

            Three parent babies will be the same. A “wow!” article in the Daily Mail followed by a collective shrug of shoulders. Then will come babies with same-sex parents. Manif pour tous types may shriek and wail and make the sign of the cross whenever a gay couple with a push chair walks by, but who’ll take any notice of them?

            If you’re counting on society to rise up in revolt against the birth of cute babies to loving couples, you’ll be waiting a long time for the revolution to come.

          • You mean “marié” forgot where “mariée” was and “maried” “”marié” in error? How confusing. No wonder the French are an odd nation.

          • Anton

            If in France a churchman conducts a traditional marriage ceremony and the couple then immediately go on on to another one conducted by a state official in a town hall, is that legal?

          • Linus

            It’s always done the other way round. The priest won’t agree to conduct a religious ceremony unless you produce proof that you’re already married.

            Marriage belongs to the state and the role of the Church is simply to provide a means for married couples who wish to to exchange religious vows the opportunity to do so. The ceremony is not properly called a wedding, but rather a nuptial mass or a benediction.

          • Anton

            Thank you for the information. Are such religious ceremonies simply services of blessing or do they claim to be marriages, with vows?

            I disagree that marriage belongs to the State. I think it belongs to the couple. Until the 16th century couples simply informed the authorities that they had got married, which of course was necessary because of laws concerning inheritance and adultery. (They were encouraged to marry in church for several centuries before that but it was not compulsory. And in a society in which almost all marriages were between locals there was no worry about secret bigamists.)

          • Busy Mum

            Yes…if we allow that marriage belongs to the state, we are giving the state power to dissolve our marriages too, should the state for any reason decided that they don’t wish a couple to be legally married any longer.

          • DanJ0

            Surely the State is the backstop of the marriage contract between the two people involved? Rather like a civil court which arbitrates under the law of tort or law of contract?

          • john in cheshire

            Isn’t God the backstop of marriage? In my humble opinion just because a person doesn’t believe that to be true, doesn’t make it untrue.

          • DanJ0

            and vice versa

          • Linus

            Marriage belongs to the State in the sense that the State defines the rules that govern it and holds the registers that indicate who is married to whom.

            You’re free to disagree with that, but your disagreement in no way changes the legal reality of how marriage is defined and what constitutes a legal marriage.

            I believe the Catholic nuptial mass contains an exchange of consent and rings, but I’m not entirely sure because the last religious ceremony I attended was nearly 40 years ago when I was still a child and I have no clear recollection of it.

            I remember my sister looking very foolish in metres and metres of white tulle and lace, but I can’t tell you exactly what she or her husband or the priest said.

            I remember my mother weeping like a Madeleine and nearly choking on her handkerchief when a large stone tumbled from the rickety old family diadem perched on the bride’s head just as she was taking communion. It landed in the chalice with a very audible splash and kerplunk, much to everyone’s horror and my delight! Red wine and red faces everywhere, how I roared … which simply made matters worse.

            That’s all I remember and as I have declined all subsequent invitations to religious ceremonies, I really can’t tell you how things are done.

          • Anton

            If a secular State simply derecognises all marriage and says it is a private matter between couples, who should arrange their wills accordingly, then I consider (at the very least) that a man and woman who make pledges of permanent exclusive intimacy to each other and regard themselves as married would be. Don’t you?

            I consider this scenario to be not unlikely in the forseeable, if not imminent, future. But regardless of that I’d like to know your answer to the question above. Thank you for answering my previous question as far as possible.

          • Linus

            Marriage is more than just a free association. It’s the creation of a shared legal identity that gives certain rights and imposes certain obligations that concern the state. As such it’s entirely appropriate for the state to define what constitutes a marriage and what rights and obligations should attach to it.

            Anyone is free to cohabit without getting married. In which case they should not expect state recognition of their union, nor should they expect any of the benefits of marriage to accrue to them.

            By all means shack up with someone after your witchdoctor mumbles whatever incantations over your head that you deem to be necessary. But when you lose your job and can’t pay the mortgage and you argue with your significant other and he or she runs off with someone else and then sues you and you find that the dodgy contract written up for you by your dodgy Christian lawyer isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, and a judge invalidates it and you end up with a court order requiring you to pay your ex far more than you thought you owed her or him, plus costs, you might then understand the point of marriage.

          • Anton

            My question made no mention of religion. Let me rephrase it. If a secular State derecognises all marriage (perhaps as a compromise between Muslims who want polygamy recognised and others who don’t) and says it is a private matter between couples, who should arrange their wills accordingly, then I consider (at the very least) that a man and woman who make pledges of permanent exclusive intimacy to each other and regard themselves as married would be. This hypothetical couple could as well be secular as Christian. In such circumstances, would you consider them married? If you reply, then, whatever else you say, please include a clear Yes or No.

          • Linus

            If marriage were no longer recognized by the State then the concept would cease to have universal meaning. It would be whatever each couple wanted it to be and nothing at all at the same time. In that respect it would cease to have meaning for anyone except the couple engaged in the relationship. So it wouldn’t matter what my opinion of it was.

          • Marriage “belongs” to the couple being joined together as man and wife before friends, family and, in the case of a Catholic service, is witnessed by a priest where the vows are made before God.

            Matrimony predates nation states and, at one time, had no set ritual assigned it. People made their promises to one another. It’s there for the regulation of the intimacy of sex (the marital act) and the raising of children in settled, stable homes and as a part of an extended family and community.

            This is why homosexual ‘marriage’ is a fraud and a parody.

          • Linus

            Thus spake the dinosaur whose Bronze Age religion distorts his view of reality and prevents him from acknowledging change.

            No matter, he’ll go the way of all dinosaurs soon enough and his outmoded ideas will die with him.

            In some ways it’s a pity there’s no evidence of an afterlife because the idea of Sad Jack looking down on a world that has utterly rejected his ideas from an eternity where there is nothing that resembles his make-believe god has a certain appeal to it. Fate visiting ultimate justice on a warped and evil old bigot is a comforting notion. But if I really believed that, I’d be indulging in flights of retributive fantasy every bit as contemptible as Sad Jack’s hopes and dreams of revenge and punishment for those who dare to disagree with him.

            No, I’ll just have to be content with the idea that the same oblivion that awaits us all will take him soon enough, and that when it does, a great weight will be lifted from the shoulders of those who have to care for his worn out and angry old carcass. Slowly but surely the world becomes a better place…

          • Time will tell, Linus.

          • DanJ0

            A sensible system, I reckon. Church marriages end up being a sacrament of matrimony.

          • Linus

            Or, depending on your point of view, a pointless ceremony engaged in to satisfy convention and an overbearing family.

            The sacramental aspect is of little importance to most people, I think. They’re more interested in the meringue dress and all the flim-flam that surrounds a traditional church wedding.

            If town halls looked more like cathedrals and it was practical to manœuvre half a ton of tulle and lace into the salle des mariages, most would forget about a religious ceremony altogether. They don’t want God, they want a “special day” and “happy memories”.

          • CliveM

            In the UK you can have a secular wedding in Castles, Hotels, Stately Homes or even if you want a registry office. So you can have your glamour wedding somewhere nice if you wish.

          • Sounds like you’re judging others by your own expectations, with a heavy dose of envy thrown in. Will any of your family be in attendance at your “big day” or do they see it for the sham it is?

          • A Catholic priest doesn’t need proof you’ve been married by the State – just evidence you’re not already married. In Britain, the Sacrament of marriage is distinct from the civil aspects conducted separately in a side room after the priest declares the man and the woman husband and wife.

          • Linus

            In France the Church generally requires that the nuptial mass or benediction should take place after the civil wedding, I believe. There are historical reasons for this. The struggle for power between the Church and the State that culminated in the 1905 law formally separating the two and nationalizing all Church property was traumatic for the clergy and defeat caused them to flounce off and sulk in a corner for a few years. This wounded pride manifested itself in scrupulous, almost ostentatious obedience to civil law, so that when a couple came to a priest asking for a religious marriage ceremony, the priest would make a point of insisting on seeing the civil marriage certificate so that all accusations of the Church trying to usurp the State’s power could be avoided.

            Tempers have cooled since then, however the convention still remains that you marry first at the Mairie, usually in the morning, and then go on to the Church for your religious ceremony in the afternoon. I don’t think there’s any law against doing it the other way round, and perhaps in exceptional circumstances it may happen that way – for example, if a Mairie is fully booked on a particular day and can only marry you in the late afternoon when there wouldn’t be any time for a religious ceremony afterwards. In those cases I believe most couples wait until the following day for their church ceremony, however it may be that some priests will agree to conduct a ceremony before the civil wedding if given assurances that the civil ceremony will soon be taking place.

            You’d have to ask a French Catholic for confirmation on that point. The last time I spoke to a priest was in 2013 when a spotty young zealot in a cassock waved an anti equal marriage placard in my face as I exited the Métro and unexpectedly found myself in the midst of one of the Manifs pour tous. The conversation did not touch on the finer points of Catholic wedding étiquette…

    • Inspector General

      Don’t think UKIP do the ‘cult of the leader’ business, so we can safely assume that will not become policy. But the man is entitled to his own opinion…

      • The Banana

        Can you now? Plenty of libertarians in the senior ranks of UKIP.

        • Inspector General

          Let’s just get out of the EU first, shall we…

          • Linus

            Once you’ve won the election, right?

            Tell me, did they teach mathematics in English schools in your day? Because if they did, apparently you weren’t listening. Ukip has already admitted it doesn’t have a hope in hell of winning more than 10 seats, and even those look pretty iffy. So how do 10 MPs at the most add up to a majority for Farage and Britain leaving the EU? Are you counting on a hung parliament with Farage and his 10 (more probably 1 or 2) MPs holding the balance of power?

            None of the serious polls show Ukip even participating in the next government, let alone dictating policy to it. If Labour carries it then you’re in the EU for the duration. If the Conservatives win, Cameron will quietly drop the idea of a referendum and nothing will change.

            And the Poles and Slovakians and Romanians and probably the Turks soon enough will just keep pouring across the Channel…

          • Busy Mum

            You epitomise all that is despicable about the EU.
            The notion of turncoat Froggies telling les rosbifs what and how to think is unpalatable and is the very ‘raison d’etre’ of UKIP.

          • Linus

            In other words you’re just a xenophobe and proud of it.

            Pity for you that more of your fellow Brits don’t share your prejudices. Apparently you’ve been having trouble convincing them. I wonder why. Could it be that when they look at you, the only thing you inspire in them is a desire not to be like you?

          • Busy Mum

            Nothing xenophobic about my comment at all, whilst yours is steeped in judgmental, unwarranted and irrational prejudice about my appearance….. BusyMumophobia?!

          • Inspector General

            Don’t worry, Ma. It’s only a bit of ‘womanly’ rivalry. He’ll be telling his, erm, man, all about it tonight….

          • Inspector General

            You like mathematics do you? Here’s some for you. The turnout in 2010 was 65%. Presumably, the other 35% wasn’t impressed with voting in the same old same old. Now, next month, keep an eye on the turnout. It could just be that at least some of those 35% now have somebody in mind worth turning out for…

          • Linus

            Of course every single one of those 35% will vote, and vote Ukip, won’t they? It’s absolutely sure and certain. God is on your side and Farage is his prophet, so how can you fail?

            Is your real name Harold Camping by any chance?

          • Inspector General

            No, the maximum turnout is considered 80% by political observers. So we have 15% to play with. These are people who didn’t vote before because of before. Worried?

          • Linus

            You have no idea why they didn’t vote. Maybe they felt there weren’t enough left wing alternatives. In any case, polling is not limited to those who voted last time, so a number of those polled will be from your 15%. If all of them were going to vote Ukip, Farage would be riding a lot higher in the polls than he is.

            Face it, your extreme right wing isolationist dream is in tatters. Either Cameron or Miliband will be your next prime minister. 5 more years of unregulated immigration from Europe await you and as your economy strengthens, the flow can only increase. Get used to foreigners, you’re going to have to live with them for a long time.

          • Inspector General

            Extreme right wing?

            Away with you, you nuisance. One merely wishes an in out vote on the EU.

          • CliveM

            It’s an issue that needs resolved one way or another. In or out, we need to close this down and take a decision.

          • dannybhoy

            Inspector my hope is for a deal with the Tories.. Did you watch the debate on Thursday night? What did you make of it?

          • Inspector General

            Yes, Danny, was watching. Audience seemed to have been recruited from ‘Marxism today’ readership…

          • Inspector, a message from your Swedish follower:

            “Please, would You do me the honour of bringing forward my cordial and fervent greetings to our mutual tiger, the dauntless, unforgettable and unrivalled master of all commenters! Respectfully Your Andre´;)
            PS. I say! Solely between the two of us, is His Lordship as handsome as I suspect he is?”

            You have an admirer, Sir. And so much more peasant than that DT person and Linus.

          • DanJ0

            Didn’t Marie exchange photos with the Inspector some time ago, when she was going through her internet dating phase? Things rapidly cooled off after that if I recall correctly. I suspect Marie likes muscular men with big nobs and no shyness given her scoping out of Gaydar a few years back, so we can probably assume the Inspector doesn’t tick those boxes. Perhaps you should let Andre know.

          • Inspector General

            Thank you Jack. The Inspectorate has acquired 4 discus followers along the way. The dear boy is one, and FakePete of all people is another. He’s a Christian fellow, that one. So one has a strong homosexual following.

          • The Explorer

            Why don’t they just stay in France, where there’s so much more space to accommodate them all?

          • Nah …. they’ll remain in France as you’re all sooo secular and welcoming there.

          • Linus

            But they won’t. For some reason that defies logic they all want to go to Britain.

            It probably has something to do with the legend of Dick Whittington. How disappointed they must be when they find the streets of London aren’t really paved with gold! But as Britain is the last stop on the line and there’s always some unscrupulous business owner willing to hire them on a zero hours contract, they stay to earn what pittance they can and then supplement it with your generous welfare payments and send it back home to feed their starving families.

            You can’t blame them. Or maybe you can. Christians wax lyrical about feeding the hungry … until the hungry turn up on their doorstep, of course. Then they’re just foreign beggars who must be deported because God forbid that your comfortable lifestyle should be disturbed in any way and that anyone should actually take you up on your insincere offers of compassion and assistance!

            Only the British have the right to earn a decent living, right? Everyone else should just stay where they are and accept poverty and war as their lot in life. That in a nutshell is “Christian charity” for you. A façade of public piety hiding the hardest and most self-centred of hearts.

    • Shadrach Fire

      The issue to most Christians and a lot of ordinary folk is that they appose the redefinition of ‘Marriage’ to allow two people of the same sex (or maybe three, or maybe with an animal, or with a close relative). Since the beginning of time throughout the world in all cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Secularising marriage will make no difference. Those apposed to SSM do not want it to become a standard of family life.

  • Dreadnaught

    The Conservative Party is the natural home of UKIP and UKIP policy by its nature as an independent junior political party has to have more than a simple single purpose which it does. If DC holds a referendum it is as much as UKIP could achieve. The best outcome for me would be a tripartate coalition with them both and the UDP.

    • Dominic Stockford

      DUP?

      • Another conservative grouping, Dominic.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Ah – post-edit! I know who they are, I just wasn’t sure whether the original ‘UDP’ Dreadnaught had put was in fact the DUP. Jolly good guys. Better than the UUP, who seem to hold no particular position on any moral issues.

  • The Cons might have mentioned the Church twice but their track record
    says it means nothing to them in their actual governing of the
    country. They have not considered Judeo-Christian values in their
    policies at all, in-fact they have downright done their damnedest to
    weaken them even further than they already are.

    But when you stand back and look at UKIP’s proposed policies they are the
    Judeo-Christian lifestyle. I think the UKIP manifesto outlines the
    remedies needed to bring about a good lifestyle that we all can
    aspire to.

    • Busy Mum

      Attended local husting last night; the Conservative candidate was the only one who brandished her ‘Christianity’ and the only one who told blatant lies. So trained in the art of Newspeak was she that when she claimed that UKIP along with the other parties would quite happily form a coalition with Labour, she never did work out why everyone was laughing.

    • Linus

      Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but your aspirations are not archetypal for the whole of the UK. Not everyone wants what you want.

      Of course that probably doesn’t concern you in the sense that if they don’t want what you want then they don’t deserve anything at all, do they? Let them go off and die in a corner, eh? Or better yet, put them in prison and make them suffer for daring to want something different. As long as you get what you want, who cares what happens to them? It’s their own fault for being different, so they must be punished for it.

      Unfortunately not enough of your fellow citizens share your view of what constitutes a perfect lifestyle to vote for Ukip and have them impose it on the whole country. So your dreams of fascisf conformity will remain unrealised. Such a shame for you! But dreams are free, so keep on dreaming. Imagining all those evil gays and feminists and Muslims and Atheists crushed under the jackboot is the next best thing to actually seeing it happen.

      • The Explorer

        When a Roman general returned in glory, there would be a barbarian general trudging in chains in the wake of the triumphal car. With Roman joy in victory, went barbarian grief in defeat.
        You raise an interesting point about democracy. Those who win get to impose their values on those who didn’t vote for them. I’m not sure of the exact percentages, but with New Labour’s third term of office this reached the point of absurdity. There was so much cynicism about politicians that huge swathes didn’t bother to vote at all. I think only about 30% did. So New Labour got up to its terminal financial antics based on the vote of, say, 18% of the electorate.

      • Linus you are putting words and meanings into my comment that I never said.
        Your whinging selfishness knows no boundaries. There really IS more to life than the LGBT lifestyles and corrupting minors with it.

        There is nothing about the UKIP manifesto that is negative, and, it applies to all of us really.

        We will all benefit from controlled immigration and getting free from the shackles of the EU and the extra finding for the NHS. We will
        all benefit from supporting the Judeo-Christian culture as opposed to the wild and chaotic multi-culti mess. In fact, you homosexuals will
        be more protected thereby than allowing further cultural erosion and the rise of other disordered lifestyles and dodgy backward laws that other parties support.

        • DanJ0

          Perhaps you don’t remember Gasper from a while back. True UKIP through and through, I’d say.

          • Inspector General

            Asked to leave UKIP, so she was. Went on to the English Democrats…

          • DanJ0

            Too UKIP for UKIP when the spotlight is shining. 😉

          • Inspector General

            How one wishes queer marriage was put to a referendum as with the Irish…

            Hey, just thought, it’s not too late, let’s do it!

          • DanJ0

            Didn’t you have a crush on Gasper for a while? Platonic, obviously.

          • Inspector General

            We could have a double referendum. With the militant homosexual demand to reduce the age of consent for boys to 14. Now, that would be really something…

          • Yes I do remember Julia Gasper, and your point is?

  • Dudes

    Okay so 2 election debates later and NO mention of the favourite subject (or second favourite? ) of the staunch socially conservative regulars who comment here . Not even from UKIP or farage. So does anyone – voters or political parties – really give a toss about this topic in the real world? Even my UKIP candidate doesn’t advertise opposition to the gay marriage or gay cakes.

    • The Explorer

      Hi Sam.
      If you know what is the second subject, what’s the first?

    • sarky

      Spot on, in the real world nobody gives a toss 🙂

      • The Explorer

        At the end of the day, gays are 3% of the population. The NHS, employment, immigration, £1.6 trillion of debt impact on everybody.

        • sarky

          Exactly, there are much bigger things to worry about!

    • dannybhoy

      Whatever UKIP’s stance, I personally as a Christian and in line with Judaism and even Islam, oppose Gay marriage.
      I fail to understand why people who love their own sex and champion a gay lifestyle, would want to be married, especially when the State offers them civil partneships which pretty much does the same thing.
      Islam does not offer gay marriage, nor Judaism. Marriage broadly speaking has the intention of the begetting of children. That some couples don’t or can’t have children does not negate the fact that children are the expected outcome of the union of a man and a woman.
      Two men or two women cannot produce children, so why hanker after marriage?

      • Call it homosexual ‘marriage’ – or, if you want to be PC, same sex ‘marriage’.

        Reclaim the words …..

        And btw, soon women will be able to produce a child without male sperm. Scary, isn’t it?

        • The Explorer

          Weren’t the Amazons supposed to round up men to mate with them once in a while (in order to produce the next crop of Amazons), and then kill their partners? The Amazons would have loved the new solution. So much simpler, and without involving the detested other gender anywhere in the process.

          And won’t men be able to produce a child without women? Even scarier.

      • DanJ0

        “I fail to understand why people who love their own sex and champion a gay lifestyle, would want to be married, especially when the State offers them civil partnerships which pretty much does the same thing.”

        I was happy with the concept of civil partnership, which was intended to be equivalent in practice. However, as the Chymorvah Private Hotel case showed, some religionists refused to accept even that. Most people here were of like mind. Christian political pressure groups coalesced that support and eventually took it to the Supreme Court … and lost of course. Now there’s same-sex marriage instead, to make sure our rights are there. One reaps what one sows, it seems to me.

        • Phil R

          “One reaps what one sows, it seems to me”

          I could not agree more, but not for the same reason, or expecting the same outcome.

        • dannybhoy

          One has to differentiate between what is acceptable in a civil society and what one’s religious faith allows for.

          So a devout Christian, Jew or Muslim has to accept that in a liberal democracy they have to obey the laws of the land. Only where the law seriously contradicts their faith will they have to make a stand and accept any consequences.
          To my mind civil partnerships are a sensible solution in our secular society. Logically why would homosexuals who often proclaim they’re “proud to be gay”, then want to “buy in” to a heterosexual ceremony which represents something some gays hate?
          Why would you want to be ‘married’ and go on to commit (in principle) bigamy or/and adultery so as to have children?
          If you really want to be a family man or woman and have children, why not show respect to the children you wish to have by giving them the start in life they deserve -namely a loving mother and father?
          Otherwise you are treating children as a commodity – as accessories to a lifestyle choice you have made.
          If one wants to be true to a sexual orientation that is apparently as valid and satisfying as heterosexuality, then don’t be hypocritical by hankering after the trappings of marriage and children.
          If that’s what one really wants, get help and counselling.

          • DanJ0

            “Logically why would homosexuals who often proclaim they’re “proud to be gay”, then want to “buy in” to a heterosexual ceremony which represents something some gays hate?”

            It doesn’t take much to spot the illogical slide from homosexuals to some homosexuals there.

            “Why would you want to be ‘married’ and go on to commit (in principle) bigamy or/and adultery so as to have children?”

            That’s quite some leap there!

            “Otherwise you are treating children as a commodity – as accessories to a lifestyle choice you have made.”

            Another leap there!

            “If one wants to be true to a sexual orientation that is apparently as valid and satisfying as heterosexuality, then don’t be hypocritical by hankering after the trappings of marriage and children.”

            You appear to be unnecessarily mixing up sexual attraction with other aspects of people’s lives.

            “If that’s what one really wants, get help and counselling.”

            And so comes the almost inevitable unChristian barb at the end, demonstrating the lack of efficacy in Christianity for some people.

          • dannybhoy

            DanJ0,
            I respect all people as people. I don’t hate anyone and I try to understand another person’s point of view.
            But you can’t separate sexual attraction from its consequences, only seek to block or distort them. For the vast majority of people sexual attraction leads to sexual intercourse in or out of marriage, and the consequence often is pregnancy. This can be blocked through contraception or terminated by abortion. But there are still lasting consequences.
            Sexual attraction between two men or two women leads to a distorted sexual intercourse that cannot produce children.
            If homosexuals feel the desire to be parents and have children logically they can’t. Their method of intercourse can’t provide children.
            The conclusion therefore is that they have to then pervert God’s order and trample on commitment and faithfulness to their partner, in order to satisfy their own version of morality. Not only that they want to expose children (only made possible through a third partner) to ridicule and abuse at school, and deprive them of the loving influence of either a father or a mother.
            Now how virtuous is that?

          • DanJ0

            “If homosexuals feel the desire to be parents and have children logically they can’t. Their method of intercourse can’t provide children.”

            Some heterosexual couples can’t naturally have children, so they turn to the unnatural process of IVF, or even to adopting one or more children from someone else’s sexual activity. I think you’re doing them a terrible disservice both in regard to the process and also by describing their desire, albeit inadvertently, as treating children as a commodity and a lifestyle accessory.

            “The conclusion therefore is that they have to then pervert God’s order and trample on commitment and faithfulness to their partner, in order to satisfy their own version of morality.”

            Your religious beliefs are not binding on the unreligious, and amounts as much to someone like me as Islamic belief probably does to you. As it happens, I wouldn’t have children myself for much the reasons you say, and because I think we have more than enough people in the world already.

          • William Lewis

            It’s interesting that there was an article in the Spectator that argued that state recognition of the complementarity of the sexes was primarily removed by two pieces of legislation, one of which described the lawful use of IVF:

            The argument about whether a gay couple is quite as good as a heterosexual one when it comes to child-rearing was lost twice over. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act removed from the provision of IVF any acknowledgement a child’s need for a father, the upshot of which is that NICE has recommended that gay couples, as well as those over 40, should be given the same rights to fertility treatment as heterosexuals. (Dropping the requirement has already resulted in a significant increase in the number of lesbians getting treatment.) The other critical point was Labour’s Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which were, I may add, supported by most senior Tories. That ended up with Catholic adoption agencies which, by common consent did an excellent job in finding families for difficult to place children, being banned from operating, unless they agreed to treat gay and heterosexual would-be parents equally.

          • DanJ0

            “[…] being banned from operating, unless […]”

            In which case, they weren’t banned but chose to disband.

          • William Lewis

            Whether the Catholic adoption agencies had any choice or not wasn’t the point.

          • dannybhoy

            “Some heterosexual couples can’t naturally have children, so they turn to
            the unnatural process of IVF, or even to adopting one or more children
            from someone else’s sexual activity. I think you’re doing them a
            terrible disservice both in regard to the process and also by describing
            their desire, albeit inadvertently, as treating children as a commodity
            and a lifestyle accessory.”
            I don’t want to do anybody a disservice or insult anyone, but the fact is that society cannot survive if anything goes and the family is the essential building block of (Western) society. We have to recognise that there are limits to personal freedom.

          • DanJ0

            Anything does not go at all, and there are plenty of limits to personal freedom. You’re indulging in fallacious reasoning yet again. I presume this is because you are happy for heterosexuals to use an unnatural process like IVF in order to create children, and happy for childless heterosexual couples to adopt. You just want to deny homosexual couples those things. Perhaps you shouldn’t have targetted the processes but focused just on discriminating against homosexuals instead so that your argument doesn’t immediately end up in a heap when someone like me gives it the slightest of shakes?

          • dannybhoy

            ” I presume this is because you are happy for heterosexuals to use an
            unnatural process like IVF in order to create children, and happy for
            childless heterosexual couples to adopt.”
            DanJ0 I am nearly 69 years old. I never had the joy of children (low sperm count), so I do have a bit of interest in the issue of procreation.
            I found a way of meeting my paternal instincts through fostering and working with children. I recognise that most heterosexual couples want children, more especially the woman. If it is viable for them to go down the ‘in vitro’ route who am I to judge them? Likewise adoption.
            I mentioned to Linus a week or two ago a programme my wife and I watched called “I married a homosexual” or something. The man wanted to be in a stable relationship have kids and be a father. He married a woman who loves him, and they are committed to each other. That’s honourable. That’s honouring and respecting his wife.
            Personally I have a problem with IVF with a donor because I believe the danger is that the bonding will be with one parent and not the other -but that’s a side issue.
            I stand by my earlier response to Sam/Shmu’el 2 days ago.

          • DanJ0

            “I found a way of meeting my paternal instincts through fostering and working with children.
            You’re advocating that for homosexuals who want to address their paternal or maternal instincts instead?
            “I recognise that most heterosexual couples want children, more especially the woman. If it is viable for them to go down the ‘in vitro’ route who am I to judge them? Likewise adoption.”
            Who are you to judge homosexual couples who go down that viable route?

          • dannybhoy

            “It doesn’t take much to spot the illogical slide from homosexuals to some homosexuals there.”
            I am recognising that not all homosexuals want marriage or want a family or children. I am recognising that some gays just want to be left alone and some want to change society.
            I happen to believe that the gay family idea is seriously detrimental to society as a whole and especially to children.
            Children hate to be different, they like to fit in with other kids. Having fostered children I know that ‘being different’, ‘being fostered’ can cause bullying at school for example.

          • DanJ0

            “I am recognising that not all homosexuals want marriage or want a family or children. I am recognising that some gays just want to be left alone and some want to change society.”

            No. You were saying that because some homosexuals want very little to do with hetero-normative social constructs, it is a matter of logic that other homosexuals shouldn’t aspire to things like marriage or families as a result. That’s rubbish, isn’t it? Your argument is clearly fallacious.

            “Children hate to be different, they like to fit in with other kids. Having fostered children I know that ‘being different’, ‘being fostered’ can cause bullying at school for example.”

            So, I can expect your public support here next time the issue of homosexual teenagers being bullied is brought up? If the potential for being bullied is such an issue then schools need to be gay-friendly given homosexual teenagers are unlikely to self-identify as homosexual unnecessarily as you say that children don’t want to be different. Obviously, normalising homosexuality in society helps with the issue of bullying, as does having age-appropriate lessons about sex and relationships which mentions homosexuality along the way.

          • dannybhoy

            “No. You were saying that because some homosexuals want very little to do
            with hetero-normative social constructs, it is a matter of logic that
            other homosexuals shouldn’t aspire to things like marriage or families
            as a result. That’s rubbish, isn’t it? Your argument is clearly
            fallacious.”

            I don’t see that, but if others want to point out where I am wrong in my reasoning, great.
            The point remains that if a homosexual hankers after a family life as he experienced presumably through his mum and dad he has to recognise that this is incompatible with a gay lifestyle. Two guys can’t provide the kind of nurturing that a mother can, and two women can’t provide a positive male role model that a good husband can.
            I think what you are arguing for DanJ0, is a situation where an individual can have it all; the gay life style, the family complete with children. Further, you seem to think that the rest of society should accept this new social concept regardless of any negative consequences.
            Here’s a snippet from Stonewall on homophobic bullying in schools..
            http://www.youngstonewall.org.uk/know_your_rights/homophobic_bullying/
            and here’s their School Report..
            http://www.youngstonewall.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2012/t/the_school_report.pdf

            Again having worked with looked after children, sexually abused children and children with learning difficulties I can tell you that some unhappy children can be quite confused about their sexual identity. So making “gayness” in schools and colleges such an issue can add to that confusion.
            Bullying DanJ0 is bullying. Regardless of who is being bullied. In my day it all came under one heading and that was based on the Christian principle of loving thy neighbour and treating others as you would be treated.
            There were no categories or sub categories. It’s all bullying.
            I would stick up for any child youth or adult who was being bullied, regardless of why they were being bullied because of that Christian principle.

          • DanJ0

            “The point remains that if a homosexual hankers after a family life as he experienced presumably through his mum and dad he has to recognise that this is incompatible with a gay lifestyle. Two guys can’t provide the kind of nurturing that a mother can, and two women can’t provide a positive male role model that a good husband can.”

            My parents separated, and eventually divorced. My mother remarried a man who already had children my age. None of that was ideal but it was preferable to my parents staying together for all concerned. The majority of my friends are heterosexual, and most of those are married. Several have divorced despite having children, and formed new relationships with people who already have children. This is the reality. Same-sex couples raising children is not ideal. But in many cases I have no doubt that they provide a better environment for children than many different-sex couples. Tune into the Jeremy Kyle show to see how far some different-sex couples fall short of your ideal.

          • dannybhoy

            “Same-sex couples raising children i
            s not ideal. But in many cases I have no doubt that they provide a
            better environment for children than many different-sex couples. Tune
            into the Jeremy Kyle show to see how far some different-sex couples fall
            short of your ideal.”
            I don’t disagree with you on that DanJ0.
            My parents occasionally knocked the stuffing out of each other. The Police were called to domestic incidents every now and then.
            But we are talking ideals here Dan, and wanting to schieve those ideals, even though we fail from time to time.
            There’s a big difference.

          • DanJ0

            “But we are talking ideals here Dan, and wanting to schieve those ideals, even though we fail from time to time.
            There’s a big difference.”

            You know, I think that’s often what separates people like me from religious people. It probably follows from our respective worldviews. I often see people like our resident Calvinist being unable to accept reality which wasn’t designed and ordered towards something. Obviously, being an a-theist, I start from the point where we are simply here and ought to make the best of it we can. As a result, I don’t hanker after ideals even though I argue from principles. I’m happy to take pragmatic and practical solutions, and to accept things which are good enough rather than perfect.

          • dannybhoy

            “You know, I think that’s often what separates people like me from
            religious people. It probably follows from our respective worldviews.”
            Well of course it does!
            ( btw, who’s our resident Calvinist?)

            Those who think about life (and I think we agree that not everybody does), usually come up with a world view that fits life as they see it. It may or may not include God, but people like myself enjoy talking to people who do have a worldview, and even if we don’t ultimately agree that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy a friendship based on mutual respect and appreciation.
            Ideals or goals are common in religion, sport, martial arts, music etc.
            A Christian wants to be more like Jesus, to serve Him in this world and the next, and to be a blessing to other people, but especially to other believers. A Christian husband wants to control his anger or lack of patience, to love his wife and tro be able to say sorry when he lets them down or hurts them.
            That’s the ideal DanJ0, and that’s what I want too. Because people let us down or fail to live up to their own stated ideals does not negate the ideal or that we susbstitute it for something less.

          • DanJ0

            “There were no categories or sub categories. It’s all bullying.
            I would stick up for any child youth or adult who was being bullied, regardless of why they were being bullied because of that Christian principle.”
            You won’t be there. The real question is: can the environment be improved to tackle the cause of the bullying rather than relying on people like you to apply your Christian principles to specific instances after the fact. I believe it can for sure.

          • dannybhoy

            Wrong again Pedro.
            I am against the bullying of homosexuals full stop. Against the bullying of anybody for any reason, full stop.
            When we applied to be foster carers we had to examine personal prejudices, one of course being our attitude towards kids who were or thought they were, homosexual.

          • DanJ0

            “Further, you seem to think that the rest of society should accept this new social concept regardless of any negative consequences.”

            I very rarely drink alcohol. It’s not a big thing for me personally or socially these days. So I’d be happy on that basis for alcohol to be hidden away like it is in places like Morocco. As you must know, alcohol is the cause of all sorts of bad things. As a society, the negative consequences of widespread use of alcohol are massive. However, I’d rather people have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they drink alcohol, my preferring to focus on their doing so responsibly, than trying to make it immoral, like in Muslim countries, or socially frowned upon, like in some Scandinavian countries. What about you? Should society continue to accept drinking alcohol as a social activity regardless of any negative consequences?

          • dannybhoy

            “Good link, but it’s not quite Carling..” as the ad goes 🙂
            I think you mean “the abuse of alcohol is the cause of all sorts of bad things.”
            Just as for example “The love of money is the root of all evil.”
            I have had a few times in my life where I was consuming more alcohol than was good for me or my marriage, and I had to cut right down. But that is part of my personality and something I have to be careful of. Should we therefore ban alcohol? No.
            Make it much more expensive? Maybe. We don’t need alcohol to live, but in moderation it is very pleasant.
            So now you’re going to argue that if I wouldn’t ban alcohol I can’t very well justify being against homosexual marriage with children??

          • DanJ0

            “I don’t see that, but if others want to point out where I am wrong in my reasoning, great.”

            I’m happy to rely on your own words as they’re clear enough:

            “Logically why would homosexuals who often proclaim they’re “proud to be gay”, then want to “buy in” to a heterosexual ceremony which represents something some gays hate?”

            Note the “Logically” there.

          • dannybhoy

            Not sure I understand your emphasis on the “logicallly” bit, so you might have to say it more simply for me. I lay no claims to being overly intelligent or overly subtle.
            Otherwise I agree with what you are saying. To my mind you and anybody else are just as important and worthy of respect as myself. Personally I am not proud to be anything.
            I am grateful for all that I have, and as a Christian I recognise that even my somewhat traumatic childhood, eczema, asthma and divorce have gone towards shaping my character and outlook on life.
            I honestly believe (and have experienced in my own life), that God can take any experience, any hurt, any disaster or failure and bring something wonderful, positive and useful out of it.
            If we let Him of course!

          • DanJ0

            “So a devout Christian, Jew or Muslim has to accept that in a liberal democracy they have to obey the laws of the land. Only where the law seriously contradicts their faith will they have to make a stand and accept any consequences.”

            There’s obeying the law of the land, and recognising the freedom of others. Ministers or officials of those religions shouldn’t be forced to perform same-sex marriages, as that would indeed be fundamentally contrary to their religion. Yet those religions inherently contradict each other but they exist side by side in our liberal democratic society. So too can same-sex marriage and religious belief about marriage, provided conscientious objection is handled properly and parsimoniously.

          • dannybhoy

            “Yet those religions inherently contradict each other but they exist side by side in our liberal democratic society.”

            Since when DanJ0? Aren’t you now making leaps?
            The influence of Christianity goes back a thousand years in this country. Not Islam, Christianity. Most of what we have is based or influenced by Christianity.
            A Christian can register their disapproval of something they see as harmful to society, and as citizens they have recourse to the democratic process to try and change it.
            So I don’t think we disagree basically on this issue.

          • DanJ0

            “The influence of Christianity goes back a thousand years in this country. Not Islam, Christianity. Most of what we have is based or influenced by Christianity.”

            I note you’ve slid the context again. Judaisim, Hinduism, Jainism, Jehovah Witness, Mormonusm, Sikhism, and Islam are all being practiced in the UK under the law of the land, whether or not there were Christian influences in our current non-Christian society’s history. Our society and its State are based on liberal democratic principles. The upshot of this is that same-sex marriage can be available at the same times as diffent-sex marriage, and religionists who don’t approve of homosexuality can simply choose not to have homosexual sex or marry someone of the same sex. Everyone’s happy, or ought to be! Of course, it turns out in practice that a liberal like me is happy for religion to have its place and for people to have the freedom to adopt it, but lots of religionists are not happy for people like me to have a full social life and the freedom to live my homosexual life. I offer mutual freedom but I am offered oppression back.

          • dannybhoy

            “Of course, it turns out in practice that a liberal like me is happy for religion to have its place and for people to have the freedom to adopt it, but lots of religionists are not happy for people like me to have a full social life and the freedom to live my homosexual life. I offer mutual freedom but I am offered oppression back.”

            Christianity by its very nature acknowledges God as Creator, and His right to tell us how He intended us as His creation to live.
            We know He is a Holy God because He did not even spare our Lord Jesus Christ when He took upon Himself the sins of us all DanJ0.
            That’s why all those Christians were put to death during the Roman Empire, because they wouldn’t do what a liberal like you would do, and seek accommodation with the Emperor.
            Same goes for all ouir Christian brothers and sisters who are being raped, decapitated or sold into slavery just for being Christians. Liberals don’t do that. When their lives are in danger their liberal values become very flexible…

        • dannybhoy

          Sorry I forgot your Chymorvah Private Hotel example, but even though I accept the principle of civil partnerships in a secular society, as a Christian I wouldn’t want to cater for one. As it stands the law says if you are offering a service you can’t discriminate as to who will use that service. I accept that is the law, but I think it is wrong.

          • DanJ0

            Some people wouldn’t want to provide public services for black people either. However, if one runs a hotel business then one needs to recognise one’s duties nevertheless.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, I accept the principle because it is the law, but I still think it needs to be changed.

          • DanJ0

            I support your freedom to hold such views, and to agitate for them if you wish. I also metaphorically stand by black people when racists agitate for the freedom to discriminate against them in the public space too. That’s not the sort of society I want to live in.

          • Inspector General

            This somewhat mysterious desire not to cater for black people. Can you provide an example. Otherwise, your supposition is nothing more than ‘the protocols of Zion’. An outrageous fabrication….

          • DanJ0

            “No blacks, No dogs, No Irish”

            Surely you don’t think they’ve gone away as time has passed? Your own racism in that area is well known here, though whether you’d turned away the black pound if you ran a B&B is debatable.

          • Inspector General

            In 12 years in Gloucester, only come across one possible. A day nursery close to the muslim area that used to call itself ‘The Princess Christian Nursery’. It’s no longer called that. Personally, one didn’t see what was wrong with ‘The Old Railway Yard Nursery’

            Calling the Inspector a racist is a rather mischievous thing to do. Here merely appreciates the many differences the races have between themselves and conducts himself accordingly. Some of these differences are unsavoury, but to ignore them would be a foolish thing to do…

          • DanJ0

            Also, time and again it has been shown that employers as a group seem to favour CVs from non-ethnic sounding names. As you probably know, the same CVs submitted with English-sounding names get interviews when none was offered previously. If that happens in the workplace then why not “Actually, we’re full now” in a B&B despite rooms being vacant when run by racists in their ‘homes’ … as religionists tend to call B&B businesses when it suits?

          • Inspector General

            People wouldn’t be human if they didn’t have these prejudices. Personally, one would not want a burkha clad Punjabi speaker working next to him. And neither would you. There is no guilt involved. Looking at it from the applicants point of view, the Inspector would appreciate he is of a different culture and accept it. The alternative, moving back to the sub continent would not appeal, so you put up and shut up. Such is life.

      • Martin

        Danny

        It isn’t so much that they want to marry as much as they want to destroy marriage.

        • dannybhoy

          I think you’re right.
          I don’t know if you have seen this?
          http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-deconstruction-of-marriage.html
          But that’s a US view of the endgame plan, there are probably British versions too.
          However I think some homosexuals want acceptance and equality (understandably), as taxpaying citizens in a secular society without necessarily wanting to destroy marriage.

        • DanJ0

          That’s your own evil being projected there, I think. I’m a committed supporter of marriage myself, though I also support the freedom of couples to choose not to enter into one. I doubt very much that I’m alone amongst homosexuals. I know I’m not alone when I stand amongst the many heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage. My Facebook appears to be full of married and co-habiting heterosexual people like that. For them, it seems to be just a social justice thing that it’s offered as far as I can tell.

          • Inspector General

            Some of the extremists even want to abolish gender. One recalls a quote from PN comments “The bifurcation of the sexes is no longer relevant or desirable” or words to that effect…

          • DanJ0

            Oh no doubt. There are extremists in every classification, and especially in religion, as we all know.

          • Inspector General

            Well yes. Religious extremists are among the worst. The Inspectorate does specialise in disarming the most outrageous of it when he can, if so inclined, as the business can be rather tedious, as you know.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            ” though I also support the freedom of couples to choose not to enter into one”

            You’ve just proven you haven’t a clue what marriage or sex is about. Indeed, you’ve just proven that marriage has no meaning whatsoever for you & your aim is it’s destruction.

          • DanJ0

            Of course I have ,,, in your weird, religious-nutter-ish world anyway.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Remember, my world is the real one, yours is the “weird, religious-nutter-ish” one.

          • DanJ0

            Says the young earth creationist with off-piste views and beliefs even by religionist standards! Lol

          • Martin

            I’m afraid that you, like Westboro Baptist Church, are so far ‘off-piste’ you aren’t even on the right continent, let alone the mountain.

          • DanJ0

            Yet I see to be in the large majority and you are in a tiny, tiny minority judging by your weird religious views and beliefs. You’re odd even by the standards of the more outlandish cults and sects.

          • dannybhoy

            Martin’s a decent Christian guy. He just puts things differently. As do some of the Catholics and some of us non Conformists..

          • DanJ0

            Decent? He’s not that far short of being a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. He has those Calvinist/Baptist roots, he’s about as bright, he’s as homophobic, and I reckon he’s as vicious.

          • dannybhoy

            My take DanJ0 is that people are at different places. Martin is as much loved by the Lord as you are and I am. Cyber communication often gives a distirted view of the other person.
            For example I now realise you do not look like a young oran utang, but perhaps you feel like that.
            We have difficult backgrounds in common, and share a common interest in life and people, but we might not get along in ‘real life!’

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            I have no problem being in a minority, after all, I get the Kingdom:

            Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. (Luke 12:32 [ESV])

            You get less than nothing.

          • dannybhoy

            Oi!
            What happened to our conversation on the other subject? I was quite enjoying that.

          • DanJ0

            You drifted off into stuff which is religious in itself, and therefore I had nothing to say about it.

          • dannybhoy

            Fair enough, but please let me know next time if I’m getting boring. I enjoyed the exchange and just because one is a Christian doesn’t mean one isn’t keenly interested in life and people.
            So come up with another topic sometime!

        • William Lewis

          It’s true. Nothing has materially changed other than the destruction of marriage. In order to completely normalise homosexual behaviour one must exclude the point of maleness and femaleness from all state institutions. The redefinition of marriage is the ultimate victory.

      • Dude,

        I get the specifics of the opposition to gay marriage and have no real desire to get into that, because my point was if this is a crucial issue for a substantial part of the electorate, where’s the UK equivalent of the “moral majority” as you get in the US ? It’s a legitimate question. My answer to my own was crudely put, but I think people simply don’t care enough as an issue.

        • dannybhoy

          Hiya Sam.
          I saw your comment above first, so I answered that one.
          As regarding people not caring, you are right.
          Many people care about nothing much outside of their own lives until it impinges on their happiness and security. Many people see no need of God, nor ever ask what life is all about they just live it.
          As a devout Jewish man you know that this is the case.
          So we should not be surprised that all kinds of things happen which people are indifferent about until it affects them personally.

    • Phil R

      I believe as far as Gay tolerance we are in a similar situation to 1920s Germany

      This is an interesting reprint from a gay newspaper.

      http://www.qrd.org/qrd/culture/1995/gay.culture.flourished.prenazi.germany-10.95

      Some excerpts to make the point


      … there were more Gay bars and
      periodicals in 1920 Berlin, the capital of
      Gay Germany, than there were in 1980
      New York.”

      “The success and openness of German Gays during the 1920s
      ultimately hurt them. The Berlin that was synonymous with Gay
      culture was the same city that was synonymous with government
      corruption and ineptitude. The German people began to look for
      scapegoats for the ills that had befallen their nation. The Jews and
      Gays of Berlin were easy targets.”

      What is said above about Berlin “synonymous with government
      corruption and ineptitude” is often it seems said about London now.

      • The difference I’d say is that Germany was a defeated power, who’d lost millions in a great war and was suffering from hyper inflation. There’s a big difference between 1920s Germany and 2015 Britain. As for London, whilst it has problems, you can’t argue it isn’t a success (in some ways too successful when compared to other cities of the UK).

        • DanJ0

          Don’t destroy all his hopes. 🙁

        • Phil R

          Berlin was a success also in comparison with the rest of Germany. Hitler needed to be seen to “fix” the “problem”. A minority comes in handy it seems with dicators

    • William Lewis

      Dear Dude

      I think that the true conservatives understand that marriage has been redefined into irrelevance and that it would not be a vote winner to say that all same sex marriages will become civil partnerships again. Can you imagine the stink it would cause? The damage is done, I think, and our children, starting with those deliberately raised without a mother or father, will start to reap the “rewards”. Nevertheless, it should certainly be acknowledged that the institution of marriage was already in a parlous state before the gay lobby (of which there are many progressive heterosexuals) felt they could execute the coup de grace.

      • Dude

        I’ve replied to Danny below, but as I said to him if this is a crucial issue, how come there’s been no creation of a moral majority or religious right in the UK?

        • William Lewis

          Dude

          The redefinition of marriage is a crucial issue but it’s a chronic one rather than an acute one and I suspect the game was lost a while back – see my comments below regarding the removal of the recognition of complementarity of the sexes.

        • dannybhoy

          Sam,
          Because Christians believe that as citizens you can’t impose your views on people, only share them. I was against the Moral Majority in the US for that reason. The great changes in English society came about through Christian revivals and Christian influences.

  • dannybhoy

    “But there is a problem with this Manifesto: it promises too much; far too much.”

    The Conservative manifesto runs to 81 pages.
    The Labour manifesto runs to 86 pages.
    The Liberal Democrats to 158 pages…

    Does anyone apart from political pundits really read them?

    • Inspector General

      The Lib-Dems are keen on further liberalisation. Further ‘liberalisation’ inevitably includes reform of the drugs laws. Or as that would be in practice, the removal of nearly all of them, and a ‘compassionate’ approach taken towards our undeserving, scheming, criminally inclined, feckless addicts. Naturally, it’s a sensitive area, and you won’t find mention on the Lib-Dem manifesto, but as we know, an omission from that thing never stopped a controversial ‘surprise’ from occurring once they’re (back) in power. So if you come home one day and find your teenage child or grandchild as stiff as Peaches Geldof, you’ll know the Deputy Prime Minister is a Liberal Democrat…

      • Phil R

        That gave me my first good laugh of the morning. Sad, true of course, but funny none the less.

        You should put these together in a book or have a regular column

        • dannybhoy

          Please don’t encourage him..

    • CliveM

      Hello DB, where have you been? Surely it hasn’t taken you all this time to count up the pages?!!

      • Back doon sooth after a wee break in God’s country?

        • CliveM

          What DB has been in Scotland? I hope it has had a civilising effect in him.

        • dannybhoy

          HJ
          I was going to post this on Hannah’s blog..
          It’s an old promo clip of Nicola Sturgeon chasing the youth vote. There’s a guest appearance by the Krankies before they got famous…

          • CliveM

            Hmm tried your link, got the Child Catcher from Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang!!!!!

            What are you saying about Nicola?

          • dannybhoy

            Don’t you think she resembles the Child Catcher? Same devious look…

          • Lol …. thought you wrote “porn clip”. Jack must get his eyes tested!!

          • CliveM

            Bad eyesight or Freudian slip?

      • dannybhoy

        Ha Ha!
        I’ve been snowed under Clive.
        We’ve been entertaining a guest from overseas, preparing for our Church agm, me attending local UKIP planning meetings, working in the garden -plus gout – plus burstitis -plus getting to grips (or rather being baffled by, my first smartphone)
        I just haven’t had time to blog.
        Thanks for asking though. It’s nice when people notice your absence.

        • CliveM

          As long as you’re well.

          I love my smart phone! A pocket computer wherever you go!

          • dannybhoy

            Personally I hate them, but I’ve finally managed to disable all the ‘time waste’ features so it just functions as a phone. 🙂

          • CliveM

            Luddite!

          • dannybhoy

            Absolutely!
            They’re manipulators, tracking devices and brainwashers. They turn you into slaves to technology.
            I only got one because you can’t get a decent ordinary mobile phone. Tescos is offering 250 minutes for £7.50 per month.
            Turn off all the hypnotic stuff and it’s a good deal. Battery lasts a lot longer too!

  • Cranmer, you are an intelligent man. Far more intelligent than I am. Yet this is a clearly the posting of a buffoon.

    You could say the same of every political party’s manifesto – what if you like what the Green’s say about the environment, the Conservatives on Education, the Liberal Democrats on the economy, Labour on healthcare, and – God forbid – BNP on immigration?

    The solution is to disband the party political system we have now and implement direct democracy. But since you opposed even the mildest reform proposed in the last national referendum – implementing AV – I guess Direct Democracy is way too far for you to imagine.

    I really do wonder sometimes what it would take for you to recant your faith in the Conservative party. I suspect that you’d burn at the stake before you denounced them. You realise they’ll give you absolutely nothing in return? In fact, they’ll drop you & disaccoiate themselves from someone with your views quicker than you can say “Cast Iron Guarantee”

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “The solution is to disband the party political system ”
      RS, I think the political system is unravelling itself anyway. The old two-party duopoly days are over. We are entering an era of multiple smaller parties. Yes, the Conservative party is becoming one of those smaller parties too – it’s membershpi shrunk by a third over SSM alone. I’m not saying this fragmentation of the parties is necessarily a good thing (it could result in governmental paralysis), but it is happening. It is happening because of self-interest (e.g. Scottish independance) and because of disillusionment with the status quo.

      The result is that parties like Labour and the Conservatives can no longer stand on their original soap-boxes. Instead, they have to try to be all things to all men (and women). We are entering turbulent political waters as a nation. I personally attribute many of our woes to our nation embracing the godless world of secular relativism. The Tories were probably the last main party to retain any connection to Christianity. That connection is now very tenuous indeed.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    As Simon Cowell might say to Mr Farage: “You’re a one-trick pony”.

    But has anyone picked up on another one-trick pony, namely Diarmaid MacCullough on the BBC, talking about “Sex and the Church” recently? He seems to be so concerned to follow his own personal agenda, that he is talking about “the Christian god” like those infidels that often present programmes. He counts himself an Anglican, but in places he is going on more like one of the Monty Python lot.

    He may be on the way to becoming the BBC’s favourite historian of Christianity, but he is so concerned about the matter of sexual orientation that he is acting like the SNP, prepared to wreck everything as long as he gets his own way.

  • UKIP clearly isn’t a Christian party, its just the least anti Christian and the only party not committed to further extension of PC Eurocommunism. A party that stood for biblical values would get fewer votes than Arthur Scargill’s ‘socialist Labour’ party. The ‘culture wars’ are long lost, all that’s to fight for is some freedom of thought, speech and conscience.

    But if we don’t put UKIP into power (and I know ‘we’ won’t) then by the next election there will be at least another 2 million immigrant voters, mostly net benefit recipients when you count in-work benefits, free health care and education etc and mostly Labour voters. It will be too late to turn things round by then, the jerrymandering of the electorate will be irreversible.

    My greatest fear re the election is that a God whose patience is running out will give us over to elect the government we deserve, as a nation of idolatrous, apostate adulterers.