trump un hate speech
Foreign Affairs

Trump’s UN “hate speech” tells the world a few home truths

UN Secretary-General António Guterres doesn’t like divisive political discourse: he prefers consensual dialogue about climate change; exhortations to build bridges rather than walls; measured denunciations of Israel rather than the combined armies of the Islamic world driving Jews into the sea. The UN’s very raison dêtre is diplomacy, reconciliation and peace, and so the Secretary-General prefers the fellowship of diplomats, reconcilers and peacemakers. This is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has just been invited to join the UN’s Advisory Board on Mediation: “The Board, which brings together an extensive range of experience, skills, knowledge and contacts, will provide the Secretary-General with advice on mediation initiatives and back specific mediation efforts around the world…”

Enter Donald Trump, stage right.

His speech to the assembled United Nations hasn’t gone down very well at all with globalists, socialists, Europhile Remainers and those who long for the day when Israel is wiped off the map. Indeed, it was termed “hate speech” by Javad Zarif, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who is of the view that the President’s rhetoric “belongs in medieval times – not the 21st century UN”.

Which is interesting, because one or two things in Iran belong in medieval times, too.

President Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea. He threatened this not because he’s a bit bored and quite keen to usher in nuclear Armageddon, but because Kim Jong-un (“Rocketman”) is a manifest threat to world peace. Funny how so much of the Trump-loathing media seem to ignore the fact that “totally destroy” was preceded by “if (the United States) is forced to defend itself” (ie against attack by North Korea). What’s wrong with self defence? What’s wrong with proportionate retaliation? Or is total destruction slightly disproportionate? Is that what’s so offensive? When you’re firing ICBMs over your southern neighbour and menacing Japan with nuclear payloads, something needs to be done, doesn’t it? “If the righteous many don’t confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph,” the President said.

That’s true, isn’t it?

It’s very odd how this threat to “totally destroy” North Korea has offended so many. Isn’t it simply a straightforward statement of nuclear deterrence? Isn’t it the implicit defence policy of all nuclear nations? By stating it so baldly, isn’t President Trump merely reiterating the Cold War policy which kept the peace in the second half of the 20th century? What’s so medieval about that? Isn’t bombast and rhetorical flourish preferable to bomb blasts and an atomic skirmish?

There’s actually nothing about Trump’s speech which is remotely remarkable at all: don’t all US presidents denounce rogue regimes, exhort nation states to collaborate against evil, and laud democracy, freedom and human rights? Or is it that they usually do it without roping in God to their cause? Consider:

The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members. To overcome the perils of the present, and to achieve the promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past. Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty, to promote security, prosperity, and peace, for themselves and for the world. We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government, but we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.

This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is the foundation for cooperation and success. Strong sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect. Strong sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God. In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch.

The Trump-loathers will dismiss talk of “strong sovereign nations” as nationalism or American imperialism. And as for “life intended by God”, you can hear the liberal chorus of Christian condemnation. How dare he. How very dare he.

But it’s true, isn’t it?

We can quibble over whether nation states are a consequence of the Fall and God’s judgment on humanity; over whether the harmony of creation was deprived of the natural order by man’s hubris. But the nations of the world developed out of the diverse tribes and peoples of the world: they are an authentic expression of our common humanity mingled with cultural creation. They may not have been God’s original design, but as a means of restraining evil they are politically necessary and instruments of salvation:

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us (Acts 17:26f).

You may not agree that Donald Trump has found God (or is even seeking Him), but by affirming and exhorting a world of “strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty”, he shows the best way to “security, prosperity, and peace” against the likes of Kim Jong-un (who is not concerned with seeking God at all), and Hassan Rouhani (who seeks another god). That is not, of course, to say that all strong and independent nations will always act righteously; or that these nations may not deny the image of God in their common humanity and embrace the the tyrannies of nationalism. But we are concerned here with ‘necessary evils’, of which nations and their governments are but one: by focusing on the deficiencies of liberal internationalism, President Trump is simply making a conservative national (even Christian) case for a different mandate:

…But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value. Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terror but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.

Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems, and alliances, that prevented conflict and tilted the word toward freedom since World War II. International criminal networks traffic drugs, weapons, people, force dislocation and mass migration, threaten our borders and new forms of aggression exploit technology to menace our citizens.

Is the United Nations really effective in countering these threats? How effective has it been in the administration of mercy and justice? How is it that Saudi Arabia sit on its Human Rights Council when the regime crucifies children and teenagers? How do they qualify for a place on the UN Women’s Rights Commission when their women aren’t even allowed to drive? Why does the UN manifest a consistent anti-Israel bias in allowing “a number of standing committees, which far too often serve no purpose other than to attack Israel and inspire the anti-Israel boycott, sanctions and divestment (BDS) movement”?

In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch,” President Trump said. He came to the United Nations to shine a light on its deficiencies, delinquencies, biases and prejudices. He did not say that the United States is a ‘holy nation’ of God’s people surrounded by pagans and idolaters, but he is persuaded that it has been chosen by God to lead the free world to blessing and salvation; that it is an instrument of God’s purposes and an object of God’s mercy.

That’s true, isn’t it?

If King Cyrus could be appointed by God to achieve His purposes (Is 44:28-45), let us at least entertain the possibility that Donald Trump streams with living water. Forget the imperfect mediating vessel and the liberal media onslaught against him: read his words for yourself. He gives the world a universal vision of peace and reconciliation, exhorting worship of the true and living God. Perhaps President Trump is a man with whom the Archbishop of Canterbury can do business.

  • Anton

    The UN is a democracy of dictatorships. It does much more harm than good. I would like to see it totally destroyed.

    • betteroffoutofit

      Oh yes.

  • James60498 .

    Excellent article.

    Theresa May has been known to criticise Trump in the past. Wouldn’t it be good if she were just to make that comment now.

    “Read his words for yourself”.

  • Brendan McNeill

    Trump at least acknowledges sovereign nation states right to determine their own destiny. The King Cyrus analogy is apt for this time.

    The UN is a corrupt and dispicable globalist, socialist and Islamist organisation. That so many sovereign nation states have ceded to its globalist agenda is to be regretted. Trump on the other hand….

  • len

    Trump’ tells it like it is’ which makes some people uncomfortable.
    Nigel Farage does the same to the EU.
    Neither Trump nor Farage will play the establishment game which is wearing blinkers to the truth and promoting lies.

    • But where are the home truths for Saudi Arabia and the militant Salafist Islam they support?

      • len

        They know who they are.

  • Simon Wiggins

    It’s exactly this kind of staggering arrogance and self-importance that irritates. The US chosen by God to lead the world? Please. Get over yourselves. Why don’t you start dealing with the human misery in your own country and stop listening to the voices in your head. The US has little to boast about. Religious nut-jobs being one such example. Sheer ignorance of the rest of the world being another.

    • len

      Without the US the story in Europe would be very different.

      • Simon Wiggins

        I presume you’re referring to WWII. If so, what’s your point? You played a role, along with many others, in defeating a terrible ideology. Note that you only entered once the war came to your shores. As I hope you know, the Russians were the dominant player in defeating the Nazis and they paid an enormous human cost for their efforts.

        • Anton

          Len lives on the Wirral.

          • len

            S W thinks I am a Yank lol.
            My father fought in Malta , N Africa, and Italy.My Uncle died on the beaches of Normandy.

          • Simon Wiggins

            My apologies to you len. I just find this Murka, fcuk yeah nationalism not only irritating but often premised on untruths.

        • IanCad

          Err !?? Poland is hardly within our shores.
          I have to agree with you about the Russian role.

          • Simon Wiggins

            What’s Poland got to do with it? The US entered the war after the Japanese attacked Hawaii.

          • IanCad

            “Note that you only entered once the war came to your shores.”
            Given that your comment was directed to that stout Englishman, Len, my comment was entirely justified.
            I was a little slow to tumble Anton’s reference to the Wirral.
            So, the result of this confusion is to mistake Len for an American; that should be quite enough ego gratification for his needs today.

          • Simon Wiggins

            Nothing to do with ego – mine, his or yours. A mistake, pure and simple and not wholly relevant to the premise of my comments.

          • Anton

            Mistake? It was based on the assumption that only an American would ever defend America in words. An assumption that says a good deal about the assumer…

          • Royinsouthwest

            And Germany declared war on the United States.

        • CliveM

          Well yes after divvying up a few countries with Hitler, Stalin did indeed get shafted by his mate.

          Some random thoughts, if Stalin hadn’t given the green light to invade Poland, the slaughter in the east would not have happened.

          Soviet apologists tend tend to forget how much the Molotov – Ribbentrop pact contributed to enabling German aggression.

        • carl jacobs

          Yes, a good portion of that human cost the Russians inflicted on themselves.

          You do realize that:

          1. Russia would not have defeated Germany on its own.

          2. Without the US, Western Europe would have been a red stain on a Russian boot.

          You do understand these things, right?

      • betteroffoutofit

        Yeah. And without the freedom that Britain had maintained (Battle of Britain) – the Yanks wouldn’t have been able to set up their airbases here to help strengthen the Offensive. against the present-day Masters of Europe.
        People like my grand-uncle in Essex, you see, turned over large tracts of farmland so that the ones who were “overpaid, over-s***d, and over here” could build and use airbases against the invader. Yankeeland couldn’t have been nearly so effectively defended from 3.5 thousand miles to the west.

        • len

          You forget the Russians as well?.

          • betteroffoutofit

            No – I haven’t forgotten the others who surrounded Germany — and who therefore stopped Germany and its allies from surrounding the Yanks!
            I guess Hitler just didn’t have enough German Overalls covering all the right places!

          • carl jacobs

            The French contribution to WWII was losing the Battle of France in fantastically inept style, and shaving the heads of women.

          • len

            Not much of a contribution I must admit.

    • IanCad

      “The US has little to boast about.”
      Ranking right up there with the most idiotic remarks I have yet read on this blog.

      • Simon Wiggins

        Sheer ignorance such as that displayed by your President in his reference to WW2 and the US’ post war policies.

        Tell me, what does the US have to boast about – rampant racism, lack of worker rights, it’s ludicrous attitude towards gun ownership, gun deaths, obesity, the % of the population in prison, the yawning gap between rich and poor, the lack of universal healthcare, the sale of most WMD, intolerance, bigotry………I could go on? All countries have their problems but not all countries are arrogant or deluded enough to believe they are a shining light to the rest of the world.

        • carl jacobs

          Speaking of ignorance …

          1. Len isn’t an American.

          2. You mistake (the collapsing and emasculated) European Social Democratic consensus for civilization.

          3. Your American stereotyping is hilarious.

          Europe is rich, self-satisfied and (most of all) weak. It’s spent 75 years hiding behind American protection so it could pay for its welfare state. When the Americans go home, who will protect Europe? When the predator comes to take Europe’s wealth, who will stop him at the border? The International Criminal Court and its Proprio motu powers?

          Just remember to tell him your rights are being violated and that he is in breach of international law as set forth in the UN charter. I’m sure he will be impressed. He might even take his boot off your throat. A little.

          • Simon Wiggins

            Carl, Anton,

            1, Apologies to Ian and Len for assuming they were American.

            2, Not sure what you’re trying say – what is collapsing and emasculated, the EU? I voted to leave so I have no passion for the EU project but to say it’s collapsing and emasculated is nonsense. Secondly I am not sure where I ever commented on the “virtues” of the Europe in any case.

            3, Tell me what I said that is untrue.

            Yes the US have the freedom of speech to express their intolerance. With rights comes responsibility. Is it ok for white supremacists to promote their idealogy, for religious zealots to spout hated and bigotry towards sections of the community? Where do you draw the line? A march of paedophiles expressing their world view?

            As for the predator at the door, I am not sure what/who you are referring to. Who is America protecting Europe from now? I think this may be part of your paranoind fever-dream.

            I was merely trying to convey that the US has plenty of it’s own problems and that this constant Murka first nationalism is a little jarring to the rest of the world. Let he who is without sin……..

          • Anton

            You want reasoned debate and then you talk about my “paranoid fever-dream”? I’m not interested.

            NATO, thanks to the USA, actually WON the Cold War. The Soviet Union collapsed and Russia was in no position to invade Western Europe for a couple of decades. NATO became temporarily superfluous. Note that “temporarily”.

            The USA is not without its problems but nowhere is, and for real racism, poverty and lack of freedom of speech, try much of the Third World. That’s the comparison you are doing your utmost not to make.

          • carl jacobs

            So Europe is not under threat. That’s good news. You’ll be going your own way. You don’t need us or our guarantee, then. Good bye. So long. Bon voyage. Arrivederci. Don’t forget to write.

            Say hello to Mr Putin for me.

          • Anna

            Well said.

        • Anton

          Sheer ignorance to assume that anybody defending the USA is American. Go on, ask Ian where he’s from!

          Obesity is distressing at the personal level but is a magnificent problem for a society to have, because it means it has escaped after millennia from the poverty trap. (For thousands of years people dreaded starving to death.) As for WMDs, if you are British then you grew up under the American nuclear umbrella which saved Western Europe from being run from Moscow. And you will fairly soon regret not having the same gun rights as Americans.

          Intolerance? Americans have full freedom of speech in their constitution. There are plenty of things I can’t say in Europe even though they don’t incite violence.

          Wake up!

          • Royinsouthwest

            Actually Britain has its own nuclear weapons and had started a program to develop an atomic bomb during the Second World War but after America entered the war our nuclear physicists were sent to the United States because unlike Britain the US had a lot of spare industrial capacity.

            The Germans also had an atomic bomb program but that was wrecked by the Norwegian Resistance either the aid of the British.

    • Lollia

      I think it is common knowledge that some people in the US Bible-belt cannot wait for “Armageddon” and the Rapture, so that they, Superior Beings that they are, can float up to Heaven leaving the rest of us to drown in lakes of Hellfire and Gnashing Teeth etc; Christian Humility? I wonder if Trump wants to facilitate the Rapture by starting the countdown to Armageddon?

  • we do expect all nations…to respect the interests of their own people

    All nations, that is, except Western nations, which must become multicultural cesspits racked with crime and terrorism as ‘their own people’ become minorities. After which, ‘the free world’ will be nothing more than a hazy memory.

  • Dolphinfish

    Paradoxical, is it not, how it takes a dirt bucket like Trump to remind the world that Christian civilization is the greatest that ever existed. This could be the start of something new, with politicians doing what is right for their countries and peoples, rather than serving some politically correct internationalism. I suspect, however, that our host is reading a little too much into his remarks about Israel. In a clash of civilizations, Palestine is an unnecessary salient which, like Verdun, serves no strategic purpose. Consistency of purpose and ruthless assessment of goals decrees it a drain on the west.

    • IanCad

      ” a dirt bucket like Trump “
      Do you know the chap? Can you offer any evidence to support your description?
      He seems like most other mature and successful Americans, as far I can tell. Confident, disciplined and amenable to reason. Rather different from most career politicians.
      I do hope he is able to drain the swamp.

  • Lollia

    In the film “Troy”, Hector says:” the gods praise you in the morning and curse you in the afternoon”;-ie they (He) act as if they did not exist, but only chance and men’s actions prevail. Why did God raise up King Cyrus only to let his Persian Empire be destroyed by Alexander the Great?

    • Anton

      I don’t know if we have sufficient records in this case, but the usual answer to such questions is that the loser went decadent. Some see divine judgement on the sins of decadence, some see only a culture grown too soft to defend itself. These explanations are in differing categories and are not opposed.

      • Lollia

        Yes I am sure that is true; hardy Macedonians and decadent Persians.
        BTW I am well stuck into Morris Kline (his book!). Very good read, and familiar territory to me, but unusually concise and well-structured.
        Not sure how it helps Christian Theology,–(if that was the intention).

        • IrishNeanderthal

          Morris Kline — is that the author of Mathematical Thought From Ancient to Modern Times?

          A wonderful book. But who brought it up first on this thread?

          • Anton

            I brought up another book of Kline’s, “Mathematics: The loss of Certainty” in discussion with Lollia on a previous thread here after he spoke of the philosophy of mathematics. I have Kline’s history of mathematics too, of which you speak. Both are excellent books.

          • Lollia

            It was kindly recommended to me by Anton. I have got to Chapter 3 of “Mathematics; The Loss of Certainty”. So far, I can
            understand it!

    • Pubcrawler

      “ie they (He) act as if they did not exist, but only chance and men’s actions prevail.”

      Or, on the contrary, that mortals are helpless playthings in a big game played by a fickle and partizan pantheon. This is the view that you will find pervasively in Homer — which is more than can be said (to the best of my memory) for that line.

      • Lollia

        Well yes, it was only a film, a paraphrasing of Homer. I rather get the impression from the Old Testament that Yahweh was extremely fickle.-and the Christian Father is so pallid and anaemic that we don’t know what he thinks, unless he is not giving me daily bulletins, as he apparently does to some people.

    • Busy Mum

      My thoughts are that empires are but tools in the hands of the ‘heavenly potter’. God didn’t raise up Cyrus in order to be defeated by the Greeks; He raised up Cyrus to oversee the return of the Jews to Jerusalem.

      But when empires become those described as ‘all them that forget God’, God fulfils His promise to be ‘revenged on such a nation as this’.

      In my opinion, neither the Holy Roman Empire nor Islam – both of which survive and thrive – have forgotten God, but have set themselves up in opposition to Him.

      • Lollia

        Yes well,-as the (atheist) Physicist Sean Carroll remarked elsewhere “I do not accept your Ontology”. This God- Person is becoming a real pest with his anti-life vindictive revenge attacks. perhaps Donald Trump will set up a task Force to deal with him once and for all (like North Korea).

        • Busy Mum

          Apologies for assuming that a visitor to this site has at least a suspicion that there may be a God.

          You don’t have to accept my thoughts but maybe you ought to try and understand them?

          Satan set up a task force thousands of years ago but Jesus dealt with him once and for all a little under 2000 years ago.

          • Lollia

            We are all visitors to start with, so being patronising is unnecessary. As a Philosopher I know I cannot disprove the existence of God,-but then I cannot disprove the existence of anything,-which I think undermines your own assumption that God/Satan and the whole caboodle is anything more than an imaginative delusion. Of course I understand your thoughts, I just “do not accept your Ontology”,-as I quoted above; and no doubt you don’t accept mine.

          • Busy Mum

            Oh, OK. Are you related to Linus, by any chance?

          • Lollia

            This question came up the last time I was “active” on this site,-about 2 weeks ago or more. No, I am not Linus, nor am I related to Linus, though I am sure he is a very fine fellow. It is possible that there is more than one atheist in the world, and we are two independent ones; especially given the latest U.K. statistics that 53%of the overall U.K. population are atheist (or profess “no-religion”),-and in the 18-24 age group 71%,–yes 71% are in effect atheist, and trends are also that way in the U.S. So we are the majority; we are the Masters now,-the whip is on the other foot,–or whatever.

          • Busy Mum

            I think you will find it is the whip in the hand and the boot on the foot.

          • Lollia

            I do know really; I was just being silly.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Interesting question!
            (S)he’s definitely troll-like, at least.

            From own my ‘agnostic’ days, however, I recall promoting such discussions because I wanted to see and understand WHY others made their claims about Christianity; it was part of my ‘truth-seeking’ mentality! In the end, someone’s assertion: “My religion forbids these discussions with you. I am not allowed to listen to the arguments of non-believers” shut me up. While the attitude earned no respect from me, it did highlight the intellectual limitations of those I was dealing with.

            In my case, other personal and spiritual experiences would eventually do the Good Work. They confirmed that will, spirit, and an open intellect work together as revelators.

            So kudos to your patience, Busy Mum – especially with ignorant remarks like: “This God- Person is becoming a real pest with his anti-life vindictive revenge attacks.” Talk about superficial readings of the Scriptures – let alone of the situation !!!
            _______________

          • Anton

            Lollia said he was male last time he popped up here, and lived on the Channel Islands.

          • Lollia

            Yes I still am;-no Transgenderisation” for me-yay!

            I do wish some Christians would find new clichés;–“ignorant” and “insecure” are so passe.

          • Busy Mum

            Yes – I often feel these people’s anger is a mask for their insecurity. If only other people would stop believing, it would make it easier for them to carry on not believing!

  • magnolia

    I am getting frustrated by this word “medieval” which I take to refer to the Middle Ages -5th-15th Centuries. Setting aside the horrible histories view of these times, in many ways they were very civilised and going in the right direction. Yes there was torture for a very few, but how soon we forget the horrors and bloodshed of the 20th and 21st Centuries, the gulags to Guantanomo. Nor has Iran exactly spent this time skipping through the daisies.

    Plus the medieval time had many good things about it. Artistic flourishing, not least a wealth of Anglo-Saxon, English and Scottish literature, plus Dante, Aquinas, Giotto, Marco Polo, the freeing of Vienna and Spain from Islamic oppression, and fewer people vapourised, murdered, bombed and oppressed by extreme totalitarian governments than in the world’s recent history. Oh, and the agricultural flourishing brought about through the glorious Medieval Warm Period.

    • Anton

      But grinding poverty. Today the poor in the West have a higher material standard of living than mediaeval kings.

      • magnolia

        Yes, and sometimes we forget how we are beneficiaries of our ancestors who, sometimes despite plague and natural disaster, worked and prayed hard to leave an easier, more civilised world to those who cam after..

        • Royinsouthwest

          And now we are trashing our inheritance instead of preserving it, adding to it, and passing it on to future generations of British people.

          • Anton

            Life was pretty bad when the rich believed they were entitled to live without working. Today the poor believe that too, and the result is…

    • Royinsouthwest

      You missed out Welsh literature – one of the oldest in Western Europe.

      • magnolia

        Thanks for that, and sorry for the omission which is merely because I don’t speak Welsh and so am less aware, but know Dunbar, Henryson, and Scottish contemporaries!

      • IanCad

        Didn’t the Irish beat them to it?

        • Royinsouthwest

          No. The Irish were converted to Christianity by a Welshman, St Patrick.

          • IanCad

            Thought he was a Scotsman from the land of the Irish.

          • CliveM

            No one knows for sure. Cumbria seems to have a claim.

          • Simon Wiggins

            Patrick was an Englishman, was he not?

          • Pubcrawler

            A tad anachronistic.

          • Brian

            No, he was a Romano-Briton who would have spoken a kind of Welsh, although he learned Latin fairly well. There was no ‘England’ until the following century.

    • dannybhoy

      You like history then??
      Every generation has it’s own ups and downs, good bits and frankly ghastly stuff. Can you imagine what it would be like to live in a world immersed in the fear of the unknown, fear of hell, fear of goblins elves and daemons? No hot water, no effective medication or surgery, no central heating etc etc. You gotta go to church, gotta be willing to give the best of your livestock and produce to the lord of the manor, gotta be willing to fight for him, and gotta know your place in the order of things..
      We simply can’t imagine it.

      • magnolia

        Central heating not as required as it is now for large chunks of the period. Greenland green. Newfoundland pretty good too. Quite a bit warmer than now and their bodies were better at temperature adjustments.

        https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A9mSs20wasJZbTQAWwJLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ZTgxN3Q0BGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNwaXZz?p=greenland%3B+medieval+warm+period&fr2=piv-web&fr=mcafee#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Freligiopoliticaltalk.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2Fmedieval_warm_period.jpg&action=click

      • Sir John Oldcastle

        Sounds like North Korea today.

    • Dreadnaught

      Islam hasn’t reached the same level as the medieval time yet.

    • Chefofsinners

      Stoppit. You will confuse libtards everywhere who think it just means the same as ‘evil’.

      • betteroffoutofit

        They really DO think that – which is why they pronounce it that way!

  • John

    “He… is persuaded that [USA] has been chosen by God to lead the free world to blessing and salvation; that it is an instrument of God’s purposes and an object of God’s mercy. That’s true, isn’t it?”
    No.

    • len

      Who exactly is leading the free world?.

      • Anton

        What exactly is the free world?

        • len

          Good question.

          • Anton

            Free world with every welfare state!

        • Royinsouthwest

          It is the part of the world that is currently less free than it used to be thanks to people who regard themselves as “liberal” with a lower-case letter l.

    • Sir John Oldcastle

      Please let us in to your conversation with God in which he told you DT is wrong.

  • len

    Donald Trump is not afraid to speak the truth. Is he a perfect person?…of course not, but who is?. Certainly not Obama, the Clinton’s or the Bush’s.
    Winston Churchill who held the UK together through some of our darkest years wasn`t a perfect person either but he got the job done.
    Not very fashionable to be patriotic nowadays because most people seem to prefer tearing down rather than building up.
    Some in the UN got their backsides kicked by D T, and not before time.

  • carl jacobs

    Oh! That’s right! Gareth Evans and Michael Ignatieff are supposed to lead the world. The Americans are just supposed to act as enforcers. We forgot.

  • dannybhoy

    Donald is quirky, Donald is vain, Donald is worried about getting old, Donald likes to get his own way, Donald likes to be liked.
    In fact he has a lot of the same failings that inflict the rest of us. The main difference being he has wealth and power and we don’t.
    I like the Donald.
    I think he is a patriot, I think he really wants to see manufacturing jobs coming back into the USA, to see the economy move back into the black, to see America able once more to project its power around the world, and resist the loonies who would allow America’s enemies to set up bases within mainland USA, and those who argue that freedom has no limits, therefore all should be free to come to America -whatever their intentions.
    Donald needs to be handled carefully. Not because he is a bad man, but he likes his own way. That he has a Christian Vice President in Mike Pence, that he wants a strong military, a balanced department of Justice, shows where his heart lies. That he is willing to reach out to big businesses and politicians from the Democrats shows a willingness to work together.
    It’s his successful businessman’s ego that gets in the way. It’s all about winning. Hence the comb over and the gorgeous trophy wife. But he’s also a family man and obviously cares for them.
    Anyway, I include this blog webpage I found, regarding that golf course in the land of his mother’s ancestors.
    See how many similarities you can see from the Donald of 2012 and now…

  • grandpa1940

    Count me in as a sensible Brit who likes a bit of honesty from his US Presidents. He’s made a few boo-boos, such as (IMOHO) pushing more troops into Afghanistan, but the generals probably bent his ear on that subject (they do like their toys, being boys), and not shuffling he / she / it Bradley Manning back into the slammer; but there again you cannot have everything. Trump? Good Man!

  • prompteetsincere

    Declared foes run larger than merely the benighted MSM: on the very same date, Tuesday, September 19, 2017, the Roman Pontiff declared for the entrenchment of Globalist Cultural Marxism via ‘Amoris Laetitia’ in the global RCC: built on the ruins of that “failed ideology” (POTUS UNGA Address ) from which the late JPII strove to emancipate not only RCC; but an oppressed world victimized by its still two principal proponents Russia and China/North Korea. Canada’s own Sinophile Prime Ministerial Ambassador of same graced NY/NY in the same spirit; conspicuously absent from the POTUS’ Address.

  • Simon Wiggins

    As for the US being the saviour of the world in WWII, I believe they were great advantaged by top secret scientific and technological advancements handed to them by Churchill. Information that had enormous commercial application post-war. James Phinney Baxter III, director of the US Office of Strategic Services from 1942 to 1943, would call the secrets, contained in a simple black metal box, “the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores.”

    • len

      T May could do with one of those little black box’s now.

    • Simon Platt

      Only slightly off topic: I discovered only yesterday that spread-spectrum radio (an important military technology) was invented during WWII by … Heddy Lamarr!

      • bluedog

        Not just a pretty face.

      • Anton

        Yes, amazing isn’t it!

  • Sybaseguru

    I struggled to try to find the full speech on YouTube as most were just clips to prove a particular point – particularly from the american press not one of whom published the whole thing. Guess who the whole speech came from in the end – that’s right RT (aka Russia Today courtesy of the Kremlin). Trumps speech – as His Lordship has pointed out – was a breath of fresh air

  • CliveM

    I’m no fan of Donald Trump. I wouldn’t have voted for him and still wouldn’t.

    Even allowing for misrepresentation his speech wall ill considered. It’s all fine and dandy grandstanding at the UN and taunting fat boy. But it’s not him who’ll pay the price, if the unstable Supreme leader does a wobbly and does something stupid. I don’t see what the speech hoped to achieve other than generate a few headlines.

    • James60498 .

      So you would have voted for Clinton?

      • CliveM

        In the primaries I would have voted for someone else. In the Presidential I would have wept over the choice and spoilt my paper.

        • James60498 .

          It’s a long time since I voted for someone I actually supported. It’s usually a case of voting against the worst option.

          And I really can’t think of a worse option than Clinton.

          But it’s your vote. Or actually it wasn’t. But theoretically.

        • carl jacobs

          A non-vote for Trump was a de facto vote for Hillary. There was no neutral position in that election. That was the tragedy.

          • CliveM

            I’m glad I didn’t have to make that choice. Although frankly the way UK politics is going, we’re not much better off.

  • TropicalAnglican

    Rumour has it that the BBC is having difficulty understanding some of President Trump’s sentences, for example:

    “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

    • len

      Rather ironical that the Beeb doesn`t understand irony?.

      • Chefofsinners

        Understanding irony depends on being able to hold two concepts in the mind simultaneously and identify parallels. The Beeb only has room in its tiny mind for one thought: liberalism.

        • carl jacobs

          irony depends on being able to hold two concepts in the mind simultaneously and identify parallels

          Undoubtedly why Americans are so accomplished at it.

          • Chefofsinners

            Irony at its very best, right there.

          • carl jacobs

            Since I’m an American, your argument is self-refuting. You are stuck in an infinite loop unable to proceed.

          • Chefofsinners

            Irony at its very best, right there.

          • Anton

            Irony! Irony! They’ve all got it… er, oops!

    • Anton

      He said that at the UN? I must say I’m impressed.

  • Some bits of Trump’s speech were sensible, but then he had to go and spoil it all by threatening to annihilate North Korea in the hope of pushing Rocket Man over the edge into war. It will no doubt send him into testing overdrive.
    How much of the speech were his own words and how much the influence of others – the deep state war mongering machine – I wonder?

  • len

    Look, lets forget about Trump and North Korea and talk about something to warm the hearts of all the UN…Climate Change anybody?

  • David

    Trump is a very flawed person, just like the rest of us. However I like his honesty and his opposition to the main source of political evil at this time, namely globalism and its servants in both The Socialists and some of those of the right, the fiscal conservatives, who have abandoned their belief in social conservatism and Christian morality.
    The UN like many of the hierarchy within the C of E, serves the globalists, even if they do so naively and unwittingly.

    • Sir John Oldcastle

      The UN is a waste of money and space.

      • David

        It is worse than that. It is basically an anti-western, anti-democratic globalist tool which seeks our destruction.

      • Chefofsinners

        In the light of a previous article, perhaps we should be referring to the so-called UN.

  • Sir John Oldcastle

    The biggest and loudest abuse I got whilst campaigning for Brexit in a very liberal remain area was when I quoted Acts 17:6ff to someone. It’s God that sets them off, it’s always God.

  • Dreadnaught

    Trump said what every one feels. It’s not statesman-like for the simple reason he is not speaking directly to statesmen but dictators who will have no difficulty in translating the message couched as it is in their own language. Diplomacy has failed gain and again and turned the Western politicians into limp-wristed, liberal apologists for their own nations’ history and cultures, leaving them without a clue what to do.
    Politicians have rarely been so remote from reality or their grass roots that we have people like Kevin Rudd, failed Australian PM talking about the ‘ugly face of nationalism’. No wonder he’s in New York – he insults us all and more especially his own country – if its still permitted to use that terminology.
    By far the best day for Trump since his election – who is prepared to speak up for the UK in the same robust style – WHO? Is there anybody out there?

    • Brian

      The UN is largely a sideshow for failed and former politicians of the centre-left to grandstand a bit and organise a few aid missions. Nobody pretends it makes any difference geopolitically. The current US-British-Turkish war against Islamic State has nothing to do with the UN.

    • Anton

      Farage.

      • bluedog

        Johnson. Mogg.

        • Dreadnaught

          Not Boris; not another Bullingdon Buffoon Boy.

          • bluedog

            But Johnson wins elections, time and time again. He may be an Old Etonian fop, but he can also relate to the electorate much more broadly than say, Rees-Mogg. One always thought TM was unelectable, although was happy to back her initially in view of her proclaimed Christian belief and values. After the equivocation of Cameron, a graduate of the Blairite ‘We don’t do God’ school of opportunism, May seemed refreshing. Alas, not sufficiently so.

          • Dreadnaught

            johnson may be entertaining but he hasn’t the gravitas to represent us abroad even in his present role. It’s not the image of the UK I would like us to be judged by. He has no dignity or statesmanship about him. I want a serious politician not an animated cartoon character.

          • bluedog

            Johnson’s recent article in the Telegraph was well-argued and completely serious. It had the authenticity of a true Brexiteer. Hammond and May are serious (humourless?) people, but both are Remainers, and in the case of Hammond, he doesn’t even try to hide his attempts at sabotage.

          • Anton

            May is a Brexiteer. When Cameron pushed her, she did the very minimum necessary to keep her job, and this was noted and complained about by Remainers. She is a Brexiteer but not a very courageous one. As we are seeing.

          • bluedog

            Well, if May is still a Brexiteer she needs to break away from the influence of Hammond and Rudd. That’s possibly one of Johnson’s aims in his recent article. It could have been designed to stiffen May, in effect writing her Florence speech for her. Fascinating to see how quickly Rees-Mogg trotted into line behind Johnson.

          • Anton

            Since she messed up the election May has to pay some heed to the Remainers in the Tory party; if she sacked Hammond the party would fall into open warfare. Tricky business, politics.

          • bluedog

            Was there any suggestion of sacking Hammond? Of course not! The operative words were ‘break away from’. Recall that when May was on holiday, Hammond started to rewrite the entire Brexit strategy. It was hard to avoid the impression that his ideas dominated the debate and continue to do so.

          • Anton

            Sacking him would be the only way to shut him up.

          • bluedog

            Possibly not, it would more likely energise him. May’s problem now is her lack of authority, and the game of picking her successor is well under way. Fortunately Hammond is as unelectable as May herself, which leaves Boris reigning supreme.

          • Anton

            I remember Boris’ U-turn on Islam. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him. The need for a real Conservative party, rather than the present bunch of hypocrites and pygmies, is stark. Small government, free trade, free speech, sound money, acknowledge the political facet of Islam, and immigration policy run in the national interest.

          • bluedog

            Boris is a politician who wins elections. By way of contrast, Farage is a politician who doesn’t win elections. So if you want power rather than protest, you have to back Boris. Now when Cameron took over the Conservative Party the membership was 300,000. He forecast the membership would rise to 500,000 through recruitment of younger people. The result of Cameron’s policies was that membership slumped to 100,000 or less. It follows that a mere 10,000 new members could be decisive in changing party policy. Far easier to take-over an old brand and reposition it than to build from scratch like Ukip, and never win a seat at Westminster.

          • Anton

            Farage might not win elections but he wins referendums.

          • bluedog

            As a scientist, you will understand the difference between the repeatable and the non-repeatable experiment.

          • Anton

            The Conservative Party is like the Church of England: riven between genuine believers and liberalist modernists. In each case some crisis will trigger a battle for the franchise. Provided we get Brexit, the sooner the better.

          • CliveM

            The Conservative party has always been about power, rarely about ideology.

          • Dreadnaught

            That’s the problem with Johnson; he is not stupid, he simply fails to deliver the script when in the flesh.

      • Dreadnaught

        Farage would have been an obvious choice for me – If the Tories asked him to stand I’m not so sure he would take them up; I’d like to be proven wrong as he is sorely missed from the political scene.
        His LBC Radio slot at 7pm is entertaining though but saying that he is thinking about not paying his licence fee is a bit suspect,

        • The reason why he’s saying he’s no longer going to pay his license is because the BBC publicly blamed Farage personally saying “He had blood on his hands” for the Polish man who accidentally died in Harlow when he hit his head on the pavement during a drunken fight with a drunk 16 year old who punched him when they were coming out of the pub. It wasn’t long after the referendum and the BBC were clutching at straws to try and make out the country was drowning in racist attacks due to Brexit. He’s written to them requesting an apology, if he doesn’t get one he will withhold payment and rightly so.

          • Dreadnaught

            That’s not his case. The comment was made by someone being interviewed; not a representative of the BBC.
            His argument is that the BBC chose to broadcast that statement without distancing itself from the content – that was their editorial choice. It was still used to sling mud at him and Brexit.
            If he is taken to court for licence evasion it is still going to give them another opportunity to lay into him negatively.

    • IanCad

      In addition to Anton’s and bluedog’s nominees, I proffer, Davis, Davies and Baron – for a start.

      • That uncivilised excuse for a mayor of London Sad Khan has wrecked the Garden Bridges’ chances of becoming a place to stop and stare, part of the lungs of London contributing to offsetting the smog and a tourist attraction. No vision you see.

        • Anton

          I thought it was one of his few good acts. The money doesn’t come from nowhere.

  • Inspector General

    Do you know, an Inspector always had Tehran in mind when talk of destroying countries came up in beer drinking circles. Still has. Take out that wretched place and there’s just great expanses of desert to be shared out to the neighbours.

    A warning to the unpleasant of the world about behaving, what!

    Hardly surprising then Iran’s foreign minister gets in a growl. By the way, we haven’t forgotten about Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions, Johnny Zarif, and we never will. So keep an eye on North Korea. What happens to them in the immediate will be served up to you too should the time come…don’t you worry about that!

    Tally ho!

  • bluedog

    The parallels between the EU and the UN are quite un-nerving. Both institutions have become the preferred career path for social justice visionaries, usually former Communists, from minor nations. Note that the UN is run by a Portuguese and that the EU was until recently run by a Portuguese. It would not surprise if the UN would next be run by a Luxemburger, if it were not more important to appoint an African woman. In this context one reads through the list of 18 councillors on the Advisory Board of Mediation and realises that therein lies the leadership college of the UN. Step forward Graca Machel? Possibly not, she isn’t a Muslim, and that may be the over-riding attribute. In which case the General-Secretary-in-waiting would have to be the Javanese aristocrat Marty Natalegawa, a formidable talent.

    • Manfarang

      Both formed after a terrible war which is becoming forgotten. In SE Asia the AEC is the culmination of the policy of transforming SE Asia from battlefield to marketplace.

  • Simon Platt

    The extracts you give from Trump’s speech are superb. I will seek it out. Tomorrow.

  • Chefofsinners

    Generations of world leaders have shirked their responsibilities, kicked problems down the road, dined at the UN and generally fiddled civilisation has burned. The western sky is now dark with pigeons coming home to roost. Trump has inherited this unholy mess, and not a minute too soon. Thank God for a man with the courage to say what must be said and do what must be done.

    • Ray Spring

      Exactly.

  • carl jacobs

    I’ll say this much for the Buffoon in Chief. If the Liberal Internationalist Globo-governance Do Gooders are frothing at the mouth, then he must had said something right.

  • Anton

    Meanwhile…

    Wells Cathedral allows the filming of a trash occult film there

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-41340333

    which is one worse than showing an explicitly anti-Christian film (as noted by His Grace nearly four years ago):

    http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/blasphemy-in-cathedral-censorship-in.html

    Thirty pieces of silver…

    • Father David

      Would this filming of “Hellboy” at Wells cathedral be considered a more heinous a crime than Gloucester and Durham cathedrals allowing the filming of the Harry Potter movies on their premises?

      • Anton

        Same.

      • Busy Mum

        Harry Potter is now studied by 11/12 year olds as ‘literature’ during English lessons. I was horrified to see that my youngest son’s new form room (maths) has on the walls ‘inspirational’ quotes taken from Harry Potter, as if Dumbledore is the new guru.
        I wonder what the Victorians would make of it – they had Scriptural exhortations on display – there were some lovely wooden ones still on the walls of the school room at the chapel I attended as a child.

        • Anton

          As literature, Harry Potter is in the category of gripping crap. But the Potter books promote the view that the occult is neutral and can be used for good or evil according to the user’s intent, whereas in scripture God tells believers to keep clear of magic arts, which are dangerous.

          • Busy Mum

            It is disappointing that after an initial resistance on the part of a few CofE schools, the books seem to be everywhere. Teachers do not care any longer what children read, as long as they read something.

            Content aside, I object to the promulgation of ‘literature’ in schools which indirectly but obviously serves the EU cause……Rowling has made no secret of her views and what she does with her money.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Right. Furthermore, she’s really rather a bad writer. One hopes some lit. teachers know enough to point this out.

          • Busy Mum

            Their number one priority is ‘engaging’ the class…..
            I bypassed my scruples to listen to some ‘able’ Year 6 children read aloud to me from HP a year or so ago. The challenge was mine – to frame some suitably challenging questions to ask the children afterwards!

          • Rhoda

            Teachers do not care any longer what children read, as long as they read something.
            They also seem to prefer that children read fiction rather than non-fiction; which given the poor quality of much modern teenage fiction is a shame.

    • Sarky

      Trash occult film? I take it you haven’t seen the first two?

      • Anton

        What would your description be?

        • Sarky

          Awesome. I love hellboy.

          • carl jacobs

            That movie was awful. Terrible. Famous for its unremitting badness. The director should have been prosecuted for Criminally Negligent Use of Celluloid. If it got a Zero on Rotten Tomatoes the score would still be too high. It’s not even in the category of “So bad it’s good.” It should be quietly buried in the Russian cemetery featured in the film and forgotten.

          • Sarky

            Whaaat?? I was right all along, you really are a heathen.

      • carl jacobs

        I haven’t seen the second one because I was unfortunate enough to see the first one. I was told ” …It’s about WWII…”

        I was betrayed.

    • Maalaistollo

      I live in the Diocese of Bath and Wells. They have form. There appears to be a new dean since the previous episode, but the policy evidently remains unchanged. Previous protests by me and others were brushed off by the then ‘acting’ bishop (who, of course, was keen to point out that he had no responsibility at all for what went on in the cathedral). If the Cathedral mouthpieces devoted as much effort to preaching the Gospel as they have to attempting to justify the latest episode, they might have more people attending their services. What kind of theology are non-Christians expected to glean from their pronouncement?

    • Linus

      Cathedrals were built with money extorted from the public, so it’s only fair they should now be used as places of public entertainment.

      Perhaps someone should contact RuPaul’s Drag Race production team and suggest a naughty nuns and vicars concept for the next series. Cathedral naves would be a perfect backdrop for a themed runway show. Lady Gaga could sing and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence could do the backup vocals.

      Such a show might actually be able to fill one of these cavernous temples. The three old ladies and dribbling daughter who usually worship there might have to vacate to a side chapel, but even there they’d be rattling around like four dried peas in a cake tin, so perhaps a one-room bungalow or a small potting shed might suit them better. It would certainly be easier to heat!

      • Lollia

        Absolutely; all those splendid Cathedrals may have kept the serfs too tired to revolt, and kept the Church feeling empowered, but it set back modernity several centuries. They could have restored and improved Roman aqueducts, latrines, fountains and public health, as well as building proper roads again; instead we just had mud, blood, plague, and filth,–and some nice stained glass windows.

        • Anton

          Couldn’t agree more. Institutional politicised Christianity is not the real thing (as comparison with the New Testament confirms).

          • Lollia

            That surprised me–thought I was going to get tarred and feathered again!

          • Anton

            Christianity is about letting yourself be changed for the better in a way you cannot do for yourself. That cannot happen by legislation or social pressure. As soon as Christianity tries to coerce, it ceases to be Christianity. In that sense, Christianity is entirely private.

            In the public arena, Christians will have ideas on what the laws of their lands should be, but they are not to seek to put those laws into place other than by the means provided (if any) by the national constitution.

          • Lollia

            We had a little chat just yesterday when I hosted my U3A Philosophy group, attended by a local Parish Rector friend. He was also saying that Christianity is all about improving yourself and the life of others. I have read the Gospels many times, and I get the impression that “real” Christianity, ie the words of Jesus (or was it the different words of Paul of Tarsus?)–implied that we were all unworthy miserable sinners who cannot do anything without God, and there is no Salvation save through Christ, and this world is just a temporary “testing ground” before we come to Judgement in an afterlife,–and that this world is a Vale of Tears from which we will be liberated through Christ, (which prompted many early Christians to commit mass suicide in order to be with Jesus.-and necessitated the Church to rule that suicide was a Mortal Sin);-
            Christian Theology seems to have evolved into a complete opposite in the meantime;-now it is all about THIS world instead, and what we do in it. What happened to “the poor man at his gate, and God has ordered his estate”?,–keep the people in poverty, and ignorance of profane knowledge, so that they may better know God, and be content with their lot?
            Having cake and eating it?

          • bluedog

            ‘”the poor man at his gate, and God has ordered his estate”?’

            Does this passage come from the OT or NT?

          • Lollia

            Neither,-I believe it is probably Victorian. Same as “God helps those who help themselves”.

          • bluedog

            It is of course a phrase from a well-known children’s hymn. Although those words are no longer deemed acceptable and it’s hard to find a copy of the original verses.

            https://www.scrapbook.com/poems/doc/32587.html

          • Lollia

            Yes PC has taken over; same as children’s comics. In my young days Dennis the Menace was always getting spanked;–can’t do that now;–get arrested.

          • Anton

            Christian theology does not evolve. Different church systems get it right or wrong to lesser or greater extents.

            Jesus of Nazareth lived before the Crucifixion (obviously!) and preached to Jews about how to keep their God-given laws better. For post-Crucifixion Christianity you need to read the apostle Paul.

            The first step in salvation is indeed to realise how rotten one is. The horror of that is so great that it is only possible when something better is offered at the same time.

          • Lollia

            Then what is “Evolution”? I understand it to mean “change over time”, (as in biological evolution, but also applicable to cultural (and theological) evolution. Which is the “true Christianity”?-that of Jesus or Paul?–(or Arius, Marcion, Pelagius, the Donatists etc etc?
            (Morris Kline is getting “heavy ” now,-but I am struggling on).

          • Anton

            No Christian is going to disagree with the statement that Jesus lived and died under the Jewish Laws given to ancient Israel by his Father in heaven, and that Jesus was totally faithful to his father – he kept those laws and told other Jews to (although not necessarily the extra laws which the Jews themselves had added). But it is the apostle Paul who sets out how Christian life is to be lived. Read him for yourself!

        • grutchyngfysch

          Ironically, the same age in which Cathedrals were being built was also the age in which… er… aqueducts, public conveniences, fountains, roads, bridges, hospitals, grammar schools (for non-aristocratic children), and publicly accessible libraries (via mendicant orders – not uncommon for middle class illiterate people to be read to by their confessors) were being built in their droves. And without a penny of centralised funding. I’ve read a study which actually points out that per capita there were more publicly available beds in hospitals in pre-Black Death England (post-Black Death too, but obviously that’s more of a demographic anomaly) than there are on the NHS today. Much of that was channelled through the church – but it was a decentralised church that was largely dependent upon local contributions which were by no means all coerced by law.

          Not pretending I’d swap modern for medieval medicine, but it’s simply untrue that the middle ages saw no interest or investment of those things because all money was diverted to cathedrals.

          • Anton

            Weren’t the grammar schools mostly founded several centuries after the cathedrals?

          • grutchyngfysch

            Modern grammar schools, largely yes. Medieval schools in towns were reasonably common by 14th Century for sons (and even at very young ages for some daughters) of mercantile/artisan families – basically anyone who might for legal or business reasons need Latin in the first instance but later a very basic curriculum. They’re more difficult to classify because the actual form they took varied from town to town – in some places they were essentially chorister schools, in others something resembling what we’d call a grammar. The oldest are essentially pre-medieval – and so the concept at least predates cathedrals, but if you think about it the two would tend to have grown up alongside each other because the architects who designed the cathedrals needed to start their education of mathematics, greek and latin somewhere, and only a cathedral town was likely to have the infrastructure and commerce to justify that level of educational investment.

            Corporation (i.e. secular-funded) schools don’t turn up until the very end of the Middle Ages in England, but I believe we were lagging behind the Continent on that score, where they were more common.

          • Lollia

            I didn’t say that either. Of course technology evolved,-and it was enabled by the people who had the power and wealth,-the Church and rapacious Monarchs (Divinely Appointed of course). The serfs, peasants, common people or whatever,-were “encouraged” to contribute, -as their immortal souls depended on supporting the Powers-that-be. Also with the arrival(via the Arabs) of Hellenistic-Roman science and technology, going back to Aristotle,-the new wealthy classes of the scholastic and early medieval periods had much wider vistas to imitate and emulate, and spend their wealth on.

          • bluedog

            ‘Also with the arrival(via the Arabs) of Hellenistic-Roman science and technology,’ The repository of this science and technology was Christian Constantinople. The flight of this knowledge to the West was triggered by the persistent attacks on the city by Arabs, leading to its ultimate defeat by the Turks. So yes, Arabs and Turks were the vectors for the transfer of knowledge but not in the way you imply.

          • Royinsouthwest

            I’ve read a study which actually points out that per capita there were more publicly available beds in hospitals in pre-Black Death England (post-Black Death too, but obviously that’s more of a demographic anomaly) than there are on the NHS today.

            Do you remember where you read that? If it is true then it is a very interesting fact that ought to be more widely known.

          • grutchyngfysch

            Will try and find and repost (on phone at moment). Ironically enough I came across it in relation to a discussion on this site’s original incarnation. The paper was part of a symposium which was televised so not sure if it’s been published in proceedings since but will have a look and at least try to give you a name.

        • dannybhoy

          You’re talking from a 21st century pov.
          Was it wrong that the Greeks, the Romans, and many others believed in their pantheons of gods?
          Or that tribes believed in Animism, witchcraft etc?
          That’s where they were at.
          In western Europe we weren’t that different. It was only when Christianity came to Europe and influenced all the various tribes that Western civilisation got started.
          Your ancestors were probably serfs somewhere…

          • Lollia

            I am sure I did not imply that. if the splendid Cathedrals had not been built to glorify the Catholic Church, they would have been built anyway to glorify something else,-most likely a Feudal Lord or Monarch. they were based upon new building techniques and therefore inevitably superseded older Romanesque styles.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s what l’m saying.
            Man is tribal; an idea or a force takes hold and the tribe rallies around it.
            But as Christians we believe that salvation is of the Jews through Messiah Jesus, Son of God, the second per son of the Trinity.
            The Catholic Church did not start out or indeed is, the Roman Catholic Church; it was the organised expression of the Christian Church up to that point.

          • Lollia

            Yes agree about the tribal mentality. Can’t really comment on the rest of your post as I don’t acknowledge the Divinity of Christ or the reality of the concept of Salvation. About half at least of modern Jews seem not to be too bothered about Salvation themselves; best not to rely on them.

          • dannybhoy

            I read Leviticus 26 this morning in the JSP Torah version..
            Re “terms and conditions” of the Covenant..
            Heavy stuff.
            The Jews remain God’s Covenant people, but as St. Paul says,
            6 “It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7 and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but ‘It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named after you.’ 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.”
            Romans 9 New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition

            Salvation through Jesus Christ or Yeshua haMashiach is the only way to peace, forgiveness and new life in God.

          • bluedog

            ‘if the splendid Cathedrals had not been built to glorify the Catholic Church’ This is wrong. The cathedrals were built for the glory of God, not the Church. As a secularist it seems you cannot conceive that a medieval population would have a belief so strong that they were motivated to do such a thing. It is also wrong to suggest that the cathedral building project delayed modernity by several centuries. A public works programme of that nature would have employed hundreds of artisans, if not thousands, for decades. The cathedral building programme would therefore have greatly increased the skills base of the population. As building a cathedral was a multigenerational project, it was inevitably apolitical. It follows that your idea of a multigenerational building being erected to the glory of a monarch or feudal lord has no foundation.

          • Anton

            The cathedrals were built primarily as a statement of the Catholic church’s earthly power, and the claim that they were to God’s glory was an excuse. The glory of God was fully manifest in Christ’s life on earth for those who had eyes to see, and it was lived in poverty and humility.

    • Lollia

      Yes I noted that with approval when Achilles, (Brad Pitt) beheaded the statue of Apollo, (though I rather like Apollo).

      • Anton

        You like crap films too!

        • Lollia

          In what way was it crap? it was broadly in line with the Iliad,-(which I have read),–apart from the ending where Paris escapes from Troy after killing Achilles with (several) arrows. Also Ajax was not killed by Hector, but committed suicide when he lost in competition with Odysseus for the armour of the deceased Achilles. I can’t remember what happened to Paris,-maybe Homer did not say; I shall have to check. I don’t think Andromache got away either, but was probably enslaved with other Trojan women.

          • Anton

            The dramatic standard of Hollywood is several zillion levels below Homer’s original.

          • Lollia

            Yes I agree.

          • James M

            The escape of Paris from Troy was horrible. It was done in a way that was completely needless. Paris should have met his canonical (post-Homeric) quietus, and Aeneas should have led the Trojan survivors to safety as per canon. Andromache was enslaved by Neoptolemus son of Achilles, and Astyanax had his brains dashed out by Odysseus.

          • Lollia

            I had forgotten some of that since I last read my copy of the Iliad; -all splendidly melodramatic; –and I always thought Odysseus was so “nice” and civilised;-In fact Athena told him he was.
            (The Suitors deserved all they got).

          • James M

            Despite the the inhumanity of his killing Astyanax, a mere infant, I have always been an admirer of Odysseus. And I have always been pro-Greek. The faithless behaviour of Paris and Pandarus is enough to turn anyone’s stomach.

            Least favourite god: Apollo
            Least favourite goddess: Artemis or Aphrodite
            Favourite goddess: Athene
            Most pitiable character: Hecuba, or Laodamia w. of Protesilaus, or Anticleia m. of Odysseus
            Most contemptible character: Paris
            Favourite hero: Diomedes or Odysseus

          • Lollia

            Yes agree, I also like Athene and Odysseus. I also like the macho-ness of Achilles.

          • James M

            “The Sulk of Achilles” does not sound quite as heroic as “The Wrath of Achilles”, does it ? 🙂 Agamemnon did a good job of showing himself the better man.

          • Lollia

            Yes indeed. Brad Pitt (Achilles) was getting quite frustrated in his quarrel with Agamemnon over who owned Briseis.

          • Pubcrawler

            And Menelaus wasn’t killed, but got home safely, Helen in tow.

    • CliveM

      I must say I enjoyed reading the historical Cranmer.

      However the grads the Last Temptation of Christ, I’ve not watched the film, but read the book. I like other books by the author, but all theological objections aside, this was one of his worst.

      Tbh it wasn’t the sex that annoyed me, it was the portrayal of Christ at the start of the book.

  • dannybhoy

    Anyone hear Archbishop Justin Welby and an Imam speaking on LBC this morning? The subjects covered were terrorism, persecution and the House of Lords. At least that’s what I remember of it…

  • Albert

    I find it hard to know whether I am relieved or terrified that Trump is the President of the US at this moment.

  • Richard Harrold

    Frankly, the Iranians have my sympathy. They have cooperated with the USA’s every demand and it still isn’t good enough. They have a right to nuclear power stations just as much as the USA does. They have no weapons programme (as if the US doesn’t have the world’s biggest nuclear arsenal anyway…), and unlike the US, they are at least reforming in a progressive direction under President Rouhani…

    • len

      Why Nuclear power for Iran?. Iran has oil ,and solar power also should be the logical option.
      Call me suspicious but I think in these dangerous times we need to be.

      • Richard Harrold

        Solar far too inefficient, and they want to export the oil for profit. America has huge sunlit deserts and a vast amount of oil, but it has nuclear power.

    • bluedog

      ‘They have cooperated with the USA’s every demand’ Not true. They have not been allowing the mandated inspections.

    • Anton

      If they have no weapons program it is because a computer virus managed to disable their gas centrifuges, which were a necessary part of weapons preparation but not nuclear power preparation. Tell me, why should such an oil-rich country want nuclear power at a far higher price per kWh?

      • Richard Harrold

        Nuclear isn’t that expensive once you’re using it on a large scale, plus you can then export the oil…

  • dannybhoy

    OT
    What’s the latest news on Jack folks?