Free speech2
Civil Liberties

Universities to censor Zionists, Pro-Lifers and advocates of Holy Matrimony

 

Prevent Duty
Home Office
17 December 2014
Protecting the UK against terrorism

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which is currently before Parliament, seeks to place a duty on specified authorities (identified in full in Schedule 3 to the bill, and set out in this draft guidance) to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism

It is a laudable and rational objective, wholly accordant with the first duty of government: to afford protection to its citizens. We have witnessed too many extremists infiltrate our schools and university campuses, railing against liberty, despising our democracy, preaching their fanatical creeds of hate, intolerance, and the imperative of caliphate dominion. Our youth is vulnerable to religious radicalisation, and, in the wake of terrorist bombs on London Underground and the massacre of cartoonists in Paris, the need for vigilance is acute.

And so the Government is proposing that universities (indeed, all educational establishments) must henceforth vet all visiting speakers. They must censor all speeches and scutinise every Powerpoint presentation in order to ensure that the discourse is clean; that is to say, agreeable to state morality and concordant with ‘British values’. Our professors of academia must become the policemen of political probity, arresting and reporting all thought-criminals – the subversives engaged in “non violent extremism”; the radicals who fail “to respect individual liberty”; the bigots who refuse to give “mutual respect and tolerance (to) different faiths and beliefs”.

The Evangelical Alliance observes:

New draft government guidance will effectively require university authorities to vet visiting speakers’ talks and presentational materials for Christian Union meetings. Such proposals will convey blanket powers for universities to censor all outside speakers. Whilst aimed at all external presenters this will also provide the means for those hostile to Christian beliefs to obstruct the operation of Christian groups such as CUs, several of which have already been a target in recent years. Even the sermons of speakers at carol services will be caught by the proposals.

Not to worry: you have to submit your proposed Lessons and Carols 14 days in advance so they might be inspected for extremism. ‘The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light..‘? Sorry, you can’t say that: it manifests a lack of respect for non-Christians; it expresses intolerance of different faiths. Who are you to judge that they walk in darkness? Appalling bigotry.

You don’t need to be a moral theologian to see how this programme of surveillance, detection and control will be used silence those who support Israel, suppress those who oppose abortion and restrict those who happen to believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Indeed, we have already seen examples of the invocation of ‘health and safety’ in order to prohibit debates by which Israel might be seen to be justified; abortion might be considered wicked; and same-sex marriage might be viewed as a category error and an abuse of parliamentary power. No matter how reasoned and intelligent the speaker, or how moderate and equitable their message, they are invariably greeted with an organised campaign of intimidation – often through Facebook and Twitter – such that the organisers are forced to cancel the event entirely. Merely to believe has become a blasphemy against the State’s moral orthodoxy.

If incitement to violence and physical harm are no longer the limits of free speech, who determines what opinions and beliefs are ‘extreme’? Writing in The Times, Lord Macdonald QC, Warden of Wadham College, observes:

None of this, of course, has anything to so with what a university is there for and it won’t make any of us one jot safer, or rescue a single young person from a sought-after death in the desert. Rather worse, it seems to speak of a society that, far from feeling secure in its values, determined to defend them with confidence and pride in the face of faux-medieval darkness, offers up a feeble gasp of defeat, the surrender of the essence of academic freedom – the belief that the state should lay off the intellect unless thoughts amount to real crime. It is not encouraging that the Home Office fails to grasp that this is an equation we should make with vanishing rareness, proposing instead an unworkable intolerance.

Equality, Tolerance and Respect have become a cultural theology; the new trinity of the emerging civil religion. Under the guise of preventing terrorism and extremism, the Government risks curtailing religious liberty and the freedom to express moral orthodoxy and biblical truth. Can’t the Home Secretary distinguish Wahhabism from Evangelicalism or Salfism from Roman Catholicism? After long and bloody centuries of hard-won liberties, is it to become an offence to preach the unequitable, intolerant and disrespectful gospel that salvation is to be found in Christ alone?

  • The Explorer

    There is an apocryphal story about the books in the Library of Alexandria that illustrates an important principle. “Burn them all. If they agree with the Qur’an they are superfluous. If they disagree with it they are heretical.” That’s the point: if you KNOW that you are right, why condone the spread of error?

    Likewise, if you KNOW that Zionism, Pro Lifeism and Holy Matrimony are wrong, why allow them a chance to take hold in the minds of the unwary?

    The problem with it all lies in the validity of that initial certainty.

    • Anton

      I don’t agree. I KNOW (in the way you refer to) that Christ died and was resurrected. But He tells me to give nonbelievers informed choice but not to oppress them, and I obey.

      Not all belief systems are intolerant of others.

      • The Explorer

        I seem to land myself in trouble on every occasion that I resort to irony. I was intending to draw parallels with Marcuse’s repressive tolerance. Deny a voice on campus to all non-left opinion: the strategy of modern academic bigotry.

        The clue to my real attitudes lies in the last sentence of the previous statement.

        • Anton

          Isn’t Marcuse a football manager?

          • The Explorer

            Yes, but Herbert – the Frankfurt-School one I’m talking about – is dead, fortunately.

      • sarky

        Unless they are gay of course!!!

        • Anton

          Sarky, don’t confuse (1) the fact that, at person-to-person level, Christians are to love all people and offer them Christ non-coercively, with (2) the fact that those Christians fortunate enough to live in a democracy will lobby for different laws than the gay community – as is the right of both communities – and that the rhetoric might be vigorous.

          • sarky

            Sorry but seems a bit two faced to me. You tell someone how much you love them, then do everything in your power to deny them equal rights? You will invite them to your church, but refuse to marry in that same church. You will invite them to become christians but only if they turn their back on their sexuality.
            doesnt sound very tolerant to me.

          • Anton

            Let me clarify by using a different example. Consider not gays but Nazis. I am to love them as individuals and offer them informed choice of Jesus Christ, but in a democracy I am also to oppose, publicly, the racial policies which they argue for, even if it leads to a slanging match. Where is the contradiction?

          • sarky

            Nazism is a choice, homosexuality isn’t.

          • carl jacobs

            sarky

            Behavior is by definition a choice. The authenticity of desire does not constitute justification for acting on the desire.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            On the contrary, both are choices, however, becoming a Christian is not a choice but conscription.

          • sarky

            Thats one conscription I’m happy to dodge.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            It isn’t one that is possible to dodge.

          • avi barzel

            A debatable point, really, since that “reality” was arrived at politically by lobby groups and psychiatric and medical associations, all this by means of questionable membership votes. This dogma has now become “settled science.” The truth is that we simply don’t know, as any challenges, questions or attempts to conduct empirical studies are deemed “homophobic” and a repudiation of human rights, crimes which would doom any mainstream researcher.

          • sarky

            All the gay people I know have said that they have known since a young age. The attraction to the opposite sex just want there. If it is a choice then that must mean that we all have an attraction to the same sex but choose not to act on it. This argument falls down because I don’t know about you but I have never had that attraction (love the ladies! !!)

          • avi barzel

            This argument falls down because it’s anecdotal on your end and self-interpretive on the gay people’s side you speak of. The “born with it” or “immutable life-long urge” claims are just that, claims. There are better arguments pro and con.

            Not meaning to frighten you, Sparky, but if you were raised in certain societies, say Sparta or other tribal warrior cultures in Africa or the Pacific Islands, the probability that you (never I, of course, perish the thought) would have a younger male partner during your years of military service approaches 100 percent. The probability that you would be an exclusively heterosexual ladies man in a society where same sex behaviour has no valuable status, is discouraged or is penalized (e.g. our once’traditional Judeo-Christian ones) also approaches 100 percent. The argument that in those societies all homosexuals are in the closet is, again, merely an argument of no scientific validity. Since new research and inquiry have been politicised on this to the point where they are useless, history and cultural anthropology, whose data is harder to suppress, provide better information. And what this information shows is that sexual behaviour is, in oeople at least, mostly learned and acquired culturally, and opposition to homosexuality is strictly cultural/religious.

            This leaves you, as a secular person or an atheist with only one choice: You must accept homosexual behaviour as normal, natural, fixed, positive or what ever the current arguments for its tolerance and promotion are simply because you have no arguments against it. The religious person is also “locked” in a position, in opposition. I can’t speak for Christians or others, but from a Torah perspective, homosexual behaviour is simply prohibited. There is no assumption that some are born into it or discussions about it being “natural” or not; you are simply not allowed to engage in it. Why is a different question, one entertained in the commentaries over the centuries, but I prefer a simpler, materialistic explanation: Warrior societies with homosexual male bonding rely on female infanticide to keep female numbers low and females as a reward to socially compliant males. The consequences of this are numerous, varied and complex, but the bottom line is that God commands us, at least us Jews, to avoid the behaviour and its consequences to individuals and society.

          • sarky

            Thanks for that, but think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

          • avi barzel

            This argument falls down because it’s anecdotal on your end and self-interpretive on the gay people’s side you speak of. The “born with it” or “immutable life-long urge” claims are just that, claims. There are better arguments pro and con.

            Not meaning to frighten you, Sparky, but if you were raised in certain societies, say Sparta or other tribal warrior cultures in Africa or the Pacific Islands, the probability that you (never I, of course, perish the thought) would have a younger male partner during your years of military service approaches 100 percent. The probability that you would be an exclusively heterosexual ladies man in a society where same sex behaviour has no valuable status, is discouraged or is penalized (e.g. our once’traditional Judeo-Christian ones) also approaches 100 percent. The argument that in those societies all homosexuals are in the closet is, again, merely an argument of no scientific validity. Since new research and inquiry have been politicised on this to the point where they are useless, history and cultural anthropology, whose data is harder to suppress, provide better information. And what this information shows is that sexual behaviour is, in oeople at least, mostly learned and acquired culturally, and opposition to homosexuality is strictly cultural/religious.

            This leaves you, as a secular person or an atheist with only one choice: You must accept homosexual behaviour as normal, natural, fixed, positive or what ever the current arguments for its tolerance and promotion are simply because you have no arguments against it. The religious person is also “locked” in a position, in opposition. I can’t speak for Christians or others, but from a Torah perspective, homosexual behaviour is simply prohibited. There is no assumption that some are born into it or discussions about it being “natural” or not; you are simply not allowed to engage in it. Why is a different question, one entertained in the commentaries over the centuries, but I prefer a simpler, materialistic explanation: Warrior societies with homosexual male bonding rely on female infanticide to keep female numbers low and females as a reward to socially compliant males. The consequences of this are numerous, varied and complex, but the bottom line is that God commands us, at least us Jews, to avoid the behaviour and its consequences to individuals and society.

          • Terry Mushroom

            Sarky

            What does this have to do with the article in any shape of form? Please, we’ve done same sex marriage almost to death here.

          • If only same sex marriage had been done to death.

          • Linus

            Just to remind you Sad Jack, in case you are in any danger of forgetting, it hasn’t been.

          • It’s all a fantasy, Linus. There is no such thing as homosexual ‘marriage’. You’ll be able to dress as a bride for a day, have your bit of paper at the end of the performance and will have usurped the civil and legal protection due to true marriage. However, it never will be marriage proper and, sooner or later, this legislation will be repealed.

          • Linus

            The fantasy is believing that equal marriage will be repealed, Sad Jack. Hope springs eternal in the hearts of deluded Christian whack jobs.

            I suppose that’s a good thing really, otherwise you’d all be throwing yourselves off bridges and the Seine (or the Thames, or the Nith, or whatever muddy burn flows through your bleak Scottish burgh) would get dreadfully cluttered up with floating Christian corpses.

            It’s a good thing there’s no river running through the centre of Madrid. The sultry temperatures of the Spanish capital would have turned the mass suicide of opponents of equal marriage into a real health hazard had they tried to hurl themselves off bridges when the Spanish courts ruled that equal marriage could not be repealed.

            Of course given their history, Spaniards could go home, dream of a Catholic coup d’état and still retain a sliver of hope. But British reactionaries have far less room for manœuvre. There are precious few revolutions in your past to give hope to poor, sad, downcast, defeated homophobes. Who could dare to dream that one day the people might rise up against their secular masters, impose rule directly from 54 Parkside, Wimbledon, and burn all married gay couples at the stake for heresy and abomination? Still, if it helps to keep despair at bay, why not imagine my husband (to-be) and I chained to a telegraph pole on top of a pyre, writhing in the cleansing Catholic flames? I wouldn’t want you to lose hope and do anything rash.

          • Jack’s heritage is Celtic and Jewish. There are rebels aplenty amongst them. And, unlike you, Jack embraces the ancestry of both his parents.

            Was your mother really so bad that you scorn her? What was it you called Englishness recently? Ah, yes, that’s it – a “defect”

          • Linus

            When all other attempts at character assassination fail, there’s always amateur psychoanalysis to fall back on. It’s a pattern. Sad Jack screams abuse at someone, they hurl it back in his face, and out comes the Freudian innuendo.

            Who knows, maybe it’s the Jewish heritage. Is that on the maternal side, Sad Jack? Something to do with a Jewish mother, maybe?

          • Freudian? Happy Jack is much more eclectic.

  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    We are sleep-walking into a police state.

    • James

      We’re there, don’t worry about that. The West is gone.

      • The Explorer

        Not quite yet; or he wouldn’t be able to make such a statement on a blog.

        • James

          That’s presupposing he’s not dragged from his bed tonight.

          • The Explorer

            I seem to recall a spot of bother with the original Martin Marprelate. BIshops keen to discover the identity of the author. Authorities hunting down the printers. That sort of thing.

  • bluedog

    There seems to be some debate about what constitutes ‘extremism’. The answer is that extremism is the act of disagreement with one’s own beliefs, such as to cause feelings of offence and marginalisation. Chuck in the usual ‘fascist’, ‘bigot’ and ‘denier’, to add spice. The use of nouns as adjectives gives a sense of urgency and emphasis, eg, ‘bigoted extremist’ is just as acceptable as ‘extremist bigot’ in making a point.

  • Anton

    It is time for university Christian Unions to go underground and meet in local churches. And for university chaplains to pray about whether to refuse this legislation. Unexpectedly they find themselves at the sharp end: pray for them.

    This has happened because the State cravenly refuses to single out Islam as the problem – as it is today – and so uses the code word “fundamentalist religion” which catches Christianity too. The State needs to recognise that Islam is intrinsically political, and therefore a legitimate object of concern for our political authorities, whereas the Great Commission of Christianity is not political and we are instructed to be good citizens and accept persecution with good heart (albeit balking at confessing Caesar divine).

    • dannybhoy

      “This has happened because the State cravenly refuses to single out Islam
      as the problem – as it is today – and so uses the code word
      “fundamentalist religion” which catches Christianity too”
      But they cannot, because they are afraid of the consequences of alienating 2-3 million citizens, so they attack the sheep before the wolf..

      • Anton

        Also, it has to be said, secular people can point to the horrors of the Wars of Reformation in the 16th and 17th century and say we are no better. The sins of Christians both Catholic and protestant are coming back to bite us. This is why I believe it is fine for Christians to be in politics (wherever possible, such as in democracies) but not for “the church” to be. We can point out the difference between the scriptures (and the lives) of Muhammad and Christ, but we’ve got “previous”. Public confession time?

        • Of course, the same secular people never point to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, the Angry Brigade or the Baader Meinhoff (sp?) Gang. Even ISIS has a fair way to go before it catches up with some of these guys in the mass murder stakes.
          It all boils down to Jeremiah 17:9. ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?’

        • dannybhoy

          Anton,
          I doubt very much that many secular people can hearken back to the Wars of Reformation -or care for that matter.
          It astonishes me how quickly that basic knowledge of Christianity has passed out of our collective consciences in such a few years.
          I agree that individuals or even small groups of Christians can be involved in politics, but not as you say the Church.

          Yes we have previous, and trying to defend the actions or attitudes of any denomination achieves little. Our focus should be on our Lord and on His will for His Church.
          As regards public confession our failings that I think has to be in the context of the Church its self repenting to the Lord.
          Perhaps a day of prayer and repentance in our congregations?

          • Anton

            Danny, seculars don’t know why they hate Christianity but the answer is this legacy. Typically they say that religion is responsible for most wars although Hitler, Stalin and Mao were secular. But religion WAS responsible for the wars of Reformation in the 16th and 17th century after which the secular worldview rose and made the claim as propaganda.

            I generally answer by looking at the main wars in English history. In the 20th century England was involved in the two biggest wars ever, neither of which was fought for a
            religious reason. Early in the 19th century we fought against Napoleon, who wanted to rule all Europe as an emperor. We didn’t want him to. That’s not a religious war. In the 18th century we lost the American War of Independence. Obviously that wasn’t a religious war. In the 17th century the English Civil War was fought between parliament and the crown to decide where ultimate power
            lay – that’s not primarily a religious war. In the 15th century the wars of the Roses were fought between the houses of Lancaster and York for the throne of England: not a religious war. In the 14-15th century the 100 Years War was fought between England and France. They had exactly the same religion (Catholicism), so it wasn’t a religious war. In the 11th century William the Conqueror invaded and seized the English throne because he believed it was rightfully his and he had been denied it; this was not a religious war. In the 9-10th century the Anglo-Saxons fought the Danish invaders. They did this
            because the Vikings, who were the fathers of those Danes, had found rich pickings and weak defences in their raids on the east coast a generation earlier. So, although the Danes were pagans at the time and the Anglo-Saxons
            weren’t, the conflict was about land and wealth. In the first century the Romans invaded Britain. They invaded everywhere that they could, and their own accounts of their campaigns do not centre on religion. QED

      • CliveM

        Also any legislative attempt would fail in the Courts. I suspect even with or without the ECHR.

        • dannybhoy

          It’s all potty Clive.

          • CliveM

            Yes indeed but it’s the things are now!

      • Dominic Stockford

        Jack Straw, for one, described evangelical Christians as dangerous extremists.

  • Dreadnaught

    Its such bollocks. We are not under threat from Christians, Jews Sikhs or Hindus. We stand like rabbits in the headlights accommodating Islamic indoctrination and the contents of their vile double-meaning ‘holy’ tomes.
    It’s not bloody rocket science.
    How many of the younger generation have never had the experience of of passing through airport security without taking off their shoes, x-ray machines inspecting personal baggage and pat-downs; all now so commonplace as to be regarded as ‘normal’ in a free society.
    Like the dwindling numbers of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust rightly serve as reminders of the iniquities of the past, how long before non but the elderly remember what the West and the UK was like before Islam infested their host country’s hard won freedoms and spread like an outbreak of bed-bugs.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Can’t the Home Secretary distinguish Wahhabism from Evangelicalism

    If she did distinguish between the two, she would alienate the Muslim community even more, reduce even further the chance of the Tories picking up a few Muslim votes, and lay herself open to a charge of racism. Far easier to lump all religions together and let free speech wither.

    The bottom line is that a society can be diverse or it can be free. At present, the British are plumping for diversity, if only because opposition to diversity triggers the suspicion of racism, a suspicion closely followed by loss of employment and public shaming. In that climate of fear, I don’t blame anyone for taking the easy way out. A society that restricts free speech will atrophy but I live in hope that, at the eleventh hour, we will come to our senses.

  • Mungling

    I doubt this will make much of a difference. For private meetings — the ones that preach to the choir — clubs will simply have to be clever. A discussion on homosexuality, for example, would be transformed in “A Discussion on Catechism #2357”. The university has too much much work to actually do the follow through.

    More public discussion and/or debates will be more problematic, but considering all three of these groups are routinely censored on University campuses across the Western world.

  • Shadrach Fire

    I am amazed that so many groups have just come up with reports on this legislation, requesting that we respond to the Government. The Evangelical Alliance I suspect was the first, then Christian Concern and now His Grace and we are expected to respond by this Friday at Noon. Roughly 48 hours. The Government claim in their online info that they gave six weeks notice for responses. How is it that it was not picked up sooner by concerned Christian groups? Further, Joe Blogs and the likes of you and me, mere mortals in a society of great thinkers are not expected to respond unless we have some specific interest in academia. So, they don’t want to know what the people think about it, just the great and the mighty. As if they would know what 2 + 2 make.

  • IanCad

    It coming to the stage when, our liberties, earned by sacrifice and force of arms, will only be regained through resort to the same.
    Unfortunately we do not have the training or weapons to do such.
    Citizen militias may have to be formed.
    Silly me!! That’s terrorism.

    • Anton

      I do not advocate that. But the point of the Second Amendment in the US Constitution is becoming clearer.

      • IanCad

        The recent stand-off at Given Bundy’s Nevada ranch illustrates that.

  • Albert

    14 days notice. So the visiting preacher to the college chapel around 7-9 January would not be able to preach a topical sermon on the wickedness of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the error of violent extremism, for the simple reason that the legislation against violent extremism prevents him from so doing, as there is not time to vet the sermon.

    Likewise, a school having found the anti-extremism speaker cannot give a talk to the school because of last minute illness, cannot ask someone else to come in and give the talk, because there isn’t time to vet the new speakers’ talk. And does anyone seriously believe that a school should vet the local GP’s talk on how to stay fit and healthy, just in case he happens to give a plug for the Islamic State?

    It surely can’t be this mad. If it is, it just shows how utterly weak our culture has become.

    • Linus

      The school would have 14 days in which to respond, but nothing would prevent it from responding sooner if it wanted to.

      I imagine it will be down to each speaker to make sure his remarks are vetted in a timely fashion. That will mean sitting down with the relevant authority and going through the intended speech, at which point areas of concern can be highlighted and points of view that the speaker may not have considered be raised and discussed.

      I doubt very much that many bans will result from this. If a speech doesn’t contain anything that promotes or normalizes terrorist acts, how can it be censored? Preachers who want to proclaim a traditional Christian point of view will still be able to. I think Cranmer is misrepresenting this and trying to whip up a frenzied response to what seems to me to be quite a reasonable piece of legislation.

      • IanCad

        “I doubt very much that many bans will result from this.”
        Oh Dear! Linus, you have absolutely no idea about the creativity of the censorious interest.

        • Dominic Stockford

          He obviously, and foolishly, thinks that none of his beliefs wouldn’t be approved of!

          • CliveM

            Also think he underestimates the “can’t be arsed and I don’t have the time to check all this, so I will refuse permission just to be safe” element.

      • Albert

        I think Cranmer is misrepresenting this and trying to whip up a frenzied response to what seems to me to be quite a reasonable piece of legislation.

        Well, I’m not so sure, because of this rather alarming bit of your post:

        It will be down to each speaker to make sure his remarks are vetted in a timely fashion. That will mean sitting down with the relevant authority and going through the intended speech, at which point areas of concern can be highlighted and points of view that the speaker may not have considered be raised and discussed.

        No institution is going to have time to that, so either the law will be ignored or visiting speakers won’t be able to come (and some may be speaking against terrorism). Either way, it makes no difference in tackling terrorism.

        Or let’s say that the local comprehensive school manages to get Rowan Williams to come in a do a school assembly. Are you seriously saying that he will have to submit his talk to the school authorities, before he can speak, just in case he’s going to recommend his favourite terrorism boot camp in the Middle East?

        The legislation works on the utterly illiberal and irrational fear that a person is guilty unless proven innocent. Legislation which is so restrictive and undermining is exactly what the terrorists want.

        What is needed is a statuary duty for schools and other institutions to stop terrorist speakers. This would mean you don’t invite such people in if they are known troublemakers. But if the local GP, in the middle of his talk on how to spot the signs of testicular cancer, happens to show students how to build a suicide vest, then the school should step in and stop the talk.

        And does anyone seriously think one single terrorist will be stopped by this? Has anyone asked how many people have gone to (say) Syria to fight for IS as a result of talks by the local vicar/charity worker/health educator/MP/policeman rather than from the internet?

        In the end, no talk is without a time for Q&A so the legislation as it stands won’t do anything. The speaker gets his talk vetted and then speaks off the cuff in response to the questions. And let’s remember that with the Trojan Horse schools, it was the authorities in the schools that were the problem. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

        Seriously, the legislation can’t be as mad as it appears. Surely, our legislators aren’t this stupid.

        • carl jacobs

          Surely, our legislators aren’t this stupid.

          Albert, Albert, Albert…

          [shakes head knowingly]

          Your optimistic attitude reflects well on your character.

          • “Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.”

            Hmmm … he’s the dove. You … ?

          • carl jacobs

            I’m the one who is never surprised by the stupidity or venality or incompetence of politicians.

    • Dominic Stockford

      However, were I to prepare one sermon, get it cleared, and then preach an entirely different and proper one, who would end up in court? Me, or the college officials?

      • Anton

        And what about a Q&A after the sermon?

        • Dominic Stockford

          I know a clergyman, years ago,m who used to give ten minute talks in 2 hour slots – as he said, all most of those present wanted to do was ask, and have answered, the questions that were pressing most for them at that moment.

          It would be a great way forward if this does indeed happen.

    • Anton

      I did preach on Charlie Hebdo! And I would refuse to show it to the authorities in advance.

  • carl jacobs

    Can’t the Home Secretary distinguish Wahhabism from Evangelicalism or Salfism from Roman Catholicism?

    Of course they can. Just as Lenin could distinguish the Mensheviks from Miliukov and his Constitutional Democrats. The fact that Wahhabism is different from Evangelicalism does not make either any less the enemy of the new state religion. Censorship isn’t the proper model for this event. The proper model is the eradication of heresy. This is the old Church of England rehosted into new and very Secular clothes.

  • Linus

    Something tells me the moment a Christian feels his freedom of speech has been compromised by this law, he’ll squawk his discontent far and wide.

    The Daily Mail will take up his cause and write outraged articles about “Christian persecution”.

    The likes of Ann Widdecombe, Michael Nazir-Ali and George Carey will squeal, and wail, and tear their hair (or what remains of it), and rend their garments, and jump up and down just as they always do whenever someone’s freedom to insult and defame in the name of God is called into question.

    And the government will rush about in panic wondering how many more Conservative voters they’ve just alienated, and order the relevant university to review its decision.

    If it’s a reasonable ban, it will probably stand. If not, it will probably fall. And then we’ll all be able to realize that the UK, with its army of Christian moral guardians keeping a lynx-eyed watch out for every possible abuse of their freedom to abuse whoever they like in the name of their God, is just as free as ever it was.

    • IanCad

      Believe me Linus, when Christians lose their freedom of speech it won’t be long before you lose yours.

      • Linus

        Christians haven’t lost their freedom of speech. This is alarmist nonsense. The government isn’t trying to ban Christians from talking about their religion. It’s trying to stop the promotion and normalization of terrorist acts.

        Unless you want to make a speech about how holy it is to slaughter unbelievers, you won’t fall foul of this legislation.

        • IanCad

          Christians do not slaughter unbelievers.

          • Linus

            Christians do not slaughter unbelievers ANY MORE.

          • IanCad

            No Linus, “CHRISTIANS” never did.

          • Linus

            Tell that to Saint-Louis!

          • IanCad

            Which one?

          • Linus

            The king of France, not the American city. He slaughtered thousands in the name of Christ. Was even made a saint for his trouble. Was he not a real Christian, then?

            What can the Church have been thinking?

          • IanCad

            Not a True Christian, and he most certainly not act for Christ.

          • Linus

            The Church begs to differ. Saint-Louis was after all named Most Christian Prince and the Eldest Son of The Church by the Pope himself.

            Or are you telling me that you’re more qualified than the Roman Pontiff to decide who’s a real Christian and who’s not?

          • IanCad

            Only God knows the heart Linus but history would indicate a pretty bloodthirsty character.
            I pay little heed to the judgement of popes

          • On what basis do you make this outrageous claim against Saint Louis?

          • IanCad

            I’m sorry HJ I missed this but was prompted by email.
            Well, he was pretty bloodthirsty and loved to go a-crusading.
            To be consistent I would say though, that as with biblical verses, due consideration must be given to the situation and times.
            That said, perhaps he was not such a blighter as I said, and to be fair – yet again – I should withdraw or modify my comment.
            Modification should suffice.
            He was a ruffian but perhaps only so when compared to these sissified times.

          • He was a saintly man, Ian. Read about him and his charitable work. In those times, a King had to rule with the sword. Did he love Crusading, or did he see it as his Christian and Kingly duty? He was good for France.

          • He was a fine Christian King and is a true Saint of the Church. If you do not respect him for his faith, at least show due respect for what he did for your nation.

          • Linus

            A true saint of the Church kills thousands of infidels in the name of God, does he? Boy oh boy, I hope I never get to meet you in the flesh. I wouldn’t feel safe. In your quest for Catholic sanctity, who knows what you might be capable of?

            So what’s the difference between Saint-Louis and Osama Bin Laden, I wonder? Both killed infidels for the One True God, or at least what they believed was the One True God.

          • You spit on the memory of your greatest King and ruler. Still, you are French and loyalty is not one of your nations values. How terribly misinformed you are.

          • DanJ0

            That’s the defence Muslims are currently using against the actions of ISIS etc.

          • William Lewis

            That defence doesn’t work too well given that Mo was a blood thirsty character.

        • Linus, must you use American spelling on a British site? It rather tarnishes your image as a pedantic linguist.

          • Linus

            Oh dear, oh dear, poor old ignorant Sad Jack!

            He doesn’t realize that “ize” is not an Americanism, does he? He doesn’t realize that the Oxford English Dictionary lists it as standard British English orthography, with “ise” as an acceptable variant.

            This is what happens when the partially educated take to the Internet and start airing their self-important ignorance in public. I have to admit I’m somewhat surprised, as I’d always thought the Scottish education system to be rather better than the English. I see I was wrong.

          • Tsk, tsk, Linus, such childishness. Have you always been so petulant?

            So you’ve had the benefit of a classical education. It could only have been in England, surely? Was it a Catholic, all male boarding school?

            It was of course the French that originally corrupted English spelling. As we know, English comes via Latin from the Greek and our misguided ancestors thought it “posh” to copy French usage – “la realisation” as compared to “realization”. The Anglo-Norman aristocracy paved the way for all sorts of oral perversions from the continent.

            Another piece of the jig-saw falls into place.

          • Linus

            I say, Sad old Jack! That response took a while coming. Didn’t find what you needed in the first Wikipedia article, eh? Had to look up a few more and compare them before you could stitch together an adequate response, I see. That’s what generally happens when ignorant old men try to stuff the huge gaps in their general knowledge with information gleaned from the Internet. Pity they don’t check things BEFORE sounding off…

            But I guess it’s all down to pride. Somebody must have told you how knowledgeable you were as a young man, (which you probably were in relation to the milieu in which you grew up), and you let it go to your head. What I don’t understand is how such a devout Catholic could have missed the bit of the Bible where it says “pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall”.

            Didn’t you think it applied to you?

          • Ah, it was an English, Catholic, all male boarding school then.

        • William Lewis

          Christians haven’t lost their freedom of speech. This is alarmist nonsense.

          Not so. A man was locked up for preaching the Gospel because someone found it offensive.

          • Linus

            He was released the next day and all charges against him were subsequently dropped.

            It takes time for the police to figure out how to apply new regulations and sometimes, not wanting to be accused of a failure to protect minorities, they can be overzealous in their actions. This is certainly what happened in the case you’re referring to. As soon as it was examined by the CPS, it was dropped.

            While I don’t doubt the experience was unpleasant for the man concerned, he was left with no criminal record for his actions and I believe he’s even suing the police for wrongful arrest. So much for forgiving your enemies and turning the other cheek, eh?

            But then Christians have always been selective in their application of biblical exhortations, haven’t they?

          • William Lewis

            Who’s to say he hasn’t forgiven them? Perhaps the approach of suing for wrongful arrest, assuming it is happening, is not about revenge but an attempt to stop this kind of thing from happening to other Christians in the future. Certainly, if he is successful, it could make the police think twice and may even go some way to abolishing these ridiculous “taking offence” laws.

          • Linus

            It’s a common misconception in regimented and conventional Anglo-Saxon societies that the police make the law. They don’t. They just police it.

            What will stop the police from arresting anyone else for preaching Christian teachings in public is not a lawsuit brought against them by a disgruntled preacher. It’s the decision of the CPS not to pursue a case against a man who was wrongfully arrested on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the law.

            I know that probably doesn’t fit in with typical Christian conspiracy theories and persecution complexes. But it is the reality of how the police act in the face of new laws they may not fully understand. Practice makes perfect, even for them.

          • William Lewis

            When laws are so badly crafted as to effectively generate thought crimes or else pertain to the offended-ness of the “victim”, then whether or not a crime has actually been committed will depend very much on the police conducting the investigation. The venal politicians have abandoned their duty to govern responsibly and delegated to the police and the law courts to sort out the mess.

    • The Explorer

      SYNTAX REVISION
      If it’s a reasonable ban, it will probably fail. If not, it will probably stand.
      That sounds a much more recognisable depiction of modern politics.

      • Linus

        I don’t share your cynicism. But then I’m neither a Christian, nor a conspiracy theorist who sees dark plots and stratagems hiding beneath every stone.

        • The Explorer

          If you shared my cynicism – I’d prefer to call it realism – you couldn’t have written the sentence that you did. May I refer you to Ronald Bernstein’s ‘The Dictatorship of Virtue’? The chapter on the University of Philadelphia is an absolute hoot, and what happens the other side of the water tends to happen here a little later.

          • IanCad

            It is sobering, Explorer, to reflect on the fact that it was published twenty years ago. The drip, drip, drip, continues apace.

          • The Explorer

            Eerily prophetic. The trends – at all levels of education – have since intensified. What is still needed, though, is the realisation that the citadel is empty.

    • Anton

      But who, Linus, decides if it is reasonable, and how?

      • Linus

        It will have to be judged against the background of what is banned in the relevant acts of parliament. One assumes the act will define who that person should be for every institution. Principal, maybe? Or Vice-Chancellor?

        If any dispute arises, I’m assuming there will be an appeals process. Or the banned speaker could use the tried and tested method of recourse that always seems to work in your country: he could sell his story to the Daily Mail.

        • Anton

          Very obviously the Authorities will sit on the decision until after the date of the meeting in most cases and then say Very Sorry. Power corrupts.

          • Linus

            Not if they have a legal obligation to reply within a two week period.

            Interesting attitude towards authority revealed by your use of capitalization…

          • Anton

            It was deliberate and it was sarcasm, Linus. I am a nonconformist!

    • DanJ0

      I doubt it. The CLC and its pet human rights lawyer will bring a case to court, trumpeted by the Christian Institute, and lose like they do most of their persecution-claim cases. The Government will simply issue platitudes to Christians at various points and carry on regardless with whatever they’re doing.

  • cacheton

    ‘…is it to become an offence to preach the unequitable, intolerant and disrespectful gospel that salvation is to be found in Christ alone?’

    Yes.
    But all you would have to do is take out the word ‘alone’.
    And who is going to vet the lectionary bible readings before church every Sunday? Or do those not count?

    • Dominic Stockford

      But take out the word ‘alone’ and it isn’t the gospel.

      • cacheton

        Interpret the bible literally and you fail to benefit from its spiritual insights. Not benefiting from the spiritual insights defeats the object of having a bible in the first place.

    • Shadrach Fire

      If it is Sunday School, will that fall within the requirements?

  • carl jacobs

    This is an old tactic. Pass a law with broad scope to criminalize pretty much whatever the Gov’t desires, and then use selective prosecution to enforce the Law against whomever the villain du jour happens to be. A law once enacted becomes a tool of the state – no matter who controls the state. So assurances given about who will be affected by this law are meaningless. Even if the assurances are true today, there is no guarantee who will use the Law tomorrow.

  • educynic

    There is an unholy alliance of anti-Christian forces. The secular state has used the equality agenda to encourage ‘other faiths’ and marginalise Christianity. Even now the metroplitan elite sees not with whom it sups.

    The proper reluctance of Christian schools to discuss some detailed aspects of sexual activity is compared with the flagrent lawlessness of the Trojan Horse schools and both are labelled ‘anti-British’.

    We know how such a law would be implemented – like current laws about hate speech, which occasion peremptory arrest of lone Christian preachers with old fashioned views about sex, whilst giving the full freedom of the human rights machinery to much more threatening utterances.

    • Graham Wood

      I’m sure that the irony of this situation will not be lost on you! In this year when we remember the 800 years of the existence of our great charter of our liberties in the Magna Carta, our
      muddle- headed government should fly in its face with yet more repressive laws on free speech.
      “Wherefore we will and firmly command that the Church of England shall be free, and that the men in our kingdom shall have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions……
      for themselves and their heirs in all things and places forever”

    • ‘Unholy alliance of anti-Christian forces’

      Isn’t that what we should expect in the Last Days?

      • Linus

        And the Lamb opened the seventh seal, and was immediately set upon by OFSTAPO (OFfice of STAndards in Public Oratory) inspectors demanding a written transcript and threatening prosecution for defamatory remarks about Jews, gays, atheists and Iraqi asylum seekers forced into the sex trade by social isolation and poverty (otherwise known as the whore of Babylon)…

        ROFL! Now there’s a Bible revision I could support!

        • The Explorer

          Fortunately, though, it was the end of the world; so all the OFSTAPO Inspectors, OFSTED Inspectors and other branches of the Thought Police were cast together into the Lake of Fire: where they were tormented for ever and ever with endless replays of Party Political Broadcasts.

  • Linus

    Also, it’s pretty clear that the man with the big megaphone in the illustration that accompanies this post is a Christian. Look at his conservative suit and general air of disapproval and anger at the state of the world around him.

    The little guy is probably gay. His hair is fashionably gelled and his trouser length and informal clothing suggest a young man. And as we know, virtually none of today’s youth are Christians.

    • Anton

      The right to bare arms?

    • Actually, the loud mouth looks more like an aged Peter Mandelson who has been missing his regular gym sessions. If only we could see the colour of his socks. He’s probably had a row with Reinaldo Avila da Silva over carpets or curtains and been told to be quiet, so is venting his frustration.

      • The Explorer

        Quite. Looks like an Armani suit. Must be someone in the Shadow Cabinet: past or present.

  • No ‘off the cuff ‘, impromptu comments from Pope Francis if he ever speaks at a University. And as for gestures feigning a right-hook, well, that’s a big no, no. Will questions from the audience also have to be submitted in advance and draft answers prepared?

    • carl jacobs

      Jack

      It’s the Vatican nomenklatura that wants to censor the Pope’s impromptu comments. And understandably so.

      • The Masonic Order within the Vatican, and the Black Pope, is behind this legislation. A draft was delivered by a black helicopter in the dead of night. Keep this information under your hat.

        • The Explorer

          Hat|? Don’t you mean berretta? Or papal mitre? And what role does the Coptic Pope have in all this?

    • Linus

      Lock him up for incitement to violence and apology for terrorism. Impose a stiff fine on the Church. Distribute the money to LGBT organisations and pregnancy advisory services.

      That way, everyone wins. The Church gets rid of a growing public embarrassment. It then gets to live out the vows of poverty that all those millions it keeps stashed in the bank make a mockery of. The gay community will be flush with cash to fund more Stonewall bus poster campaigns with, and the birth rate will slow to zero, easing environmental pressure on the planet and reversing global warming all in one fell swoop.

      Who’d a thunk one fall from grace could have so many positive knock-on effects!

      • Bit early in the day for alcohol, Linus. Ah, but then you are French.

        • CliveM

          HJ

          never to early.

          But then I really am a Scot

      • The Explorer

        Wouldn’t a zero birth rate intensify the problem of an ageing population?
        MInd you, a zero birth rate was the dream of the Cathars. You aren’t a secret Gnostic are you, Linus? (The exclusivist strain, I mean: where the divine spark would bypass the likes of me and Happy Jack.)

        Bit of a tautology, I know. ‘Gnostic’ MEANS secret.

  • carl jacobs

    But wait…

    What happened to all the “Je suis Charlie” buttons. Wasn’t that all about the right to speak freely? I wonder what Charlie Hebdo would say about having its publication vetted by the Gov’t?

    • Anton

      Charlie est mort, helas.

      • Linus

        Charlie est ressuscité ! Il est vraiment ressuscité !

        You can’t argue with a circulation figure of 5 million.

        • Yes, but look at history. Paris welcomed Hitler.

          • Linus

            Sad Jack is back on form. When he can’t think of a sufficiently withering reply, out come the xenophobic remarks and “we won the war!”

            Yes Sad Jack, I’m French. Yes, Hitler conquered France in 1940. How does that change the fact that Charlie Hebdo is not dead?

          • No, Linus, you are half-French and half-English. The French do not have a good track record in resisting tyranny.

            Oh, you so need an Avatar. Here’s a possibility.

            http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/140/d/d/casey_kelp_sexy_by_dreedwin-d50iav4.jpg

            It’s Casey Kelp, a light-pink-skinned, female Snork with reddish hair tied up into bunches by green hair bows. See what you think.

          • Anton

            In all fairness the French fought damn well in 1914-18 and if we Brits had had one-third of our land invaded and flattened and lost twice the proportion of the male population that we actually did (as France did) then we might not have been up for it in 1940.

          • Albert

            It’s also worth pointing out that had Britain had an army the size of France’s army in 1940, Hitler would probably not have dared to try. It’s also worth remembering that France would have put a stop to Hitler quite a bit earlier if Britain had looked like supporting the France.

          • CliveM

            France could have stopped Hitler, all it needed to do was march 20 miles into Germany when Poland was invaded. Hitler would have had to split his army and would probably have run out of ammunition. The German army came within two weeks of running out with the invasion of Poland.

            The French decided not to and waited behind the Fortifications……….

          • dannybhoy

            Perfidious Albion! We have our cultural differences with the French, but a lot of shared history too, and I think in many ways their social behaviour and manners remain a reproach to ours.

          • CliveM

            They fought very bravely at Verdun.

          • Please do not let inconvenient facts cloud a good prejudice.

          • CliveM

            LOL………!

            Ok try not to!

          • Linus

            That is not a Snork Maiden. Quite what it is, I don’t know. Sad Jack sketching out the result he’s looking for from his plastic surgeon, perhaps?

            And by the way, I am French, not ‘half French and half English’. Frenchness is like the crown of England: it taketh away all defects and stops in the blood.

          • IanCad

            Now Linus, let me distance myself from the francophobes on this blog.
            You and your countrymen have a noble history.
            Sure, you eventually lost most of your wars, but, for the victors to malign the courage and fortitude of the French is a cheap shot with no basis in truth.
            Yes, Hitler ran over France, but with far superior forces and materiel.
            The huge losses suffered by the French in order to protect the British forces at the Dunkirk evacuation is overlooked to our shame.

          • dannybhoy

            Well said Ian.

          • Linus

            We did indeed lose many of our wars, but we won the only one that really counted. The Hundred Years War.

            Kicking the English out of our country and reclaiming our usurped and invaded lands was our greatest victory. Our hearts just haven’t been in it since then. They never are when you know that no future victory can ever top your past achievements.

            We commemorate our victory by inviting the poor and underprivileged from all over the world to the site of our final triumph in that conflict: Calais. There they find a warm reception, a comfortable bed and a free Michelin Guide to England, with a copy of the Eurostar train timetable and a basic English phrase book tucked in the back.

            We haven’t quite emptied sub-Saharan Africa yet, but we’re doing our best. Which continent would you like us to start on next?

          • “Our hearts just haven’t been in it since then. They never are when you know that no future victory can ever top your past achievements.”

            Yep, that’s the French.

            On May 15, 1940, Churchill flew to Paris to confer with the French leaders. It was evident that the military situation was near to catastrophic and that the military commanders and political leaders were resigned to defeat. Churchill agreed to send ten fighter squadrons to France, thereby imperilling the situation in England, as an attempt to restore the spirits of his Ally.

            On May 19, 1940, in his first broadcast as Prime Minister, Churchill conveyed this message from the French leaders:

            “I have received from the Chiefs of the French Republic, and in particular form its indomitable Prime Minister, M. Reynaud, the most sacred pledges that whatever happens they will fight to the end, be it bitter or be it glorious. Nay, if we fight to the end, it can only be glorious.”

            Sacred pledges from the French?

            “We may look with confidence to the stabilization of the Front in France, and to the general engagement of the masses, which will enable the qualities of the French and British soldiers to be matched squarely against those of their adversaries ……. No officer or man, no brigade or division, which grapples at close quarters with the enemy, wherever encountered, can fail to make a worthy contribution to the general result. The Armies must cast away the idea of resisting behind concrete lines or natural obstacles, and must realize that mastery can only be regained by furious and unrelenting assault. And this spirit must not only animate the High Command, but must inspire every fighting man.”

            Indomitable confidence in the French?

          • Linus

            Translation of Sad Jack’s last comment into plain English instead of the obscure and difficult-to-understand Scottish dialect he normally uses:

            We won the war!
            We won the war!
            WE WON THE WAR!

            Yes Sad Jack, we understand. You won the war!

          • That is not the message at all, Linus.

            Cowardice, a lack of honour and bravery – this is the message. Your nation should include Shakespeare’s ‘St. Crispen’s Day Speech’ as a compulsory part of its education program.

            France’s legacy:

            “That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
            Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
            And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
            We would not die in that man’s company
            That fears his fellowship to die with us.”

            Britain’s legacy:

            “From this day to the ending of the world,
            But we in it shall be remembered –
            We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
            For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
            Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
            This day shall gentle his condition;
            And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
            Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
            And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
            That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.”

          • Linus

            Britain’s legacy? Running away at Dunkerque, you mean?

            Want a little rhyme to remember it by?

            Bravely bold Sir Robin
            Rode forth from Camelot.
            He was not afraid to die,
            Oh brave Sir Robin.
            He was not at all afraid
            To be killed in nasty ways.
            Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.

            He was not in the least bit scared
            To be mashed into a pulp.
            Or to have his eyes gouged out,
            And his elbows broken.
            To have his kneecaps split
            And his body burned away,
            And his limbs all hacked and mangled
            Brave Sir Robin.

            His head smashed in
            And his heart cut out
            And his liver removed
            And his bowels unplugged
            And his nostrils raped
            And his bottom burnt off
            And his pen–

            Brave Sir Robin ran away.
            Bravely ran away away.
            When danger reared its ugly head,
            He bravely turned his tail and fled.
            Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
            And gallantly he chickened out.

            Bravely taking to his feet,
            He beat a very brave retreat.
            Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!

          • Dreadnaught

            40% of those rescued at Dunkers were French army. Without the defensive rearguard action of those Frenchmen unlucky enough to be so detailed, the Dunkirque evacuation would have been more of a disaster and thus no refuge for DeGaulle and the FFA.

          • Dunkirk – rightly called the “miracle of deliverance” by Churchill.

            The “Dunkirk spirit” – a phrase used to describe the British public pulling together to overcome adversity. In Britain, we don’t buy cheap newspapers. We take action.

          • Linus

            Yes, you run to the safety of your moated castle, blow raspberries at your enemies from the walls, and then wait for the Americans to come and save you.

            That’s the Dunkerque spirit.

          • We didn’t raise the Gate, lower the Drawbridge, greet the enemy and welcome Hitler, that’s for sure.

          • The Explorer

            Someone’s been watching ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’

          • carl jacobs

            Linus

            The British were trapped at Dunkirk because of the collapse of the French Army at Sedan on the River Meuse. They had no chance to defend Dunkirk. Do you not understand that the choice was evacuate or be annihilated?

            This is probably the worst argument I have ever seen you make. The history of France in WWII is one of uninterrupted incompetence. Don’t drag the British down in some feeble and historically illiterate claim of “Well, you ran away too.”

          • Dreadnaught

            ‘ang on ‘ang on – wasn’t William the Bastard French? Didn’t he and his thugs invade and dominate our Country and didn’t their progeny rule vast tracts of France their ancestral home? The French kicked out the not so French if you don’t mind!

          • Linus

            Guillaume and his Norman knights were mostly Danish in blood and custom, although they spoke French of a sort.

            In any case, what is an Englishman if not an indeterminate mixture of Celt, Viking and Anglo-Saxon? The Plantagenêt kings of England were as English as any of you. Or at least as English as your current monarch, Lisl von Saxe-Coburg und Gotha…

          • Dreadnaught

            Yous sound quite vert with jealousy – who are the Franks if not invaders from elsewhere – no nation can claim purity of ancestral lineage – even AH failed at that one.

          • Linus

            My point is that whatever the English may be, they are not French and had no claim to rule over any part of France.

            We kicked them out. It took us a while because they clearly loved it here and didn’t want to be forced back to their muddy offshore island where it rains all year round. But we got rid of them in the end.

            A major English humiliation. Indeed one of your queens claimed the word “Calais” would be found graven on her heart when she died. Poor woman. If only she knew what a rat hole the place is…

          • Dreadnaught

            Indeed one of your queens claimed…
            Ha ha ha – I was keeping this light until now – end of.

          • Anton

            Linus is correct. William the Conqueror was a Norman, which means Northman, because he is descended from Rollo the Viking who conquered what is today northern France.

          • “I did not see the posts by Anton, CliveM and Albert.
            Good fellows all.”

            Collaboratours !

            Jeanne d’Arc – their bravest warrior; handed over to the English.

            Napoléon Bonaparte – their best General; an Italian.

          • IanCad

            Ha Ha!

          • CliveM

            IanCad

            Sadly the statement that Hitler has superior equipment and resources is a myth. In most areas the French and UK forces had equality or even superiority (tanks, guns, armoured vehicles, men). The Battle of France was an ignominious defeat not because of courage or equipment but because the French Generals were old and past it and intent on fighting the wrong war. So behind the times were they they refused to use radio equipment (a crucial area were the Germans did have superiority). Which on a fast moving battlefield is suicide.
            It has to be said the General in charge of the British army General Lord Gort wasn’t much better!

          • IanCad

            Thanks for the correction.

          • CliveM

            I was doing a lot of business travel for a period and the cheap books at the airport tended to be military history!!!

            All a bit sad really!

          • “That is not a Snork Maiden.”

            Hmmm …. thought you’d like the modernisation and update – so French. Here’s a couple of authentic Snorks, then. Perhaps you and your fiancée skipping merrily to the registry office, snorkling, blowing bubbles together?

            http://quasisp.x10host.com/SnorksDisco.jpg

            As for the valour of the French.

          • Linus

            No, sorry to disappoint, but they’re not Snorks either. And neither my fiancé nor I wear our hair in pigtails.

            We won’t be getting married in a register office either. There’s no such thing in France. We’ll marry like every other French couple in the salle des mariages at our local mairie. The mayor will conduct the ceremony in his écharpe tricolore and dignity will reign.

            It’s all booked but the limited space available prevents me from issuing you with an invitation. Quel dommage ! It would have brought a tear to your eye…

          • They most certainly are Snorks, Linus.

            Perhaps ‘ The Great Snork Nork ‘ is more to your liking. An indigo-colored vampire Snork. His snork is on the front of his face, turning downward. He has fangs and sleeps hanging upside-down from the ceiling. He hates and avoids light at all cost. He wants to take over Snorkland.

            http://statici.behindthevoiceactors.com/behindthevoiceactors/_img/chars/char_8212.jpg

          • Linus

            Now who’s been drinking? You are a Scot after all.

          • Aha, all becomes clear. You believe yourself to be Snorkfröken – mauve in base colour, changing to pale green when frightened. Obsessive over details, rules, and protocol; an avid believer in science.

            http://mumin.dk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/snorken.jpg

            Or is it Prinsessan Snorkfröken, Mumintrollet’s fickle lady friend? Pale yellow base colour, blonde hair and a sporting a golden anklet.

            http://image.bokus.com/images2/9789129690736_200

            You chose.

          • Linus

            You’re getting your genders muddled, Sad Jack. I’m not surprised. You’ve shown evidence of gender confusion before.

            Male Snorks are mauve and female Snorks, or Snork Maidens as they’re known in English, are yellow. As I’m am neither mauve nor yellow, the obvious conclusion must be that I am neither a Snork nor a Snork Maiden.

            I can’t chose (sic) to be a character in a children’s book, can I?

            Do get a grip, Sad old Jack. You’re really starting to lose it. Is this incipient Alzheimers, or just common garden senility setting in?

          • As you’re French your predominant colour will be either yellow or green. So far as gender goes, clearly you do not believe this is a natural given so you can choose Snorken or Snorkfröken.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            Google “Moomin Finland Snork.”

          • Anton

            As a point of information you will be married in your own eyes, in the eyes of the French State, and those States who have reciprocal recognition agreements with France for such partnerships; but not in the eyes of French Christians (even if they are persecuted for their belief) or in the eyes of the authorities in, for instance, Jordan or Uganda.

          • Linus

            I will be legally married. That is all that matters. French Christians can believe what they like. So can Jordanians and Ugandans. Their beliefs will not erase the ink on my marriage certificate.

            Losers in heated debates quite often refuse to recognize the new realities they argued against. It’s the adult equivalent of stamping your foot in childish rage and throwing a tantrum. You lost. Get over it.

          • Anton

            You will be legally married where you live now. There are some countries where you aren’t, and whether or not you go there is not my point. as another example, there are some countries where child brides are not recognised. I know of no country where adult heterosexual monogamous marriage certificates issued by any other are not recognised.

          • Linus

            Yes, typical of heterosexual arrogance and privilege, isn’t it? They expect their marriages to be recognized everywhere, but they won’t extend the same courtesy to anyone else.

            I personally believe that we should refuse to recognize ALL marriage certificates issued by countries that won’t recognize ours. I think that’s the attitude I’ll take towards reality deniers in the future. Don’t recognize my marriage? OK. I don’t recognize yours.

          • Anton

            Linus, homosexuality of a particular sort was institutionalised in ancient Greece so there was not prejudice there, but they didn’t confuse it with marriage. You insist that the church is out of step in the West, but actually it is the West that is out of step with every other culture in the the history and geography of the entire human race.

          • Linus

            The West has evolved beyond the limitations and prejudices of earlier cultures to a point where it now recognizes marriage as the union of any two individuals.

            Earlier cultures didn’t recognize the right of women to participate in government. Do you also maintain that the West is “out of step” on this principle too?

            Back to the kitchen, you upstart women! You were chief cooks and bottle washers in ancient Greece and Rome and Merry Tudor England, so that is all you can ever be! The great anthropological historian Anton has spoken!

          • Anton

            I’ll stick to discussing gay marriage, thank you, Linus. Analogies have minor differences from the issue in question which often turn into a diversion. So, the West as Brave New World? Time will tell, but I suspect you won’t have gay marriage for long, because anti-family government tax policy, cohabitation, gay marriage and polygamy (guess who’s now pressing for that in Europe) have all diluted the currency of marriage so much that the government in a multicultural society is most likely to react by declining to recognise the concept of marriage at all – privatising it, and saying that everybody can declare yourselves married (or not), to as many men, women, animals, statues of pagan gods or whatever as you please.

          • Linus

            So what are these “minor differences” between the situations of women and gays that lead you to refuse to discuss my analogy? Could it be that there are none and that you realize the validity of my example, but just can’t bear to admit it?

            I suspect it might be. Not because of the refusal itself, but rather because you then launch into the sort of doom-laden prognostication that Christians always indulge in when their rational arguments (such as they are) run out of steam.

            Can’t think of any rational reason why women shouldn’t be deprived of the vote if gays are deprived of the right to marry? No problem! Just start to rant about doom and dystopia like a mad Monty Python prophet. As long as you’re still talking, you’re still participating in the debate, right?

            Right?

          • Anton

            If you think your analogy is accurate then kindly rephrase it with reference to the issue in question, namely gay marriage, and I’ll gladly respond.

          • Linus

            My analogy needs no rephrasing. It’s perfectly clear as it stands.

            You’re not compelled to respond, but when you do so with prophecies of doom instead of rational arguments, you reveal your position for what it really is: primitive superstition plastered over with a thin layer of cracked and crumbling rationality.

          • Anton

            Actually you gave the argument in respect of gay marriage, I responded, and instead of responding further you threw in an analogy. Do you realise that you have just categorised my prediction of the privatisation of marriage as a prophecy of doom for society? We agree about that!

          • Linus

            Doom is defined by the prophet, for the prophet. His audience merely listens and draws its own conclusions.

            I understand that you believe equal marriage will doom us to a collapse of the institution altogether. I do not agree with that fevered prophecy.

          • Anton

            I don’t believe that, Linus. I believe that traditional marriage is under attack from a variety of sources, not just yours. I am not prophesying, as God has not licensed me to speak in the first person on the subject on his behalf; I am predicting.

          • Linus

            Predict away! The British have a dismal record when it comes to predictions. Look at Tomorrow’s World! If their predictions had been correct, you’d all be flying around in space cars and robots would be doing all your housework by now. Or Space 1999! Did the British have a moon base 16 years ago? Of course they did! The government just hushed it up, didn’t they? It’s run by an American you see, and the action men and crack pilots are Australian. They don’t want the public to know that Brits only get the menial jobs…

            But perhaps you’re not British? Still, this is a British site and it’s dedicated to a very British view of Christianity as a common social framework. Unfortunately that view is at least two, possibly three generations behind the times.

            When society meandered along in the slow-flowing channel gouged out for it by centuries of state-sponsored Christianity, you could make predictions quite easily because every day was exactly like the one that had preceded it, so it didn’t take much skill to figure out what tomorrow would bring. But all bets are off now. We’ve left the plain far behind and have entered the rapids. All your previous experience won’t help you now because conditions have changed fundamentally.

            Adapt or die.

          • Anton

            Brave New World, Linus. Enjoy it while you can, because history is overwhelmingly contingent. If I want to make predictions and you want to say they are nonsense, neither of us can be certain.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            We can tell you are truly French, dear Linus. We English are trained to be magnanimous to the defeated…

          • “I will be legally married.”
            No, the ceremony you go through will be legally recognised as a marriage. That is all. It will never be a marriage, in fact.

          • Linus

            In fact, a marriage is exactly what it will be. Legal recognition is what makes a marriage, which is a binding civil contract uniting two people regardless of gender.

            Sad Jack may be confusing marriage with what his tribal blood cult refers to as “holy matrimony”. I’m not surprised. He can’t speak his own language correctly, so it stands to reason he’d be confused about other customs too.

          • dannybhoy

            Jack,
            France is a huge country. The manpower needed to adequately protect its borders would be immense. I don’t regard the French as cowards, and we ourselves were really saved by being an island with a great prime minister and then the assistance of the Yanks. Go have a look at the French war graves and see how many they lost in the defence of their nation.

          • Dreadnaught

            He can Check out the 20 million dead Russians while he’s at it – no doubt all RC to a man.

          • carl jacobs

            Most of those Russians died at Russian hands. That figure does not just account for Russians killed by the Germans.

          • Dreadnaught

            The fact remains that without the Russian Front the Allies would have been hammered.

          • Anton

            Yes. More than 2/3 of the Wehrmacht went down on the Eastern front.

          • CliveM

            Without the Ribentrop pact with Stalin, there would have been no invasion of Poland or Battle of France.

          • carl jacobs

            You are correct.

          • CliveM

            Hmm……….

            As I said below, in some ways the Russians are responsible for the war.

          • CliveM

            Actually I’ve thought about this further. As the main purpose of the war (from Hitlers perspective) was ‘living space’ to the East and the defeat of Soviet Communism, it is arguable that the Allies saved Russia from defeat in a war they helped trigger.

          • CliveM

            They weren’t cowards, they were incompetent.

          • sarky

            As Homer Simpson so eloquently put it…”cheese eating surrender monkey’s”

          • CliveM

            I’m trying to be charitable!!

          • Royinsouthwest

            You mean the assistance of our Commonwealth friends. The entry of the United States, after Germany declared war on them, helped to ensure that we would win but we had already done enough to ensure that it was unlikely that Germany would win unless the Russians caved in completely.

          • Anton

            Roy, although we had bases and manpower from the Commonwealth in WW2, defending it was a considerable drain; it cut both ways. And but for the Americans the Iron Curtain would have been farther west, at the border with France.

          • Albert

            Naughty.

          • dannybhoy

            Maybe they thought it was Charlie Chaplin..

            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032553/

        • Anton

          J’espere. Comment est ce qu’on fait les accents?

          • Linus

            Il vous faut un clavier AZERTY …

          • William Lewis

            On peut copier les mots d’un dictionnaire français sur internet

          • Anton

            Mes parents etais professeurs de Francais.

          • William Lewis

            Si vous copiez les mots, les accents seront copiés aussi.

    • CliveM

      Well the photo opportunities are now over. Back down to the real business of Government……………

    • Albert

      The purpose of “Je suis Charlie” was not to defend free-speech, I think, so much as to dignify irreverence. After all, at the same time up to 2000 Nigerians were murdered in terrorist atrocities and no one worried about that. It’s hard to get excited by threats to freedom of speech if you aren’t troubled by threats to life itself.

      • carl jacobs

        Albert

        It’s a reasonable hypothesis. But men will naturally be less concerned about violent murder in another country 5000 miles away. They will naturally be more concerned about the murder of people who look and think and act the same, who live in the same place, and who were murdered by people down the street. It’s the immediacy of the threat that makes the difference.

        That said. It doesn’t take too much imagination to invent violent circumstances that would not have generated the crowds. The fact that CH represented so much of mainstream culture is why it got the reaction. One crazy fundamentalist killing another crazy fundamentalist allows the observer to create distance. By contrast, “I am Charlie” meant quite literally “I could have been killed.” But if it had just been (say) Jews in a butcher shop or a Catholic bookstore? No crowds and no buttons.

        • Martin

          Carl

          They will naturally be more concerned about the murder of people who look and think and act the same, who live in the same place, and who were murdered by people down the street.

          I thought they were French.

    • magnolia

      If you google “The Truth “Behind” The Charlie Hebdo solidarity Photo-Op on ZeroHedge.com you see a very interesting and very different picture from the one printed in most newspapers!! Its kinda instructive!

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I do a nice line in ‘Je suis Charlie Martel’ buttons…

      • CliveM

        Oh you are such a card, Mrs Proudie and no mistake!

  • James60498 .

    Of course this is bad news. Atrocious behaviour from a very nasty government.

    But surprise? No. It was announced at the Conservative Party conference in October.

    At least it was announced to anyone who was listening properly. Of course those with a rose-tinted hearing aid denied it and said it was all about Muslims.

  • The Explorer

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcccccccccccccccccc

    • The Explorer

      No, I haven’t resorted to writing in code. The cat got on the keyboard.

      • Inspector General

        help me please. my name is tiddles and the inspector is holding me captive in his boiler room….

        • carl jacobs

          There we have it. No more tacit acknowledgements. Just an open admission. The Inspector has a cat.

          • Inspector General

            Looking after Blofeld’s cat while he’s incapacitated. The thing is kept in the basement, and sleeps on an old coal sack…

          • The Explorer

            So that’s who ours was trying to communicate with!

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I was going to say I have a pussy but I fear it would be misconstrued.

          • The Explorer

            Does it purr?

          • CliveM

            You didn’t need to ask you know!

          • The Explorer

            Didn’t I? This IS Mrs Proudie we’re talking about. Don’t let the innocent face on her avatar fool you!

          • CliveM

            Well maybe you’re right! You have been on here longer than me!!

          • Inspector General

            Does it hum, more like. Apparently, if you don’t wash the beasts regularly, they let everyone know of their presence…

          • The Explorer

            Come now, Inspector. “Apparently” will do nothing to fool the likes of Happy Jack. He’ll think you’re simply being disingenuous.

          • Inspector General

            Scatter lads. Cranny is about to appear, waving his fist and curse us for abusing his blog.
            “We are not worthy of you, sire”

          • The Explorer

            Let me rephrase my earlier question. Is it the sort of pussy in which Mr Slope would take an interest if he were a cat lover?

          • carl jacobs

            Nope. Sorry. Not buying it. Only a cat owner would be able to so accurately communicate the thoughts of a cat. You have too much knowledge to be merely a ‘cat sitter.’

          • Inspector General

            Well I never. Look Carl, just there. See, the cat’s anal glands are blocked…

          • carl jacobs

            Inspector

            I didn’t even know a cat had such glands. Your knowledge of the cat is certainly extensive. I think the reason for all this knowledge is obvious.

          • Inspector General

            Carl, you should inspect your cat’s anal glands daily. Middle finger to be used. Do let the Inspector know how you get on…

          • carl jacobs

            Oh, no, Inspector, I should leave such important tasks to an obvious cat expert such as yourself. I don’t have a cat, you see. My daughter has a cat. I merely co-exist with the cat. That’s a much different relationship – as I am sure a cat whisperer such as yourself will readily understand.

          • Inspector General

            Ah well, whatever. But if you are so minded as to inspect your daughter’s cat’s glands, best to inform all in the household accordingly. Lest anyone walk in on you, mid poke…

          • carl jacobs

            I can only assume such good advice was born of bitter experience…

          • Inspector General

            No as it happens. One was thinking of the constraints of Calvinism, actually…

          • carl jacobs

            Attention on the sub-thread. Please remain calm. An emergency situation has been detected. An unexploded logical non-sequitur has been identified in the vicinity. The Logic Disposal Squad has been contacted and will arrive soon to diffuse the logic sequence. Please remain calm and exit the sub thread by the nearest exit.

          • Inspector General

            Non-sequitur, my arse…

        • No good trying to pretend anymore, Inspector. We all know ………

  • Inspector General

    Fret not Cranmer, this is quite normal in the order of things. Rather like with medicinal whatnot for the treatment of conditions that rot the body, there are always going to be unwanted side effects, don’t you know. The body is infected with occasional outbreaks of the Religion of Peace. The virus will now always be with us. It’s rather like being infected by HIV then. Our casual approach to life as a country which allowed us to be virtually sodomised by cultural Marxists who couldn’t ingest enough third world types and their unfortunate beliefs has done this.

    But as often with the medicinal aforementioned, the unwanted side effects can be treated as a problem of their own…

    The Inspector is no fan of big government. Plenty of unnecessary there to close down, if he had his way, so it may come as a surprise that he advocates one more department. Another Ombudsman, no less, and one to monitor and preserve the British version of freedom of speech and thought. Not the business of hate that the lesser cultures that now pervade this land have in mind. Certainly not them.

    The only problem is how do we pass this off without being accused of one of the darkest crimes known to modern humanity – Racism – and the devilish idea that we are in fact, not all the same in this wonderfully multi-culturalated Britain of ours. Ideas chaps, on the back of an unbranded fag packet, if you will…

  • Inspector General

    Just a thought, but can we still say “fag packet” ?? anybody know…

    The health secret police are probably the most insidious of the many freedom supressing agencies we have installed to keep ourselves chained up, compliant, and apparently, in line to celebrate our centenary whether we want to or not. In the Inspector’s case, having SEEN centenarians in their helplessness in homes, he has absolutely no intention of marking that miserable occasion and hopes to pop off sometime in his early eighties before he loses the ability to roll a cigarette.

    For that reason, he insists the angel of death doesn’t dawdle when the time comes and in order to help summon him to his duty at the required time, he keeps the company of John Barleycorn and his constitutionals take him down Tobacco road regularly. One also expects that said angel will have the decency to wait and not show himself until your man here is asleep.

    Toodle Pip !

    • CliveM

      I’ll pray for you!

      And btw I agree totally. A swift heart attack at 84 or when I’ve ceased to recognise my family, whichever comes sooner.

      I support of which, several beers, decent curries and regular English breakfasts.

      • Linus

        Euthanasia will soon be available on the NHS, so you can time your exit for a moment of your own choosing.

        • CliveM

          No thank you, my way is more fun.

        • The Explorer

          Unless it becomes someone else’s choosing.

          • Linus

            If you sign a living will, you’ll be able to foil your children’s evil plot to bump you off so they can get their hands on their inheritance. Or alternatively, leave everything to the Battersea Dogs’ Home and then your kids will have no motive for shortening your life.

            You could always get “no euthanasia or my lawyer will sue” tattooed on your wrist. That should discourage the doctors from slipping you an overdose in your coffee.

          • The Explorer

            Good thoughts: just ensure the dogs don’t get to hear about it.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          Yes indeed, I understand the method recommended by the NHS is to listen to the collected speeches of Ed Miliband. Works every time.

          • CliveM

            Oh the horror!

            Damn Tory NHS cutbacks.

          • Anton

            And that is an important point, Clive. I’ve often said that the euthanasia issue cannot be taken separately from the healthcare funding issue, because doctors are going to want to free up beds in a public system.

            There would be no problem if the money that presently goes in NHS admin actually went to healthcare. In the late 1990s a consultant surgeon, Maurice Slevin, showed that there were FOUR times as many administrators per doctor-or-nurse in the major in NHS Trust for which he worked than in private medicine. (Who believes this figure went down under the next 9 years of New Labour?) Quite clearly half of them should be given a year’s notice and half of the rest put to cleaning wards.

          • CliveM

            One of the big problems the public sector has (as does the private) are all the non core functions they need to implement and abide by in response to Govt initiatives ie diversity, environmental, auditing. ( this one is a particular bug of mine, I’m sure the govt spends more trying to avoid fraud or proving good Governence, then it saves. Certainly makes everything less responsive to demand) etc
            I work in private industry, but the proliferation of these roles over the last 20 years is unbelievable.

          • Linus

            I know the British don’t benefit from the same constitutional protections as their colonial cousins in the United States, but surely “cruel and unusual punishment” must be banned under UK law. I’m pretty sure torture is, except in restaurants and private dining rooms, of course.

            A faster, easier option would be to supply euthanasees with a Mary Berry sugar-laden “treat”, or a “chocolate” hobnob, and let them eat themselves into a diabetic coma.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I do believe a fag packet is usually covered by a pair of tight fitting trousers…but do ask Linus, he’ll know.

      • Guest

        I wonder why this hasn’t been removed? I may not agree with Linus but this is horrid.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          You are quite right…I have deleted it myself.

    • “Just a thought, but can we still say “fag packet” ??”

      We can still say what we want providing we’re not being hateful with intent to case alarm or distress. Mind, that’s the criminal law. Say it at work and you could be in all sorts of bother. If one of our ever so sensitive ‘friends’ take offence, then a disciplinary investigation is odds on. If the term hurts their feelings in any way they will run scweaming to the boss claiming you were being homophobic and nasty and they want pwrotection from you.

      Top tip:

      Never, ever shout out: “Anyone got a spare fag; the Inspector is desperate for one just now and cannot be bothered to roll his own.”

      • Anton

        And if you forget to pack your alarm clock on a trip to America, don’t ask to be knocked up in the morning. Or demand a solicitor.

  • University lecture on the following anybody?

    “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

    “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.”

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    Very much so, your grace.

    But it is not “our young people” who are vulnerable. It is those from a moslem background. They have a special problem; that should be addressed.

    I am unclear, however, just why a speaker for ISIS should be excluded, if invited. Why? Let him make his pitch. It matters not.

    • cacheton

      ‘They have a special problem; that should be addressed.’

      Please enlighten me as to what that problem is.

  • A DIX

    This shows what we are up against and all the more reason for me to stand for pro-life, matrimonial and Israel’s causes. In the forthcoming General Election, no less.

  • michaelkx

    why did this come to my mind?
    But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God– having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone. You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings–what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
    (2Ti 3:1-12)
    now I will await the answer from the thought police.

    • cacheton

      ‘lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God’

      And these days we have come to the understanding that loving pleasure IS loving god; put another way – it is a pleasure to love god. The two are not incompatible.

      • Linus

        Tell that to the gay Christian trapped in the second or third decade of relentless celibacy, sitting alone at home with no more prayers to say, and no more volunteer work to do, and his heart shrivelling up inside him like a pruneau d’Agen.

        “My yoke is easy and my burden is light!” said Jesus. What a load of old cobblers!!!

        • cacheton

          Ah but the person in question would also be loving certain religious doctrines, and many of those have nothing to do with loving god.

      • michaelkx

        Cacheton I beg to differ with you on that thought, but it is a pleasure to serve GOD.

    • michaelkx

      Linus

      It was never GODs plane
      that man should be ‘without a helpmate’ ( The LORD God said, “It is not good
      for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
      Genesis 2:18) that was a man’s idea.

  • len

    Freedom of speech was bought at a price the cost being human lives. Now these phony ‘liberals’ want to censor everyone`s free speech except their own.

    • Anton

      These are the hippies who in the 1960s preached love and peace while intimidating anybody who wanted to actually get any work done at university. They exploited freedom of speech to the hilt then and now wish to pull up the drawbridge. A dreadful generation. It is worth asking how, sociologically speaking, it came about.

      • The Explorer

        I think you’ll find Marcuse (not the football manger, the other one) and his Frankfurt-School cronies had a lot to do with it once they got to the States. The hippies (whether they knew it or not) were part of Marcuse’s new post-industrial proletariat.

      • len

        There was much talk of ‘peace and love’ in the 1960`s but the end result of that experiment was the absolute opposite.
        It seems that the more mankind tries to throw of all restraint and to do whatever he pleases the deeper into bondage he becomes (and the more self destructive)The music industry tragically underlined this problem particularly in the 60`s .

    • Dominic Stockford

      “Liberal” means those who allow everyone else to think, do, and believe what they like as long as it is the same as what they themselves think, do, and believe.

      And that goes for wherever the liberal might be, those inside the CofE, the Free CofE, the Baptists, or the Government/Politics, and so on.