rory stewart kill british jihadists
Ethics & Morality

If the only way of dealing with British Jihadists is to kill them, why can’t we do it here?

British Jihadists are enemies of the State, traitors to the Crown, and a present danger to every man, woman and child in the country. Some 850 Britons are estimated to have left the UK to pledge their allegiance to the Islamic State, and there they crucified, raped and tortured untold thousands of Christians, Yazidis and ‘apostate’ Muslims across vast areas of Syria and Iraq, all in the name of Mohammed and for the greater glory of Allah.

And now the Islamic State is in retreat – the Caliphate is falling; the will of Allah thwarted. And these 850 Britons seem to want to return home – well, 847 of them, since we seem to have lost a few in unfortunate circumstances. This isn’t acceptable to Rory Stewart MP, Minister of State at the Department for International Development and Minister of State for Africa at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. He is unequivocal about the best way of dealing with them:

rory stuart kill british jihadists

Well, almost unequivocal: that “in almost every case” leaves a little latitude. But it’s refreshing to hear a Minister of the Crown state so baldly that British Jihadists have “moved away from any kind of allegiance” to the British State (he says ‘government’, but he clearly means ‘Crown’ in the sense of democracy and British sovereignty), such that it would be preferable if they all died in Syria. So, more drone-bombs, more summary ‘executions’, and more internecine conflict between extremist factions are all preferable to allowing them to catch the first BA flight back to Manchester, to await the next Ariana Grande gig.

For Rory Stewart, British Jihadists ceased to be British the moment they pledged their allegiance to the Islamist doctrine of summary slaughter and religious supremacy, which involves killing themselves in order to kill us.

Since they have ceased to be British, they ought to be (indeed, are being) stripped of their British/EU citizenship to prevent their return. But what of those who manage to get through? Do we really want the likes of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin back on the streets of Cardiff? As David Cameron explained when they were summarily executed by the RAF: “..there was nothing to suggest that Reyaad Khan would ever leave Syria or desist from his desire to murder us at home, so we had no way of preventing his planned attacks on our country without taking direct action.”

And that “direct action” consisted of blowing him to kingdom come in lots of little pieces.

If it is an act of lawful self-defence to kill those who plot against us from their terrorist lairs in Syria or Iraq, why may they not be put to death in the UK? If it is moral to kill them extra-judicially, how much more righteous would it be to permit the courts to sentence them to death? Our rulers, leaders and judges are appointed by God (Rom 13:3): ‘But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil‘ (v4).

Brexit notwithstanding, may we set aside the European Union prohibition on the restoration of capital punishment (Charter of Fundamental Rights, Title 1, Article 2), because the Lisbon Treaty states that the death penalty is a lawful option “in the case of war, riots, upheaval”?

Does the Jihadist threat not pose an immediate threat to our national security, precisely comparable to those of war, riot and upheaval?

Is there a sense (undoubtedly lost) in which ‘Thou shalt not kill‘ must necessarily exclude those who would kill us when the nation is otherwise at peace with itself and with its neighbours? How can God protect and affirm life which is intent on destroying life? If life is a gift from God, it is not so sacrosanct as to become a god, idolised to the point of absolute inviolability. Is it not moral and righteous to sacrifice the aberrant life which would terminate ours? Yes, those cases are exceptional and ought rightly to be extremely rare, but if Rory Stewart – a Minister of the Crown – can envisage the justifiable extra-judicial deaths of British Jihadists in Syria and Iraq, where is the barbarism in the judicial process which, with the greatest reserve, ultimately bears the sword?

  • Anton

    Rory Stewart is a lot more than a career politician with no backbone who has never held a wealth-creating job in his life. Agree or disagree with him, he is worth listening to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart

    • Murti Bing

      He looks quite an oddball, but seems to be quite an impressive chap. We need more like him.

  • IanCad

    A slippery, slippery slope. Many and plenty are the laws on our books dealing with murder, treason etc.
    Most particularly those relating to treason which should also have ready application to the wretches who would keep us beholden to the foreign tyranny of the EU.

  • DespiteBrexit

    Surprisingly, there does not seem to have been a wave of outrage in response to his comments from the bien-pensant and the twitterati – “racist”, “Tory barbarian”, etc. Perhaps Steward should have taken the opportunity to go the whole hog (pun intended) and say their remains should be buried with pork chops. That’s when we would find out it if was really “nothing to do with Islam”.

  • So can we go back to executing murderers again now, in line with Genesis 9:5-6?

  • layreader

    Your Grace, the charge of ‘summary execution by the RAF’ cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Therefore, all deaths in wartime, even military ones, are ‘summary execution’ are they? So British forces ‘summarily executed’ a good few German personnel during WW2, I suppose. Rather bizarrely, you seem to have confused peacetime with wartime, and jihadists know no such thing as peacetime.

    • Brian

      Correct. Killing a combatant in war who is trying to kill you in no way can be called a ‘summary execution’. Using a drone against jihadis is no different in principle from using a sniper to pick out the enemy.

  • John

    This is a war against an evil enemy, committed to indiscriminate death and destruction, not a bit of lager-fuelled antisocial behaviour in the town centre on a Friday night.

  • For Rory Stewart, British Jihadists ceased to be British the moment they pledged their allegiance to the Islamist doctrine of summary slaughter and religious supremacy

    The main political parties became the enemies of the British the moment they undertook to wreck our way of life by forcing Muslim immigration on us. It seems unfair to kill Muslims while allowing the politicians who have dedicated their lives to destroying this country to go scot-free. That includes you, Rory.

  • Dolphinfish

    People can be so precious about the death penalty. Like abortion, it’s acceptable so long as we don’t have to see it. Thus, pro-lifers who show pictures of abortions are barbarians, but those who provide them in a discreet little clinic are “progressive”. In the same way, we want someone to “take care” of the problem, out of sight and mind, in Syria, but we wail “oh, horrors, how medieval” when someone suggests bringing back the rope at home. You’d be surprised how many people are unwilling to make hard choices.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/

    • Anton

      O No I Wouldn’t. It is the refusal to make hard choices that is killing Western Civ by degrees.

    • Here’s a helpful insight into a possible motive behind Pope Francis’ latest novel ‘teaching’ on capital punishment and a useful reminder to Catholics of what developments are and are not possible:

      [O]ne reason the Pope may have proposed a “development” of the teaching on capital punishment is that it “may seem the easiest topic to use in order to persuade an important group of conservative Catholics that the Church’s doctrine can be reversed.”

      “Once they are persuaded of that, then they will not be able to resist any other doctrinal reversals,” he said.

      https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-academics-raise-alarm-over-pope-franciss-teaching-on-doctrine

      • Dolphinfish

        I’m under the hammer timewise, but on a quick skim through, the academics seem greatly troubled by Francis’ outlook.

        • It’s a good article and goes to the heart of the matter and what is a growing concern about Francis’ “outlook”. The links in the article are worth following too. It’s needs a careful read.

    • bosco49

      “Like abortion, it’s acceptable so long as we don’t have to see it.” False analogy.

      • carl jacobs

        False analogy

        How so? Lest my inference be mistaken and I attribute to you views that you do not possess.

  • bluedog

    Once again the British government has ignored your communicant’s advice, Your Grace. If Raqqa had not been freed from the yoke of the Caliphate, against your communicant’s recommendations, the problem of returning jihadis would not arise. The policy of killing them with well-targeted drones strikes in the Middle East could have continued, and Western jihadis would continue to emigrate to the land of their slaughter. We could keep this up for years at relatively low cost. However, one congratulates Mr Stewart on his honesty and commonsense. Clearly he is not part of the inner group of the government that announces prohibitions on the term ‘pregnant women’ to appease the trannies. Get with the programme, Rory.

  • magnolia

    We should never have behaved like a self-important continent and taken too many people from all over the globe in the first place, decimating our green fields, wildlife, and agricultural capacity, all for mooted
    economic prosperity, largely represented by plastic gadgets and toys, white goods, and nice cars. Had it been about spreading the love of Christ all had not been lost. It wasn’t and now we- gradually- see the
    results.

    However, although for everyone’s sake and safety we must strip these people of the citizenship they never did deserve, we must still show the love Christ showed even to His enemies, and pray for their conversion, salvation, and fruitfulness in the cause of Christ, even while we keep our own compatriots safe.

  • jaundicedi

    If they were all interned somewhere bleak like Gruinard they wouldn’t risk returning at all.

    • Anton

      Australia caused a drastic reduction in the number of asylum seekers landing on its shores by stating that it would intern them on an island and doing so. Good idea.

      • Manfarang

        The vast majority of refugees are residing in poorer countries neighbouring the conflict. Developing countries are doing the heaviest lifting, with 84% of refugees residing in in low- and middle-income countries and remaining close to situations of conflict.

  • Dominic Stockford

    The UK has for many years welcomed ‘rebels’ and killers from all corners of the planet. To bring yet more back, in the full knowledge that they want to destroy our way of life, and us, and were prepared to give their lives doing it, is incomprehensibly stupid. There has to be some gumption here, and simply bar their entry. They are traitors.

    • James60498 .

      It is “incomprehensibly stupid”.

      But, whilst it is potentially more deadly than most other things that they do, is not much of what the government does “incomprehensibly stupid”?

      • Dominic Stockford

        I recant. You are right. It is.

      • Coniston

        ‘Incomprehensibly stupid’. Of course it is not just here. There is a report about German censorship concerning the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in Germany during the war. You cannot apparently report it – to do so is ‘Islamohobic’. Can this be confirmed from other sources?
        Germany: Full Censorship Now Official – Courts Rewrite History https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11205/germany-official-censorship

  • Ray Sunshine

    I followed the link to Cranmer’s earlier post on the killing of Reyaad Khan and found this in the comments thread:

    dannybhoy IanCad • 2 years ago
    I think drones will become part of law enforcement.. They will hover over you in the street as you get into your car, broadcasting “‘Ello Ello!” is that a bald tyre I see?”
    Then they fire the missile…

    Rory Stewart must have read Dannybhoy’s comment as well, which is where he got the idea for dealing with the ISIS recruits now being demobbed.

    • dannybhoy

      A house divided against itself cannot stand. There is always a balance to be struck between personal freedom and social cohesion. As technology advances , maintaining that balance may require that the State become more ruthless in the pursuit of social stability.
      Heavens, our own ancestors recognised that treachery (to the Crown/ the nation/ the tribe cannot be allowed to go unchallenged or unpunished.
      The greater the gravity of the offence, the greater must be the consequential punishment.
      I applaud this man’s honesty and courage in addressing the issue.

  • Simon Platt

    I tend (as a matter or prudential judgement, nothing more, Your Holiness, in case you’re reading) to oppose the death penalty, but this business of the Islamic State is making me wonder. I’m not sure that I agree with what I know of what Rory Stewart said, but having recently heard of the “Overton window”, usefully putting a title to a phenomenon which I’m sure we have all encountered, I’m glad he said it.

    For sure, these jihadis, if British citizens, should be treated as traitors and required at least to abjure the realm. (Do we still do that? I fear not.)

  • Murti Bing

    So-called ‘British’ Jihadists, if you please.

  • Chefofsinners

    It’s not just UK nationals. Every EU citizen who has gone to join Islamic State can freely enter our country. We can’t drone-strike them all.
    If ever there was a case of chickens coming home to roost, this is it.

  • Another good reason to Brexit, freedom to at least hang traitors as I doubt the tender people of today will ever stomach the traditional way executing traitors. But IMO at the very least rendering them stateless would be fitting. After all they merely want to be part of the caliphate not a nation state.

    • Hanging, drawing and quartering was so cooool.

      Convicts were fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where they were hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered (chopped into four pieces). Their remains were often displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge. For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were instead burned at the stake.

      The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch’s authority, high treason was considered a deplorable act demanding the most extreme form of punishment. Although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law’s ultimate sanction. They included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of Charles I.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered

      • Hi

        Have you been watching “gunpowder”?

        • Yep …. don’t spoil the ending though. Watching it on iPlayer.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I believe that at the end Britain is taken over by foreign agents and handed to another sovereign state. However, there is then a referendum and we are given an opportunity to seize sovereignty back…

          • Manfarang

            The 51st state.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Although it wants them, I don’t believe that the EU has 50 states.

          • Manfarang

            The USA has 50.Actually they don’t want Britain to be a state after all today the government of Britain does exactly what it is told to do by Washington DC. Poodles anyone.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The USA told the UK not to leave the EU, yet we are. We are also, (and I think we’re wrong) criticising the USA for its position on the Iran Nuclear deal. We are nobodies poodles.

          • Manfarang

            President Obama told the UK not to leave the EU.

          • IanCad

            Why Jack?? As a fine Christian gentleman would you watch such grotesquely graphic and bloodthirsty stuff? From what little I have read about the show it appears to approach a level of realism which if indulged in too often will only coarsen those who watch such stuff. Then satiety is rarely reached; more, more, more is demanded. Sickos and perverts are at hand to supply the need.

          • Principally because it reminds Jack of the courage of Catholic martyrs who bravely faced death and torture with silent grace.

          • IanCad

            We have history books; lessons enough there.

          • Hi

            I wouldn’t do that to you…

      • Anton

        The death penalty should be enacted by as fast a way as possible and not by one man. A firing squad aiming at the head might be best today. I didn’t notice the Catholic church complaining loudly when the barbaric practice of hanging, drawing (whatever that was) and quartering was brought in during the 13th and 14th centuries.

        • Ray Sunshine

          Drawing = disembowelling

          • Anton

            You’re sure of that? Read Jack’s reference.

          • Simon Platt

            Yes, Ray is correct. I thought that was common knowledge.

          • Anton

            So did I until I looked into it a couple of years or so ago. It is possible to be both confident and wrong.

          • Simon Platt

            You draw a traitor like you draw a chicken.

            Or, at least, you used to.

          • Ray Sunshine

            Anton, it seems to be not so much a question of certain knowledge as the balance of probabilities. In Murray’s original OED the entry for draw occupies over 18 columns, from p. 644 col. 3 to p. 651 col. 1. Here is sense 4, on p. 645:

            4. To drag (a criminal) at a horse’s tail or on a hurdle, or the like, to the place of execution.

            And here is sense 50, on p. 647:

            To draw out the viscera or intestines of; to disembowel (a fowl etc., before cooking, a traitor or other criminal after hanging).
            In many cases of executions it is uncertain whether this or sense 4 is meant. The presumption is that when
            drawn is mentioned after hanged, the sense is as here.

        • Hi

          Monsieur Guillotin thought his invention was the most human form of capital punishment. But I’d guess some would call it “too French”…

          • Anton

            The brain remains intact and presumably in trauma. The shockwave due to the passage of a high velocity round through it puts an end to every organisation of it faster than it can communicate between its parts.

          • Hi

            There was -interestingly enough – an attempt to find out. was one French aristocratic scientist sent to death during the revolution , I forget his name , who asked a friend to note how long it took him to stop blinking : 30 seconds or less I think.

            In any case it could be worse. In the olden days you and I could have been put on the Judas cradle or the Spanish donkey…

          • Anton

            That settles nothing. One might be conscious yet in too much pain to be concerned with blinking, or it might be a reflex.

          • Hi

            I didn’t suggest otherwise. But in both the guillotine and your suggestion of firing squad there’d be a lot of mess to clean up , I wouldn’t want to be the cleaner. In any case , hanging seems like the traditional British method of execution.

          • Anton

            I’m trying to get past tradition to what is best practice.

          • Hi

            And in addition to find your method , you’d have to ponder what is the death penalty for ? In other words is it a deterrent to make people think twice about the crime you want to stop or is it just to undertake the ultimate punishment ? I would guess that the more brutal the method, the more it is for deterrence. The Romans tried that though and crucified thousands. Did it stop the zealots?

          • Anton

            I’m just doing this discussion with Jack elsewhere on the thread; please see that.

          • DespiteBrexit

            Antoine Lavoisier, a chemist. Probably apocryphal, however.

        • Ray Sunshine

          Guillotining was quick and relatively humane, though it was a dirty business that left a lot of blood, as Dickens noted when he witnessed an execution in Rome:

          He immediately kneeled down, below the knife. His neck fitting into a hole, made for the purpose, in a cross plank, was shut down, by another plank above; exactly like the pillory. Immediately below him was a leathern bag. And into it his head rolled instantly.

          The executioner was holding it by the hair, and walking with it round the scaffold, showing it to the people, before one quite knew that the knife had fallen heavily, and with a rattling sound.

          … There was a great deal of blood. When we left the window, and went close up to the scaffold, it was very dirty; one of the two men who were throwing water over it, turning to help the other lift the body into a shell, picked his way as through mire. A strange appearance was the apparent annihilation of the neck. The head was taken off so close, that it seemed as if the knife had narrowly escaped crushing the jaw, or shaving off the ear; and the body looked as if there were nothing left above the shoulder.

          At the time of Dickens’ visit, at Easter 1845, Pope Gregory XVI was the ruler of the Papal State. As far as I know, the guillotine continued in use as the normal means of execution under Gregory’s successor, Pius IX, for as long as the Papal State remained an independent country.

          Pictures From Italy, ‘Rome’
          http://www.gutenberg.org/files/650/650-0.txt

        • IanCad

          Drawing – pulling out the innards.. What is done to pheasants after they have been hung for a while. I suppose also, a few unfortunate peasants suffered the same fate.

      • carl jacobs

        You think rehabilitation is the primary purpose of punishment when in fact it is a tertiary purpose. The primary purpose of punishment is retribution. If retribution requires death, so be it. Rehabilitation is an opportunity and not an entitlement.

        • Where did that come from? Taking one’s life is sufficient without the addition of brutality and inciting a crowd of onlookers. Do you support public and barbaric executions?

          • carl jacobs

            It comes from knowledge of your oft-repeated and longstanding opposition to capital punishment. The argument you made was a blatant appeal to emotion. You were attacking the concept of capital punishment by suggesting that execution is inherently barbaric.

          • Jack was responding to this: “I doubt the tender people of today will ever stomach the traditional way executing traitors” and reminding people of past public barbarism that served to fuel the worst instincts in man.

            Jack is opposed to capital punishment for reasons given by Pope Saint John Paul II, not because it is inherently barbaric. It may be judged prudentially necessary in some situations and this may or may not apply to Jihadists.

            To whom is retribution is owed and how should it be ?

          • Anton

            Capital punishment was directly commanded by God for murder in the covenant with Noah in Genesis 9:6, which is binding on his descendants, ie everybody. This covenant is not like the Mosaic covenant which was fulfilled in Christ. If you think it no longer applies then do you think we might face a second Flood, which God also promised not to send in the same covenant?

            Then St Paul said that the authorities “do not wield the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), as clear an endorsement of capital punishment as you can find.

          • Well, yes …. so …. to be consistent we should be executing all women who procure an abortion. It would be more difficult in cases of suicide.

          • Anton

            You may wish to divert the subject into whether capital punishment is applicable in the case of abortion (in which case observe that Mosaic Law did not stipulate that pregnant women who faced the death sentence should have their sentence commuted). But I do not. I am interested in the other cases of murder, where Genesis 9 and Roman 13 are clearly relevant, are they not?

          • Abortion is murder.

          • Anton

            As I said, I am interested in discussing the death penalty for murder rather than the definition of murder.

          • Pope Saint John Paul’s essential point being that in a “culture of death”, where there is no respect for life, capital punishment is reduced to an act of human revenge rather than respect for the Creator and for life itself.

          • Anton

            That may or may not be true but you do what God says because you trust him to have weighed it all up before he issues his commands to man, and he is wiser than man. Genesis 9 is perfectly clear and the man who disagrees with God is a fool.

          • Simon Platt

            God speaks to me. Through His Church, mostly.

          • That’s where we Catholics go wrong, Simon. There is no intermediator required anymore. Each man is his own authority.

            Heaven alone knows what Jesus meant when He said to Saint Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

          • Anton

            You refer to Matthew 16:13-19. But comparison with Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 shows that the keys and promises were for all the disciples.

          • Notice the works underlined by Jack? Was Jesus mistaken – perhaps He didn’t understand grammar.

          • Anton

            Perhaps you don’t understand scripture. Peter got them first because he was the first to confess Jesus as Christ.

          • He gave the “Keys” and the power to loose and bind to Peter (singular) …. His words are clearly stated in scripture. He wasn’t talking to the Apostles as a group when He spoke these words.

          • Anton

            Comparison with Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 shows that the keys and promises were for all the disciples. Peter got them first because he confesses Jesus as Christ first. What do *you* think these verses mean?

          • Yes, Peter came forward because the Holy Spirit selected him to lead the Church. And it’s not what Jack “thinks” these verses mean. It’s what they do mean as understood by the Church, appointed by Christ with His authority under Peter’s leadership, has always taught them to mean.

          • Anton

            But this discussion is between you and me and I don’t care whether you believe what you do about these verses because your church system says so or whether you have reached your conclusion by any other means. So, what do you think these verses mean?

          • Are you being obtuse?! Jack is a Roman Catholic. He believes with faith what the Church teaches and, furthermore, having studied her arguments, scriptural references and the history of the early Church, accepts with his mind their teachings.

          • Anton

            If you wish to repeat to me the conclusions of the Roman Catholic church as to what Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 mean in relation to the keys and the promises, and say that you endorse it, that’s fine. If you don’t, why not?

          • Why not? Jack has a life to lead. You’ll find it here:

            http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

            [Google is your friend, Anton]

          • Anton

            Jack ducks because he can’t make his assertions stick.

          • Read the link, Anton.
            If you have any questions then post them.

          • carl jacobs

            Unless and until the intermediary gets it wrong. [Cough] Amoris laetitia,
            et al [Cough]. Whereupon the average Catholic layperson is suddenly empowered to assert that he knows Catholic doctrine better than the intermediary himself. This of course does not require the arrogation of any personal authority because … well … that would just be inconsistent.

          • The expression of an ambiguous (cough) personal opinion of a pope (cough) doesn’t constitute a teaching of the magisterium. All one has to do is check his opinion with the Catechism to see whether it is consistent with the deposit of faith. Just how is that “personal authority”?

          • carl jacobs

            I see. So you have the ability to privately read and privately understand the catechism and upon the basis of that private assessment, determine the consistency of a teaching with the deposit of faith. However, I cannot read the Scripture and make the same kind of determination.

            And what is more, you can do this in the face of Magisterial authority telling you that you are wrong. This would be the same authority to which you are constantly telling me to submit.

            So if I understand this right, Catholics can exercise private judgment because they are Catholic and get to say “This is not private judgment because Catholics don’t do private judgment even though Protestants might think it looks just like private judgment.” But Protestants can’t exercise private judgment because they are Protestant and need the authority of the RCC so they know what to believe.

            In case you haven’t noticed, your Pope is a heretic and he sits in authority over you. And you want me to sit under him as well? Yeah, no thanks.

          • The Magisterium cannot contradict the deposit of faith and tell Jack he is wrong. All the teachings in the Catechism are consistent with scripture and are a summation of deposit of faith. The Pope’s job is to guard them, clarify them when necessary, and to develop them in union with other bishops. This is not “private judgement”.
            Whether Pope Francis is a heretic or not is besides the point. Jack doesn’t have to agree with his private opinions and non-magisterial teachings or the various and conflicting interpretations placed on these by the media and parties to the theological war currently underway in the Church. Jack holds to the infallible teachings from Councils, reflected in authoritative encyclicals and in the indefectible development of doctrine passed down the millennia.
            You’re thinking like a protestant and just making mischief.

          • Simon Platt

            I recall a humble article in the Catholic Herald by Mgr Graham Leonard about his conversion. He made the striking observation that, when he was a Protestant, he had made himself his own pope.

          • Yes we’re all given our individual keys and can loose and bind at will. An odd conception of stewardship of the People of God.

          • Simon Platt

            For my own part, I’m not interested in Jackism, or Antonism, or even Plattism.

          • Anton

            Nor am I.

          • Simon Platt

            I don’t believe you.

          • Anton

            I don’t care whether you do.

          • Yes, Saint Paul said something similar.

          • CliveM

            It’s a curious statement for a RC to make as we are continually being told on this blog that it is the magesterium and not the Pope who determines Doctrine, that it is the magesterium and not the Pope that is infallible. So what exactly does the statement amounts to, apart from being a zingy little phrase that is ultimately meaningless?

          • Simon Platt

            It’s what the late Monsignor said. Or wrote.

            I suppose he might have said that he’d make himself his own Magisterium, but he didn’t, perhaps because it wasn’t zingy enough.

            The meaning is, surely obviously, that he came to understand that he had elevated his personal judgement above that of Christ’s church.

          • CliveM

            Really, to make sense that would mean that so does the Pope as well? Why else would Protestants all think of themselves as their own Popes otherwi? Or is he suggesting the Pope is Christ’s Church?

            Either way, the statement is at least confused.

          • Simon Platt

            Not at all confused in my mind. I have admit that I am a little confused that you think so. I trust that I am normally able to put myself in the other fellow’s shoes, but I struggle here.

          • CliveM

            Really? I’m playing games with Catholic inconsistency.

            Its interesting to me that when a Monsignor of the RCC wants to accuse ProtestaNts of elevating their opinions over the ‘Churches’ he accuses them of becoming their own Pope!! The implementation being……………….

          • Simon Platt

            Oh. I thought you were being sincere. I even deleted a part from my last post thinking that it might be patronising. I wanted to avoid that.

            Look, Catholics believe that there is one Church, that its earthly head is the pope, that he has a particular charism of authority and unity, and that he inherits this as the successor of Peter. I suppose you know that. And the particular point here is that when Mgr Leonard spoke of making himself his own pope he was accusing nobody but himself. This time I’ll take the risk of patronising you: Graham Leonard was the former Bishop of London, he became a Catholic when the Church of England began ordaining women in, if I remember correctly, the early 90’s. After his conversion he looked back at his former self (he did have some authority in the Church of England, after all) with great humility. I remember at the time contrasting that with some other prominent converts from high-church Anglicanism, who had converted at the same time for the same reasons (they shall remain nameless here) who said things like “I haven’t changed: the Church of England has”.

          • Anton

            And to me. Through his scriptures, mostly.

          • And yet he leaves it to the judgement of rulers when they wield the sword and how. Why so literal about the use of temporal authority? God Himself didn’t end the life of Cain. And if we’re being literal (are we?), what about murdering a person without shedding their blood?

          • Anton

            Yes, He leaves it to rulers to decide whether or not to obey him in regard to the laws they enact, just as He leaves it to individuals to obey His moral laws. As for your shedding of blood comment, grow up.

          • See literalism doesn’t always work, does it? And the authority of the Church to recommend to those wielding the temporal sword that they exercise mercy under the New Covenant?
            And Cain?

          • Anton

            What you are ignoring is that scripture is not written in the way a contract between two cut-throat businessmen would be written, to be watertight to bad-faith deliberate misinterpretation, but to inform the faithful. So Yes, you can make a nonsense of scripture if you want. If you are doing it to press me to clarify my arguments, that’s fine. If you are doing it to play silly buggers, you might be succeeding. The fact is that God commanded man to enact capital punishment for murder in Genesis 9, never revoked, and if you want to talk about whether the murder was by bloodless means or whether abortion is murder or whether failed suicide attempts are attempted murder, go ahead and do it in front of a mirror. These are all attempts to change the subject and I’m not falling for it. Paul commended capital punishment in Romans 13:45 writing as a Christian after the Crucifixion.

          • You are a literalist when it suits – that’s Jack’s point.
            God didn’t kill Cain, Moses, David or Saul – murderers one and all. A prescribed punishment does not rule out acts of clemency or mercy as Jesus demonstrated.

          • Anton

            Define “literalist”.

          • Anton.

          • Anton

            See the danger ahead?

          • Hi

            By your definition yes. But not by UK law.

          • Anton is referring to God’s law – not man’s law.

          • Hi

            Oh I see. Well. Whilst I pray for messiah every day, I don’t buy into the rule of self appointed theocratic States,whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

          • carl jacobs

            Rather positivist of you, Hannah. What judges the law of the state? You desire no Theocracy. Well and good. Are you willing to live with whatever laws the state may impose? And since your answer is “No” what standard would you use to judge them?

          • Hi

            I said I wouldn’t want to live in a Theocracy and for that matter an ecclesiocracy. To define this , e.g. the old papal States or contemporary Iran or even ISIS , i.e. where an elite group of clerics and / or so called prophets/ caliphs claim a divine mandate to rule and implement law from religion or in which clerics form a governing elite by their own arbitrary whims.

            There is also a Theonomy, i.e. a state whose law comes from a holy book directly into civil law , such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan,but which doesn’t need or have clergy running the show.

            This may seem appealing, but I would assume that you’d have some form of filter and cherry picking , unless one really wants to implement Deuteronomy 21:18-23 i.e. where the death penalty applies to a son who constantly disobeys his parents or executing people for adultery.

            So no I wouldn’t want to live in either state.

          • Hi

            No.. as I’m not an authoritarian .

            Well your constitution of 1787 is one good example of a document which aims to make government restrictive and which has separation of power and provides its own judgment in respect of what can be lawful e.g. the amendment on gun partnership /arms .

            I think much of British law is made by binding precedent , so that could be broadly described as a set of traditions. It has often been influenced by Juedo Christian thinking (e.g. Donoghue v. Stevenson). There is also statue law, which is arrived by parliamentary deliberation and thus requires the consent of voters before becoming law. If voters disagree then they can vote people out.

            Me personally ? I use my “private judgement” based on my capacity to reason and think. Clearly my religion and my political views, my social background etc all play a part in my thoughts on standards of law or wherever a law is any good or not.

          • dannybhoy

            When Messiah comes He will rule over all the earth..
            Isaiah 9:6

          • Hi

            There’s my bit where I writ “self appointed theocratic States”.

          • dannybhoy

            A theocracy ruled by Theos or God; without human interpretation or intermediary.
            So what then matters is the nature of God, and for a Jewish person and Christians who also believes in the God of Israel this should not be a problem.
            If as we believe in the holiness, the righteousness and compassionate nature of God, that He created man and loves mankind, then we should believe that His moral law and rule is for our blessing.

          • He has come – and was tortured, publically humiliated and executed as a blasphemer and rabble rouser.

            His Kingdom has come in His Incarnation, for those who choose to enter and also
            in and through the Church. It is a mixed reality that will only be perfectly realised at the end of history.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            The reference to drawing and quartering was gratuitous and you know it. You included it to imply barbarity. Without it your post wouldn’t make any sense. Hanging done correctly is neither cruel nor unusual.

          • Now you can read Jack’s thoughts, know what was in his mind and interpret the real meaning of his posts? It was a direct response to a daft comment by maigemu. It was a challenge to the idea that barbaric execution is immoral. He clearly wanted a return to older methods.

            “Hanging done correctly is neither cruel nor unusual.”

            Agreed, though there may be more humane methods. Do you accept that as a principle that should be applied in all executions?

            And as Jack asked: to whom is retribution owed and to what purpose?

          • carl jacobs

            The state exacts vicarious retribution on behalf of the victim. The purpose is to pay evil with suffering that justice may be done.

          • Pay evil with suffering to whom, Carl? To whom is justice owed?

          • carl jacobs

            I told you. The victim.

          • It’s owed to God, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Did you honestly think maigemu was referring to drawing and quartering when he mentioned the “traditional way of executing traitors”? If you did, you were the only one – especially since he made reference to hanging in the exact same sentence.

          • “Another good reason to Brexit, freedom to at least hang traitors as I doubt the tender people of today will ever stomach the traditional way executing traitors.”
            And you understand this to mean?

      • Sarky

        If you want too see it, just watch the first episode of gunpowder on the bbc.
        Some poor catholic gets it good and proper.

        • Hi

          But happy Jack, below, has asked for no spoilers

          • Sarky

            Thought everyone knew how it ended??
            Bonfire night would be a bit pointless otherwise.

          • Hi

            Maybe it’s an alternative reality where the plot works and at the end we cut forward to 2017:
            Happy Jack is Prime Minister and Inspector is Cardinal Bishop of Gloucester.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Murti Bing, half an hour earlier, was quite right to point out that instead of being called “British jihadis” these traitors should be called “so-called British jihadis.” It is strange that the people who are so ready to use the qualification “so-called” in connection with the Islamic State are perfectly happy to call jihadis who left this country “British” without any qualification.

    Of course, if these jihadis are or ever were “British” then there is no excuse for not charging all who return with treason. Unfortunately our politicians and judge can be guaranteed to find or invent a reason.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-jihadis-treason

    Could treason be used today?

    Legal experts have cast doubt on whether the most serious offences first set out in 1351 could be prosecuted now.

    Cases come to court so rarely that you would struggle to find a judge or barrister with any knowledge of the law.

    In correspondence from 2008, the Ministry of Justice’s criminal law and legal policy unit confirmed that “treason is still regarded as a crime in the UK” but said: “Many of the acts are couched in archaic language, and prosecutions are liable to be rendered difficult and complicated by the necessity to prove all the ingredients of the offences.

    “In many circumstances alternative offences are available and might be preferred as being more straightforward in prosecuting the case.”

  • Hi

    Presumably the British contingent jihadists of “so called” Islamic state can be killed because they’re enemy combatants in a war zone and no lawyers there? Whereas once they return the human rights lawyers will be all over them like a rash and the government will be hard pressed to make a substantial legal case against them ? As much as one feels the urge to string up terrorists by the lamppost we’re not savages and we have the rule of law. So what laws would they be tried on and would there be sufficient evidence to gain conviction?

    • Anton

      Even if so, we do not have capital punishment.

      • Hi

        Yes I know this and in any case, I asked what laws are we to try these people on and what balance of probabilities would be acceptable? That isn’t a rhetorical question. I would like to know .

        • Anton

          Off the top of my head, actions in Syria are multilateral; it might be deemed necessary to kill someone by drone to stop them firing at our allies, for instance. Whether to kill them when they are sleeping, as one would Germans ambushed in WW2 – not sure. But I’d certainly take away their citizenship and deny them re-entry to the UK.

          • Hi

            I can see the justification for drone strikes on them in Syria as it is a war zone and doubtless the special forces are also in the area, so I doubt that they wait for a legal opinion when doing a Chuck Norris.

            All clear so far. It’s when they come back that I’m struggling with. After all they took children to that war. Are we putting them in prison or a Gitmo type facility? Stripping them of citizenship sounds appealing. But would human rights legislation allow it and who’d take them?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Human rights legislation was drawn up and passed by humans and is interpreted by humans. It can be re-written and re-interpreted by humans.

          • Hi

            Yes. But they to tell Labour and soft left liberals that….

          • That’s naïve as they’ll find a way to sneak back in with another identity.

    • CliveM

      Once we become like them we lose the moral right to judge.

      • Hi Clive,

        How are you ? Busy?

        • CliveM

          At the moment but things should soon get better.

          Otherwise fine!

  • I agree with Rory Stuart.

  • ecclesiaman

    I have only read a few comments here, but is HG suggesting that double standards are being applied? In other words what should be the duty of our political class in regard to those who espouse deadly violence towards the population residing in the UK. To suggest killing those who went from the UK on a murderous mission abroad but not to adopt the same policy to those with the same intent but remaining here looks like double standards?
    The Mayor of London says we should live with religious murder here and accept it as part of life, unless I have mistaken his remarks.
    We are told the first duty of a Government is the protection of its people, but Mr Khan’s view is the policy that is currently being followed.
    I would like our politicians to take public security seriously and be pro active rather than simply lament horrendous attacks.
    I am not suggesting a reintroduction of the death penalty but more needs to be done to vet those intent on harm and those who support such individuals.
    I fear the genie is out of the bottle and Mr Khan’s approach is one we are expected to accept.

    • Manfarang

      Bet-Zuri and Eliyahu Hakim ,the assassins of Lord Moyne, were both sentenced to death and hanged in Cairo on 22 March 1945, singing Hatikva from the gallows. Years later Yitzhak Shamir helped to recover their bodies in a prisoner exchange with Egypt. They were interred on Mount Herzel with full military honours.

      • ecclesiaman

        I steered clear of anything to do with the death penalty. The legitimate governing power in a democracy has the right to impose it with proper process. The Daesh war is assymetric (sorry for spelling) and is not typically conventional.
        My real concern is the protection of civilians in the UK which our politicians neglect (Treasonous at worst, anti-democratic at best) which will inevitably result in further murderous killings by the religion of supposed peace. (Not all members of same are supportive of such killings I need to add).

  • Jack was shocked when it sank.

  • David

    I agree with Rory Stewart.
    Killing them on the battlefield is by far the best option.
    I don’t want these battle hardened, experienced Islamists in my country, ever again!
    If they were allowed back, our left leaning activist judges would protect them using the Human Rights laws. The best we could hope for is that they would imprison them, thus further radicalising our already Islamist influenced prisons.

    As an aside I support the return of the death penalty for use with certain classes of premeditated murder, e.g. murdering police officers or others acting to protect the public, or for particularly hideous mass murders. The criteria for the use of the ultimate sanction would require very careful drafting. To send them to their Maker I would give them the choice between the traditional British method of hanging and death by firing squad. I think I am right in saying that when the UK stopped using death sentence for murder, murder rates rose. I believe R(W)oy Jenkins was the “reforming” Home Secretary.
    God may choose to forgive, but Caesar has a duty to use the sword to uphold justice. In my opinion use of the death sentence is primarily a deterrent to prevent further murder. But it may also offer to the friends and relatives of the murdered a sense of justice. In arguing for the return of the death sentence I would put the emphasis massively on deterrence.

    • Andy

      The murder rate began to rise in the UK following the Homicide Act of 1957. It has actually doubled since abolition in 1965 (actually in 1969).

      • Royinsouthwest

        If all other things remained equal wouldn’t you expect a fall in the murder rate over the past 60 years since advances in medicine surely mean that some people who would have died from similar wounds in the 1950s will survive and recover today?

        • Andy

          I was merely pointing out the facts. I’m not advocating the restoration of hanging, but it is a fact that the rate doubled after abolition regardless of advances in medical science.

      • CliveM

        Correlation isn’t the same as causation.

  • Inspector General

    Steady on, Cranmer!

    As much as your Inspector would relish seeing footage of public hangings of freshly returned jihadists at Heathrow reception, they’ll all be claiming they only went ‘for humanitarian purposes’. Not to cut Christians and others heads off, but to tend to their wounds. To weep with them as they cried out. The result will be lengthy court hearings aplenty and even more millionaire lawyers buying up even more of Cornwall.

    Denying all our home grown filth leave to return to the UK for eternity for whatever reason they were there seems the most sensible idea. But you’re probably down in spirit right now. So, tell you what, just for you – we’ll kill the ones that sneak back anyway. There. That’s put a smile back on your face, and the tears have evaporated…so, with chin up, onwards and upward, what!

    Tally ho!

  • not a machine

    Mr Stewart mp is an experienced point of life experience having been in theatres of action and poses an interesting question and solution. The frustration of the sort of thinking for many who have got so far with what a civilised society should be doing to ugly danger and in this case the premeditated terrorist who lives here but only to bring about harm to this country. It perhaps feeds the long running thoughts around if the 45k year to keep a prisoner is a sustainable economy we may not be able to afford. I think it perhaps boils down to jail in a country where they feel less inclined to think they should be killing so many. My third view is being as a number of moments have been and gone that could well turned into a rubicon moment as regards if other religions have become unstable then I would not underestimate where it would go.

  • Chefofsinners

    If a prodigal son in a far land comes to his senses and returns home, how should we greet him? Kill the fatted calf? Or kill him?

    • carl jacobs

      Is he the equivalent of Lord Haw Haw? Then you hang him by the neck until he is dead. It matters not at all if he comes to his senses. The crime, once committed, cannot be repented.

      • Chefofsinners

        When you say a crime cannot be repented, what you mean is it cannot be undone. Yet God is evidently willing to forgive those who repent. Ought not we to forgive those who trespass against us?

        • Royinsouthwest

          You can forgive someone who trespasses against you personally but what right do you have to forgive someone who trespasses against somebody else?

          • Chefofsinners

            Yes, so national justice is administered in the name of the state, or the Crown. Generally the state takes a less-than-forgiving attitude to crime. I am asking what attitude Christians should adopt when trying to influence the state? Possibly those which obtain in the Kingdom of Heaven.

          • Dominic Stockford

            That attitude would mean that they are brought back, forced to bow the knee, and then banished to eternal destruction.

          • In 20 words you sum up your corruption of Christ’s revelation.

          • Dominic Stockford

            You really don’t like what the Bible teaches about the lost, do you.

          • Jack doesn’t “like” your corruption of the Gospel message and your impertinence and presumption about who is and who is not “lost”.

          • Chefofsinners

            I am not talking about those who remain in rebellion, but those who return repentant.

          • David

            How do you allow for Islamic tacquia – a false declaration of turning over a new leaf to fool the interviewers ?

          • Chefofsinners

            Off the top of my head, by insisting that the person submits to monitoring of all their movements, mobile phone and internet use, that they divulge all they know to the security services and that they become part of a government anti-IS propaganda initiative.

          • David

            Hardly a viable, practical solution given how impossibly over stretched the security services are. You are proposing a solution for heaven, not earth.

          • Chefofsinners

            No, it is easy if you have the subject’s agreement and cooperation.

          • David

            With the greatest of respect you strike me a having a hopelessly romantic approach to this matter. I shall continue holding my realistic, conservative approach which is, admittedly at times, a little gritty.

          • Chefofsinners

            Do you not believe that a sinner can repent? Consider how the early church received Saul of Tarsus.

          • carl jacobs

            They should adopt the attitude that the state should fulfill its divine charter to bear the sword.

          • ” its divine charter to bear the sword” … in the way it deems prudentially appropriate under advisement from the bearer of the spiritual sword.

            Jack doesn’t believe any of the Church Fathers held that capital punishment was an absolute Divine requirement, though few disagreed it is a legitimate prerogative invested in the State by God.

            God didn’t strike down Cain, nor did he kill David, Moses or Saul, nor cause them to be killed. They were all murderers. The greatest murder in history caused its victim to ask His Father for forgiveness. All of man’s sins, past, present and future, have been forgiven. Justice in the created order is restored. Due punishment will be exacted in this life (in temporal suffering and punishment) or in the next (in purgatory for those who repent and in hell for those who don’t) for temporal injustice. Capital punishment hastens the process.

          • carl jacobs

            I’m not specifically referring to Capital Punishment. I’m referring to the difference in roll between a father and a judge. God combines those rolls and reconciles them at the Cross by punishing the sins of man in the person of the Lord Jesus. Make no mistake. The sins of the Redeemed have been justly punished in accordance with the law. With a severity we cannot imagine.

          • The sins of the damned have also been paid for by the Love and self sacrifice of the Son. And His sacrifice invites us to unite with Him and receive this forgiveness. The Holy Spirit draws all men; not all men, for reasons ultimately mysterious, respond. Christ’s death isn’t a “free pass”. Man still has to suffer the consequences for his personal sins after justification through baptism. But by the grace of God, this is achieved through repentance, penance and joining our sufferings with Christ in this life.

            Augustine said, in The City of God, that “temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment” The soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: “I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper.” (Luke 12:59)

            Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering. (Rom. 5:3–5) Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. The cross produces our sanctification, which results in our suffering, because “[f]or the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.” (Heb. 12:11)

          • The Snail

            It appears the God killed Onan for spilling his semen and being unwilling to produce a child for Tamar. Genesis 38:9-10

          • Indeed …. pity the Lambeth Conference overlooked this in 1930.

          • Chefofsinners

            No-one is suggesting otherwise. It is the manner in which the sword is wielded that is being discussed. To bear a sword does not necessarily mean to use ruthlessly it at every opportunity.

          • carl jacobs

            Neither does it mean to make the law a respector of persons. The law is blind for a reason. He who judges must judge justly.

            The Judge does not see a wayward son returned. He sees the law and judges accordingly. And he applies a sentence in accordance with the limits of the law. The father kills the fatter calf. The judge sends the man to prison for he cannot do otherwise and still be just.

          • Chefofsinners

            But judges are respecters of persons and of all circumstances in each case.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          Can you name a single jihadist who has repented? And I don’t mean someone who has simply got fed up and wants to come home to his creature comforts.

        • carl jacobs

          The man may forgive the commission of the crime. It is not the purpose of the state to do so. If a man commits murder, do you wish the state to receive him as a prodigal and void his punishment simply because he says “I’m sorry”?

          • Chefofsinners

            Courts always take account of remorse, if shown, when sentencing offenders. The disadvantage of a mandatory death penalty for those returning from Syria is that there is no room for mitigation.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s a different question. There is a difference between mitigating punishment and voiding punishment. The underlying principle is unchanged however. The Officer of the Court is there to distribute justice where justice is defined as right behavior rewarded and wrong behavior punished. He isn’t a minister or a pastor.

          • Chefofsinners

            The only difference between mitigating and voiding punishment is a matter of degree, not of the principle. A punishment might be so mitigated that it is essentially voided.
            The officer of the court has considerable discretion to show mercy. This is good. Government ministers pronouncing a blanket death sentence is not justice and it is not compatible with Christian ethics.

      • CliveM

        The hanging of Lord Haw, Haw was illegal. He wasn’t a UK citizen.

        • carl jacobs

          They got around that. As far as the UK was concerned at the time, it was legal. And will anyone dare to say it was unjust?

          • Anton

            Nuremberg? I have long been unhappy about charging people with “crimes against peace”. It has led to all the bullshit of “international law”. I tend to agree with Stalin that they should have been shot out of hand.

          • carl jacobs

            So do I.

        • Anton

          Grey area!

          “the prosecution successfully argued that, since he had lied about his nationality to obtain a British passport and voted in Britain, Joyce owed allegiance to the king.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw-Haw

          • CliveM

            A stolen passport doesn’t make a citizen. I wouldn’t of shed any tears, but lets not pretend that it was anything but victors justice!

      • Any crime can be repented – whether the State should forgive it or show mercy is another matter.

        • carl jacobs

          Once you kill someone, Jack, you can’t unkill him. You can’t go back in time and undo what you did.

          • To whom is reparation and restitution directed, Carl, and what form must it take?

    • IanCad

      The Prod, as far as I know, did not perform any acts of treason or violence – merely squandered his inheritance. Andy’s comment, above, makes a lot of sense.
      The laws of the land in which the crime was committed should prevail – that is – if the justice system is fair and unbiased according to our standards.

      • Chefofsinners

        The prodigal is an analogy for all mankind and all sins, unless you think God’s grace is limited to forgiving those who have been wasteful and that Christ died only for those whose greatest sin has been some dubious spending decisions.

    • not a machine

      Mmm how do you define home?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      As far as I recall, the prodigal son was a philanderer and a money-waster; not a mass-murderer or a sadistic torturer. Had he been, the I suspect his dad would skewered him and roasted him along with the calf.

      • Chefofsinners

        Then you are missing the point of the parable. Did not David have Uriah murdered, or Moses kill a man or Saul consent to the stoning of Stephen?
        I am probing attitudes towards those who have been deceived into thinking that the Islamic State is a utopia and have now realised that it is anything but. Do they not deserve the forgiveness that we all as Christians have received?

        • Politically__Incorrect

          In the cases of David and Moses their actions were driven by lust and anger respectively. But God himself sanctioned the killing of many; in order to take the land of Canaan for example. As Cranmer says, the sanctity of life is not a god in itself. There are times when God allows the taking of life in order to preserve life.

          • Chefofsinners

            And what of Saul? He took many Christian lives for the very same reasons that Jihadists do today. I am not suggesting that the sanctity of life is a God, nor that none should be executed, but that those who are truly repentant should be forgiven.

          • How can you tell if someone is truly repentant and not just saying they are to avoid being killed? Do we have to wait and see if they do it again? You’re asking the public to live on a knife edge when already a loud bang on the tube or a man reciting some verse out loud from the Bible sends people scrambling and screaming for the exits without the addition of former jihadis back into the population.

          • Chefofsinners

            So, we cannot tell whether a person is our enemy, therefore they must die. Really? Because I cannot tell whether you are my enemy. You’ve never yet done anything that threatens me, so far as I know, but you might.
            Those who have seen the Islamic State for what it is and turned from it are our best weapon against further radicalisation. If we kill them we make them martyrs and they become another propaganda tool for IS. So perhaps the Christian principle of forgiveness has some value.

          • Well if they go off to Syria or Iraq to fight for IS one can be pretty sure they are not our friends. If they have gone off to support one enemy death cult what’s to say they wont want to join the next one? They don’t have to be made martyrs, quietly eliminate them. I must say you are very trusting.

          • Anton

            They want to be martyred, our government wants to kill them. Why isn’t everybody happy?

          • I dunno. Problem would be solved.

          • Chefofsinners

            I am hoping to have my trespasses forgiven as I forgive those who trespass against me.

          • The Snail

            Hi Chief – that is fine by you. But what about your fellow countrymen? They are equally your neighbours. If they get blown up by a returning Jihadist, is that just tough luck on them? Meanwhile you have forgiven the Jihadist and feel good about it- what about the concept of justice? There can be little love if justice is ignored. “O trysting place where love and justice meet” – to quote the old hymn- is the point of the cross.

          • Chefofsinners

            Yes, heaven’s love and heaven’s justice met at the cross. Christ bore the penalty of sin because God is both loving and just.
            The point I am arguing in this thread is that we should be both loving and just. Most commenters seem very hot on the justice.
            “Mercy triumphs over judgment.” says James 2:13

            I am not suggesting releasing a violent person to harm others. I am saying that those who are truly repentant need not necessarily be bombed, pushed out of an aeroplane over Syria or hanged.

          • The Snail

            Indeed – there is much joy in heaven over one sinner that repents – however one expects them to show the fruits of repentance i.e not to remain as they are and supporting their old beliefs but to show actions of Love, Joy, Peace etc.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Did Saul really take the lives of any Christians? He was present at the stoning of Stephen but he looked after the cloaks of the stoners instead of participating directly. Subsequently he did persecute the very early Christians and was on his way to arrest more when he was converted but persecution can take various forms and as far as I remember I do not think we know the details of what happened to those he did persecute. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

            Of course this is really a quibble over details rather than over the essence of your argument. It would be marvellous indeed in any jihadis were to be transformed like Saul or Paul was but unfortunately I do not think it will happen. However with God all things are possible.

          • Chefofsinners

            Acts 22:4 Paul says “I persecuted the followers of this way to their death”
            His actions at the stoning of Stephen would also have been sufficient to convict him today of ‘joint enterprise’.

          • Royinsouthwest

            You are right. I overlooked or had forgotten that verse.

        • Lucius

          You need not kill them, but you need not permit their return to the UK either. Let them live with the decision they made. While I am sympathetic to “changed hearts,” I also understand that a state bureaucrat lacks the competence to decipher the depths of human consciousness. No, the state is inept to this task. Instead, the state most focus on the objective fact that this young man or woman made a decision and that decision, like many others in life, has permanent consequences.

          • Chefofsinners

            So if they travel as far as Calais, you refuse them entry? Leaving the French with our problem. Cooperation over security would be the first casualty of that policy.

    • betteroffoutofit

      But they’re not our sons, are they? They’re the sons of invaders.

      • David

        Quite ! Far from regretting their actions and beliefs they still hate us.

        • betteroffoutofit

          Exactly. Render unto Mo what is Mo’s, and to Christ what is Christ’s, say I.
          And, as someone suggested a while ago, “Let them eat pork.”

      • Chefofsinners

        They are the sons of grieving parents within our society, who were welcomed here by us. They have probably been here a few generations less than the average. Personally I am as white British as they come. Saul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, but all people are, in the end, people.

        • betteroffoutofit

          Skin colour never enters my head until some arguifier pulls it out of a hat. It has nothing to do with this case, either. Nor did it have anything to do with Alfred the Great’s response to invaders.
          Btw – you may have welcomed them and ignored their equivocation. Or maybe you were among those who, unable to live in e.g. Dewsbury because of them, left and said: “Here you are. You can have this bit. We’ll just move over to a bit you don’t want yet.”

          Personally, I hate everything they’ve done, and are doing, to the country and culture I love – and which I used to think the most wonderful in the world (of which I saw quite a bit).

          • Chefofsinners

            The point is that these people were welcomed here by our government, acting on our behalf, whether we personally approved or not. To assert that they are invaders and so their children should die seems a little uncharitable.

          • betteroffoutofit

            “Our government” acted without our assent and under the orders of others who could be considered ‘invaders’ – the euSSR. “Our government” is and has been utterly traitorous on this issue.
            I’m not asserting that the aliens should die . Just that they should eat pork if they are imprisoned for any reason.

          • Chefofsinners

            Why should immigrants pay the price of our government’s failings?

          • betteroffoutofit

            You’re just being difficult, Chef!!! This doesn’t seem like you.
            These people shouldn’t be here . . . end of. I repeat, they aren’t “immigrants.” They’re invaders: who have no intention of integrrating but who intend to take our country from us and destroy our culture.
            If we can’t be bothered to hold onto what is ours, and if we can’t hold our treasonous, lying governments to account – then we need to sort ourselves out or be prepared for more raping, pillaging, and descent into the 5th World. We need to accept that your children* will have no home to call their own.

            If you don’t mind giving your home and land to anyone who wants to walk into them, that’s your preference. Have fun.

            ___________
            * I don’t have any children, and this is a good part of the reason why.

          • Chefofsinners

            It’s not that I want to give my homeland to anyone who walks in. But those already here cannot be removed and you will only separate them more by suggesting that their children should be treated differently. Who is my neighbour? James 2:

            “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers…
            Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

    • David

      The prodigal son had learnt his lessons and returned sorrowfully, life’s lessons having been learnt. Jihadists by definition hate us.

      • Chefofsinners

        I am concerned with those who want to return having long-since forsaken the Jihadist ideology, who were deceived by propaganda and learnt the painful lessons by experience. Islamic State kill deserters without a second thought.

        • Anton

          It is good to be concerned with them. But I am more concerned with

        • Lucius

          Who determines if the Jihadi is reformed? Does the state bureaucrat delve into the recesses of the young man’s mind? If the Jihadi can change his mind once, can he not also revert back? The state is competent at enforcing clear policies and completely incompetent at reading minds. The objective fact is a young man made a decision to join ISIS. That decision must have consequences. That consequence may not mean death, but at a minimum, it must mean a permanent bar to reentry into Britain.

          • Chefofsinners

            No-one can read anyone’s mind, although some are better at it than others. Lie detectors and psychologists have some usefulness.
            Barring reentry sounds good in principle, until you find other countries refusing to take back their criminals from us. Would we insist that our Jihadis stay in Calais? This would require French cooperation. And what of those who make it to our shores? Which countries would allow them to re-enter?

        • David

          How on earth can one tell at a distance whether anyone has “long-since forsaken the Jihadist ideology” ? Remember Islamic tacquia means we cannot believe what they say. I remain of the belief that it is best for them to be killed on the battlefield.

          • Chefofsinners

            In the end a judgment would have to be made and the risks weighed. The same problem has been faced millions of times with prisoners of war.
            You are advocating killing people on the basis that you can’t tell whether they are your enemy or not. But no-one really knows whether you or I might also commit a heinous crime at some point. So, do you have any last requests?

          • David

            It is surely a joke to consider that you or I might pose the same risk of committing a “heinous crime at some point”.

          • Chefofsinners

            Not the same risk, but a risk. A person who has been deceived by IS propaganda, seen it’s horrors first hand and turned away could be less of a risk than those who have never been near.
            These people can be very useful, not just in helping us understand the enemy, but in the fight against their propaganda.

          • andrew

            Orthodox Islam bares no differences to isis so-called ‘propaganda’. It’s a shame you fail to see Islam for what it is. And What of God’s enemies in the OT and the Jewish right, backed by divine retribution to attack and defend their tribe?

          • Chefofsinners

            Not all orthodox Muslims want to kill us, unless you choose to define ‘orthodox ‘ in a very narrow way.

            Yes of course nations have the right to defend themselves. Mercy means not exercising your right to punish. As Christians who have been shown mercy we might consider showing mercy. As those who have been forgiven, we might try showing forgiveness.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    An army in retreat is not an army in defeat. ISIL may well be in retreat right now but I am sure they have not abandoned their evil intentions. Allowing them back in the UK, in my opinion, would not just be extreme folly, but high treason. If they were to renounce Allah, then maybe we could accept some of them as prisoners of war to be incarcerated indefinitely at Her Majesty’s pleasure. If not, then they are still combatants fighting a war, and should take the consequences. As to those in this country who are under surveillance by the security services, many of them need to be incarcerated, or, where possible, deported. Either way we need to drain this jihadist swamp.

    • bluedog

      Recall that the security services have identified 35,000 persons of jihadi interest. If these suspects receive briefings from returned jihadis the risk level would appear to sky-rocket. What to do?

  • Andy

    Many of these people have been involved in one way or another in some of the most wicked and evil crimes in Syria and Iraq. They MUST be made to answer for those crimes in Syria and Iraq. If there is irrefutable proof they have been in either State then they should be returned without further ado.
    If that results in them being hanged so be it.

    • Chefofsinners

      Practicalities.
      Under the international agreements which our country has not only signed up to but helped create and touted around the world for fifty years, we have no legal mechanism for returning our citizens to a country where they are not citizens.
      That’s not to say that in principle your suggestion is wrong, just that it can’t be done.

      • Andy

        You might be unaware that the United Kingdom has extradition treaties with Syria and Iraq. Those who have been fighting in both States are probably guilty of or a party to some horrendous crimes including murder, rape and torture. I do not see why these scumbags should use our Country to save themselves from punishment for the crimes they have committed. They ought to be extradited and if they end up being hanged so be it. I would remind you that when the ECHR was signed murderers were regularly hanged.

        • Chefofsinners

          Yes, of course we have extradition treaties, but the problem is that Syria and Iraq do not want to extradite our citizens back to their countries. They’re just glad to see the backs of them. Many commenters on this blog repeatedly cry “send them back”, apparently in complete ignorance of the fact that we cannot send them back.

          • Andy

            I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Iraq hanged over 40 last month for terrorism, and as I point out if these people are guilty of crimes then they should face justice there.

      • Maxine Schell

        Send them back there by parachute.

        • Chefofsinners

          If sovereign countries will allow you to enter their airspace for that purpose. And if you don’t mind other countries doing the same to us. Lookout! Here comes another one.

  • Martin

    The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” in the AV is ,more correctly rendered in modern versions “You shall not murder”.

    • Chefofsinners

      It is more compassionately rendered by Jesus “Let he that is without sin among you first cast a stone.”

      • carl jacobs

        Except there is no provenance for that story.

        • Chefofsinners

          Yes there is. Do your research. A decent case can be made either way, but what do you infer from the fact that it has persisted within the scriptures to the present day?

          • Anton

            Nothing. I agree with you that a decent case can be made either way.

          • Chefofsinners

            I think this can be inferred: that it is consistent with Christian doctrine in general, on forgiveness and on recognising one’s own sinfulness before judging others.

          • Anton

            Plenty of non-canonical writing is consistent with the uncontested gospels. That doesn’t make it canonical though. Carl is correct that the only question of importance is “Did John write it? Is it in the autograph?” On the one occasion when I looked in reasonable depth into variants I decided that the question was more complex than most people, even scholars, were willing to acknowledge.

          • Chefofsinners

            I agree about the complexity.
            My point here is that if you don’t accept the authenticity of the passage, the principles which underlie it must be consistent with the rest of scripture for it to have survived for so long. This is a strong indication that we should be mindful of the principles of mixing mercy with justice and of recognising one’s own sinfulness before judging.

          • carl jacobs

            The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery is marked out in every single modern translation of Scripture as the largest textual variant in Scripture. It doesn’t appear in any manuscript of the Gospel of John for a couple hundred years. The reason it has survived so long is that it is firmly embedded in the Byzantine Texttype – which Texttype heavily weights latter manuscripts that formed the basis of Scripture for centuries.

            It’s like the ending of the Book of Mark. You don’t place weight upon because its canonicity is doubtful.

        • Ray Sunshine

          Once it is recognised that certain passages are not found in the earliest manuscripts, is it legitimate to draw the conclusion that those passages are therefore uncanonical? And, if so, does that mean they are apocryphal?

          • carl jacobs

            The only question of importance is “Did John write it? Is it in the autograph?” If John didn’t write it, then it’s not canonical. It’s not a part of the Alexandrian text type because its not in the early manuscripts. That’s why it’s marked as a variant in translations such as the ESV and the NASB.

            Do I think its canonical? I doubt it. And I weigh it accordingly.

          • Ray Sunshine

            If John didn’t write it, then it’s not canonical.

            Please note that the purpose of my question is not to make this or that argument about the woman taken in adultery but to ask about the concept of canonicity, what it means, and how it works. When you say that the passage in question is “not canonical”, my reply (I think) would be along the lines of, “Oh yes it is, because it’s in the canon as defined by Athanasius” (or, for others, “as defined by the councils of A, B, and C, up to and including Augustine’s Synod of Carthage”). In other words, there is such a thing as a canon, whether or not you or I or the Moravians or anyone else out there remains unconvinced about the authenticity of this or that passage.

            To put it in a nutshell, there is a significant difference, in my view, between saying (a) “It’s not canonical” and (b) “It ought not to have been included in the canon”―or, which amounts to the same thing, “It is canonical, though it ought not to be.”

            I’ll leave it at that for the time being, though I haven’t even touched on the question of what we mean by “apocryphal”.

      • Dominic Stockford

        There is a distinct difference between what a ‘state’ is required to do in order to defend its people, and what individuals (as in the case you quote) are permitted to do.

        • Chefofsinners

          The case I quote relates to the law of the state of Israel at the time.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Jesus was not speaking to ‘the state’, but to individuals who were taking the law into their own hands, and out of the hands of the authorities in Jerusalem.

          • Chefofsinners

            Deuteronomy 17:6-9 is instructive here. Only cases which were too difficult for people to decide themselves were to be taken to the authorities. On the evidence of two or three witnesses a person could be stoned, with the witnesses themselves required to be the first to cast a stone.

          • Anton

            No! People were never to take the Law into their own hands and there must be the ancient equivalent of due process. In modern language, this passage is about judges referring difficult cases up to a higher court.

          • Chefofsinners

            Have you read Deuteronomy 17?

          • Anton

            Yes.

            Of course a case must go to the local elders; otherwise someone stoning someone else for one of the Mosaic capital offences could themselves be accused of murder. And don’t you remember the hierarchy of judges that Jethro told Moses to put in place?

          • Chefofsinners

            Yes, the town elders. And the woman taken in adultery was brought to Jesus by “the scribes and Pharisees” (Jn 8:3) to ask His opinion. This is nothing to do with referring the case to a higher court. There is no higher court than Christ, and He acquitted her: “neither do I condemn you”.

          • Anton

            There may be some misunderstanding between us. Wen I said that “this passage is about judges referring difficult cases up to a higher court” I was referring to Deut 17 (which you had introduced), not the John passage.

          • saintmark

            And where was the second party caught in the act of adultery? Both were to be stoned according to Leviticus

          • Anton

            He presumably had run away.

      • Martin

        CoS

        That passage is not in the original of John’s Gospel.

        • Chefofsinners

          Read up, Martin. No-one has ‘the original’.

          • Martin

            CoS

            But we pretty well know what was in it, and that wasn’t. It isn’t in any of the early manuscripts and is even found in other Gospels in other manuscripts.

          • Chefofsinners

            Again, do some research. The question is far more complex and nuanced than you think. I have no argument with those who have investigated and decided the passage is not original, only with those who have not looked into it properly, but taken the word of editors of translations. Of those who have taken the trouble to find out for themselves, a good proportion accept the passage as genuine.

          • Martin

            You haven’t explained why you think it is more complex and nuanced.

    • andrew

      In relation, can I ask, which English version of the NT that is considered to be the most thorough of Greek translations in terms of scope, would you recommend? I’ve read that so many words, parables and instructions are often either misinterpreted or relayed without reference to their full meaning. For example: 8 And he said: “Be cautious, lest you be seduced. For many will come in my name, saying: For I am he, and, The time has drawn near. And so, do not choose to go after them.

      I was told that in koine Greek, Jesus isn’t just referring to those who will claim to be Him, he’s also referring to those who will use his name for evil purposes? Eg Muhammad.

      • Anton

        ALL translations are compromises. New King James seems pretty good to me today.

      • Martin

        Andrew

        I’m not a Greek scholar so I’m not really the person to ask. I have the ESV electronically and the NASB in paper. Both are rated highly, but I think I prefer the NASB to read.

        I’d suggest a good commentary to go with your Bible, I’ve most of William Hendriksen’s NT commentary which is very good.

        • andrew

          Thank you. Will look into those. I’ve bookmarked the Catholic commentary Haydock’s, but sometimes it’s a little clumsy to read.

        • Anton

          No, No, No commentary between the same covers. That is adding man to God. You want one with cross-references though.

      • Pubcrawler

        This is not a recomendation but for information. David Bentley Hart has a new relentlessly literal translation out. I haven’t got a copy yet, I’ve only seen extracts, but at first sight it certainly fits the requirement “most thorough”, and it captures the writers’ usually pretty poor and clumsy Greek prose style. Reviews have been varied.

        https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096

        • dannybhoy

          Looks interesting – although I’m not sure about the premise
          “Hart reminds us that they were a company of extremists, radical in their rejection of the values and priorities of society not only at its most degenerate, but often at its most reasonable and decent. “
          But anyway I think you should buy it and I’ll borrow it from you….

          • Pubcrawler

            Indeed. According to one review I read, Hart does let his ‘communistic’ beliefs colour his translation of certain passages. But as a representation in English of how the Greek reads (to one who can), it’s very impressive. I will indeed be buying it in due course, but I suspect i will be keeping it close at hand. You’ll have to ask Santa to bring you one.

            Here’s another review, which touches on the problems of translation generally:

            https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/11/the-gospel-according-to-david-bentley

          • dannybhoy

            Hmm..
            And then again, hmm…
            So much depends on what turns you on.
            I agree with “It is a truism that those who know the Bible only through translations are cut off from a good deal of what is communicated in the original texts.”

            But communicating religious or spiritual concepts through the written word will be fraught with problems anyway. If we were to sit down with the writer of say Revelation, we would first of all have the problem of understanding each other’s world views and what he saw and what he meant when he wrote it.
            I think Paul would be amazed at some of the conclusions we came to from his writings.
            Slick Willy uttered that immortal phrase, “Keep it Simple Stupid” and that’s how I feel about our faith.
            I don’t want to spend my life analysing the text I don’t understand, I want to live the stuff I do understand.
            .

          • Pubcrawler

            “communicating religious or spiritual concepts through the written word will be fraught with problems anyway”

            Yup.

            “I don’t want to spend my life analysing the text I don’t understand, I want to live the stuff I do understand.”

            Yup.

          • Ray Sunshine

            For fun with translations, it’s hard to beat the Message Bible:

            43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. When he got there, he ran across Philip and said, “Come, follow me.” 44 (Philip’s hometown was Bethsaida, the same as Andrew and Peter.) 45 Philip went and found Nathanael and told him, “We’ve found the One Moses wrote of in the Law, the One preached by the prophets. It’s Jesus, Joseph’s son, the one from Nazareth!” 46 Nathanael said, “Nazareth? You’ve got to be kidding.” But Philip said, “Come, see for yourself.” 47 When Jesus saw him coming he said, “There’s a real Israelite, not a false bone in his body.” 48 Nathanael said, “Where did you get that idea? You don’t know me.” Jesus answered, “One day, long before Philip called you here, I saw you under the fig tree.” 49 Nathanael exclaimed, “Rabbi! You are the Son of God, the King of Israel!” 50Jesus said, “You’ve become a believer simply because I say I saw you one day sitting under the fig tree? You haven’t seen anything yet! 51 Before this is over you’re going to see heaven open and God’s angels descending to the Son of Man and ascending again.”

            https://www.biblestudytools.com/msg/john/1.html

            To be fair, though, the blurb doesn’t actually call it a translation at all:

            https://www.biblestudytools.com/msg/

          • Chefofsinners

            “You’ve got to be kidding” sums it up. What was it called? ‘The Massage’?

          • Pubcrawler

            It has a certain vernacular immediacy, which I like. Being jolted out of what oine expects to read is no bad thing, I reckon.

            In a similar vein I have a fondness (largely cultural, I admit) for the renderings of Bible stories into Black Country. An example:

            Wile the shepuds in that country was waatchin’ oover thayer flocks that nite, th’ arnjul o’ the Lord cum tew ’em an’ever such a brite lite shon all rahnd ’em. It day ‘arf put the wind up ’em. Th’ airnjul sed, ‘Dow be frit. Ah’n bort yer sum gud noos wot’ll gi’ jiy tew all peeple… [etc.]’

          • Ray Sunshine

            It’s fun, agreed, but preferably in small doses. I don’t think I’d have the stamina to read chapter after chapter of that sort of thing. In fact I’ve never had the patience to plod through anything by Burns. I remember being told, years ago, that Burns was very popular in what was then the Soviet Union, and I could only surmise that they’d found such a good translator that the Russian version was an improvement on the original.

          • Pubcrawler

            True, eye dialect like that can make for hard reading. Like Chaucer, it’s much easier to absorb if read aloud and heard. (It probably helps to have a native ear, too.)

            Matt 3.15. Well, it’s not meant to be a detailed translation, more a rendition after the manner of ‘stories from the Bible’, and glosses over it: “Jesus sed it wus rite fer John ter baptise ‘im.”

            Not sure DBH gets it right here. I’d translate it along the lines of ‘leave it/let it go/never mind that for now’.

          • CliveM

            Interesting, I’ll look forward to seeing your review :o)

  • Mike Stallard

    Airports made into places of suspicion, investigation and humiliation. Streets made places of mass murder. Where I grew up off limits after dark. Tube trains made into places of extermination. Now the robocops are thinking of murder – sorry executing – people on the street and in their homes.

    Thank you so much Islamic terrorists for all you have done for your adopted country.

    I look round the Middle East and see that your religion brings the peace and tranquillity which it promises.

    And what is worse, I have some extremely nice, generous (karim) Muslims in my very own family too.

    • andrew

      Do they stick to qu’ranic doctrine? If so, take their generosity with a pinch of salt.

      • Mike Stallard

        No, so long as you go along with the ban on alcohol, the ban on pork products and the insistence on halal food, things go pretty well really. Don’t forget the Muslims have a lot of good too: hospitality, nobility, generosity, common belief in God and a lot of the Old and New Testament. So long as you go along with them, there is usually no problem. Just do not try and argue!

        • dannybhoy

          The truth of the Christian gospel And the salvation that comes through Christ Jesus is worth arguing for.

          • Anton

            If one happens to have Muslims as relatives then the situation is rather different from public preaching to people you do not expect to see again.

          • dannybhoy

            This is true but it would also depend on how devout your Muslim relatives are. They may not leave you alone!.

          • Mike Stallard

            They mostly do. The problem comes, I am told, at Ramadan when all the women get together over the kitchen stove and start pulling each other to pieces! I was actually led to study Islam which I find utterly wrong as a religion (Pharisees made Jesus quite angry on occasion) but fascinating and very attractively human too.

          • dannybhoy

            Which goes to show that human nature is the same the world over. But in some religions the divide between male and female is very clear…
            Women are inferior
            They should be submissive
            They do not mix socially with other men
            A baby son is a blessing, a baby daughter another mouth to feed
            And so on.
            There is much to be admired about these close knit structured societies, but they can also be stifling; allowing for no deviation from the norm.
            But as the influence of Christianity has weakened in the West, we have gone too far the other way….

          • Mike Stallard

            Actually, in Malay society, women like to go shopping together. In no way are they inferior! In no way! And they delight in mixing with men and women, especially people like themselves. Baby daughters, as far as I can see, are just as welcome as boys.
            My daughter lives in Abu Dhabi though and there Islam is very different indeed. As it was for her and her husband in Saudi. Actually I didn’t meet many Arabs there when I went to stay. UAE is different though. The people who can afford it all live on the same compound, surrounded by all sorts of servants.

          • dannybhoy

            I can tell you that in a certain part of this country where I once lived, unemployed or elderly Sikh men always left the house when the husband went to work, and stayed out until he returned home. For reasons of propriety. We have a great mixture of people from various social stratas in their own communities living amongst us, with varying degrees of freedom and tolerance.
            This is a very interesting development..
            http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/24/middleeast/saudi-arabia-prince-more-moderate-islam/index.html

          • Mike Stallard

            Isn’t it. If I were to enter the vestry of our local Catholic Church – whether or not it was empty, I should be subject to a Police enquiry. I am not joking. For three weeks our priest announced that it was strictly out of bounds to all adults.
            Like the Sikhs, like the Muslims, as a man, qua man, I am seen as a heartless predator.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, that’s another social problem that has developed in recent years. I remember a couple of years ago being in a B&Q buying something and noticed a little girl anxiously wandering up and down the aisles.
            I could have ignored her but I thought “Heck! I’m not going to let the fear of being seen as a perv stop me helping a child in distress.”
            So I asked her if she was lost and she said she couldn’t find her mother.
            So I asked a woman passing by if she would stay with the little girl while I looked for her Mum , and of course Mum and daughter were reunited.
            We can’t allow fear to take way our humanity.

          • Mike Stallard

            I could not agree more. The only problem is that it is a serious risk even being in a room alone with anyone except for an old man! The real perverts, of course, are the accusers with their filthy minds. And the “victims” who are quite often liars. When our priest, at the end of the Easter celebrations, threw a small boy into the air and (luckily) caught him he was taking terrible risk. But what a lovely thing to do!

          • dannybhoy

            Human beings respond to touch (appropriate touch of course). The old, the ill, the lonely.
            In the two churches we attend we hug or give a kiss on the cheek.
            None of that stiff upper lip repression for us…

        • The Snail

          Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an Angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we have proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed”

          Wasn’t the Koran supposedly dictated by an Angel i.e Jibril (Gabriel) . I guess St Paul would be very suspicious of such an Angel given the above quote

  • andrew

    6 Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not cast your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they may trample them under their feet, and then, turning, they may tear you apart.

    I can never understand or accept the insistanxe that we must tolerate Islam, Muslims and the growth of their demonic creed across our lands. Trade with them, and do not manufacture reasons to war with them, but allow them into our lands, provide them with the same rights? No.

    • Anton

      Islam should be treated as a political movement on the basis of the quran.

      • betteroffoutofit

        “Movement” being the operative word, of course.

    • dannybhoy

      Purely from a demographic pov we ethnic Brits will probably lose control over our own nation and cultural future in the next 50 years.

      • D. Reynolds

        A bit late to the fray.
        We lost that control 43 years ago.
        I do not consider Islam a religion. More a cult for fanatics. To hear others condoning death to mass murderers is a refreshing change from “ooh – you can’t say things like that”. Is there a semblance of commonsense surfacing? About time.