Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Judges Now Ban Christianity

Mar 1, 2011

My headline is admittedly slightly exaggerated, but only just. In another appalling case of judicial activism, anti-Christian bigotry, and ruthless social engineering, two English high Court judges have effectively declared war on Christianity.

These two mere mortals have made a ruling so bizarre, so immoral, and so mind-boggling, that one has to wonder why the British public has not run them out of town covered in tar and feathers. Their ruling makes a number of simply incredible declarations:

-the 1500-year Christian heritage of England is now simply to be dismissed altogether;
-the tiny minority of homosexual activists are now the undisputed wielders of power in the nation today;
-the well-being of children is not to be even considered or worried about in the slightest;
-parents (at least foster parents) have no right to instil values into children except the PC dictates of the godless State;
– reality is now whatever a few activists judges decide it will be.

I can see no way around such a conclusion, based on recent British headlines. Here is how the Telegraph opens this despicable story: “There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday.

“Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong. The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality ‘should take precedence’ over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values.

In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a ‘largely secular’, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm ‘do not include Christianity’. Campaigners for homosexual rights welcomed the judgment for placing ‘21st-century decency above 19th-century prejudice’. Christian campaigners claimed that it undermined the position of the Church of England.”

The judges declared that “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence” over religious rights. Let me translate: the ‘rights’ of activist homosexuals to wage war on our children must trump the rights and convictions of any religious person.

Fortunately a few voices of sanity are still left in the UK. The article continues, “The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, described the judgment as ‘absurd’. He pointed out the monarch took a coronation oath promising to uphold the laws of God, while Acts of Parliament are passed with the consent of ‘the Lords Spiritual’, and the Queen’s Speech finishes with a blessing from Almighty God. ‘To say that this is a secular country is certainly wrong,’ he said.

“‘However, what really worries me about this spate of judgments is that they leave no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swaths of public life, including adoption and fostering.’

“Speaking personally, Canon Dr Chris Sugden, the executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, said the judges were wrong to say religion was a matter of private individuals’ beliefs. ‘They are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship,’ he said. ‘The judgment asserts that there is no hierarchy of rights, but itself implies there is one in which the right to practise one’s religion is subordinated to the secular assumptions about equality’.”

And the Telegraph itself editorialised, “Eunice and Owen Johns are a God-fearing Christian couple, married almost 40 years, who offered a secure and loving family home to foster children aged between five and 10. But they are to be denied the opportunity to do so any longer because they are unwilling to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child. Neither Mr nor Mrs Johns has anything against gay people but they are not in favour of sex before marriage, whatever an individual’s orientation.”

It continues, “Equality laws are supposed to uphold the rights to religious belief. Yet the High Court ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation ‘should take precedence’ over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds. Why has it been left to judges to decide whose rights trump those of others? This should have been decided by Parliament but, yet again, another sloppily drafted measure will have far-reaching consequences for freedom of conscience in this country.

“Already the Roman Catholic Church has had to close its adoption agencies because they cannot conform to the law. Perhaps there is a historical irony here, because we are witnessing a modern, secular Inquisition – a determined effort to force everyone to accept a new set of orthodoxies or face damnation as social heretics if they refuse. Parliament and the courts should protect people like Mr and Mrs Johns, but have thrown them to the wolves. It is a disgrace.”

Yes it most certainly is a disgrace. And isn’t it amazing that even a secular newspaper can see this for what it is: a “secular Inquisition”. Exactly right. All over the Western world our secular elites and activists judges have declared war against Christianity, and bit by bit they are destroying it.

The next time some secularist complains to you about how religious folks are forcing their agenda on to others, after you stop laughing, let him know that the exact opposite is now the case. A secular Inquisition has been unleashed, and it shows no signs of abating until the secularist takeover of society is complete.

[936 words]

41 Responses to Judges Now Ban Christianity

  • Europe and the UK may have been Christianized in their early stages, but clearly paganism never left. When the Church sits quietly as evil creeps in its doors and through its schools and every echelon of society, the Church cannot expect to live in religious freedom. Satan is a virulent enemy and will not sit back nicely because we don’t fight him, and his loyal followers are basically going to take everything just because they can. It’s now come to the point that the Church needs to be on their face repenting and crying out to God for mercy. I wonder if it will.
    Dee Graf

  • Thanks Dee

    Yes that is the real question of the hour. Unless it does, we are all toast.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • This scurrilous judgement clearly demonstrates what should be a self-evident fact (but which isn’t evident at all): there is no neutrality in matters of belief and worldview.

    There will be EITHER the Christian faith or SOME OTHER faith. Nobody believes nothing – it is logically impossible.

    Consequently, there will always be a contest between such faiths/worldviews.

    The church needs to wake up to the fact that it cannot cosy up to the official public institutions of society, whether that’s media, the parliament or the judiciary.

    Most of the “official” denominational Church suffers from the problem of “maintaining the respect of the society” and “upholding the law of the land”.

    It seems only the sectarian types want to be cantankerous about the society in which they see themselves as pilgrims and separatists. They are the only ones standing up to challenge what’s happening, with the possible exception of the Catholic church which has for the most part faithfully held the line on the sanctity of life.

    We never hear the Archbishops or the Moderators saying things such as Ps Danny Nalliah can say about links between legislated immorality and God’s use of natural disasters as means of judgement.

    Think about it: could your church’s heavyweights be a Nathan to a modern day David (Premier Baillieau or the Governor or a Supreme Court Judge)?

    John Angelico

  • Thanks John

    Yes we certainly could use a few Nathans around here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • From the article: “‘They are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship,’ he said. ‘… the right to practise one’s religion is subordinated to the secular assumptions about equality’.”

    It occurred to me that referring to ‘the right to practice one’s religion’ relegates all of Christ to ‘one’s religion’.

    Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
    Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. (Prov 26:4&5)


    Alison Keen

  • Now let’s brace ourselves for the next assault: polygamists.
    Claude Boisson, France

  • Thanks Claude

    Yes quite right – that is certainly on the way as well:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • The essential inference from this pernicious judgment is that freedom of conscience in Britain counts for nothing.

    While expounding and defending Christian principles in many a dispute with liberal militants, Michael Nazir-Ali, the superb former bishop of Rochester, keeps hitting the nail on the head, but unfortunately it goes no further in.

    Alex Anderson

  • Yes, Alex, Bishop Nazir-Ali is first rate. But why do we never hear the Archbishop of Canterbury on any of these matters? Does he not care about the destruction of Christianity in his own land? Or is he just so blinded and deceived by “liberalism”, and the “progressive” Christianity he is promoting, that he grasps no iota of reality, of the truth? The Archbishop of York is generally slightly better, but Rowan Williams is a disgrace.
    John Thomas, UK

  • People of secular beliefs seem to be turned off by Christianity, because as Christians, we come across as “judgemental”. Do they not see that it’s things of this nature that cause that feeling in them? As believers, we lovingly point out that the Scripture clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of GOD, but we are being “judgemental” about it. Even here in the States, homosexuality seems to be getting more freedom and Christianity is being shown the “back seat”. Where’s our equality?
    Travis Farren, US

  • Thanks Travis

    I have looked a bit more closely at the idea of being judgemental here:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • This is no big surprise to me nor should it be to anyone in the world of Christianity. Christians have stood by and did nothing while judges, the ACLU, and politicians, and many others walked all over the Word of God. This, excuse me, is the sin of apathy and Christians need to repent of it Now. How many letters were written to the newspapers, how many were written to the Judge, how many letters were sent to the politicians? How many Christians even Prayed? This a call to action. Decide if you are a Christian and if you are then do what Christians do and if not quit imitating a Christian.
    Mike Bingham

  • John Thomas asks: “Why do we never hear the Archbishop of Canterbury on any of these matters?”

    Rowan Williams is so woolly about doctrine and anxious to avoid offending Christianity’s most visceral enemies, that it’s difficult to understand how he got his preferment. He has a well-modulated voice and it’s pleasant to listen to him, but he seldom deviates into sense.

    Alex Anderson

  • I don’t think anyone’s told the Queen that she is no longer the Defender of the Faith and that secular opinion overrides the Christian bedrock of our monarchy. The judges in question took liberties which need to be curtailed. How can the rights of two men to practice sodomy take precedence over the rights of an orphaned minor to be fostered by a stable, God-fearing married couple? Those in favour of the ruling commended the placing of 21st Centure “decency” over 19th Century prejudice. By the same token you could say that the respectable married fostering couple were “decent” – if you did not know that the word is often used sloppily in the wrong context as the correct meaning refers to being suitable modestly dressed.I can only think these judges would like to see our cultural heritage replaced by some sort of statist regime, rather like the one described in Huxley’s Brave New World, where they get to tell the “lumpen proletariat” what to do.
    Rachel Smith, UK

  • I wonder what the ‘judgement’ of these base wretches who claim to ‘judge’ what is correct for society would be if the couple happened to be a devout Muslim couple?

    Ultimately we are going to need popular revolts such as those that are rattling the cages of Middle Eastern despots to acquire truly democratic constitutions. Elections are not enough, we need to seize the right to strike down ‘laws’ that are diametrically opposed to the will of the people.

    Dominic Baron, NZ

  • We are at WAR and the sooner that ALL CHRISTIANS realise this the better. Bill does an excellent job in getting the word out, but do we?
    Bill, while quietly working in the background was able to draw a great crowd to Canberra the last time the Marriage Act was about to be opened up for all and sundry. We were successful.
    I would suggest that the time has come for us to take a stand and surround Parliament House the same way we did when they wanted to open the new Parliament House without a Prayer service.
    Madge Fahy

  • The secular worldview is fuelled by evolution over millions of years—by the belief that this is true and that the Bible has been scientifically proven to be unreliable. See what Albert Mohler said about it:

    “The debate over Darwinism rages on, with almost every week bringing a new salvo in the Great Controversy. The reason for this is simple and straightforward — naturalistic evolution is the great intellectual rival to Christianity in the Western world. It is the creation myth of the secular elites and their intellectual weapon of choice in public debate.”

    He is one Christian leader of a significant world class seminary who is prepared to fight this battle from the foundation up. I don’t know of a Christian leader of a denomination, seminary or bible college in Australia who is prepared to speak out and tackle the secular worldview at its source as Mohler is doing. Does anyone?

    It will only be when we see change (repentance) in the church in this area we will start to see the ground being retaken. Please pray for the leaders of our denominations and the academics at our colleges and be informed of where they are leading the church in Australia.

    Tas Walker

  • One question: There must be at least a few hundred thousand church attenders in Britain. Why aren’t they pouring on to the streets in protest? Why aren’t we seeing mass rallies for freedom of religion?
    Damien Spillane

  • Thanks Damien

    Good question indeed. I suspect most don’t know or don’t care. Shame.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • This is a disgrace! What else can one say?
    Steve Davis

  • Revisiting Vanity Fair – the city of lies and deception. Are we there yet? Make no mistake – even our freedom to believe is at stake (for Faithful it was the stake). Not just because we declare what we believe but because we will be actively questioned and challenged and pursued in this as Christian and Faithful were. And if we answer “wrong” we will be punished.
    Lachlan Dunjey

  • Hi Bill,

    I sent a post yesterday, where I provided you clarification that it was actually a John Howard appointee who removed the bible and any other religious (and politica) matter from the citizenship ceremony. However I note the post has been removed. Is this because it doesn’t fit neatly into your ideology? However as a man of God, I thought you would put honesty over ideology. It appears not. Could you please confirm that it is OK to be dishonest if the ends justify the means. That would help me understand how apparent christians are so comfortable telling outright lies. I don’t expect you to post this either, but feel free to reply to my email address.

    Brett Gaskin

  • Thanks again Brett

    But in addition to demonstrating a very cavalier view of truth telling, we now see that theophobes are not all that hot with basic reading or thinking skills either. You comment in fact has been posted and is still there, just where you left it, along with several replies from myself. So I guess all your latest comment does is tell us more about what our side has to put up with from you folks.

    And I twice now have had to provide your full, proper name, which my rules require. But your side was never very good at abiding by the rules either. So thanks again for showing all of us how you guys operate. It’s a real eye-opener.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • To Mike Bingham and Damien Spillane – SPOT ON GUYS!
    Steve Davis

  • I aksed God what the story is on the church in Australia. His reply was “they are playing in the sandpit.”

    Whilst I realise there are exceptions, the majority of them are in existence for themselves. The programme is everything and prayer is an occasional and unconvincing experience, that is if you have any time to do it.

    Most Sunday morning services are a waste of time, little more than a bless me club to make me feel good about myself. It is a sacred cow that should have been shot and buried a long time ago.

    Most post moderns don’t want religion and ritual. They want relationship and reality. Too bad their needs are subservient to our need to keep the status quo operating at all costs.

    What is the most appaling thing is that saying what I have just said brands me as a heretic. But then, I am in good company as Jesus seemed to get up the nose of the religious leadership in his day. Will we ever learn??

    Roger Marks

  • I am a non-believer. There was a time not so long ago when I respected the church, its rituals and its traditions, even though I believe that the bible was human delusion. My thinking was that the church appeared to do mostly good, so what was the harm if they wanted to prance around in quaint medieval costumes and sing hymns. I think society in general thought much the same way.

    That respect no longer exists in today’s society, and I believe the reason for that lies within the church itself. The scandals in the Catholic Church and elsewhere, bizarre televangelists, the rise of militant evangelicals and the DIY religion craze that originated in America must carry much of the blame for this fall from grace.

    There are too many crazies in positions of leadership, and too much hatred and vitriol being spread from a church that once preached peace and love. I sense that Christianity in the West is headed for extinction unless it reinvents itself and re-considers the poor image it now presents in the world. These problems are reflected in the court decision. Christians are being told if they won’t live by society’s rules and respect human rights, they can’t expect to participate in its privileges.

    I expect my words won’t be well received here. But I’ve seen some of you say similar things about the state of the church, even while acting out the very same behaviours that have helped destroy the church’s one lofty position of respect in society.

    Peter Murchison, Adelaide

  • Thanks Peter

    But can I respectfully suggest that all of this has nothing to do with gooey feelings about ritual and tradition. Even atheists have rituals. The real matter is whether Christianity is true or not. If it is, then we must bow the knee. If it is not, forget about it. Sentimental feelings have nothing to do with it.

    And given that you have already said you think the Bible is bunk, then we can pretty much tell what you mean when you say that Christianity must reinvent itself. What you are really saying is you want it to be compatible with you and your life. Instead of you fitting into God, his will, and his word, you want them to bow to you. Of course every unbeliever wants that. They want, in effect, to be their own god, with no one making any demands on them, no one questioning their behaviour, no one upholding universal objective standards of right and wrong, truth and falsity which we must all submit to.

    In this sense your desires are of course nothing new. The people in Jesus’ day wanted the very same thing. That is why they crucified him. His teachings were too exclusive, narrow, hard and demanding. They wanted a messiah who would conform to their own image, not the other way around.

    Now, has the church had scandals and extremists, etc? Yes of course, just like every other institution, club, belief system, organisation and creed. But again, the issue is not, have some Christians distorted or misrepresented Christ, but what did Jesus say and do? If what he said is true, you have a decision to make. Either you agree with him that you are a sinner heading to a lost eternity, and are in need of a saviour, and Jesus is that saviour, or you will just muddle along in life, pretending that you are the centre of the universe. You then will call all the shots, decide what is true and false, right and wrong, and so on. At the end of the day, this is the only decision that really matters – not just for you, but for every single one of us.

    And this remark of yours is a big worry: “Christians are being told if they won’t live by society’s rules and respect human rights, they can’t expect to participate in its privileges.” Given that my article was about how some activist judges have stripped away the rights of loving Christians to foster children because they have now bowed down to the radical homosexual lobby, you comment is rather bizarre.

    Indeed, we can read between the lines here. You seem to suggest that anyone who refuses to be politically correct and bow to the latest social engineering fads by minority radicals must just sit down and shut up. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that you would think it just fine that such social ‘rebels’ be rounded up and put into concentration camps, because they did not respect the wishes of the society they were living in. Strange, but that very thing happened just a half century ago. We don’t seem to learn from very much history.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I’d encourage any readers of this blog who are concerned about these issues to consider supporting Barnabas Fund’s Operation Nehemiah. Details of this campaign are on their website.
    Ross McPhee

  • It’s sounds to me like it’s time to seriously take up arms – at least spiritually speaking! It’s really quite astonishing how hypocritical our culture can be in regards to “tolerance”.
    Anthony Lichoudaris

  • Thanks Ross

    Yes and here is the link:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks for that link, Bill.
    Dominic Baron, NZ

  • Honestly, these judges are fools, where do they think their authority came from in the first place? If it wasn’t for the Christian basis for law, then they wouldn’t have jobs at all. How come no one is pointing out the sheer absurdity of them kicking the stool out from under themselves.
    Glen Grady, Brisbane

  • Thanks guys
    Check this out:

    “David Starkey a renowned historian and UK media personality was discussing the ruling on BBC television yesterday. Starkey said: ‘I am gay and I am atheist but I have profound doubts about this case. It seems to me that what we are doing is producing a tyrannous new morality that is every bit as oppressive as the old’.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • The whole discussion around the foster parents, Mr and Mrs Johns can be seen here, starting at 36’:20,

    Unfortunately David Starkey blew it with his last statement by saying that Christian belief must not be translated into action. This completely undoes all that he has said before, and I am afraid is typical of the “gay” mind that is full of inconsistency, contradiction and cognitive dissonance. We must not be surprised when bad men like Starkey in a moment of rationality come out with sane statements, for we all possess God’s stamp imprinted on our consciences, no matter how scarred and marred.

    Watch this by sliding the bar to 49’:28

    Overall the panel failed to understand, as John Angelico has already stated, societies and individuals do not and cannot live in a state of neutrality, or suspended animation with regard to beliefs. Every single human being, unlike all other creatures, needs a map or grid against which and through which to interpret the world out there. To live in world where there were no reference points would be like living in a sensory deprivation chamber where the subject, denied sight, hearing and touch, soon starts to hallucinate and if left longer enough goes insane. And is that not the state in which modern society finds itself – insanity.

    Atheist and secularist claim that Christianity is imposing religion on them, skilfully identifying and confusing it with Islam, which does indeed impose itself – at the end of a sword or suicide bomb. They boast that they have no need of a religious crutch, that they are above infantile dependency and can stand on their own feet, not requiring any authority over them. They do this, ignoring the fact that secularism is itself a faith system, not only a dependency culture where the state, as Jenny Smith states, provides everything, but it is built upon an unscientifically proven world view of existence, morality and truth. Why if they truly believe that man is nothing more than a pile of chemicals or some kind of advanced ape, are they not content to simply be and much bananas in the tree?

    The human race is not divided between those who believe in God and those who don’t; it is divided between those who believe in the Judeo/Christian God and false religions like Evolution. Whatever man bends the knee to, whatever he serves, whatever drives him, that is his God. Secularism is indeed a religion where man’s lower nature, his instincts and appetites are worshipped and have to be served. Onto this altar will be offered the unborn child, the born child, marriage, the family and finally the nation.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Quite right David. Well said.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • This article written by Peter Hitchins, a year ago, shows just how rapidly, restraint, self control, purity, and protection from our own fallen natures has become the real crime. It is not the positive things about Christianity which are outlawed,” the love”, “care” and “kindness” (depending upon how one interprets those words), but the don’ts. The law no longer recognises that man is fallen or sinful and anything that would curb or proscribe his instincts and passions is now regarded as a crime. As with Vanity Fair and Sodom we and our children will all be forced into a life of destruction.

    David Skinner, UK

  • The five stages below chronicle the complete reversal of reality and morality in Britain over a fifty year period.

    1) There was a time, within living memory when homosexuality was perceived in many terms. As recently as the 1960’s it was perceived and condemned as a sin, an abomination, a perversion and a crime that carried and still carries in some countries serious penalties. Result: the death penalty.

    2) The description then shifted to morally neutral terms, indicating that this was not so much a flaw in a person’s moral character as more of a psychological disorder that required psychiatric or medical help. Tragically this often resulted not in healing but in cruel treatments such as chemical castration, lobotomies. Result: stigma, depression and often suicide

    3) In more recent times as society discarded its Judeo-Christian values and morality and became more tolerant of that which in previous ages had been regarded as evil, homosexuality became regarded as a characteristic of a minority group which requires special protection. This is most clearly seen in the Equality Act which was for the Labour party, and still is, flagship legislation, its jewel in the crown. The Equality Act divides the human race up into multicultural minority groups, or who claim special needs on account of the colour of their skin or hair; or their age; or on account of whether they are left handed or disabled; or because of gender; ethnicity; beliefs, religion and sexual orientations – such as being lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans sexual (LGBT). These are referred to in the Single Equality Act as protected characteristics. Result: multicultural society

    4) But the distinguishing feature of these diverse protected characteristics is that there is real discrimination within the so-called Single Equality Act. Not all characteristics are treated equally as others. Some are seen as victims of discrimination by a society dominated by Christianity and a traditional view of marriage. Anyone with a grievance against traditional values and morality qualifies as a victim. Clearly if one can claim to be a height-challenged, left handed, one legged, black, Muslim gypsy lesbian, with ginger hair, one contains a deck of cards that will trump of all others. They started off as seven but now seem to have become nine or ten and will probably extend to encompass characteristics that are presently regarded as criminal, such as being incestuous, paedophile and bestial, Living as a Christian beyond church walls – and soon beyond what goes on in one’s mind – carries no rights at all. Result: stigma and marginalisation of Christians.

    5) The final phase in society’s metamorphosis from being established upon binary and complementary male, female relationships to one of polymorphous perversity, is where the evolutionary and Darwinian creations of homosexuality and heterosexuality are no longer equal but where the former completely eats up the latter. Result: public humiliation, exclusion, prison and even death of Christians.

    Sir Adrian Fulford, homosexual, High Court Judge and judge on the United Nations International Criminal Court, said, “We have suddenly travelled a long way in a very short period of time. To use the language of ‘Star-Trek’, it’s as if the warp-drive has suddenly been attached to LGBT rights. Pink Law will not be an anomaly but rather the shape of things to come.”

    David Skinner, UK

  • Cultural Marxism as espoused by the Frankfurt school is to appropriate, change, distort, pervert, and finally destroy, the family, marriage, the nation, history, Christianity and language. Words like “tolerance“, “discrimination“, “diversity” no longer mean what they used to mean and now we have the word “decency” being redefined. My old battered dictionary defines it thus: Propriety of behaviour; what is acceptable as being required by good taste or delicacy; avoidance of obscene language and gestures and of undue exposure of person.

    Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall said this regarding the case of Mr and Mrs Johns: “We’re delighted that the High Court’s landmark decision has favoured 21st-century decency (obeying the law) above 19th-century prejudice ( morality). In any fostering case the interests of the 60,000 children in care should override the bias of any prospective parent. Thankfully, Mr and Mrs Johns’s out-dated views aren’t just out of step with the majority of people in modern Britain, but those of many Christians too. If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service, you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone.”

    Ben Summerskill’s partner in crime, Sir Trevor Phillips, the Leninist and chief commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said a few years back:

    “Let me put it as crudely as I can do it as a public official. If somebody is guilty of discrimination of any kind, and with sexual orientation we usually know what it’s about with sneering and contempt and all the rest of it, we want them not to be just be punished by the court but frankly to feel the contempt and hatred that they have visited on other people. They can argue what they like, but there’s a law now and frankly if these people want generally to pose as they often do as the decent and moral people in the community, perhaps they should remember that the first elements of decency in a liberal democracy is the rule of law. As far as I’m concerned there isn’t a conflict here. There is a law. Your faith does not protect you. I understand what you are asking me but to be perfectly honest I haven’t
    got time for it. If people want to use in my view, the mantle of faith to be bigots, I’m not buying it.”

    So there you have it folks, decency is obeying the law. All those decent and upright Germans and French people who betrayed their Jewish neighbours and family members were decent because they obeyed the rule of law and handed them in.

    I believe that it is not a case of “if” violent revolution comes Britain but “when“, for this level of outright oppression cannot be sustained for ever by a hitherto tolerant nation. There comes a time where the tolerance of the British people will be stretched to breaking point, but tragically the form of that backlash will be an Islamic one; for Sir Trevor Phillips, has previously said that non-Muslims must also accept the right of imams to denounce homosexuality in a way that many would find offensive. “One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is…That’s why freedom of expression — including Muslim leaders’ right to say they think homosexuality is harmful — is absolutely precious.”

    The British people have lost the will, moral courage and martial vigour to withstand attack, but Islam has not. As Churchill said in 1998: “Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

    Well Mr Churchill science and technology are no defence against Islamic ideology.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Well, David, I do not share your view of David Starkey as a “bad” person, merely confused. But I do share Winston Churchill’s view of science and technology as a powerful antidote to all manner of shibboleths: cultural, religious, and pseudo-scientific.

    A couple of random thoughts:

    If Islam had triumphed throughout Europe, would the Enlightenment have occurred? Or the banning of slavery?

    Pakistan is currently a perfect example of the rabid intolerance to which even our liberal, open societies could descend if we are not vigilant.

    Dominic Baron, NZ

  • Good news, David:

    Sometimes common sense does triumph!

    Dominic Baron, NZ

  • Thanks Bill for this website. Many don’t know that it was Christianity that brought education, prosperity&law to Britain in the first place. But now that most people are turning their back on God&His laws the opposite is coming to Britain. In Sodom&Gomorrah the judges were also corrupt,etc and then their cities’ end came. I am very glad that my brother&family have left Britain and I will earnestly encourage the rest of my family to make hasty plans. But in the end all countries will follow suit, which is why Jesus questions: Shall I find faith? In the days of the Exodus only 2 men out of 600 thousand entered the promise land – 3%! What percent will be worthy on Jesus’s return which seems to be due in our lifetime? The backsliding churches will have to answer for their lack of true Christian teaching and for leading many astray. Satan knows the Bible more that Christians do! “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” -Psalm 33.
    Merle Martin, Cape Town, South Africa

Leave a Reply