/* */

PDA

View Full Version : If Christianity dies, who benefits?



سيف الله
05-18-2013, 11:53 PM
Salaam

This comment piece caught my eye

If Christianity dies, who benefits?

By Peter Hitchens

From time to time I suggest that this country will, sooner or later become a Muslim nation, having given up Christianity and so left a space waiting to be filled, which secularism simply cannot do. This suggestion is generally met with incredulity at best, and derision at worst. I don’t say this is an immediate prospect, but I do think it is a long-term one.

Well, those who think the idea absurd might do well to study the latest analysis of the 2011 census.

It suggests that a minority of British people will describe themselves as Christians within the next decade. (There are now just over 33 million British Christians, and only a third of these attend church apart from weddings, baptisms and funerals) ‘Describing themselves as’ is of course a good deal less significant than attending church, bringing their children up as Christians or anything of that sort. Meanwhile the general decline in Christianity has been masked by the recent arrival of 1.2 million Christians from Poland, Nigeria and other countries. My guess is that those who stay will be secularised by this country, rather than that they will re-Christianise it.

So what, then of the Muslim population? This has risen by 75 per cent , also boosted by migrants - 600,000 in this case. Won’t they be secularised? I’m not so sure. Muslims tend to stick to the pattern of the faith – the fasts and festivals, the traditions and dietary rules, in a way which Christians don’t. they also seem to me to have much stronger family connections. And, thanks to multiculturalism , they are often concentrated in certain areas, which tends to strengthen adhesion and loyalty. They are also a lot younger than Christians. The average age of a British Muslim is 25. A quarter of Christians are over 65. Younger people, of course, have more children than older people.

Meanwhile 32 per cent of under 25s say they have no religion at all.

Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the National Secular Society, was quoted as saying the long–term reduction of Christianity, particularly among young people, was now ‘unstoppable’.

‘In another 20 years there are going to be more active Muslims than there are churchgoers’, he said. ‘The time has now come that institutional Christianity is no longer justified. ‘The number has dropped below critical mass for which there is no longer any justification for the established Church, for example.’

I think he is right about the numbers. I really don’t understand why he should worry about the ‘established church’, an enfeebled and vestigial thing which has almost no real influence on national life and thought (and when it does, isn’t particularly Christian).

It has always amused me in a bitter sort of way that militant secularists seem pleased by the decline of Christianity. I doubt very much that they will like it if I turn out to be right, and the removal of Christianity as the national religion simply creates a space into which Islam can move. Can they really be sure that this will not happen here? We are, as I often say, due for a religious revival as material growth fails and fizzles. Why shouldn’t it benefit Islam, simple, confident, youthful and unembarrassed?

hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
M.I.A.
05-19-2013, 01:43 AM
when a child grows it learns a language.

its perception of the world develops.

and the majority become other than psychopaths.. depending on upbringing.


so i guess if you call a thing by a different name it is still what it was.


..and most people do know how the world works, they work within it.




anyway thats my optimistic viewpoint.. does not happen often.


whats meant for you cant escape you and similarly whats not for you...you cant have.


the words are different i cant remember exactly.
Reply

glo
05-19-2013, 08:17 AM
Peter Hitchens is a conservative Christian and brother of the late outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens.

I wonder if his article is trying to coax people to support Christianity by suggesting that if we are not a Christian nation we will become a Muslim one. (Although I have to say that I find his article carefully worded and not obviously anti-Muslim. What do others think?)

Interestingly, before the 2011 census there was a heavy drive by the secular groups, encouraging people to put 'no religion' if they were religious by name only and not practising that religion.
That caused the numbers of 'religious people' (in particular Christians) to drop quite dramatically. I don't think that means the Christians have suddenly dropped in numbers, but that this has been a trend over the last decades which has only just become apparent in the census.

I know that the C of E count their service attendees, but I don't know if other denominations do. The C of E has recently announced that after some decades of decline, the number of active members is now settling down.

How do masjids estimate the numbers of active Muslims in their communities, does anybody know (other than the census figures)? I imagine it's quite difficult to gauge - especially with many women and children praying at home.
Reply

sister herb
05-19-2013, 08:33 AM
In my country amount of muslims is about 1% of population. But that is just official estimate - many people haven´t registered to any islamic community, so the real number might be double or triple or more.

For this 1% here too some are people whose panic that soon Finnish culture has gone in cause of those "danger, strange cultural effects of other religion".

:nervous:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
IbnAbdulHakim
05-19-2013, 11:45 AM
this isnt ridiculous at all.

it wont surprise me if islam became the majority here in London before long
Reply

Eric H
05-19-2013, 12:38 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Junon; I just trust that Christianity will continue to grow in the UK, a lot of our problems are because we are moving away from God in the UK.

At church today we had people pray a short prayer in their native tongue, we heard thirty seven languages prayed. I knew we were a diverse congregation, and it is lovely to see all these people pray in their own language in a packed church. We celebrate the Feast of Pentecost when the apostles talked to everyone around, each person who heard the message heard it in their own language.

In the spirit of praying for a continued and deeper faith

Eric
Reply

Hulk
05-19-2013, 01:15 PM
I wonder, if there are so many people around who believe in God then why is it that popular culture doesn't reflect that?
Reply

glo
05-19-2013, 01:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
I wonder, if there are so many people around who believe in God then why is it that popular culture doesn't reflect that?
Do you mean in the UK or generally?

Personally, I think that in Western societies the thinking has very much veered towards individualism and individual choice. That means people don't like being told what to do and how to do it anymore.
People may still believe in God (of some kind), but don't want to bother with the responsibilities and duties that come with being a member of a faith community.
People think that they can follow their faith on their own in their own home. Without hassle.
These are just my personal thoughts, so I could be wrong.

I think the vast majority of people believe in some deity or some greater life force. Not many are down-and-out atheists.

I am not sure what you mean by 'popular culture'. I think much of our society - even if it is very secular - is still based on Christianity and it would take a good few generations to change that. After all, our entire justice system and laws, our sense of fairness and rights/wrongs are based on essentially Christian values (many of whom are not that different to Islamic ones). It would take a fair while to undo all that.

On the whole I have to say that I appreciate a secular society, where people can be who they want to be and believe what they want to believe.
I rather see the church half full with people who really want to be there and worship God whole-heartedly and to see the church packed with people who feel that they have to be there despite not believing a word of it.
In that sense secularism is a blessing.
Reply

Hulk
05-19-2013, 02:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Do you mean in the UK or generally?

Personally, I think that in Western societies the thinking has very much veered towards individualism and individual choice. That means people don't like being told what to do and how to do it anymore.
People may still believe in God (of some kind), but don't want to bother with the responsibilities and duties that come with being a member of a faith community.
People think that they can follow their faith on their own in their own home. Without hassle.
These are just my personal thoughts, so I could be wrong.


I think the vast majority of people believe in some deity or some greater life force. Not many are down-and-out atheists.


I am not sure what you mean by 'popular culture'. I think much of our society - even if it is very secular - is still based on Christianity and it would take a good few generations to change that. After all, our entire justice system and laws, our sense of fairness and rights/wrongs are based on essentially Christian values (many of whom are not that different to Islamic ones). It would take a fair while to undo all that.


On the whole I have to say that I appreciate a secular society, where people can be who they want to be and believe what they want to believe.
I rather see the church half full with people who really want to be there and worship God whole-heartedly and to see the church packed with people who feel that they have to be there despite not believing a word of it.
In that sense secularism is a blessing.
I don't mean the UK specifically. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. By pop culture i mean whatever that is on tv/radio/cinemas/websites/etc. So I guess what you're saying is that people believe, but they do not want to submit. Or by responsibility do you mean outwardly taking part in religious activities? When you take a look at today's popular films/music/books/websites, do you see influence of Christianity or Secularism? It to me is clearly secularism. And the law, legalising gay marriage, strip clubs, pornography, is this influenced by Christianity? I don't think so. Secularism is the idea that nothing is sacred, that belief in God is inconsequential to daily life. What matters is the here and the now. This is what is being reflected in pop culture.
Reply

glo
05-19-2013, 02:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
Secularism is the idea that nothing is sacred, that belief in God is inconsequential to daily life. What matters is the here and the now. This is what is being reflected in pop culture.
I see what you mean. I was thinking about culture (as in who we are as a society) rather than popular culture.
Reply

Independent
05-19-2013, 03:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
When you take a look at today's popular films/music/books/websites, do you see influence of Christianity or Secularism? It to me is clearly secularism.
I think there are two parts to this - the technology and the content. The technology would have changed society anyway, no matter whether we were already secularised or not. Just 100 years ago in the UK, most people never went more than a few miles from where they were born. Information was spread very slowly by newspapers and books - no tv, no web, no email, no texting, no mobiles. For that reason social change was much slower in the past.

This technology and especially the web means total access both to lots of good things, and also lots of bad things. It's actually coincidence that a more permissive attitude to sex has come at the same as a hugely increased access to pornography on the internet. We were still feeling our way round new social standards when we were immediately hit by the digital revolution - arguably a bigger event than the industrial revolution. No wonder we're confused.
Reply

Ahmad H
05-19-2013, 05:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I am not sure what you mean by 'popular culture'. I think much of our society - even if it is very secular - is still based on Christianity and it would take a good few generations to change that. After all, our entire justice system and laws, our sense of fairness and rights/wrongs are based on essentially Christian values (many of whom are not that different to Islamic ones). It would take a fair while to undo all that.
My thoughts exactly. Christianity is very embedded in many Western nations' culture and history. It is still very much apart of their identity.
Reply

truthseeker63
05-20-2013, 03:24 AM
Non Christians.
Reply

Woodrow
05-20-2013, 04:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Peter Hitchens is a conservative Christian and brother of the late outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens.

I wonder if his article is trying to coax people to support Christianity by suggesting that if we are not a Christian nation we will become a Muslim one. (Although I have to say that I find his article carefully worded and not obviously anti-Muslim. What do others think?)

Interestingly, before the 2011 census there was a heavy drive by the secular groups, encouraging people to put 'no religion' if they were religious by name only and not practising that religion.
That caused the numbers of 'religious people' (in particular Christians) to drop quite dramatically. I don't think that means the Christians have suddenly dropped in numbers, but that this has been a trend over the last decades which has only just become apparent in the census.

I know that the C of E count their service attendees, but I don't know if other denominations do. The C of E has recently announced that after some decades of decline, the number of active members is now settling down.

How do masjids estimate the numbers of active Muslims in their communities, does anybody know (other than the census figures)? I imagine it's quite difficult to gauge - especially with many women and children praying at home.
It is probably impossible to get an accurate estimate here in the USA. About the best that can be reached is a range that there is a strong probability contains within it the actual number. Here it is a very broad range with a low estimate of 2 million and a high of 20 Million. What makes it difficult is about the only way the numbers can be obtained is through self reporting and estimating the number of males attending each Mosque and figuring that would give the number of Muslim families.

The numbers of self reporting is probably over the actual number as there are several Non-Islamic religions here in which the Members call them self Muslim. The other number obtained by the Number of Mosques about 2000 in the USA would indicate about 2,000,000 Muslims at the most. But that number seems to be extremely low. So as best as we can tell there are between 2 and 20 million Muslims in the USA.
Reply

سيف الله
10-06-2019, 08:46 PM
Salaam

Long overdue update, its not looking good for the Christianity in the UK.

Repeated from 2011 - Britain Is No Longer a Christian Country - Official

I first published this article in 2011. I suppose I should republish it every time a court or tribunal rules against a Christian position. When will people grasp that the revolution has happened, and the other side have won. No need for guillotines and gulag.


I just thought I should expand on the amazing developments in the courts in the last year, culminating in the recent case of Mr and Mrs Johns (pictured below), the foster parents banned from fostering because they were not prepared actively to endorse the sexual revolution.

The effect of this case (and once again I'm uninterested in discussing the issue of homosexuality which has been the pretext for this development, and will not respond to posts on that subject, which I regard as exhausted and diversionary) is revolutionary in two ways. First, the Law of England is no longer based upon Christianity but upon the new secular dogma of 'Equality and Diversity', whose origins lie in the thinking of the 1960s revolutionary left.

That is to say the national dogma is suspicious of national sovereignty and the things which accompany it - patriotism, immigration control, national loyalty, national institutions. It actively defines many of these ideas as 'racist' , that is a sort of thought-crime ( a defamatory smear made much easier by those, some of whom post here, who think that a man's ethnic origin, rather than his culture, defines him).

The same dogma is militantly in favour of sexual liberation - the liberation of adults from the marriage bond, the consequent liberation of children from parental authority - which is more or less unlawful anyway.

Once again those who oppose this development are not reasoned with, but defined as thought-criminals and classified as suffering from various isms and phobias which rule them out of mainstream discourse.

And of course the Christian religion itself is allowed to continue to exist as an eccentric choice, but has no special claim on the law and must compete for status and attention against any other belief, including the fantasy of man-made global warming.

This latter is a work in progress, which is why one of the law's most important activities is to ram home the message to individual Christians that they have lost the status they formerly held (much as its prosecutions of people such as Tony Martin ram home the message that the law no longer takes the view of crime that it used to hold, and is much more concerned with asserting its monopoly of force than with apprehending, let alone punishing, wrongdoers) .

A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has experienced bluntness verging on rudeness when he has protested against the new judicial attitude.

All revolutions do this. One of their most important features is the public personal degradation of figures formerly held in high regard. This lets people know that things really have changed (Charles I knew he was doomed when his military guards started blowing tobacco smoke in his face). The ejection of the Bishops from the House of Lords, which will take place within ten years by my guess

(***PH notes August 2019 : I would now put this a little further off. The European constitutional crisis has paralysed almost all other processes in our society. But plainly the House of Lords in its present form cannot be sustained much longer) , will be accompanied by a great deal of cruel jeering and bad manners, you see if it isn't.

The second crucial feature of this is that it involves a totalitarian imposition. The Derby case arose not because of anything the couple had said, but because they would not promise, in a hypothetical conversation with a child, to endorse, positively, a certain type of behaviour.

Now, I'm told (I would be glad of any more details) that in a 1985 case, a sports team successfully challenged a local authority which tried to compel it to make a denunciation of the apartheid system before it would be allowed to use its facilities. What you think of apartheid has nothing to do with this. The principle is 'Can you be compelled by a government body to hold or at least express an opinion?'

A judge is reported to have said that telling people what to say was pretty much a Nazi attitude,and foreign to the laws of England. This no longer seems to be the case.

The couple said that their Christian beliefs caused them to hold a different view. The Judges, if I have correctly understood their ruling, said the couple's views did not necessarily flow from their Christianity, and thus didn't qualify for the protection granted to 'minorities' by Equality Law.

One wonders what the position would have been had they been a Muslim couple, but this has yet to arise.

But this is a technicality alongside the heart of their judgement, which ran thus. First, they said that it was not yet “well understood” that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity.

“Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century,” they said.

It was a “paradox” that society has become simultaneously both increasingly secular and increasingly diverse in religious affiliation, they said.

'We sit as secular judges serving a multicultural community of many faiths.
We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to 'do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will’.”

Actually, it ought to be well-understood, following the striking and rather militant judgement by Lord Justice Laws last year in the case of the 'relationship counsellor' Gary McFarlane. He said legal protection for views held on religious grounds was 'deeply unprincipled'.

'This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective,' he said.

'Law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.'

Plainly, the message has not wholly sunk in. Interestingly, in his summing up before sentencing last November at the end of the trial of a Muslim fanatic who stabbed the Labour MP Stephen Timms, Mr Justice Cooke said of Mr Timms 'I understand that he brings to bear his own faith, which upholds very different values to those which appear to have driven this defendant.

'Those values are those upon which the common law of this country was founded and include respect and love for one’s neighbour, for the foreigner in the land, and for those who consider themselves enemies, all as part of one’s love of God. These values were the basis of our system of law and justice and I trust that they will remain so as well as motivating those, like Mr Timms, who hold public office.'

I fear his trust is misplaced. It is true that the English legal tradition was until recently consciously and specifically Christian. Here's a description of the building of the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand (whose architect, G.E. Street, was also the designer of several fine churches) 'Over the highest point of the upper arch is a figure of Jesus; to the left and right at a lower level are figures of Solomon and Alfred the Great; that of Moses is at the northern front of the building.'

The Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court, has above its main portal the words "Defend the Children of the poor, and punish the wrong-doer'. This is a quotation from the 72nd Psalm (Verse 4, Miles Coverdale version). Its Great Hall is adorned with the words 'Moses gave unto the people the laws of God'.

Likewise, the Houses of Parliament (where laws are made) are founded upon the original St Stephen's Chapel. They contain a consecrated and functioning chapel to this day. The Central Lobby is decorated with murals depicting the four Christian patron saints of the nations of the United Kingdom, George, Andrew, Patrick and David. The quarter chimes of Big Ben are based upon Handel's aria (from the Book of Job)

'I know that My Redeemer Liveth' . And the Monarchy itself is legally based upon a wholly Christian Coronation service. St Edward's Crown itself is surmounted with a Christian cross and the anointed and crowned monarch is presented with a copy of the Bible.


When will people learn that we live in a post-revolutionary society? In the Blair years the last traces of Christian conservatism were removed from law and government, and in the Cameron-May years nobody tried to restore them.

So Dr David Mackereth really shouldn’t have been surprised to have been sacked as a claim assessor for refusing to bow down to the Trans lobby, by saying he would refuse to call a six-foot bearded man ‘Madam’.

This defiance was described by a tribunal as ‘lack of belief’ in transgenderism. And so it is. These ‘isms’ are our new highly-intolerant religion. We must all now either get our minds right, or retreat into private life and internal exile. The Tories aren’t going to save us.


https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
Reply

Eric H
10-07-2019, 07:49 AM
Greetings and peace be with you junon,

format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the National Secular Society, was quoted as saying the long–term reduction of Christianity, particularly among young people, was now ‘unstoppable’.
Secularism seems to be a cause of marriage breakdown and a lack of community spirit. I say this because of the anything goes culture in the sexual revolution today. If you can't make a relationship work, move onto another one, children just seem to be a by - product of today's culture. When a child reaches the age of fifteen, about half of them are not living with both their biological parents.

Secularism has little to be proud of by encouraging people to enjoy the temptations in life. There will come a time when people are at rock bottom and they will search for something more.

Peace and blessings,
Eric
Reply

سيف الله
10-09-2019, 09:16 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you junon,

Secularism seems to be a cause of marriage breakdown and a lack of community spirit. I say this because of the anything goes culture in the sexual revolution today. If you can't make a relationship work, move onto another one, children just seem to be a by - product of today's culture. When a child reaches the age of fifteen, about half of them are not living with both their biological parents.

Secularism has little to be proud of by encouraging people to enjoy the temptations in life. There will come a time when people are at rock bottom and they will search for something more.

Peace and blessings,
Eric
I agree. I think we have to ask why Christians in general having been so shockingly ineffective at defending their, faith, heritage and cultural norms. Its not entirely your fault there are a lot of forces at play (some of which are quite sinister), still its quite shocking witnessing its rapid collapse.

My shocking idea for Songs Of Praise? Try some Christianity!


I doubt anyone was surprised when the BBC’s Songs Of Praise featured a same-sex wedding last week. Like lesbian kisses, same-sex weddings are now more or less compulsory in all radio and TV programmes, and I fully expect to encounter one, or both together, in the early morning Shipping Forecast any day now. After failing to shock anyone, and perhaps disappointed at the lack of fuss, staff at Songs Of Praise said, in words that sound a bit petulant to me, that they were ‘not afraid of controversy’. Aren’t they, though? I’ll come to that in a moment.

These events are all about turning things upside down. They are always aimed at anything which has until now been traditional or conservative. This is why such huge efforts were made to get women to sign up as firefighters or to go to sea in warships, but I have never heard of a similar scheme to persuade women to work on other mainly male tasks, such as crewing council dustcarts, or keeping the sewers running.

So poor old Songs Of Praise, once a tiny refuge for the Christian elderly amid all the swearing and violence of modern TV, was long ago measured up by the Commissars for a new role. It’s years since it adopted a ‘magazine format’ (fewer hymns, less religion). In the end, it will no doubt be replaced by another panel show, in which Christianity will be just one of many religions, occasionally mentioned as an odd thing that other people do and generally mixed up with child abuse.

But if it’s really ‘not afraid of controversy’, may I suggest that it commissions some special editions with the following themes:

  • A doctor – perhaps the American Dr Anthony Levatino, who used to perform abortions but now doesn’t (and has eloquently explained his decision before a Committee of the US Congress) – describes the procedure and opens a discussion on whether it can be justified.
  • The programme visits an area of one of Britain’s poorer big cities, which has been affected by large-scale migration, and asks the locals how it has changed their lives.
  • It gives a platform to a supporter of traditional lifelong marriage (as prescribed by the Christian church) to explain why such marriages benefit children and society as a whole.

Not afraid of controversy, eh? I think we may have to wait a long time before any of these ever come to our screens. I am used to the dreary Left-wing consensus, and long ago stopped being surprised by it. But I am still annoyed by its continuing pretence that it is brave, original and radical, when in fact it is now the safe, boring conventional wisdom.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...istianity.html

One aspect we need to look into is the cultural revolution that changed Britian during the 1960s.

Blurb

Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens talks to Krishnan Guru-Murthy about his political transition from Bolshevism to conservatism, his fiery writing and what he would do to change the world, if given the chance.

Reply

Eric H
10-09-2019, 11:02 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
I agree. I think we have to ask why Christians in general having been so shockingly ineffective at defending their, faith, heritage and cultural norms.
All faith groups have a massive uphill struggle, the temptations of this world and secularism are too tempting. I believe the legal system in the UK is making it hard to have faith values. Christian bakers being taken to court because they do not want to put LGBT logos on a cake. Christian adoption agencies being given a hard time because they do not endorse gay couples adopting, etc.

I believe that our society suffers and we will pay dearly in the long run for the pressures secularism places on society. Mental health problems are escalating at an alarming rate, marriages are breaking down. We are turning to a burdened NHS that cannot cope with society's problems. I believe communities will have to suffer more before they hit rock bottom and turn back to God.

I went to a Churches Together Meeting this morning and came away feeling encouraged. The churches in our town are doing so much to help troubled people - mostly secular. We run a food bank, we have opened four houses for homeless people, good neighbours scheme, we help people in poverty, street pastors go out at night to help troubled people in our town, recovery courses for addicts, and more. If the churches in our town closed their doors, our community would suffer.

In the spirit of never giving up hope in God,
Eric
Reply

سيف الله
10-20-2019, 09:37 AM
Salaam

More on the destruction of the Christianity in the UK.

HUMAN DIGNITY REDEFINED

In revolutionary countries you expect to find desecration: churches turned into lavatories or reformatories, their sanctuaries wrecked and defiled, their bells pulled down and melted, and their crosses tumbled to the ground by commissars, as the Young Pioneers jeer.

Yet not all revolutions are so unsubtle. Those who intend to succeed move more carefully, smiling as they destroy. It is not true that nobody learns anything from history. Jacobin radicals—for all modern revolutions are really heirs of Robespierre and Fouché—have learned from their failures. Why annoy people into opposing you? Why risk turning nuisances into martyrs?


In modern Britain, officially a Christian kingdom whose symbol of authority is the Crown of St. Edward surmounted by a cross, Christian law and morals have been ruthlessly dethroned. But those who did it did it with a kiss rather than with a sword. They brought desecration but called it redecoration or modernization. And by the time the truck had carted the broken pieces to the landfill, it was too late to protest.

Wander through official London and you will see a Christian city. Though now surrounded by many towers of Mammon, the great dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral and the many towers and spires around it still give a Christian character to London’s skyline. What is more, the main buildings in which the civil and criminal law are resolved and meted out are specifically Christian. The Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand resemble a medieval monastery. A stone figure of Christ stands above its highest arch. Lower down are sculptures of Solomon and the early Christian king and lawgiver Alfred the Great.

The Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court, has above its main portal the words “Defend the Children of the poor, and punish the wrong-doer.” This is a quotation from Psalm 72 (verse 4, Miles Coverdale version). Its dignified Great Hall is adorned with the words “Moses gave unto the people the laws of God.” The Houses of Parliament (where laws are made) are founded upon the original St. Stephen's Chapel, which is why Parliament’s benches face each other, as in the choir of a church. They contain a consecrated and functioning chapel to this day. Sessions still begin with prayers, though they are now less sonorous and musical than they once were. The Central Lobby is decorated with murals depicting the four Christian patron saints of the nations of the United Kingdom: George, Andrew, Patrick, and David. The quarter chimes of Big Ben are based upon Handel's aria (from the Book of Job) “I know that My Redeemer Liveth.” And the monarchy itself is legally based upon a wholly Christian coronation service. The anointed and crowned monarch is presented with a copy of the Bible.

But all this counts for nothing, as a Christian doctor, David Mackereth, is the latest to discover. A judge has endorsed his removal as a benefits assessor for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) because he would not bow down in the House of Transgender. In July, while training for a DWP job, Mackereth told a supervisor that he would not “call any six-foot-tall bearded man madam.” He said he would refuse to refer to claimants who were born male as “she,” or those born female as “he.” Shortly afterward, Mackereth was dismissed.

He took his case to an employment tribunal (a specialized court dealing in employment rights), arguing that he had been discriminated against for his Christian beliefs. This month, he lost his case. The employment tribunal declared that Mackereth's view was offensive and discriminated against transgender people. It ruled that objections to transgender rights “are incompatible with human dignity.”

The judge said Mackereth could not permit his belief that “God created male and female” to influence his work. He concluded that Mackereth’s views were opinions rather than serious beliefs. Mackereth intends to appeal, but I don’t hold out too much hope for him. A whole string of foster parents, nurses, and wedding registrars have already found that Christian beliefs have no more status in the courts than any other opinions.

I realized that Christianity had been formally dethroned back in 2011, when a Christian couple in the city of Derby, Eunice and Owen Johns, were barred from acting as foster parents by the authorities, and the courts upheld this. Mr. and Mrs. Johns were not treated this way because they had said or done anything, but because they refused to promise to tell any children in their care that they approved of homosexuality. Their exclusion from doing something they loved and seem to have been good at was not because of any positive action, but because they would not say they loved Big Brother and the whole revolution in thought which our new order now demands.

The judges, if I have rightly understood their ruling, said the couple's views did not necessarily flow from their Christianity, and thus didn't qualify for the protection granted to “minorities” by Equality Law. But this was a technicality alongside the heart of the judgment: The court said that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity.

Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century…We sit as secular judges serving a multicultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”
A little while before there had been a similarly striking and rather militant judgment by Lord Justice Laws in the case of relationship counselor Gary McFarlane. He said “Law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot …be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

Equality and diversity, the official aims of the modern British state, have relegated Christianity to being just one of many religions, no more and no less to be respected than any other, and maybe weaker than some—because who is afraid of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

The Crown and Cross remain on the badges of police officers and on the coats of arms displayed in courts and prisons, Parliament and government, military bases and nuclear submarines. But they do not really mean anything. The revolutionaries just thought it better to leave them there, because people tend to care more about appearance than about reality.

Soren Kierkegaard is alleged to have said, “A passionate tumultuous age will overthrow everything, pull everything down; but a revolutionary age which is, at the same time, reflective and passionless, leaves everything standing but cunningly empties it of significance.” It is a fitting motto for the British Revolution, which has emptied every symbol of its former nature so that nothing is any longer what it claims to be.

It is close to success. When the next coronation comes (may it not be soon!), the world will see just how much the old constitution has been hollowed out since 1953. But until then, we will have to get used to a British state which counts itself as secular while retaining a few Christian symbols as a sort of nostalgic costume jewelry. This modern and enlightened new regime, the very reign of reason, couldn’t care less about the Resurrection, and doesn’t believe in it. Yet it thinks the law should take the side of a six-foot bearded man who wants to be called “Madam” against someone who thinks this is silly.

And all this happens under a government which refers to itself as “Conservative.” Expect no action from them. If you are surprised, in such a country, that a “Conservative” government is no such thing, then you have much to learn about modern England.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-excl...nity-redefined
Reply

سيف الله
11-23-2019, 09:53 AM
Salaam

More comment, American perspective.

When the personal should be political

The Christian church is now almost entirely bereft of leadership:

Calling it “pronoun hospitality,” Southern Baptist Convention President J.D. Greear revealed on an “Ask Me Anything” episode of his podcast that he prefers to call transgender people by their preferred pronouns.

Greear said that while there is room for disagreement and Christians should disagree charitably, he sees it as a hospitable courtesy to refer to transgender people by their chosen pronouns, despite knowing that their sex does not match their descriptors.
Actually, I have no problem with this at all on the personal level. It is simply polite to address people as they prefer to be addressed, especially when they are crazy. But to take this position as a leader is simply wrong and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the leader's duty to put himself and his personal preferences last, after the interests of the organization and his members.

Christianity has been betrayed by the Cult of Nice. And while niceties are an important aspect of civilization and correct etiquette is generally preferable to its absence, manners do not trump math, science, history, or DNA when it comes to speaking the truth about reality. The personal is not the political, which is why sometimes the latter should trump the former.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/11/w...political.html
Reply

Ahmed.
11-24-2019, 07:33 PM
The thing that destroyed Christianity is..... Wait for it....




THE SEPERATION OF STATE AND RELIGION

Yup, that very concept which protestants fought for and which they pride themselves in and which they try to implement in Islamic world too, that very thing destroyed them!!! :Emoji46:

The state is forcing them to accept gay priests, and every other things that orthodox Christianity clashes with of their utopic secular liberalism!

What did they expect when they put evil secularists in power??? :slap:
Reply

Eric H
11-25-2019, 08:32 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Yet it thinks the law should take the side of a six-foot bearded man who wants to be called “Madam” against someone who thinks this is silly.
If you think Christianity is suffering because of these laws, you should not take any joy from this as a Muslim living in Britain.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,

Eric
Reply

Zafran
11-25-2019, 08:14 PM
The Christians are declining in power in the UK - the problem is what type of people will replace them - Pro LGBT, Militant secularist, New Atheists - and what about the Muslims what type will there be in the future - will it be Muslims who put God first or identity politics or just nod along with the secular liberal order. God knows. However seeing Muslims being pushed in the left is an interesting thing to take note and the possible future of the UK.

I wouldn't even be surprised if some Christians revert back to Paganism.
Reply

happy muslim
11-25-2019, 08:47 PM
What if we just continue and whatever religion is respected?
Reply

سيف الله
11-25-2019, 09:56 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by happy muslim
What if we just continue and whatever religion is respected?
Wishful thinking.

Learn the lessons from Christianitys travails, one day that could be us.
Reply

Ahmed.
11-25-2019, 10:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by happy muslim
What if we just continue and whatever religion is respected?
Not a chance because the 'elite' (people with power and influence who control Western politics) are very very bad, they don't like religion. Only Islam will survive due to iman and tenacity of Muslims
Reply

سيف الله
12-09-2019, 06:27 PM
Salaam

Common sense to anybody who understands history.


Sexual immorality and the decline of the West


This summary of J.D. Unwin's work from the 1930s is the practical application of the theoretical argument that connects Western post-Christianity to the observable decline of the West:
  1. Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
  2. Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
  3. Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
  4. Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
  5. Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
  6. Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation.


Thanks to the rationalist generations that preceded them, the first generation of a society setting aside its sexual restraints can still enjoy its new-found sexual freedom before any significant decline in culture, but the data shows that this “having your cake and eating it too” phase lasts a maximum of one generation before the decline sets in. Unwin wrote:

The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence (sexual restraint), the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence.

The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.

Looking at our own sexual revolution, the “having your cake and eating it too” phase would have lasted into the early 2000’s. We are now at a stage where we should begin to observe the verification or falsification of Unwin’s predictions.
As any honest observer would readily conclude, Unwin's predictions are being verified with a vengeance. The solution is simple: walk the narrow path. Get married. Be faithful. Have children. And then plant the acorns that will grow into the mighty oaks underneath which your great-grandchildren will play.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/12/s...e-of-west.html
Reply

CarefulThinker
12-18-2019, 06:46 PM
I recall reading about this UK Doctor David Mackereth who refused to go along with this gender identity concept. After reading this article, "Human Diginity Redefined" I myself am further convinced of how far society is deteriorating. And it is in so many countries around the world.

I don't know if this makes sense, but it just seems society now is reaching a point that the natural order of things is being eradicated, and in its place we have chaos.
Reply

Delphi
12-18-2019, 06:56 PM
The problem about this is it fuels a narrative - a narrative that given our current level of technological progress, has very negative outcomes.

The narrative is simple. Speaking as a feminist, it's feminism 101. Control your females, have children, rise as a civilization. Loose control of your females, fall. It's patriarchy 101.

It's exactly this kind of narrative that gets used repeatedly to demonize and oppress muslims and Islam. Look, they are coming to get you, ect. It's this kind of narrative that keep people like Donald Trump in power - see, only we the strong, the mighty can protect you, ect.

I'm a wiccan feminist who strongly admires aetheism as a "neutrality code" for co-operating with your neighbours. I lament the loss of the reverence of the divine female, which has been a feature of human civilization ever since food surplusses and improved weaponry allowed for serious organized warfare - ie the late bronze or early iron age. I've been critical of Islam in the past, but I'm re-examining that evaluation. You are a major world religion, and honestly, I think you're being demonized by a large number of other power groups, who are exploiting this in a negative manner. It's not just the west. China does this all the time, ditto Russia. It's a standard feature. My beliefs about the negative nature of patriarchy remain but I've returned here to try and have a civil conversation.

The crisis is quite simple, and it's emerged before in human civilization, but never on this scale - essentially, resource overuse, more specifically Global Warming. For sure, it will hit the global equator/south first, though the west certainly won't emerge unscathed (I wouldn't buy property in Florida). Right now we're doing ok, but if we continue on our current trajectory of carbon overuse and over emission, we'll be in real trouble. Mass drought, large parts of the earth becoming uninhabitable, people forced to migrate north (or anywhere they can) to continue to survive. Some really bad "Mad Max" level apocalyptic stuff. And no, it's not the implacable will of a sky daddy - it's just our own bad choices as a species, and the forces of a logical cosmos.

It's not this crisis that dooms human civilization. We've probably got the capacity to technologically evolve and engineer past it. The crisis that dooms human civilization is the ensuing warfare and disruption caused by failing to work together and manage this properly. That, given nuclear weapons, could be the end of us. And no, I don't have a particular belief that one faction is overly fated to survive that and be able to careen and cavort around in flag of choice festooned dune buggies. Extinction level events have happened before in Earth's history and they tend to be final.

And so we get to rational aetheism.

Humans will never agree on one code to unite us, or one universal set of morality or ultimate answers to live by. In some ways our so called "higher morality" has been used as an excuse to adopt standard survival strategies, including warfare against competitors. In SOME ways, it is not, and reveals genuine deeper truths that lift us up, teach us how to behave and deepen our spiritual understanding of the universe. Law is an attempt to create a reasonable common set of rules to live by that most people agree are morally correct and necessary for the functioning of a peaceful civilization (ie don't kill, don't steal, ect). I could write a lot more about this but I'll skip to the important/new ideas.

Aetheism and our current secular and international law represent a mechanism by which our entire species can co-operate, work together, and avoid conflict. This is becoming increasingly important as we technologically evolve. The consequences of warfare are becoming a LOT higher, the "prize" for victors a lot lower, and the chance of some kind of system wide absolute failure caused by our failure to find peace and co-operate are becoming a lot higher.

We are never going to all "convert" to one religion or ethical code - and trying to make people do so may trigger that "end war", or simply backfire on the instigators in the form of reprisals by all other groups. So, essentially, we need a set of rules by which we can co-operate internationally and societally and work together while believing disparate and different things.

We are left with the Geneva Convention. International Law. The UN. Carbon reduction accords. Trade agreements. In my opinion these are the only and best tools for achieving peace before it's too late. To be honest, it's inevitable that western military intervention will decline in future decades, though I suspect the west's will to defend it's own culture and territory will remain strong. Others will step in - ie China.

I think our best chance is to forge some kind of universal consensus now on global cooperation. It doesn't need to mean global government, - in fact "live and let live" should probably be the greatest byword. Let your neighbours do their thing, and do yours. The greatest challenge is really carbon reduction, and avoiding the usual wars over culture and belief.

So , i'm back here to try and find a way to cooperate, even though I don't agree with you.
Reply

Delphi
12-18-2019, 06:59 PM
Us pro LGBT, militant secularist, new atheists have a respect for humanism and humanity and actually might consider cooperating with Islam to some degree to solve pressing global problems and issues. It's the radical Christianity of the US South (which is by no means dead), that wants to keep the war going.
Reply

Eric H
12-18-2019, 08:56 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Delphi;

format_quote Originally Posted by Delphi
It's the radical Christianity of the US South (which is by no means dead), that wants to keep the war going.
George bush may have said God bless America as he went off to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq, but that does not make it a Christian war. Christianity's greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour, we are even asked to love and pray for our enemies. There is nothing Christian about instigating a war.

format_quote Originally Posted by Delphi
who strongly admires aetheism as a "neutrality code" for co-operating with your neighbours.
I have not witnessed this in the town I have lived in for the last thirty years. But I do see Christians working together for the common good, we have opened up four houses for the homeless, a basics food bank, debt help, recovery courses for addiction, good neighbours and more. I am also hopeful that we can do the same kind of work cooperating with people from many faiths in our town through our interfaith organisation working together for the common good.

We are all created by the same God and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We look for the good in all [people; and I truthfully believe that you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,

Eric
Reply

'Abdullah
12-18-2019, 09:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delphi
I'm a wiccan feminist who strongly admires aetheism as a "neutrality code" for co-operating with your neighbours. I lament the loss of the reverence of the divine female, which has been a feature of human civilization ever since food surplusses and improved weaponry allowed for serious organized warfare - ie the late bronze or early iron age. I've been critical of Islam in the past, but I'm re-examining that evaluation. You are a major world religion, and honestly, I think you're being demonized by a large number of other power groups, who are exploiting this in a negative manner. It's not just the west. China does this all the time, ditto Russia. It's a standard feature. My beliefs about the negative nature of patriarchy remain but I've returned here to try and have a civil conversation.
Although Islam and feminism are not completely without common ground, the values and principles of Islam and feminism are generally contrary. Both condemn the oppression of women. Both insist that women may own their own property and dispose of it as they wish. In theology, both reject the symbol of 'Father' for God. However, the feminist view that patriarchy is equivalent to the oppression of women is not compatible with Islam. The feminist idea that traditional gender roles are to be eliminated is opposed by the Islamic idea that the primary role of woman (after that of servant of God) is that of wife and mother. Theologically, while feminists view the divine as 'Mother and Father' or as goddess, Islam considers the parent metaphor inappropriate for divinity and categorically denies the existence of gods and goddesses.

I have seen a trend where many women especially those who are feminists accepting Islam. You are on your journey and I know there are many unanswered questions you may have. May be it is best to see what makes these feminists to accept Islam.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ing-Islam.html
Reply

Delphi
12-18-2019, 09:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HabibUrrehman
Although Islam and feminism are not completely without common ground, the values and principles of Islam and feminism are generally contrary. Both condemn the oppression of women. Both insist that women may own their own property and dispose of it as they wish. In theology, both reject the symbol of 'Father' for God. However, the feminist view that patriarchy is equivalent to the oppression of women is not compatible with Islam. The feminist idea that traditional gender roles are to be eliminated is opposed by the Islamic idea that the primary role of woman (after that of servant of God) is that of wife and mother. Theologically, while feminists view the divine as 'Mother and Father' or as goddess, Islam considers the parent metaphor inappropriate for divinity and categorically denies the existence of gods and goddesses.
Honestly, I don't think I'm going to convert anytime soon. I basically just don't believe you are right, but that's ok - I suspect we need to work together to make things better on a planetary scale. That is why I am here - to try and find a way to do that. There is also the small issue of me being a postoperative transsexual woman, and that being accepted by some, but not others. However, I will not forget the history of Hijra (Indian transsexuals) having an honored place as harem guards in Shia caliphate court culture. It's worth noting.

The interesting and ironic thing about being "pagan with an atheist view of what is actually reality" is that it actually leads to some very gendered behavior. I'm trying to honor that role of mother/protector/wise woman by protecting the entire earth and species from catastrophe caused by ecological collapse. I've got this iron spined crone flowing through me saying "please warn them before it's too late", and "demonizing people and starting wars is wrong".

I don't agree with you. I never will. But, because of our shared common humanity and my own beliefs it's become imperative that we find a way to co-operate on a larger scale, "agree to disagree" and save the global south from flooding/drought/famine on a mass scale. I'm convinced it caused the Syrian Civil war - root cause, farming failure. It's basically just wrong that we do nothing - and has a high chance of causing serious global level problems/conflict if we don't find some new way to talk to one another.
Reply

Delphi
12-18-2019, 10:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Delphi;

George bush may have said God bless America as he went off to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq, but that does not make it a Christian war. Christianity's greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour, we are even asked to love and pray for our enemies. There is nothing Christian about instigating a war.

I have not witnessed this in the town I have lived in for the last thirty years. But I do see Christians working together for the common good, we have opened up four houses for the homeless, a basics food bank, debt help, recovery courses for addiction, good neighbours and more. I am also hopeful that we can do the same kind of work cooperating with people from many faiths in our town through our interfaith organisation working together for the common good.

We are all created by the same God and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We look for the good in all [people; and I truthfully believe that you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,

Eric
Western civilization has formulated the concept of "Right war in self defence". The last war everyone's comfortable universally applying this label to was World War II.
Iraq was a sequence of lies, badly formulated by neo-cons, and outright wrong. Afghanistan - well, there I have a lot more questions. Debatably it can be justified as a war of self defence.

I know - end war, right. It seems intractible, but i suspect or fear we will need to to survive and we are running out of time. (25-50 years to solve Carbon crisis - best to start now). Christianity's my cultural home base, but I've been highly critical of both Islam and Christianity before. I'm beginning to think that was wrong, not because criticism wasn't deserved. Yes, it was, and will be in the future. It's just going on screaming at your fellow humans might actually accomplish absolutely nothing when it comes to changing the world - ditto with offending them, doing your best to dork them off, or generally trash talking. Yes, yes, get your punk on, trash talk your hereditary rivals. It's hilarious, but not productive.

I feel moved by something religious or spiritual to speak. I'll tell you a story from reformed atheist land. Somewhere, in learning how to mess around with witchcraft, I learnt to sense energy. It's a dim sense - I'm not by any means strongly psychic, but it's there. A very strong impression I get is in old churches of "accepting or tolerant" denominations that have preached love and peace for years. The energy is aligned in such a way to promote healing, love, inner self affirmation and health and connection to your fellow humans. Yes, yes, the walls hold power, and it's sacred space. Ect.
Your average "modern megachurch with we're better than them fundieness" doesn't seem to do that for me. The school's shared prayer space is also interesting - definitely a lot of power there (and thank you, Islamic prayer) for that, but it's attuned in ways that can be complex and spiky if you don't tell it what to do, and that you are in charge. -
What does that make me - Wiccan? Christian? Muslim? . Probably A with a recognizance of the sacredness of all human spiritual experience and life.

It's the primary reason why I returned and am fed up with trash talking. It doesn't serve any good purpose, ultimately.
Reply

سيف الله
12-19-2019, 03:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delphi
Us pro LGBT, militant secularist, new atheists have a respect for humanism and humanity and actually might consider cooperating with Islam to some degree to solve pressing global problems and issues. It's the radical Christianity of the US South (which is by no means dead), that wants to keep the war going.
Nice try but we have even less in common with you than Christians.
Reply

Delphi
12-20-2019, 03:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Nice try but we have even less in common with you than Christians.
So what happens, then? People like Boris Johnson are able to fearmonger and say whatever they want, while the rich get on with cheating the poor. Ethnic and tribal divisions get used to keep the underclass in check. A lot of interesting stuff happens, but eventually Europe decides it's sick of being everyone's favorite port of refuge and does something about firming up it's borders.

This is what really worries me about global warming. It will hit the global south first. Essentially, we're in a position where we have to cooperate as a planet to fix this problem, even though we may not like or agree with each other.
Reply

Delphi
12-20-2019, 05:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Nice try but we have even less in common with you than Christians.
I think our value sets are radically different, but that we can agree to cooperate and trade for mutual benefit and to face common issues we face as a species.

A few miles from my home, there are 19th century farms, inhabited by Christian mennonites, who refuse to modernize, or embrace the 21st century. They follow an austere religious ethic that is fundamentally patriarchial and authoritarian. However, they don't interfere in the outside world too much, and us city types are content to buy organic food from them. They're not going to try and say, burn me at the stake for witchcraft tomorrow. It's an example of how radically different groups can cooperate, with a basic understanding of nonviolence and trade for mutual benefit.
Reply

Ahmed.
12-21-2019, 11:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delphi
Us pro LGBT, militant secularist, new atheists have a respect for humanism and humanity and actually might consider cooperating with Islam to some degree to solve pressing global problems and issues. It's the radical Christianity of the US South (which is by no means dead), that wants to keep the war going.
Athiesm is far worse than radical religionists in starting wars and intolerance:

with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question "What is a human being?" has changed. People who used to answer: "Allah creates human beings and they have to live according to the beautiful morality He teaches", have now begun to think that "Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed by means of the fight for survival." There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other barbaric world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception.

... the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all historians who are expert in the matter accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because]… his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society. 5

https://m.harunyahya.com/tr/Books/97...olution-Deceit
Reply

CuriousonTruth
12-23-2019, 07:14 AM
Christianity is only in decline in Europe. And the result is ultra-nationalistic, neo-Darwinist atheism.

I don't hate Christianity as a religion or ideology, but Christians are some of the most hateful people in the world, and while they commit all kinds of violence they play the victim cards constantly.

If Christianity dies, GOOD RIDDANCE. But I don't think the world will necessarily be a better place.
Reply

CuriousonTruth
12-23-2019, 07:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delphi
So what happens, then? People like Boris Johnson are able to fearmonger and say whatever they want, while the rich get on with cheating the poor. Ethnic and tribal divisions get used to keep the underclass in check. A lot of interesting stuff happens, but eventually Europe decides it's sick of being everyone's favorite port of refuge and does something about firming up it's borders.

This is what really worries me about global warming. It will hit the global south first. Essentially, we're in a position where we have to cooperate as a planet to fix this problem, even though we may not like or agree with each other.
Europeans are the most xenophobic people by nature, regardless of religion, the likes of Boris Johnson, Steve Bannon will always be there. Europeans are naturally obsessed with the "other" those are different than them, and often want to either kill or exile said groups (Example: Genocide of Native Americans, Aboriginals, Africans, exile of Gypsies). The drive to kill those different than them, and play "Knights vs Orcs" constantly is a 4,000 year old European trait.


But Islam is hated the most by Europeans is because unlike the Africans/ Aboriginals who just rolled over and died, Islamic civilization fought Europe for 1,300 years on equal footing.

And as such, the enmity will NEVER stop. Islamic civilization and European/Occidental civilization will always be at a clash.
Reply

Eric H
12-23-2019, 08:26 AM
Greetings and peace be with you CuriousonTruth

format_quote Originally Posted by CuriousonTruth
but Christians are some of the most hateful people in the world,
Christians have been given the greatest commandments, to love God and to love all our neighbours as we love ourselves; we can do nothing greater. We are even commanded to love and pray for our enemies. So I am not sure how hateful people follow Christianity.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,

Eric
Reply

CuriousonTruth
12-23-2019, 08:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you CuriousonTruth



Christians have been given the greatest commandments, to love God and to love all our neighbours as we love ourselves; we can do nothing greater. We are even commanded to love and pray for our enemies. So I am not sure how hateful people follow Christianity.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,

Eric
"Christians have been given the greatest commandments" Which are useless because no one follows them. Something that is in theory but never applied in practice, may as well be fictional. The teachings of Christianity are treated by Christians as just that - fairytales to make people feel good about themselves.

Christians boast about the teachings of Christ being against greed, yet they are the second greediest people in the world, exploiting the poor, creating a political and economic system that relies on exploitation, consumerism.
Christians claim their religion espouses tolerance, yet they are amongst the most intolerant and racist people in the world, often sponsoring the most extreme far-right rallies and groups. So much so they support killing of Arab christians by ISrael.
Christians claim they are against killing but their biggest heroes for whom they have holidays like Churchill, Christopher Columbus, Andrew Jackson, Reynald de Chatillon, Leopold II, etc who have killed millions of people.

I could bring quotes from Evangelical christians, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, and basically any pastors to show what Christians in practice believe.
Reply

Eric H
12-23-2019, 07:19 PM
Greetings and peace be with you CuriousonTruth;

format_quote Originally Posted by CuriousonTruth
"Christians have been given the greatest commandments" Which are useless because no one follows them. Something that is in theory but never applied in practice, may as well be fictional. The teachings of Christianity are treated by Christians as just that - fairytales to make people feel good about themselves.

Christians boast about the teachings of Christ being against greed, yet they are the second greediest people in the world, exploiting the poor, creating a political and economic system that relies on exploitation, consumerism.
Christians claim their religion espouses tolerance, yet they are amongst the most intolerant and racist people in the world, often sponsoring the most extreme far-right rallies and groups. So much so they support killing of Arab christians by ISrael.
Christians claim they are against killing but their biggest heroes for whom they have holidays like Churchill, Christopher Columbus, Andrew Jackson, Reynald de Chatillon, Leopold II, etc who have killed millions of people.

I could bring quotes from Evangelical christians, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, and basically any pastors to show what Christians in practice believe.
What you say is very much the same as judging Islam by suicide bombers. I know this is a false understanding of Islam, and I would not be influenced to think that Islam is a violent religion because of some of its followers.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people;

Eric
Reply

سيف الله
04-11-2021, 10:11 AM
Salaam

Another update.

When police start raiding our churches, you know the revolution has begun

The sight of police closing down a church service is one of the worst moments of this national panic.

I am more and more sure that this country is suffering a revolution in which much that we used to know and believe is being quietly, insistently destroyed.

But Scotland Yard’s raid on the Church of Christ the King in Balham, South London, was especially distressing, not least because most of the congregation there are Polish, from a country where the Christian religion was only recently freed from state harassment.

When I travelled and lived in Communist countries, churches were one of the few fortresses of resistance against the overwhelming power of those secret police states.

It was from the Gethsemane Church in East Berlin that some of the first and bravest demonstrations began against that iron tyranny, and I will never forget the night police surrounded the shabby redbrick building to intimidate an open protest against the regime.

But most potent of all was the revolt by the Polish Roman Catholic church against the squalid, thuggish government imposed on that country by Moscow. It seemed as if it was uncontrollable. Poles were consumed with delight that a son of Poland, John Paul II, had become Pope, and so they behaved like free men and women even though their land was still officially a Communist prison.

Their path from Soviet darkness back into the light of liberty looks easy now that Polish Communism is a memory and the vast Soviet armed forces are nothing but rust. But it was not so then.

The church was endlessly oppressed. One outspoken priest was actually murdered in a gangster-like killing by the secret police, dumped in a lake with a stone tied to his legs, after a terrible beating. The Communists hated Christ, and God in general, because they wanted the people to worship them instead. They rightly saw the church as a rival.

Here it is, of course, different. The Johnson Government’s restriction of religion during the past year has taken the form of contemptuous indifference. They themselves are uninterested in such things, and have no idea how insulting their actions have been to those who acknowledge another power, higher than them.

The largely useless leaders of the churches have done almost nothing to fight for their freedom, leaving the task to the little platoons who in fact keep the whole thing going.

I have felt this pretty keenly myself, but have said little about it till now (apart from the inexcusable prevention of Remembrance services last year) because I sought to keep the fight against the subversion of our society as broad as possible.

But the sight of police officers ordering a church full of people to go home, in the middle of Good Friday devotions on the most solemn day of the Christian year, was just too much for me. There stood these paramilitary social workers in their stab vests and face masks. One of them appeared to have her handcuffs at the ready in her belt, standing with arms folded inside the altar rail. In bureaucratic newspeak, her male colleague intoned the Covid regulations, and out they all filed.

I was not there and am not qualified to say if the regulations were broken, but the Church says not. In my experience, church leaders are painfully vigilant about such things, and churches themselves are very large and airy – pictures of the Balham church show a whopping great barn with a high roof.

So why, of all the places in London, on all the days of the year, was this one targeted on Good Friday?

I don't think much thought went into it. I think deep down in the brain of the state is an idea that religious people, especially Christians, shouldn’t think they have any special position in Britain any more.

Worship the new Health and Safety State first, and when you’ve done that we might allow to you worship God, not in the way you want to, but in the way we let you.

If they’d come in with clubs swinging and Communist emblems on their cap-badges, I suspect the Poles of Balham would have thrown them out. But, like so many of us, they still treasure the illusion that this is a free country.

And so they submit to things they’d never take from an invader or a more obvious oppressor. It turns out that free countries are incredibly easy to turn into despotisms, because nobody can believe what is happening.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Another perspective


Christian persecution... in London

Christians have been expecting active persecution in the West for at least the last 40 years. It may be minor, to date, but it has officially arrived under the guise of "health care":

A Good Friday service at a Polish church was shut down by police for breaching Covid rules as worshippers were threatened with £200 fines.

Officers shut down the religious ceremony in Balham High Street, south London, at around 5pm yesterday, with footage showing an officer tell worshippers that the gathering is 'unlawful' and that they have to go home.

Meanwhile, just under five miles away at a crowded Parliament Square, thousands of protestors gathered at a Kill the Bill rally chanting, banging drums and waving placards before scuffles broke out with police.

The parish Parafia Chrystusa Krola — Christ the Believer — has issued a statement saying it believes police 'brutally exceeded their powers'.

It urged those present at the ceremony to file a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police, adding: 'We asked the police authorities to explain the incident and we are waiting for their response.'

Bishop of Buckingham Rt Rev Alan Wilson also questioned breaking up the service, telling Channel 4 News that the Government needs to clarify its coronavirus guidelines for churches.

And people on social media have slammed the police's 'disgraceful' handling of the situation, with some describing it as 'deeply offensive'.

Official coronavirus guidance states communal worship or prayer can be attended by as many people as a place of worship can accommodate, as long as they are socially distanced. Masks should be worn, according to the government rules.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark said the intervention had occurred during the solemn liturgy, which would have taken just 30 minutes to complete.
It is increasingly likely that your faith will be tested during your lifetime. Be ready for the test by deciding if you will follow Jesus Christ or if you will follow Caesar when you are presented with the choice. It will be interesting to see if the Queen, who is the titular head of the Church of England, is willing to accept this overt persecution of Christians - even if Roman Catholic Christians - in her name.

UPDATE: Apparently the persecution is even worse in Ireland.

It's now a crime to go to Mass in Ireland, and an Irish priest has recently been fined for celebrating Mass, even though such a law is not in our Constitution or on any legal books. As for the Irish Church: It's been hijacked, and the fake senior clergy, most of them closet gays, are 'in bed' with the anti-Christian Woke State.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/04/c...in-london.html

The UK is well on its way to becoming a secular theocracy - where worshipping the state will be the new religion to replace the remnants of a once Christian society.
Reply

سيف الله
05-21-2021, 12:05 PM
Salaam

There is no gay agenda. . . .

Criminalizing Christianity

That is the goal. And no amount of "free speech" or "free expression" is going to serve as even a modicum of protection for those who preach the Gospel or even speak the truth:

A school secretly reported its chaplain to the anti-terrorism Prevent programme after he delivered a sermon defending the right of pupils to question its introduction of new LGBT policies.

The Reverend Dr Bernard Randall told pupils at independent Trent College near Nottingham that they were allowed to disagree with the measures, particularly if they felt they ran contrary to Church of England principles.

Among them was a plan to ‘develop a whole school LGBT+ inclusive curriculum’.

Having decided that Dr Randall’s sermon was ‘harmful to LGBT’ students, the school flagged him to Prevent, which normally identifies those at risk of radicalisation.

Police investigated the tip-off but advised the school by email that Dr Randall, 48, posed ‘no counter terrorism risk, or risk of radicalisation’. Derbyshire Police confirmed that the case ‘did not meet the threshold for a Prevent referral’.

But in a disturbing development, Dr Randall, a former Cambridge University chaplain and Oxford graduate, claims that the school later told him that any future sermons would be censored in advance.

He also claims that he was warned his chapel services would be monitored ‘to ensure that... requirements are met’. Dr Randall was later dismissed.
In Canada, a pastor was arrested yesterday. This is what becomes inevitable once a formerly Christian society becomes "inclusive" and is convinced to give up its blasphemy laws and permit "freedom of religion".

No society ruled by liars can permit the truth to be told. And the governments of the West are increasingly ruled by those who worship the Prince of Lies.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/05/c...istianity.html

I dont think we need subscribe sinister power the the alphabet birgade, they are just latest proxies by the rich, powerful, influcential to get rid of whats left of the Christian basis of UK society.
Reply

IslamLife00
05-21-2021, 10:00 PM
They will do this to Islam next. May Allah protect us
Reply

سيف الله
05-24-2021, 11:22 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by IslamLife00
They will do this to Islam next. May Allah protect us
Im glad somebody gets it. Its important to learn the lessons from Christianity's defeat and not to repeat their mistakes.

For example this is a very perceptive take on how liberals operate.







Related



Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Harvard Address: a warning to the West

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDRLfIqw1Dw

A condensed version



More analysis

Blurb

Author & journalist Peter Hitchens returns to the "So What You're Saying Is..." (#SWYSI) sofa for an in-depth discussion of his experiences living in the Soviet Union, the central tenets of Marxist ideology & the degree to which it has influenced post-War Britain (and its leaders), and the continuing story of the Far Left's permeation through our society & institutions.


Reply

IslamLife00
05-25-2021, 01:58 AM
All tweets were deleted. but JazakAllah khayr anyway. I will know inshaAllah what the tweets are about someday
Reply

سيف الله
05-25-2021, 06:57 AM
Salaam

The tweets from above? (Post #47). They are showing up fine for me, maybe a problem with your browser?
Reply

IslamLife00
05-25-2021, 10:19 AM
yes all 4 of them. says the tweet doesn't exist.
Reply

سيف الله
05-25-2021, 01:10 PM
Salaam

Really strange, well here are some screenshots of what you missed.
Reply

IslamLife00
05-25-2021, 09:59 PM
jazakAllah khayr. I can watch YT videos just fine. Will try a few things with my browser, see if it works inshaAllah. First time this happened.

edit : I managed to view the tweets Alhamdulillah
Reply

سيف الله
06-28-2021, 12:06 AM
Salaam

Interesting.



So adhering to basics in unacceptable to the secular, in the name of 'tolerance' of course.
Reply

Eric H
06-29-2021, 09:46 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Its important to learn the lessons from Christianity's defeat and not to repeat their mistakes.
Marriage between a man and woman seems to have lost its meaning, this is a direct attack against both Islam and Christianity. The right to sexually do whatever we want does sound appealing to most young people.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'.
Eric
Reply

سيف الله
12-06-2022, 01:37 PM
Salaam

Another update

Of Autism and Atheism

Secular whites are beginning to have doubts about atheism now that Clown World is targeting the European peoples for their race the way it targets Christians for their faith.

Will I ever stop hating on the Catholic Church and become a believer? Maybe. But if I do, it won’t just be Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Father Leonard Feeney who will have helped me kneel before the Queen of Heaven. It will also be Professor Richard Dawkins. Belloc, Chesterton, and Feeney have set me a positive example of Christian wisdom, insight, and intelligence. Dawkins has done the opposite. He’s set me a negative example of anti-Christian foolishness, blindness, and stupidity. With the able assistance of Christopher Hitchens, he’s taught me to regard atheism as uncouth, adolescent, and autistic.

Yes, I think Vox Day is right to connect atheism and autism. Like autism, atheism is a kind of color-blindness: an inability to perceive, understand and appreciate an essential — and extraordinarily beautiful — aspect of reality. Autistic people don’t perceive social relationships; atheists don’t perceive the most important “social relationship” of all, that between God and His Creation. Or so theists like Day would argue. I’m not with those theists yet, but Richard Dawkins is one of those who have helped me away from atheism and towards theism. I look back with shame on the days when I was a fully fledged fan of his. Now I’m only a partly fledged fan. I still admire his scientific knowledge and the quality of his prose. Unlike the polysyllabicizing gasbag Hitchens, Dawkins is a clear and careful writer who is more interested in describing biology than in demonstrating his own cleverness.

Not that Dawkins could demonstrate much cleverness if he tried. He’s made solid contributions to evolutionary biology, but he isn’t particularly clever. He himself has said that he doesn’t score well on IQ tests and I think Greg Cochran has called him a “pinhead.” That would be hyperbole, but Dawkins is certainly not “the world’s top thinker,” as a poll in Prospect Magazine once proclaimed him to be.
It’s been amusing to see the great regard so many atheists professed for the Four Horsemen of Atheism vanishing in light of the obvious mediocrity of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Fortunately for Christopher Hitchens, he died before his intellectual mediocrity became fully apparent to everyone.

It’s fascinating how often those who can’t bring themselves to believe in God or Jesus Christ gradually begin coming around once they understand that someone, or something, is actively seeking their destruction. And the truth will eventually come to light once the vital question is asked: why are they seeking to destroy me?

https://voxday.net/2022/12/03/of-autism-and-atheism/
Reply

سيف الله
12-26-2022, 02:23 AM
Salaam

Like to share.


Free Speech Was Always Fake


There is not, and there has never been, any such thing as a right to free speech or freedom of expression. And we’re seeing how false the pretense that there is again now that Elon Musk is kicking a few journalists off of Twitter.



Evil always plays by the principle of “rules for thee but not for me”. It will switch from “free speech absolutism” to “there is no place for hate speech” in a blink of an eye depending upon whom is being affected. This is why there was never any reason to permit the Enlightenment war against Christianity, and in particular, the “free speech” campaign against the Christian blasphemy laws, which was the entire purpose of that campaign from the very start.

If you don’t believe me, read A HISTORY OF THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT by historian JB Bury, who was not only a great historian and the editor of THE CAMBRIDGE MEDIEVAL HISTORY SERIES, but a strong and effective champion of Enlightenment principles.

https://voxday.net/2022/12/16/free-s...s-always-fake/

Free Speech is Anti-Christ

Free speech is a satanic concept that was developed by anti-christian atheists to attack Christian civilization during the Enlightenment. It is neither a Christian nor a conservative value. You don’t need to take my word for it, though. Read A HISTORY OF THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT by historian JB Bury, who was a strong proponent of free speech.

That is one of two books I would recommend to read if you would like to understand how we went from Christian civilization to Clown World. The other one is AN AUSTRIAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS by Murray Rothbard. Whereas Bury describes the historical degradation of the anti-blasphemy laws, Rothbard describes the successful centuries-long assault on the anti-usury laws.

“The entire idea of free speech is a farce. It is a lie. It is not real.”

https://voxday.net/2022/12/21/free-s...s-anti-christ/

Mentioned before but if you can ever get hold of it, read this



Blurb

Henri de Lubac traces the spiritual and historical origins of what we now know as contemporary atheism, which claims to have 'moved beyond God'/ he focuses on three 19th century thinkers who attempted to construct a humanism apart from God: Ludwig, Feuerbach, who greatly influenced Karl Marx; Friedrich Nietzsche, who represents Nihilism; and Auguste Comte, the father of positivism. He then discusses the prophetic role of Fyodor Dostoevsky, whose novels show characters striving to embrace an anti Christian humanism and living the ugly consequences.

'An exceptionally insightful book when it was written during the maelstrom of World War 2. The drama of Atheist Humanism remains decades later a penetrating analysis of the cultural acids eating away the foundations of Western civilization. Thinking to liberate humanity for a new maturity, the atheistic humanist succeeded only in facilitating the greatest slaughters in history. One would of thought the west had learned some important lessons from that. But we haven't, so we must let Father de Lubac teach us once again.'
'Originating in de Lubacs own spiritual resistance to facisim and Marxism, this is a masterful expose of how supposedly secular ideologies remain the thrall to the Christian faith and practiced what they purport to refute.'
Reply

Karl
12-26-2022, 10:39 PM
I believe in free speech. It's good to know who your enemies are. I don't believe that Christianity will die, as in times of hardship and war it will probably get stronger. Most Christians these days are liberal loons and when they talk they sound like they worship Marx, "the international community" and UN instead of Christ.
Reply

Labayk
12-27-2022, 01:24 AM
I actually think there will be a revival of Christianity. The reason I think this is because of the hadith describing the end times in which the Muslims and Christians will have a truce against a common enemy:

"You will make a firm truce with the Christians (al-Rum) until you and they wage a campaign against an enemy that is attacking them. You will be granted victory and great spoils. Then you will alight in a plain surrounded by hills. There, someone among the Christians shall say: 'The Cross has overcome!' whereupon someone among the Muslims shall say: 'Nay, Allah has overcome!' and shall go and break the cross.
The Christians shall kill him, then the Muslims shall take up their arms and the two sides shall fall upon each other.
Allah shall grant martyrdom to that group of Muslims. After that the Christians shall say to their leader: 'We shall relieve you of the Arabs,' and they shall gather up for the great battle (al-malhama). They shall come to you under eighty flags, each flag gathering 12,000 troops." [approx. 1 million]
Narrated with sound chains from Dhu Mikhbar al-Najashi by Abu Dawud, Ahmad, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban, and al-Hakim who declared it sahih and al-Dhahabi concurred.

Because of the breaking of a cross the truce will be over. It is hard to imagine in this current state of ours the secular west giving a damn about a cross being broken. It seems that Christianity will experience a revival and Allah Knows best.
Reply

سيف الله
04-14-2023, 10:33 AM
Salaam

Maybe, but its looking really bad for them at the moment.

Like to share. A little background history to how we got to this point.

The New Confessional State


When Charles II was restored in 1660, it was widely assumed that it would be on the condition of a new regime of (relative) religious tolerance. Charles himself had promised as much in his ‘Declaration of Breda’, a list of (vague) promises to his soon-to-be subjects made as a prelude to his reclaiming the throne. Given that the Presbyterians (one of the major Puritan sects that had caused his father so much trouble in the 1640s) were, by 1660, willing to acquiesce in his Restoration, this was hardly surprising. Certainly the Presbyterians themselves saw it as a quid pro quo: we’ll support your return if you give us freedom of worship. ‘Dissenters’ – that is, Protestant Christians who disagreed with the doctrines and rites of the Church of England, usually on the grounds that the latter was not Protestant enough – were to be allowed to exist in some reasonable degree of freedom.

This was not how things turned out. Charles’ promises came with two caveats. Firstly, ‘liberty to tender consciences’ was promised on the condition that the religious views tolerated did not “disturb the peace of the kingdom”. Secondly, it was all conditional on the consent of parliament.

The parliament elected in 1661 was dominated by high-flying Anglican cavaliers. They had suffered themselves from religious persecution at the hands of the Presbyterians and then the Commonwealth regime in the 1640s and 1650s, and were in no mood to compromise or show ‘indulgence’ on matters spiritual. In their minds, Protestant Dissent was, by definition, incompatible with ‘the peace of the kingdom’. They passed a series of laws which, cumulatively, effectively made Protestant Dissent illegal. All members of the realm were legally obliged, in theory, to be members of the Church of England: to attend their parish church on a Sunday, pay tithes, and be baptised according to the rite of the Book of Common Prayer. ‘Conventicles’, i.e. Dissenting religious meetings, were banned, on pain of imprisonment or even transportation.

Holding municipal office was made conditional on taking communion within the Church of England. These laws became known (rather unfairly) as the Clarendon Code (Clarendon, his chief minister, actually did not support most of it).

In practice, these laws were applied very unevenly. Charles II vacillated between patchy and ineffective enforcement of the code, more active attempts to live up to the promises of Breda and impose toleration by royal fiat (in reality, more because he wanted toleration for Roman Catholics than Dissenters), and furious reversions to persecution by means of rigid enforcement of the penal laws. At various points one policy or the other was more politically convenient for him. In the 1670s, the Test Act was passed, which actually tightened these restrictions further: it made Anglicanism compulsory for anyone holding any public office of any kind.

By the end of his regime, he had adopted a policy of whole-heartedly throwing his lot in with the Anglican establishment and the strict enforcement of the Clarendon Code (largely because they were the safest bulwarks of his regime in face of the threat from the Whigs, who were attempting to exclude his brother and heir, James, from the throne).

When James acceded and became James II, he attempted to reverse this policy by giving indulgence to both Dissenters and Roman Catholics. He paid for the attempt with his crown.

James had been far more interested in toleration for his Roman Catholic co-religionists than for Dissenters, and this was incendiary in a country in which Protestant fear and hatred for ‘Popery’ united both Dissenters and Anglicans.

The triumph of the revolution of 1688 in the face of (in the view of most contemporaries) the threat of rampant Popish rapine, murder and tyranny led to something of a pan-Protestant reapprochement: the common enemy of James II’s papism and the fact that the Dissenters had, in general, spurned James II’s offer of toleration made it hard for the Church of England to maintain the hardline position it had taken before 1688. The result was what is usually called the Toleration Act of 1689, which finally made Dissent legal (sort of).

The Toleration Act was not what it might appear, however. There is a widespread assumption that after the ‘Glorious’ Revolution, toleration reigned and England suddenly gained complete freedom of worship and religion. This is one of those comforting fictions held by many with a superficial grasp of English history: it isn’t remotely true.

The Toleration Act was a very limited legal provision. It wasn’t even called ‘The Toleration Act’ – its actual title was ‘An Act for Exempting their Majestyes Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the Penalties of certaine Lawes’. It did not repeal the penal laws against Dissent: it merely exempted from their penalties some of those who were prepared to take certain oaths pledging allegiance to the regime.

It specifically excluded from its terms Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters who did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Dissenters still had to register their conventicles with the authorities. And as for non-Christians – well, they gained precisely nothing from the Act. It allowed people to recuse themselves from Anglican services only if they went to a Dissenting one instead.

Perhaps most significantly, it did not give non-Anglicans full civil or political rights. The Test and Corporation Acts, which made it illegal for anyone other than Anglicans to hold any public office, ranging from being a member of a municipal corporation (effectively a local councillor) or a lord lieutenant through to being a judge or a minister of the crown, were not repealed. They were to remain the law of the land for another 139 years.

By the late 1820s, the laws against Dissenters and even Roman Catholics had been repealed, and over the next few decades the vestigial elements of the Anglican monopoly (e.g. in the universities) were also dropped. It’s true that the Church of England is still the established church, but the practical political implications of this are now limited to, essentially, some ritual and ceremonial role and a few Bishops in the Lords. The confessional state ceased to be in the mid-19th century.

It’s true that in practice elements of the 1689-1828 legal and political settlement were softened and bent over the years. Walpole ensured that the Corporation Act didn’t apply to newly founded corporations. ‘Occasional Conformity’ – where Dissenters took Communion in Anglican Churches in order to qualify for public office, while still predominantly worshipping as Dissenters – was practised by some to evade the Test Act. But the basics of what we call the ‘confessional state’ held. The state had an official religion that it actively encouraged.

It discriminated against those who did not adhere to it and membership of the state apparatus at all levels (including the universities, which were a particularly pronounced example of total Anglican monopoly) was conditional on at least pretending to conform to it. But, in a modification to the older idea of Church-State relations, where being a subject of the realm and a member of the Church were merely two different ways of looking at the same thing, it was prepared to recognise and tolerate the existence of (at least some – in practice the majority of) non-adherents and give them some basic rights and freedoms.

Whatever else one might say about this, it was fairly clear. The beliefs that were officially sanctioned and those that attracted civil and political penalties were openly stated and precisely defined. Adherence to the doctrines, morals and rites of the Church of England, as expounded in the 39 articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the Church’s other official formularies and practically expressed by baptism and taking Communion a certain number of times per year was the condition of being a full member of the state and many state-aligned institutions.

A hierarchy of beliefs outside of that was maintained and outlined in law: in effect, being a non-Anglican Trinitarian Protestant gave you second-class membership, being a Roman Catholic or non-Trinitarian Protestant gave you third-class membership, and anyone else was effectively in the fourth class (although that was generally practically irrelevant).

A confessional state of some kind – whether akin to the ‘full-fat’ pre-toleration version or the post 1689-version – has been the norm in human history, and remains the norm in much of the world. In many ways, the condition that flourished in England between around the mid-19th century until quite recently, and in some other (largely western) countries around about the same time is quite exceptional. Indeed, even for quite a large chunk of that period in England – until around say the mid-20th century – there remained a vague cultural and in some senses even implicit legal and political privilege accorded to, broadly, Christian (if not really specifically Anglican) doctrines and ethics. It fell some way short of a confessional state, but it was at least a fairly loud echo of it.

The short period when the state got about as near to genuine neutrality as is possible – from around the mid-20th century, arguably somewhat earlier, until quite recently – was, I would argue, a sort of interregnum, a period that saw something like a balance of power between different world-views in which none was strong enough to enforce their own privilege or monopoly. This was the brief flourishing of something like free speech, freedom of conscience, full freedom of religion and so on.

That period is – has been for some years – drawing slowly but inexorably to a close. We are seeing the emergence of something like a new confessional state underpinned by a new orthodoxy – but with crucial differences relative to the last one.

What I’m referring to is a new(ish) set of doctrines, belief in which is effectively the condition of holding public office, elite status or full membership of a number of other powerful institutions.

It would be tedious to go into this precisely, but the outlines are pretty clear. One must believe that the individual is a completely autonomous being, obliged to fashion themself according to their ‘real’ nature. This nature is shaped most fundamentally by one’s sexuality, gender or race (with a few other identity categories having similar status). Certain identity categories – being ‘LGBT+’, being non-white, being non-Christian – are, by virtue of their historical (and according to its adherents contemporary) status of being victims, absolutely sacred.

For some reason, some of these categories are purely a matter of self-identification (gender most obviously), others (race most notably) are not. The highest good is to not only accept but actively celebrate and promote these sacred identities.

It seems fairly self-evident to me that this orthodoxy is riven by contradictions and logical absurdities, but probing those is not my purpose in this article. What I think is obvious – and this is hardly an original point, but it is important – is that these beliefs amount to a religion.

A form of theology is the only way of really understanding them. The belief in individual autonomy, self-fashioning, the existence of some ‘authentic’ inner self (‘Free to be me!), and the sanctity of certain groups are all predicated on certain metaphysical beliefs that are essentially religious in nature: they are no less dogmas than the Chalcedonian definition of the nature of Christ or the Holy Trinity. They are not predicated on the existence of God, but rather the worship of other things: self, some inner gendered ‘soul’, victimhood and so on. This orthodoxy has its own religious symbols (the rainbow or ‘Progress Pride’ flag rather than the Cross); its own liturgy (LGBT History Month, Black History Month and so on); even its own rites (taking the knee, etc).

Now, it seems to me that the fact that this world-view is essentially religious-metaphysical (and therefore ethical) and based on dogmatic premises that are difficult to empirically validate is not, in itself, the problem.

I would argue that it is impossible not to hold such a worldview if one is a sentient human being, even if one holds one passively or mostly unthinkingly. There is no neutral space. The state must always embody some comprehensive worldview that is ultimately rooted in dogmatic, faith-based premises. Naturalism, empiricism, materialism: they are no less rooted, ultimately, in certain fundamental dogmas. The ‘golden age’ of ‘state neutrality’ was really more a question of the elite being sufficiently divided over which of those worldviews was correct to prevent any one becoming dominant to the point of having overwhelming and formal institutional privilege. This is a contingent situation, and one that is definitely unusual and almost certainly difficult – maybe impossible – to maintain indefinitely.

The problem with the orthodox worldview – call it ‘wokeism’, call it ‘critical social justice’, call it ‘rainbow flag orthodoxy’, call it what you like – is not that it is like all other similar worldviews in this respect: based on dogmas rooted ultimately in faith, seeking to promote and spread its doctrines, seeking state sanction and even monopoly. The problem is that it’s wrong.

Its fundamental assumptions and dogmas are mistaken. But that is not my central point – that’s an argument for another day.

The most strikingly different and practically pernicious thing about the new orthodoxy is that it its priests and prophets unable to take responsibility for or even admit what it actually is.

Because part of its ideological and spiritual dynamic is rooted in the idea that is essentially oppositional – that it is inherently subversive – it can never acknowledge its own victory or status as an orthodoxy. That was, like or hate it, never a problem with the pre-Reformation Catholic Church or the post-Reformation Church of England. True, at various times – chiefly in their early stages – they had a subversive dynamic – against the Pagans, against the medieval Catholic Church.

However, they were quite comfortable, after a while, with putting themselves forward as a complete, objectively true (albeit faith-based) framework for thinking about the nature of morality and reality, based on certain clear doctrinal statements and theological propositions, that could order our common life and, essentially, become the establishment. The new orthodoxy has to pretend to itself that it is always against any orthodoxy or establishment, even as it obviously becomes one to any external observer.

This is why the new orthodoxy imposes and enforces its dictates in the haphazard, often informal way that it does.

People who deviate from the orthodoxy are sacked, blocked from advancement or cancelled all the time, but because the precise nature of its current contours is always unclear and because admitting their status as priests or state functionaries would run against the self-image of the orthodoxy’s supporters, it can’t be enforced in a clear or well-defined way.

It is imposed in official ways that are arbitrary, confusing and often inconsistent; or in informal ways using mechanisms of social disapproval or semi-official pressure or self-censorship. Its adherents will swear blind that their opponents are imagining things or are hysterical and misinformed – then five minutes they will admit that their opponents are quite right about what is happening, but what is happening is actually good. It manages to be an ideology that is shape-shifting, clear in outline but difficult to pin down exactly, forever denying its own status while it’s in the process of fulfilling it.

It’s a turbo-charged dynamic force – and a dynamic force is, as Stanley Baldwin said, ‘a terrible thing’.

The confessional state we had between 1689 and 1828 was actually rather preferable.

Firstly, it existed in an era where the state had fair less power, particularly over non-state bodies. Dissenters may have been excluded from public office, but there were large realms of social and economic activity that were relatively free from government regulation, and therefore the sway of the confessional state, which meant they were able to dominate certain areas (commerce; finance etc). Given the close relationships that now exist between the state and many large corporations and employers – a necessary function of the long-term growth of the role of the state, but also a more recent development which we see in, for example, the weird private-public partnership between the US state and the large tech firms that exists to censor social media – the new quasi-confessional state has more power to impose its orthodoxy over broader swathes of society.

Secondly, the old confessional state had pretty clear parameters and was, generally, applied quite consistently. The Church-State establishment rarely had serious qualms about using its power to promote its well-defined orthodoxy, and so it didn’t have to work by misdirection, constant shape-shifting and bad faith denials of its own power. Accommodations were made and loopholes allowed for practical reasons, but even they worked in a fairly predictable fashion.

All of this makes it very tempting to say: if we are going to live under a new official state-sanctioned religion, which promotes it own worldview and discriminates against those who demur from it – which it seems we are, whether I or you like it or not – then can we please have a proper, legally-defined, precise confessional state? Can we have a modern-day equivalent of the Test and Corporation Acts, of the Clarendon Code, so that we know precisely what we have to believe to be allowed to hold public office, work in universities, work for the government etc? At least then we would know where we stood and have some degree of legal and political certainty, which would be preferable to the ever-shifting soft-authoritarian theocracy that we are currently more than half-way towards. Then we could perhaps also have our own Toleration Act, which might let us know what legal and political rights we latter-day dissenters are still allowed.

The reality is that, for the reasons I outlined above, this is highly unlikely. The new orthodoxy, with its metaphysical underpinnings of subversion and never-ending progress, cannot face up to the responsibilities of being the establishment. They might not even have a stable or coherent enough doctrine to even be a conventional confessional state. They must exist in a weird double state, Schrodinger’s Orthodoxy – both the orthodoxy (in reality) and not-orthodoxy (in their own minds) at the same time.

And that is perhaps the most worrying thing: it seems possible that they will end up having the ultra-dynamism, the dream-logic and ideological doublethink of something far more akin to Stalinist totalitarianism than the old-fashioned Anglican confessional state, which in comparison seems positively mild.

https://thetorysocialist.wordpress.c...ssional-state/
Reply

سيف الله
04-27-2023, 09:29 AM
Salaam

Its about time. The writings been on the wall for sometime now.

Neither Archbishop nor King

Anglican Christians from around the world have formally rejected the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England due to their convergence with Clown World.

We have no confidence that the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the other Instruments of Communion led by him (the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meetings) are able to provide a godly way forward that will be acceptable to those who are committed to the truthfulness, clarity, sufficiency, and authority of Scripture. The Instruments of Communion have failed to maintain true communion based on the Word of God and shared faith in Christ.

Successive Archbishops of Canterbury have failed to guard the faith by inviting bishops to Lambeth who have embraced or promoted practices contrary to Scripture. This failure of church discipline has been compounded by the current Archbishop of Canterbury who has himself welcomed the provision of liturgical resources to bless these practices contrary to Scripture. This renders his leadership role in the Anglican Communion entirely indefensible.

Despite 25 years of persistent warnings by most Anglican Primates, repeated departures from the authority of God’s Word have torn the fabric of the Communion. These warnings were blatantly and deliberately disregarded and now without repentance this tear cannot be mended.

In view of the current crisis, we reiterate our support for those who are unable to remain in the Church of England because of the failure of its leadership. We rejoice in the growth of the Anglican Network in Europe and other Gafcon-aligned networks. We also continue to stand with and pray for those faithful Anglicans who remain within the Church of England. We support their efforts to uphold biblical orthodoxy and to resist breaches of [Lambeth 1998] Resolution I.10.
The primary rhetorical weapon used by the converged is an appeal to “unity”. But the Bible repeatedly addresses this false argument in 2 Corinthians 6:14-15.

Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

There can be no unity with Clown World or its demonic clowns. If anyone attempts to converge your organization, kick them out without hesitation or remorse. And if your organization is converged, don’t hesitate to leave it without delay or explanation.

https://voxday.net/2023/04/25/neithe...shop-nor-king/
Reply

Eric H
04-27-2023, 04:26 PM
Peace be with you;

format_quote Originally Posted by سيف الله
https://voxday.net/2023/04/25/neithe...shop-nor-king/
I am not sure how helpful the opinion of VD is, here is what he says about himself.

Vox Day (born 21 August 1968) is an American publisher, science fiction writer, philosopher, musician and video game designer. He is a former nationally syndicated columnist with Chronicle Features and Universal Press Syndicate. He is known as the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil by his supporters, who describe themselves as Vile Faceless Minions and the Dread Ilk. He is the Lead Editor of Castalia House, the Lead Designer of Infogalactic, and the Chief Content Officer of Unauthorized.tv. He is also an editor at Arkhaven Comics and is the creator of the Alt★Hero comics universe as well as an original GamerGater.
Next month, I shall be meeting up with people from a number of faiths at our local interfaith organisation. I am thankful that we can find ways to cooperate together.

May Allah bless you on your journey,
Eric
Reply

سيف الله
04-27-2023, 11:23 PM
Salaam Eric

I'm not naive about VD and his politics (I'm poles apart obviously) but I cant deny it he is sharp and erudite. I'm past caring about political correctness. Sometimes you have to focus on the analysis whether its right or not rather than what you want it be.

Christianity has been in decline for sometime in UK. I want to understand why, and sometimes that why can lead to difficult answers. eg. Whether you like it or not Anglicanism has reduced itself to an instrument of the British establishment (currently dominated by liberal/progressive types) who have taken over and have been steadily marginalizing the more traditional wing.



To such an extent now that its reached breaking point.

There are lessons to be learned. Hard lessons.

Interfaith is all well and good and we should cooperate as much as feasibly possible but not at the cost of comprising each others faith.
Reply

Eric H
04-28-2023, 06:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by سيف الله
Salaam Eric
Salaam, and sorry I can't print your name;

If it is God's will, then Christianity will prevail. There are too many temptations for all of us in the world. Like Oscar Wilde said, I can resist everything………Except temptation.

May Allah bless you on your yourney,
Eric
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!