And with that, I leave Simon Webb and the New Culture Forum to think
about the implications of all these comments, if they're so minded, and
to consider their responses, if any. Perhaps any people who recorded
their appreciations of the wonderful talents, the wonderful gifts, the
wonderful personality of Simon Webb in many of the comments on that You
Tube page and who find out about this dissenting view may like to think
about the issues and consider this possibility: that this is a man less
wonderful than they supposed, a man with some very substantial flaws. I
think that Peter Whittle would benefit by reconsidering his obviously
high opinion of Simon Webb. No professional historian who values his
reputation would or should allow what Simon Webb did, complacently
allowing so many of his admirers and followers to run riot, in effect.
Simon Webb: Christianity and homogeneity
A Simon Webb video on homogeneity was grossly deficient - as usual.
He left out one one prime example of the effect that non-British
people and foreign influences can have on a homogenous society -
Christianity! Pagan Britain was a relatively homogeneous society, no
more than that, but after the waves of missionaries reached these
shores, Britain was exposed to a wide range of foreign influences
which made it far less homogeneous. He mentioned 'speaking different
languages' as a factor which reduces homogeneity (a bad thing, you
think.) He mentioned Jews as one of the groups which reduce the
diversity of the country. He thought that that was regrettable as
well (Some of the people who admire him would use a much, much more
extreme word than 'regrettable.')
The missionaries claimed that Jesus, an Aramaic-speaking Jew, was
the son of god. The 'good news' of the gospel (which turned out to
be very bad news for all the victims of Christian persecution)
wasn't written in Anglo-Saxon or English, of course, but Greek. The
Old Testament, which in some passage supposedly prophesied the
coming of the Messiah was written in Hebrew.
The names of the majority of British Churches are named after
non-British people, to give just one example, St Augustine, born in
North Africa. This is the Augustine who taught that unbaptized
babies go to Hell. Another 'saint' called Augustine was born in
Italy and came to this country to convert the natives. Later, with
the development and intellectualizing of Christianity, there were
many more foreign influences.
St Thomas Aquinas, born in Italy, revered the pagan Greek
philosopher Aristotle. In his Summa Theologiae, written in Latin,
not English, St Thomas Aquinas wrote, 'With regard to heretics two
points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the
side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they
deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication,
but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much
graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to
forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of
money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the
secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon
as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but
even put to death.' This saint of the Roman Catholic Church is known
as the 'Angelic Doctor.'
The Church of England and the Protestant Churches owe their origins
to foreign 'reformers' such as the German Luther (born in the Holy
Roman Empire of the time) and Calvin, born in France and active in
Geneva. Calvin denounced the 'heretic' Servetus, who was burned
alive. I loathe political correctness but in any fair-minded survey
of the issues, the cruelties perpetrated by so many Christians have
to be taken into account, as well as the Church's interference with
free and reasonable expression - well into the 19th Century, the
universities of Oxford and Cambridge were only open to people
willing to subscribe to the Thirty Nine Articles, the Anglican
statement of doctrine. Compare and contrast 'Woke' attempts to
suppress free and reasonable expression. I wouldn't say that the
Anglican impact was less harmful than the 'woke' impact.
Simon Webb seems actually to believe that Christianity is part of
the fabric of this country and is not just a beneficial influence
but vital to British identity. Any chance of fuller explanation from
him in a future video? But I think he's much too prolific already
and instead of offering so many bite-sized You Tube offerings to
people hungry to hear his views, he would benefit by doing more
thinking, more reflecting. He seems to take the view that again and
again, history confirms his views. Perhaps he would benefit by
reading much more history, but with a chastened, more critical
viewpoint.
One comment below the page which presented the Simon Webb
video on homogeneity - I don't name the commenter but it's easy to
find on the page - was obviously addressed to Simon Webb: 'You
overlooked two other examples - Germany [Jews] and United Kingdom
[Catholics].' This loathsome comment unwittingly draws attention to
some of the dangers of the 'Webb Homogeneity Thesis.' The Nazis
wanted a homogeneous, Aryan Germany and saw the Jews as an obstacle,
so they used extermination to remove the Jews, killing about 6
million before the war ended and the camps were liberated.
Protestants who wanted a homogeneous Protestant society without the
'contagion' of the Catholics sometimes executed Catholics or went to
war against them. Catholics who wanted a homogeneous Catholic
society without the 'contagion' of the Protestants sometimes
executed Protestants or went to war against them. In both cases,
this led not to thousands of deaths but many millions, in the 17th
century alone.
For the record, I don't in the least regard greater diversity
as automatically enriching a society, to be advocated in all
circumstances. For one thing, I support stringent and effective
border controls, for a variety of reasons. One is the extreme
importance of doing everything possible to keep out Islamist
extremists. I was surprised to find a Simon Webb video which
gives a very relaxed view of some aspects of Islamism, called
'Why some people have a bee in their bonnet about Islam,' with
this amplification, 'One religion [Islam] seems to be the focus
of a good deal of negativity.' I was glad to find that a large
number of commenters took issue with his view of the matter.
The site of Migration Watch UK (an outstanding site, I
think) includes a summary page 'What is the problem?' I agree
with Migration Watch's approach to the massive problem -of mass
immigration into this country. Attempts to increase diversity
can have a range of unintended consequences.
Attempts to reduce diversity can have a range of unintended
consequences. Simon Webb has been careless -
reckless - in presenting his 'Homogeneity Thesis.' He hasn't
thought things through. He doesn't seem to understand the
difficulties in restoring homogeneity to a society which has
become far less homogeneous. His understanding of practical
politics, of the realities of political action seems to me
grossly deficient. The same criticism can be made of so many
ant-anti-woke people and organizations - and, of course, so many
'woke' people and organizations.
Emma Webb and The New Culture Forum
At one point in the discussion, Peter Kiszely said, with
reference to the use and misuse of the word 'safe,' 'We all know you
can see it in the language.' Whatever good sense and sensitivity the
host and guests showed when discussing the mistakes of the woke,
their actions as well as the language they use so often, was nowhere
to be found when it came to discussing the 'flag and the swastika'
episode. On the evidence available, it seems that Hampshire Police
blundered - a comical act with serious, even sinister overtones. But
when Emma Webb gave her own interpretation, it was very disturbing,
conniving in hideous misuse of language, and those highly
accomplished bullshit detectors Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and Philip
Kiszely seemed to find nothing wrong. Their minds, or their
nostrils, perhaps, failed them, it seems.
Has there ever been a time when the word 'love' has been used
and misused so often? Connotations of intense emotion seem to
have disappeared. I remember seeing an advertising poster put
out by the British Conifer association, 'Love me, love my
conifer.' Equating a man's love for a woman or a woman's love
for a man (or, of course, a man's love for a man or a woman's
love for a woman) with loving a fir tree or a yew tree or a
juniper bush seems ridiculous to me but the priorities of the
people who grow and sell conifers are obviously different.
The word 'love' may be a lost cause, or largely lost
cause, but it's essential not to equate the Nazis with people
who are obviously not Nazis, to use the word 'Nazi'
indiscriminately, negligently, without giving any thought to the
barbarities which put the Nazis, probably, in a category apart -
their cruelties rivalled by the cruelties which occurred in
Stalinist Russia but exceeding them by quite a margin. If people
know about Auschwitz and Belsen and Dachau and perhaps a few
more concentration and extermination camps, and about some of
the horrors which took place in the Nazi domination of Europe,
they may not know enough. The mobile killing units, the
Einsatzgruppen, which accompanied Nazi forces during the
invasion of Russia, are not common knowledge, perhaps, but their
contribution to the horrors which took place under Nazi
domination was immense. To equate the men who shot babies and
their mothers, in some cases, for bravado, with a single bullet,
with the actions (and antics) of gay pride is horrible. For Emma
Webb to equate Hampshire police with the Gestapo is horrible - a
mistake, a bad mistake, a deeply disturbing mistake. Adolf
Eichmann was a member of the Gestapo.
Peter Whittle, the founder of the New Culture Forum, declares
that he isn't 'a religious man' but adds, 'That doesn't mean I don't
appreciate the extraordinary works that churches do.' His comments
appear on the Website of 'Premier Christian News,'
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/peter-whittle-i-m-amazed-by-the-work-of-churches-in-london
His comment is bland, almost formulaic, but is completely
understandable, given the circumstances. The issue of the Churches
and their contribution, not just their contribution now but in past
centuries - the New Culture Forum has quite a developed historical
sense - merits a much closer examination. I can't
possibly give an adequate examination here but I think this outline
should provide, not unexpected insights but material that
contradicts any naive view of the 'wonderful work that churches do.'
Peter Whittle may well be unaware that many, many Christians won't
have nearly as favourable view of him as he has of the Churches.
Here, I discuss not 'churches' in general but particular versions of
christian faith. Their differences are often very significant.
It would be impossible to do more than touch upon the
ridiculousness and harmful effects of Roman Catholicism over the
years, over the centuries, which I would claim exceed the
ridiculousness and harmful effects of 'woke' views, and not by a
small margin. For the record, I've been and still am an opponent of
'woke' views, an energetic opponent, I could claim, but I can't
possibly provide much evidence here. This comment is long enough as
it is. All I can do is give a few snippets of information but I'll
include comments on the ridiculousness and harmful effects of
evangelical and other protestant views, a few comments on the
Anglican Church's very substantial contribution (as the Established
Church for centuries, it has had plenty of practice). I'll begin,
though, with the Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Church has few rivals, or no rivals, for
ridiculousness but as a source of harm, it's far from being one of
the worst perpetrators. Nazism and Stalinism have been vastly worse.
I don't in the least claim that individual Roman Catholics and other
Christians are always negligible people, quite the opposite. There
are many, many Roman Catholics and other Christians known to me with
substantial strengths - massive strengths. The teaching of 'Saint'
Thomas Aquinas, the 'Doctor Angelicus' ('Angelic Doctor') of the
Roman Catholic Church: 'With regard to heretics,' the Angelic Doctor
writes, 'two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the
other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the
sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church
by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.
For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens
the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life.
Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith
condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is
there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be
not only excommunicated but even put to death.' The burning alive of
heretics and execution by other means constitutes a hideous episode
of Roman Catholic history.
A well known example: Giordano Bruno, who denied such Catholic
doctrines as eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ,
the virginity of Mary and transubstantiation. He was found guilty
and burned at the stake in 1600.
Protestants have also dealt with failures to conform to
Protestant orthodoxy by methods far in excess of any used by 'woke'
people. To give just one, well-known example, Michael Servetus
rejected the doctrine and other Roman Catholic doctrines. He was
condemned by the Catholic Church in France and fled to Calvinist
Geneva. He was denounced by Calvin and burned at the stake for
heresy in 1553, by the order of the governing council of Geneva.
The pretence that British history has been overwhelmingly or
almost always a a force for good is is contradicted by many, many
events.
I'd include in the ong list of exceptions this, the execution of
Thomas Aikenhead for blasphemy, but this execution was as long ago
as 1697. So far as I'm aware, the much more recent phenomenon of 'wokeism,'
for all its harmful effects, has never executed anyone. Censoring of
books has been an established, official practice of the R.C Church.
The 'Index Librorum Prohibitorum' ('List of Prohibited Books')
contained books which Catholics were forbidden to read. It included
books deemed heretical or contrary to morals.
Books placed on the prohibited list included Kant's monumental
'Critique of Pure Reason,' Pascal's ' Penseés' (with notes by
Voltaire), Spinoza's 'Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,' Locke's 'An
Essay Concerning Human Understanding,' John Stuart Mill's
'Principles of Political Economy,' Edward Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire,' Flaubert's 'Madame Bovary' - and all the works
of the philosopher David Hume, all the works of Zola and all the
works of Sartre.
Here, in its zealous pursuit of 'error,' wokeism comes close to
the hideous record of the Roman Catholic Church or even surpasses it
in some ways. The penalties for offending may be severe, if nowhere
near as severe as execution. Over the centuries, Roman Catholics
have persecuted orthodox protestants and orthodox protestants have
persecuted Roman Catholics, often forcing them into hiding and often
executing them when discovered. Well into the 19th
century, members of Oxford and Cambridge University were required to
subscribe to the Thirty-Nine articles of the Church of England, the
statement of faith and practice which amongst much else articulated
the doctrine of the Trinity and doctrines of sin and salvation which
have hideous implications - I touch upon this briefly below. The
universities were far from being havens of sanity and unfettered
debate before the advent of 'wokeism.'
It would take a long time to give a summary of the ridiculous
aspects and harmful effects associated with one Roman Catholic
doctrine alone, baptism. Here, Protestant views are surely less
ridiculous, less harmful (but, as I explain later, Protestant
doctrines of salvation and redemption are very often much more
ridiculous and harmful than Roman Catholic doctrines: the contrast
between salvation by faith and salvation by works.
As in other parts of this comment, I must be brief, in full
awareness that this collection of brief comments is adding up to a
very long comment as things usually go in You Tube comment sections.
Roman Catholic doctrines of the sacraments are markedly different
from Protestant doctrines. The sacrament of baptism has very often
been thought essential for salvation in the Roman Catholic Church.
Augustine (the Augustine of Hippo, North Africa, not the Augustine
of Canterbury) seems to have changed his views on baptism. In one
sermon of his, he claimed that only people who had received baptism
could be saved, a belief shared by many early Christians. A passage
in 'City of God' may possibly indicate a belief that children born
of Christian parents who died unbaptized were not necessarily doomed
to hell. The Roman Catholic Church has in general shown the utmost
reluctance to concede that unbaptized children could be admitted to
heaven, hence the extension of doctrine to include the state of
'Limbo' for unbaptized babies, neither heaven nor hell. I'd say that
'woke' beliefs in general don't quite reach the ridiculousness of
all this. Modern Catholic discussions of baptism equal
or surpass in ridiculousness 'woke' views. A short extract from an
article on the site
https://angelusnews.com/faith/emergencies-and-baptism-will-soda-water-do/
with a title which reflects the Website address, 'Emergencies
and baptism: will soda water do?' 'A red pickup truck
was overturned by the side of the road. The driver lay on the
grass, thrown clear of the vehicle, crumpled, bleeding and
unresponsive. A young man pulled his car off the road and sprinted
to the side of the dying man. He called 911, then rushed back
to his car and grabbed the waxed cup from a fast-food restaurant
that was in the cup holder of his car. It held some melting ice and
water, left over from a soda he’d drank earlier in the day. He
poured the water from the melted ice over the man’s forehead with
the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit.” The man died a few minutes before the ambulance
arrived. 'The next day, the young man posted the
question on a Catholic Q&A site: “I’m just wondering — was it a
valid baptism?” The helpful advice offered in the
article included this, 'For a valid baptism of an adult, the Church
requires an unbaptized person and pure water.' It gives this
quotation from the 'Catholic Encyclopedia:' Water
derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is ... valid. … As to a
mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper
matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture
would still be called water. Invalid matter is every liquid that is
not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva, wine,
tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits and any mixture
containing water which men would no longer call water.'
As for doctrines of salvation, redemption, orthodox evangelical
views are unsurpassed for their hideous implications, but are widely
shared by other Christians. 'Saint' Paul taught that the eternal
destiny of a person is decided by faith or lack of faith in Jesus
Christ as 'personal lord and saviour.' There are countless
statements of Christian faith which present this bleak view. This is
from a page of the Christian Police Association with the title
'Faith.' 'We Believe ... that 'those who have died
having believed and received forgiveness will be raised, and
together with those believers who are still alive, will be taken to
live with Christ forever. Those who have refused to believe will be
condemned from God’s presence forever.'
The Oakes Holiday Centre in Sheffield, which tries to mix fun
with Christianity, can find no fun in this 'Statement of Belief' on
their Website: 'The Lord Jesus Christ will return in person, to
judge everyone, to execute God's just condemnation on those who have
not repented and to receive the redeemed to eternal glory.'
These are some implications of these statements and similar
statements from Christian Churches all over the country, all over
the world. The list could be extended indefinitely. According to
this doctrine of redemption, commonplace in Christian circles:
All police officers are doomed to spend eternity in hell, except for
the minority of police officers who have accepted Jesus Christ as
personal lord and saviour, including police officers killed in
action.
All the troops who liberated the concentration
camps and extermination camps are consigned to hell, except for the
minority of Jesus Christ accepters. All the people
executed by the Nazis for saving the lives of Jews are consigned to
hell, except for that minority.
Time to mention the case
of one person, Ernst Biberstein, who studied theology and became a
pastor. During the Second World War, he was the commanding officer
of Einsatktommando 6, which executed thousands of people. The
Einsatzkommandos were a sub-group of the Einsatzgruppen, mobile
killing squads, who exterminated Jews and others in the territories
captured by the German forces as they advanced Eastwards. After the
war, he was tried and sentenced to death but the sentence was
commuted. He was released in 1958 and returned to the clergy.
There seems reason to believe that he was a committed Christian and
qualified for salvation according to the orthodox Christian view, or
one view of the orthodox Christian view. There's every reason to
believe that virtually all the people massacred by his execution
squads and the other Einsatzgruppen were not qualified for salvation
according to the orthodox Christian view, every reason to believe
that virtually all the people killed in the Nazi gas chambers were
unqualified for salvation, according to this deranged doctrine.
There may well have been some Christian converts amongst them, but
the victims were overwhelmingly Jews, without a belief in Christ as
Lord and Saviour.
Loving mothers and fathers, loving
mothers and fathers who have looked after disabled children, are all
consigned to hell, unless they belong to that minority of believers.
And what of the fate of the disabled children themselves - are they
saved or damned? The Bible gives no information about an age above
which young people qualify for damnation. I know of no Christian
discussions of the issue, although there must surely be some.
And this: all supporters of the New Culture Forum are consigned
to hell according to these doctrines, unless, again, they belong
that minority of believers. Peter Whittle, who says that he isn't a
religious man, is certainly destined for hellfire, according to
orthodox evangelical belief and not just evangelical belief - unless
he changes his mind, perhaps as a result of a miraculous conversion.
Many, many Christians pray for that kind of thing.
The belief that all composers go to hell is yet another
consequence. So, to give just one example, Dmitri Shostakovich:
hell. Johann Sebastian Bach, heaven. All the working
people who have done backbreaking and dangerous work - or
backbreaking and dangerous work - are damned, including ones killed
in pit disasters, in industrial accidents, all doomed - apart from
the believing minority. The Christian Police Association also has
this belief: 'We Believe that the Bible, as originally given, is the
inspired Word of God without error and is the only complete
authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.'
On to other
matters in this brisk tour of Christian theological artefacts.
A fascinating/ridiculous page
https://anglican.ink/2022/05/21/growth-decline-and-extinction-of-uk-churches/
gives 'Estimated Extinction Dates for UK Churches.'
'The Church of England and Catholics should last until the second
half of the century. However, they need to take urgent action now.
Stemming losses is not enough. None of us can prevent ageing!
Whatever their current denominational emphases, they should put all
aside to encourage members to make new disciples who can replicate
themselves. Praying for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit would not
go amiss either.
'Sadly, the immediate future looks bleak for the Church in
Wales, Church of Scotland, Episcopalians, Methodists, and older
Welsh nonconformists. They need to seriously ask themselves how
they have gotten themselves into a situation where extinction is
less than 30 years away.' Extinction is hardly likely to be
complete extinction. There will surely be isorated Christian
believers and pockets of Christian believers and larger groups,
although not numerically very large. The consequence, if
orthodox Christians are to be believed (but they shouldn't be
believed, not for one moment) is that the percentage of people
headed for hell will increase enormously - an enormous contrast
with the situation in the ages of faith, when Christians
persecuted ferociously Christians with different shades of
belief and non-Christians but there were so many people who did
accept Christ as their Saviour.
Conservative Woman and Christianity
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/
which now calls itself 'TCW' promotes a form of Conservatism which
would be rejected by most supporters of the Conservative Party, although
some views promoted by the site would be accepted. I had an article accepted
for publication on the site, before I knew nearly enough about 'Conservative
Woman.' It was published on January 7, 2020.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-would-be-labour-leader-and-the-shambolic-friends-of-palestine/
A few short extracts from the article:
The membership list of MPs is strewn with errors ... According to the
list, Simon Danczuk is the current MP for Rochdale. Mr Danczuk was suspended
by the Labour Party in 2015 after it was claimed that he had sent explicit
messages to a 17-year-old girl. He was banned by Labour from standing as a
candidate, resigned from the party and was replaced as MP for Rochdale by
Anthony Lloyd in 2017 ...
Currently, 131 MPs support our work in Parliament.’ The actual number
is far fewer at 93. You would have thought that some of them at least would
have looked at the list to find out about changes – who had joined, who had
left. You would have thought that a good look at the website was an absolute
priority for Lisa Nandy when she took over [as Chair of Labour Friends of
Palestine and the Middle East.']
The comments on one single page of the site 'Conservative Woman' from one
commenter, a Protestant who calls himself 'Reformed Gentleman,' to another
commenter, a Roman Catholic:
' ... you're still unhinged. I've no time for RC garbage ...'
'Are you deranged? You want to talk 'biblical' yet you cite your heretical
garbage?'
'Yeah, you're still rambling, heretic. Do you ever ask yourself why you
cannot derive your weird little beliefs from the Bible?'
'Subjectivist bullpoop, Catholicism personified.'
' ... there's the RC subjectivist bullpoop. Thank you, heretic.'
'You're an utter cretin. Your position is anti-objectivity and therefore
champions my own view over yours ... Yikes!'
'You're a joke. Abandon the dramatics.'
'Look to your own anti-Gospel grabage (sic), heretic.'
'Wow, look at the deceitful Romanist. Bless you, heretic.'
'Tell me, Romanist heretic, where in the Bible can you find your latest
wokist rant?'
'Utter drivel. What a waste of bandwidth.'
'Yes, heretic, your rambling garbage aside, we reformed know where we got
the canon ...'
'Oh my. The emition (sic) is palpable. Where's your Bible, heretic?'
'Pathetic. You cowardly heretic.'
(1)
-
I'll give an assortment of evidence to justify the claim that
Christianity is a liability for anti-woke sites, that although woke
views are in general ridiculous and harmful, they are less ridiculous and
less harmful than the views of orthodox Christian doctrine. It's
a long comment but it could easily be much, much longer. Anti-woke
people who find it too much effort to follow discussions which are thorough
- nobody is forcing you to read any of this. Post your complaints if you
feel inclined - if, that is, you can summon up the energy to post a
one-or-two liner, probably not more, but nobody is compelled to read your
complaints either ... [The remainder of the comment is provided as the last
comment in this section. Not all the comments in this section are about
Christianity. The material on Christianity is quite detailed - but may be
useful as background information, and it leaves no room for doubt as to my
reasons for thinking that orthodox Christian belief is vastly more
ridiculous and harmful than the views of 'woke' people. I'm sure I can
assume that all the people who signed the Open Letter are 'woke' people. ]
(2)
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/mocked-reviled-and-pelted-with-eggs-a-christian-on-the-pride-front-line/
[The 'mocked, reviled and pelted with eggs Pastor here was protesting
against a Gay Pride Event.]
From the Pastor's article: 'A video report on Sky News used the term
‘religious bigotry’ to describe our Christian testimony. Whatever happened
to impartial reporting? Why did the reporter not come over to us and ask
some questions? She would have found out that we are perfectly capable of
engaging in civilised debate.
If the Pastor ever made use of the opportunity to have a 'civilized
debate' with Sky News about homosexuality, I'd recommend to Sky News asking
him for a comment on the material to be found in the Wikipedia 'List of
people executed for homosexuality in Europe.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
If homosexuals loathe his orthodox views on homosexuality, it has
something to do with awareness of what orthodox Christians have done to
homosexuals over the centuries. They would loathe them even more the more
they know about the horrific facts. Among the punishments mentioned in the
article, including some from this country:
A German cross-dressing lesbian executed for heresy against nature
They were pierced in their tongues, hanged and burned; they were also
charged with blasphemy.
German from Augsburg; burned in Rome
with 3 heretics
From Augsburg; one burned, other 4 (all
ecclesiastics) bound hand and foot in a wooden cage to starve[
both drowned in a barrel
Lesbian, drowned
Burned at Tudela for "heresy with his body"
And from the UK:
His trial was at the Old Bailey in November, where he was convicted
of having "a venereal affair" with James Hankinson. He was hanged at Newgate.
He was hanged with a forger, Ann Hurle - they were led out of Debtor's Door
and rather than the New Drop they were hanged by a cart being driven from
under them.
"Spershott's hanging was perhaps the last
occasion at which was performed the folk ritual of the hangman passing the
dead man's hands over the neck and bosoms of young women as a cure for
glandular enlargements."
The last two men to be hanged for
homosexuality in England. [1835]
Is Pastor Peter Simpson perfectly capable of engaging in civilized debate
or perfectly capable of becoming evasive when confronted by harsh realities?
Sky News Australia
Comment posted in the Comments section of a video of Sky News
Australia.
Hampshire Police has blundered, Laurence Fox (who
manipulated a gay pride flag to form a swastika) has blundered, the
veteran was badly mistaken, so many anti-woke sites are badly mistaken
in their interpretation of the events and now you're badly mistaken as
well. The anti-woke sites and Sky News Australia are badly mistaken not
about every aspect of the case but about a central aspect of the case.
Without thinking, you were quick to see the case with anti-woke
vision - but the case raised issues which needed a very different
perspective.
A central issue which has been neglected by the anti-woke
media: it's essential not to equate the Nazis with people who are
obviously not Nazis, such as people involved with gay pride events. To
use the word 'Nazi' indiscriminately, negligently, without giving any
thought to the barbarities which put the Nazis in a category apart -
their cruelties rivalled by the cruelties which occurred in Stalinist
Russia but exceeding them - has to be condemned. People generally know
about Auschwitz and Belsen and Dachau and perhaps more concentration and
extermination camps, and about some of the horrors which took place
during the Nazi domination of Europe, but might benefit by enlarging
their knowledge. The mobile killing units, the Einsatzgruppen, which
accompanied Nazi forces during the invasion of Russia, are not common
knowledge, perhaps, but their contribution to the horrors which took
place under Nazi domination was immense.
To equate the men of the Einsatzgruppen who shot vast numbers
of people, including babies and their mothers, in some cases, for
bravado, killing both with a single bullet, with the actions (and
antics) of gay pride is very wrong - despicable. It would be like saying
of a gay activist, 'he's the worst person whose ever lived.' It would be
an abandonment of all balance and fair-mindedness, completely ridiculous
but also very disturbing.
I live in a country, England, whose wartime achievements are
reason for intense pride, without forgetting that we were aided by
people from many other countries. You Australians live in a country
whose wartime achievements are reason for intense pride. Your
achievements are beyond praise. 'Pride' is a word which tends to be
overused and misused, like the word 'celebrate.' Limited achievements,
very limited achievements, non-existent achievements are so often
treated as 'awesome.' Some people seem to be forever 'celebrating' this
and that.
To give just one example of those wartime achievements, the
perilous low-level attack by RAF Mosquito planes on the Gestapo
headquarters at Aarhus, Denmark which freed members of the Danish
resistance in Gestapo captivity, which killed many members of the
Gestapo and which destroyed Gestapo files, including ones on the Danish
resistance. The attack has been described as the most successful one of
its kind during the Second World War. But obviously there are countless
more. Pride in the part played by Britain and Australia, and New Zealand
and other countries in the Second World War is not just justifiable but
to be encouraged.
The arrest of the veteran was obviously not just
counter-productive but wrong, but anyone who supposes that being
arrested by Hampshire Police can be equated with being arrested by the
Gestapo is badly mistaken. The members of the allied armed forces who
faced flame-throwers in battle, who risked being torn limb from limb,
who faced all kinds of other dangers, dangers, in the Atlantic and
Pacific, in all spheres of action, deserve not to have their
achievements diminished by comparing the swastika, the symbol of hideous
Nazi brutality, with the Gay Pride Flag. Hampshire Police mishandled the
matter and made bad mistakes but they are no more Nazis than the Gay
Pride people.
The Swastika is an ugly, hideous symbol of fanaticism and
cruelty. It's not a symbol which lends itself to a Laurence Fox
publicity stunt. There are different ways of regarding his manipulation
of the images but I think they must all amount to adverse judgment on
him. I get the impression that there's complacency in many parts of the
anti-woke camp. Someone who is anti-woke may even believe that the
anti-woke cause matters more than any other cause, or most other causes
- another bad mistake.
Democratic, advanced societies face a vast range of problems,
call upon a vast range of skills, are intrinsically intricate. Woke
mistakes are only part of the whole and anti-woke activity is only part
of the whole. Police forces may be sadly deficient in some respects
whilst being efficient, good, perhaps outstanding in so many others. To
suppose that they should be judged primarily for their action or lack of
action in aiding the anti-woke movement is very wide of the mark. To
overlook the fact that they face violence often, that they are sometimes
injured in the course of duty, that a significant part of their work is
unpleasant and intensely difficult is mistaken. It's essential to take
into account the fact that their work often calls for great versatility
and that inevitably, some or many members of police forces will be found
wanting. It's essential to view these issues without smugness, without
the delusions and illusions which can easily occur when people are
sitting at their computers in a place of safety judging people who often
have to work in conditions which aren't safe.
The atrocious misuse by woke people of 'safe,' as in 'safe
spaces,' has to be condemned severely, but anti-woke people may lack
appreciation of physical dangers, the kind that the police often have to
face. The police forces which protect society against all kinds of
threats can't, realistically, protect society against all threats.
Anti-woke candidates in elections are never or hardly ever
electable, because their speciality, anti-woke studies, doesn't address
so many of the problems which societies face. Anti-woke people can't
possibly claim immunity from reasonable, fair-minded criticism. There is
such a person as the anti-woke 'snowflake,' who can't face criticism.
Anti-woke people who can dish out criticism but can't take it should try
a different field for their talents, if they have any. I certainly don't
claim immunity from criticism myself. I won't give any details here, but
over the years, I've worked energetically to oppose 'woke' views (I'm
not at all keen on the word 'woke,' but for convenience, I've used it.)
If anyone wants to make criticisms of my views, go ahead.
