This week an employment tribunal ruled that belief in the Bible was ‘incompatible with human dignity.’ The ruling puts Christianity on the same footing as racist and neo-Nazi beliefs which are also considered ‘not worthy of respect in democratic society’.

See the source image
Dr David Mackereth

That statement came in the judgement of a case involving Dr David Mackereth, 56, a Christian who has given exemplary service as an emergency doctor to the National Health Service for 26 years. Dr Mackereth claimed he was removed from his job with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) in late June 2018 after his boss ‘interrogated’ him about his personal religious convictions. Continue reading “BRITAIN HAS A NEW ESTABLISHED RELIGION, AND IT’S NOT CHRISTIANITY”


All over the world, Christian-influenced political movements are advancing. In Britain we find this strange.

In the interminable Brexit debates, everything is seen in economic terms. The ultimate political question – the sovereignty of the nation and who we are and want to be – is never mentioned. Even when immigration is touched on, it is to stress its financial profitability. The effects of large-scale immigration on the nation’s underlying culture is never seriously faced.

Such is the progressive grip of the elites and their compliant media that in Britain we are reluctant to say we have an underlying culture. More importantly, we are afraid to say that this culture is Christian-based. Continue reading “A NATION IS MORE THAN ECONOMICS”


Back from holiday with a good news post.

Whenever you hear ‘everybody knows’, beware: what follows is almost invariably wrong.

‘Everybody knows’ that Christianity in Europe is dwindling away, merely a few old codgers clinging to the beliefs of their childhood like overgrown infants with a comfort blanket.

The reality is very different. Christianity is on the upsurge throughout Europe, and numbers are steadily growing throughout the continent.

Plants growing from soil-Plant progress isolated

In Spain the growth in church attendance is remarkable. Between 2011 and 2012 the proportion of the population attending Mass grew by nearly 3 per cent from 12.1 to 15 per cent. Even more significantly, the number attending on a weekly basis grew by 23 per cent between 2012 and 2013. The number of Spaniards voluntarily contributing part of their taxes to the Church is also on the rise. Continue reading “CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST”


Why the steady erosion of distinctive Western culture or national identity? Universities are gradually ousting the traditional Western canon produced by those noxious ‘dead white males’. Vote hungry politicians eager to acknowledge Eid and Diwali are yet reluctant to put anything more distinctive that ‘Happy Holidays’ on their Christmas cards. Flying the Union flag gives rise to suspicion you are a fascist.

See the source image

The Brexit vote was anathema to the elites for a straightforward reason: the globalist project promoted by those eager to extend their authority requires porous frontiers and weak national cultures if their multinational corporations are to flourish. A borderless multicultural society is less likely to resist the free movement of people which keeps wages down and workers weak. Continue reading “CHRISTIANITY: EUROPE’S CULTURE SHAPING FORCE”


Christian-based cultural norms and morality have been overturned in what is historically the blink of an eye. There has been no violent revolution, no overthrow of the existing order, no coup, yet society has been fundamentally re-ordered to move in an entirely new direction with profound changes in family life, societal norms and collective attitudes.

According to progressives this has all happened through moral improvement. The enlightened forward-looking champions of tolerance and love have spontaneously triumphed over the forces of darkness and repression which have held back humanity for centuries. After all, ‘It is the 21st century’. And it will continue, what applied to homosexuality yesterday, applies to transgenderism today, and who knows what tomorrow.


The progressive narrative is that what changes social attitudes is a combination of courage and compassion. The courage of those who ‘come out’ and the compassion shown by the tolerant towards those being persecuted for being who they are. Continue reading “HOW DID IT HAPPEN?”


The latest piece from The Conservative Woman comparing austerity then and now.


Austerity, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. Politicians and emoting celebrities assure us that we are living in a time of vicious austerity. The Poverty and Exclusion website of the Economic and Social Research Council declares that ‘we are paralysed by what is probably the biggest single issue affecting ordinary people in the country: austerity’.

Continue reading “AUSTERITY”


Why are liberals so opposed to biblical Christianity whilst so accommodating towards Islam? After all Christianity is foundational for many traditional liberal beliefs whilst Islam is utterly opposed to them. The real difference is that Islam is useful to the modern liberal agenda whilst biblical Christianity is an obstacle to its implementation.

freedom go to hell

For today’s liberal the great problem with biblical Christianity is that it is traditionally liberal. In the doctrine of the Image of God Christianity espouses the equal value in the eyes of God of every human being regardless of origin or background. Likewise in arguing for a Day of Judgement before God Christianity argues that there are absolute moral values and that we are all personally responsible agents. Equality and individual responsibility were once guiding lights to be followed by liberals, for today’s liberals in a world of quotas and corporate sin they have long disappeared.

Words change their meanings, sometimes to such an extent that they mean the opposite of what they originally meant. The original fundamentalists, the writers of ‘The Fundamentals’ were men such as BB Warfield and James Orr, theologians of stature who were amongst the intellectual leaders of the Protestantism of their day. Today a fundamentalist is either a snake handler from Tennessee or a bloke with a beard and a suicide vest, basically someone who picks up their Bible, whatever that may be, and puts down his brain.

So it is with the word ‘Liberal’. Once a proponent of the maximum individual and social freedom possible it now denotes someone who is intolerant of other’s views, who demands conformity, who restricts free speech, who desires ever more state control and who seeks to outlaw anything with which he disagrees.

One of the commonplace progressive or liberal memes is that ISIS is un-Islamic. It would be much more accurate to say that today’s liberals are ill-liberal. Traditional liberalism amongst today’s liberals is as dead as Lenin, a mummified corpse preserved in a mausoleum and viewed as a relic of a distant past.

Probably the majority of those posing as liberals today would unite in declaring that criticism of Islam is racist or Islamophobic. Any criticism of the behaviour or beliefs of those perceived as a minority must, according to our liberal elites and their followers, have its roots in the psychology of the critic. Basically the liberal responds to concerns about Islam with the attitude, ‘The problem isn’t with them it’s with you’.


In this way liberals tend to favour denunciation over argument. At one time liberals thought about issues and argued cogently, today liberals respond to ideological clues with Pavlovian eagerness.

The assertion, no matter how illogical, that the USA is irredeemably racist is impossible to argue against because it is not concerned with verifiable fact. For today’s liberals this not an argument to be debated, it is a denunciation which rejects discussion and casts any opposing it as part of the problem; it is an ideological assertion demanding that all fall into line in agreement or fall outside the boundaries of acceptable belief.

Today’s Liberals are ever ready to forgive ill-liberalism whenever it emerges from a favoured grouping. Thus female genital mutilation, which if practised by in the Western Isles or suburban Surrey would arouse roof lifting howls of protest, is forgiven as a ‘cultural practice’ and opposition to it falls under suspicion of Western cultural imperialism.


Where Islam forms the majority liberals are silent as to their behaviour. Liberals campaign incessantly for homosexual rights and feminism, except when it concerns Islamic countries where homosexuals are not fêted on the media and given knighthoods but are considered perverted criminals who can be jailed or sentenced to death, and where women are covered from head to toe and have to walk behind men. Homosexuals, feminists and Muslims are not actual concerns of today’s liberals, they are a means to an end, tools to be exploited.

Muslims are of no real concern to liberals, what they are concerned with is Islam. Muslims are merely the latest ‘victims’ liberals choose to manipulate for their own purposes.

The only thing that concerns liberals about Islam is that, in the West at least, Muslims are a minority group. As such they can be used to sow mistrust in ‘the system’. Muslims can quickly cow the supposedly powerful, consider how Western leaders grovelled over the Danish cartoons and whenever there is a Muslim atrocity are quick to assert Islam is a religion of peace. It is not the vulnerability of Muslims which attracts liberals, it is the power of Islam to challenge the system.

Islam may be sexist, intolerant and bigoted, but liberals who demand resignations at the hint of a sexist joke are silent. The importance to liberals is not the act, it is the ideology. Islam and liberals share a totalitarian mindset. The ultimate aim of both is to replace the existing Western Christian and Enlightenment cultural consensus; liberals with their own liberal progressive utopia, Islam with their own Muslim, sharia based, society. For today’s liberals the operating maxim is ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

Islam will dominate world

Biblical Christianity, which is truly liberal in according to every individual maximum value and personal responsibility, and in proclaiming unvarying moral standards, stands in the way of modern totalitarian liberalism and in its view has to be either crushed or co-opted.

Today’s liberal cannot be expected to be distressed or do anything concerning Islamic ill-liberalism. What we confront today is not liberalism as we knew it, it is a progressive jihad which has stolen the terminology whilst rejecting the content of liberalism.


At one time no visit to the British seaside was complete without the purchase of a rude postcard. McGill’s postcards poked fun at the tall, the short, the fat, the thin, wives, husbands, mothers in law, girls with big breast and lisps, scoutmasters, the hard of hearing, vicars, the old, the list is endless, all were fair game for ribald ridicule.

postcard fat

In 1954 the 79 year old McGill pled guilty to a charge under the Obscene Publications Act of 1857 referring to 4 of the more than 12,000 cards he had drawn. As well as the 4 which were banned another 17, many of which had been on display since the thirties and forties, were withdrawn. This application of law to the merely rude marked the demise of the seaside postcard. More importantly the concept of rudeness as a social restraint died.

The postcards had been a British institution. The level of humour was rudimentary but they weren’t loved because they were funny, they were loved because they were rude. They gave a vicarious thrill of transgression in a completely harmless way. Orwell, as usual, got to the nub of the matter when he said of McGill’s postcards, “His brand of humour only has a meaning in relation to a fairly strict moral code.”

It was possible to make jokes in postcard form which would never have been said aloud; at least not by the respectable working and middle classes, the upper class and intellectual elites have always delighted in scorning social convention. People who sent each other postcards about embarrassed vicars, fat ladies or nubile schoolgirls would never have dreamed of embarrassing a vicar, calling a lady fat or made a lascivious remark to a schoolgirl, it would have been rude.


As the enforced responsibility of legal and elite sanction grew personal responsibility for behaviour within social constraint disappeared. Pretty soon speech codes emerged which developed from social to legal enforcement to such an extent that free speech has been replaced by the freedom not to be offended in a society in which many seek offence.

Acceptance of the existence of the merely rude, something which had been an integral part of British cultural life since before Chaucer and Shakespeare, disappeared. When it disappeared anything went, there was no embarrassment in telling an off colour joke or making a deliberately slighting personal remark. The concept of rudeness was lost and we are all the losers for it.

When the concept of a generally accepted standard of social behaviour is replaced by the policing of an imposed code of behaviour society is altered fundamentally.

The lessening influence of Christianity as a cultural determinant and its eventual retreat from the public square has played its part. Not everyone had been a Christian, but it was Christianity which formed the framework for moral decision making within that ‘strict moral code’. This moral code included respect for the individual as a creature made in the image of God, a concept replaced in our secular society by respect for the individual not as an individual but as a member of a community.

The concept of community has altered utterly. No longer is the community itself the determining force in morality because there is no longer a single community. Instead we have become a collection of competing communities, each determined to create and use laws to protect and enforce its position. The law and social constraints produced are inevitably concerned to change the way people are rather than address the consequences of their actions.

Jennifer Lawrence, a young American lady rumoured to be an actress, said last week that “I just think it should be illegal to call somebody fat on TV….  I mean, if we’re regulating cigarettes and sex and cuss words, because of the effect they have on our younger generation, why aren’t we regulating things like calling people fat?

Thankfully some still reject the imposition of legal constraints on language and stand up for the social constraint of rudeness. Susan Ringwood, the Chief Executive of UK Eating disorder awareness charity Beat, responded to Miss Lawrence by saying that they didn’t support the banning of words ‘just because they could upset someone’. But rather they are ‘in favour of encouraging everyone to think twice before they make hurtful remark’.

In other words, don’t be rude.


The pervasiveness in public thought, and even the introduction into law, of the concept that giving offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation is always to be forbidden is more than just one of those things to which Daily Mail readers respond with groans of ‘Political correctness gone mad’. The idea that being found to be offensive is a criminal offence is a direct attack on Christianity.


It is difficult to imagine a way in which the proclamation of the gospel cannot be offensive to some. The offer of salvation holds out both a salvation to something and also a salvation from something. If we call people to repentance and a new and radically altered life then we inevitably condemn an ungodly lifestyle. If someone is told that adultery, fornication, homosexuality, idolatry or anything in which they indulge or condone is a symptom of a disordered lifestyle and is actually sinful then they are liable to be offended.

Such is the nature of the state’s intimidatory stance that in the last three months three street preachers have been detained by the police in the UK.  Retired Los Angeles County Sheriff Tony Miano was arrested outside the Wimbledon tennis courts in July after a passer-by told the police he had made homophobic remarks when in fact he was reading from I Thessalonians.

On 4th September street preacher Rob Hughes was arrested by Basildon police in Essex on the grounds that he ‘caused harassment, alarm or distress’. Hughes denied the accusations and was eventually released without charge, but only after being held in custody in a police station for seven and a half hours.

In Scotland we have our share of intimidation. Recently Josh Williamson was detained by police on two occasions for breach of the peace whilst preaching on the High Street in Perth. The police at the time seemed curiously deaf to the nearby buskers plying their trade. Only the message of the Prince of Peace was considered to be breaching the peace.

Josh Williamson Breaching the Peace
Josh Williamson
Breaching the Peace

Williamson said afterwards, ‘One policeman told me that the content of what I was saying was the issue. I asked them to clarify, but they wouldn’t. People were making abusive comments to me and swearing in public, that is breaking the law, but instead they went straight to the street preacher. I think it is a form of discrimination and I think that comes back to the content. It becomes dangerous when police say it’s due to content, you get into a position where you wonder what part of speaking from the Gospel is illegal.’

These are only the most recent incidents of street preachers being harassed by police on the grounds that they have given offence. This practice has been occurring for several years now. In 2010 Shawn Holes was fined £1000 for homophobic offences when preaching in Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow. Ironically the motto of Glasgow originally read, ‘Lord, let Glasgow flourish through the preaching of Thy Word and the praising of Thy name’.

Our supposedly triumphant secularists should listen to the warning bells when ‘offensive’ speech is criminalised. Here in Western Europe we have entered a post-Christian society. This does not mean we have a society which has emerged into the broad sunlit uplands of liberty, free from supposedly restrictive Christian moral and ethical dogma. Rather it means that we have entered a polytheistic culture surprising akin to that of the Roman empire where any belief system was tolerated no matter what, as long as that system acknowledged the state as supreme.

The early Christians were persecuted not because they preached Jesus, but because they taught Jesus is Lord. That was seen as a political act and the state could not tolerate a rival authority.

How long before our humanistic fellow citizens begin regretting their stance when the state turns upon them and their cherished ideals? How long before their dearly held convictions become unfashionable?

It couldn’t happen here? How many liberals in 1913 Germany, the most educated nation in Europe, could have predicted what their country would be like a quarter of a century later? How many Russian progressives agitating for total freedom in 1900 found themselves slave labour in the gulag a quarter of a century later? When we abandon that which has given us freedom of expression, the Christian faith, we abandon the basis of freedom.

That we have freedom at all is largely down to the political radicalism of the Reformers and the Puritans whose empowering of the common people ushered in an era of expansion, discovery and free thought. Where else but in the Christian based West were the foundations of democracy and political freedom laid?

Not in Islam. Not in communism. Not in fascism. Not in the ghastly French Revolution so beloved of progressives. Not amongst the noble savages of romantic idealism. Not in the polytheistic culture of the West today.

So a few ranting street preachers are harassed by the police, so what? So a great deal.


Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, one of our more perceptive Christian leaders, has warned that Britain is in danger of becoming not just “unchristian” but “anti-Christian”.

In the face of the increasing marginalisation of Christianity the church has gradually accommodated to the standpoint of the world in the hope that the world will like and listen to us. As a result of our continuing tactic of accomodationsim the church is always a few decades behind the moral curve of the world and correspondingly ignored. In much of today’s Britain the church is the middle aged uncle trying to be cool at a teenager’s party.

Einstein supposedly said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Unfortunately when the church’s Plan A of accomodationsim fails it has immediate recourse to Plan A, more accomodationsim.

Christians live in a rapidly changing society, to be effective we must adopt changing tactics. Infiltration and subversion of the establishment power structures can be effective in the long run. Sometimes in the short run confrontation is forced on us. But this is costly.

In 1978 Douglas Roth and his wife Nadine were called to their first parish, the steel town of Clairton, Pennsylvania. They served there until March 1985 when Douglas became the first minister in the history of the Lutheran Church in America to be defrocked.

During this period Clairton and the surrounding towns had roughly 55% unemployment amongst heads of households. The effects on the people were devastating. Marriages were broken, children suffered without adequate medical care, suicides averaged two a week. The Roths were cut to the heart.

The church had the usual programmes, supplying free food, clothing and sometimes shelter. Douglas and some of his friends decided this wasn’t enough, root causes had to be addressed.

The final straw was when the town went bankrupt. There was no money for any city workers including police and fire fighters. Research indicated the chief cause of the unemployment and the city bankruptcy was massive disinvestment. The chief financial institution of the area was the Mellon Bank.

The bank had foreclosed on one of the oldest companies around whilst at the same time loaning millions to a giant Japanese conglomerate making the same product as the local business.

Firstly Douglas and Nadine took the mild step of distributing leaflets asking people to put their money in a bank which would pledge to keep it in the local area by reinvesting in the district. There was a positive reaction. 6th June 1983 was Clairton’s D Day – Disinvestment Day. There were massive withdrawals from the bank. But no change of policy.

The pressure was increased. About 100 men from the local union went to the bank with $10 each and asked for $10 worth of pennies, taking great care to count all 1000 pennies before rejoining the queue. Next time up they realised it was nickels they wanted. The bank did no meaningful business that day. Police and security guards surrounded the building. Tension built up. Finally a security guard snapped, drew his baton and clubbed one of the penny protestors.

Meetings with the bank executives proved fruitless, they were just obeying orders. Another action was organised, with fish.

One Friday the workers trooped into the bank and each hired a safe deposit box. Into the boxes they placed blocks of frozen fish. Next Monday morning the bank officials realised they had a problem. The boxes had to be drilled out, but they didn’t know which was which. They drilled into one lady’s jewels and into someone else’s heroin.

The bank counter attacked. Practically all the corporate leaders of the area were church members and those with a say in running corporations have a say in running churches. Pressure was brought to bear on Douglas by the bishop. At this point some of the Douglas’s supporters backed off.

The church declared the congregation at Clairton vacant. Mellon’s law firm volunteered their services to the church and had an injunction served on Douglas removing him from church property. He countered that he had to obey God rather than men. Eventually he was arrested for contempt of court, fined $1,200 and given 90 days in jail. In jail he wrote sermons and sent them out. For this the judge added a further 60 days.

The church disciplinary process continued, in jail. Five Lutheran pastors sat as a board and Douglas was brought before them in handcuffs. His lawyer, a Presbyterian, was not allowed to be present on the grounds that he wasn’t a Lutheran.

Meanwhile Nadine Roth and seven others entered the church building on 27th December 1984. On 4th January 1985 forty five fully armed riot police surrounded the building, axed open the back door and arrest the eight.

A week after being released from prison Douglas faced a final disciplinary hearing. He was defrocked. This had never happened before in America in the Lutheran Church.

Barth wrote: ‘Love of one another ought to be undertaken as the protest against the course of the world, and it ought to continue without interruption.’

Love is the power of God working in the lives of ordinary men and women, a power far stronger than the structures of the world. Love is confronting the injustice and wrong abroad in the world and risking all for the sake of Christ and the people for whom He died. Love is action. Love is costly. Love hurts.