Always the masters of the warfare of vocabulary leftists have, much to the chagrin of many, captured the designation of ‘progressive’. This is with the clear intention of suggesting that any who oppose them are thereby ‘regressive’.

One of the main problems with progressives is that in their utopian desire to create the perfect society they are impatient and don’t allow society to develop. Like little children viewing the sweets at the checkout they know what they want and they want it ‘Now!’ and will have a tantrum until they get their way.

It is this infantilism, when linked to the unswerving certainty that they are indisputably right, that leads to the horrors of ‘progressive’ tyranny. In order to build the new utopia everything in the past has to be thrown away, baby with bathwater. Progressives have a constant yearning to try to start afresh from Day One.

In rejecting Christianity our progressive elites have also rejected the Christian virtues which not only made society bearable but made it safe. Virtues have been replaced by values; unfortunately values are no societal defence when those values are infinitely malleable.

One of the unacknowledged results of this wish to start de novo is that the baby inevitably gets thrown out. In deposing Christianity as the main formative influence on Western culture and replacing it with an inchoate belief in emotion as the standard by which all events and statements are to be judged we have ‘progressed’ to a situation in which society has left itself wide open to harm, all in the cause of not wishing to give ‘offence’.


Scorned by progressives as an attitude of mind which leaves the individual wide open to oppression the Christian virtue of humility has all but disappeared from society.

This has more important ramifications than the incredible rudeness of contestants on reality television. The disappearance of humility is seen in individuals and bodies putting forward their ‘demands’ rather than requests. A request opens the way to discussion and give and take; a demand opens the way to confrontation and conflict. The disappearance of humility has opened the door to a different, more selfish and divided society with its concomitant dangers.

Consider Muslims who eagerly cry out against ‘religious discrimination’ when police target them for investigation. This has led to a situation where police in the UK have ignored monstrous Muslim rape gangs operating throughout England. The Muslim religion is front and centre in a worldwide plague of violence, yet rather than sacrifice a bit of time and precious dignity to help ensure the safety of the most vulnerable of their neighbours Muslims demand that everyone reinterpret reality in order to safeguard their tender feelings.

We find police assigned to protect high-crime neighbourhoods being castigated for racism when they question youths from an ethnic minority. Yet it is inevitable that more youths from ethnic minorities are questioned by the police than any other group. The highest crime areas are those with the highest proportion of ethnic minorities and most crime is committed by young men. Those who are viewed with suspicion in such areas are inevitably going to be mainly young men from ethnic minorities. Yet the police are denounced as racist for stopping and frisking the suspicious, when the truth is the officers are trying to protect the majority of non-criminals in those mainly ethnic minority areas.

We find illegal immigrants demanding their ‘rights’, whilst breaking and thus endangering the very laws that sustain those rights for all.

We find homosexuals activists who deliberately, viciously and wickedly attempt to destroy the businesses of those who, in conscience, cannot regard them as they demand. In the UK the latest instance is the attempt is to force Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland to bake a cake carrying propaganda in support of homosexual marriage. Ashers have been ordered by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to apologise for giving offence to the homosexual rights activist who ordered the cake, and to give him hard cash to ameliorate the ‘offence’ caused.

H9omosexual Cake

All these are instances of selfishness, the point blank refusal to live graciously in a world of difference where some people have beliefs and customs which do not accord with ours. Instead we have the demand that everyone conforms to a particular set of minority beliefs. The progressive has a specialised concept of give and take; we do the giving, they do the taking.

The good of the majority and the good of the individual are often in conflict. Unquestioning following of the general will is a recipe for regimented tyranny. Unswerving insistence on the rights of the individual is a recipe for chaotic anarchy.


For the individual to be willing to make sacrifices for the good of the many he has to be able to value the other and be willing to make sacrifices for the good of the other. Humility sometimes demands the strength to place the well being or conscientious beliefs of others before one’s own. Paul advised us in I Corinthians 8:7 ‘Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling-block to the weak’.

Only the strong can be truly humble; perhaps this is why progressives make such strident demands for conformity.

When a society throws out Christianity it throws out more than bell-ringers and evensong, it throws out harmony between people.


What is it with homosexuals and bakeries, do they have a cake fetish? It is easy to get the impression that no sooner do they find a bakery run by a Christian than in they pop and request a ‘wedding’ cake for a homosexual couple, all the while longing for a refusal so that they can collapse in a miasma of hurt and rush to their lawyers and compliant media outlets. Perhaps we thought that this was just something those crazy Americans would do but, like reality TV, McDonalds and Kermit the Frog it has crossed the Atlantic, and to Belfast of all places.

Bert and Ernie Trailblzers in the Gay Confectionary Sector
Bert and Ernie
Trailblazers in the Gay Confectionary Sector

It is no closely guarded secret in Belfast that Ashers Bakery is run by committed Christians. Nevertheless, LGBT activist Gareth Lee popped in to a branch of Ashers bakery and asked for a cake featuring a picture of characters from the children’s programme Sesame Street and decorated with the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’.  At present homosexual marriage is not legal in Northern Ireland and there is a vigorous political campaign to bring the province down to the same level as the rest of the UK. After talking it over the staff decided that this would go against the company’s Christian ethos, turned down the order and refunded Mr Lee his money.

Rather than pop down the road to another bakery where he could purchase a cake with a political slogan asking for the promotion of something illegal Mr Lee, in high dudgeon had recourse to the Equalities Commission who thereupon informed Ashers Bakery that they had seven days to bake the cake or face court action. Ashers stuck to their guns and now face that action.

Daniel McArthur, general manager of Ashers, said: ‘I feel if we don’t take a stand on this here case, how can we stand up against it, further down the line?’ He added that it was not the first time his company had refused cake orders: ‘In the past, we’ve declined several orders which have contained pornographic images and offensive, foul language’.

Thus we have a situation where a company is being pursued by a governmental body for refusing to promote an action at present deemed illegal by the same government.

The homosexual lobby exhibits an intolerance which is staggering in its hypocrisy. The champions of diversity are quite unable to tolerate any diversity of opinion, all must agree. If, as a matter of conscience, you don’t support their cause you must then be forced by the state to take actions which support their cause. Unfortunately organs of the state are all too willing to enforce conformity.

Andrew Muir, Northern Ireland’s first openly homosexual mayor supported the LBGT activist saying: ‘Businesses should not be able to pick and choose who they serve’, adding that he would be supportive of legal action against the bakery.

This is not a civil rights issue. This is not a case of a homosexual being refused access to a service because of his sexuality. If Mr Lee had wanted half a dozen Bath buns he would have been served. If the same cake had been requested by a hetrosexual it would still have been refused. Ashers declined to bake the cake because it contained political propaganda for a cause with which they profoundly disagreed.

If a Jewish baker refused to serve a Muslim customer his half dozen Bath buns because the customer was a Muslim that would be discrimination on a number of grounds. If the same Jewish baker were to refuse to supply a cake decorated with a picture of a RPG and the slogan ‘Support Hamas’ would that be discrimination?

What would happen if a Christian were to go into a bakery run by homosexuals and request a cake decorated with ‘Homosexual activity is shameful – Romans 1:27’? Most reasonable people would support the bakers if they were to refuse to provide a cake containing a message with which they profoundly disagreed. It is to be doubted, however, that the rights jihadis who are ever ready to take up the cudgels in the cause of homosexual oriented cakes would support the Christian in the demand for a biblical cake. For too many toleration is a one way street.



It doesn’t matter who you are, rich or poor, prominent or unknown, believer or unbeliever, from the highest to the lowest total conformity to the mores of our cultural elite will be rigidly enforced, whatever the cost to the individuals involved. Shortly after Grain went off line last month Brendan Eich was forced from his job. Last week Sarah Mbuyi met the same fate. Refusal to celebrate homosexual marriage is tantamount to social ostracism if not an open door to the unemployment line or even arrest.

Brendan Eich
Brendan Eich

Brendan Eich, inventor of Javascript and co-founder of Mozilla, was forced from his post as CEO of the company because back in 2008 he gave a small donation to a California referendum campaign against homosexual marriage. Eich was ‘outed’ and forced from the company he helped create.

Eich did not discriminate against homosexuals either in his social circles or in the employment practices of his company. His crime was that nearly six years ago he held the view that marriage was an institution created solely for two people of opposite sexes. This is the view held at the same time by Barack Obama. That a values free politician could see that was where the votes were we may assume that many Americans held the same view. Nevertheless in today’s intolerant world Eich had to go.

This hounding of Eich is no aberration, the action of a few vindictive fanatics or an overzealous Twitter mob, it is the logical extension of what has been an intolerant movement from its inception. Coercion, either through legislation or media and cultural pressure, has been the tactic of our successful social revolutionaries.

Sarah Myubi
Sarah Myubi

Sarah Mbuyi was a nursery worker with Newpark Child Care in London until last week. In September a lesbian became a co-worker and the two quickly established a friendly working relationship. The other woman claimed to be very interested in Myubi’s Christian beliefs and so Myubi gave her a Bible.

During conversations the woman claimed to have been discriminated against by Christians because of her sexuality and said that she thought that God condoned same sex marriage. Although the legislation approving same sex marriage was only two months away the woman claimed to be unhappy that she was unable to marry her partner.

At no time did Mbuyi force her biblical views on the other woman but when asked directly what she believed Myubi said that the Bible taught that homosexual sex (not homosexuals themselves) was wrong. The woman immediately reported Myubi to their employers and at the disciplinary hearing her employers accused Myubi of harassing the other woman. Sarah Myubi was dismissed for ‘gross misconduct’.

At a time when the Prime Minister is proclaiming that Great Britain is a Christian nation and that Christians should be more open about our faith we find that a Christian who supports the teaching of the Bible is sacked for opposition to David Cameron’s signature legislation of same sex marriage.

Daring to express biblical morality in the workplace is fast becoming a prohibited activity. The homosexual lobby not only demands tolerance of its ideals but their active affirmation by everyone. Opponents of homosexual marriage are viewed as ideological enemies to be crushed by whatever means available.

Homosexual marriage has little to do with toleration, diversity or supposed equal rights. It is a means to an end and has become the lead mechanism through which society can be changed. Through homosexual marriage our post-traditional elites can demonstrate their contempt for old fashioned values such as family life, privacy, commitment and self discipline. Old values of community and steadiness are consigned to the dustbin and new values of individualism and constant change enforced.

The campaign for homosexual marriage, which shall continue until such marriages are celebrated in church, is not really about homosexuality, it is about destroying old moral values and imposing new ones. This is why opposition to homosexual marriage must be eradicated. We who affirm traditional marriage are not simply people who have a differing view, we are not just ‘wrong’, we are ideological enemies who are standing against a much wider project and as such must be silenced.

The coercive power of the state is liberally employed to this end. We find street preachers in Britain being arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin. In Sweden Aake Green a Pentecostal pastor was sentenced to one month in prison for the same crime, thankfully Green was acquitted on appeal. In France baton wielding police employed tear gas to attack protestors marching against homosexual marriage. Those wearing T-shirts featuring a man a woman and a child were cautioned against organising an unauthorised protest.

The ‘straight’ are not only those who uphold marriage we tend to be those who hold to a straight culture and straight values. We can even be described as straight-laced, which is anathema to the trendy elite. When we straights refuse to acknowledge homosexual marriage we are not just refusing a social construct we are refusing the new moral framework being demanded by our elites. We are moral heretics whose deviant views are dangerous.

Over half a century ago George Orwell wrote, ‘If you want a vision of the future imagine a boot stamping on a face – forever’. It may be a tasseled Gucci loafer instead of a jack boot, but it is stamping.

Gucci loafers




So despite the fact that feedback to the public consultation was, as several MSPs admitted, ‘overwhelmingly negative’ the Scottish Parliament has enacted legislation permitting same sex marriage anyway.


The debate was notable for its attacks upon Christianity. Patrick Harvie (Green) suggesting that opposition to same sex marriage was necessarily homophobic. John Finnie (Independent) equated opposing same sex marriage to religious groups who throw goats off towers to their death. Mary Fee (Labour) asserted that the Bible should not be used to attack same-sex marriage because the ‘Bible also supports slavery’, and prohibits cutting hair.

So far so bad. But, as usual, there is worse to come. A number of amendments to the bill designed to protect churches and other religious institutions from potential legal action or discrimination were all rejected. Protection for charities and registrars was deliberately omitted. The legislation was deliberately enacted with a weak opt in provision for faith groups or individuals which opens the door for further gains by the homosexual lobby. Churches at present can still refuse such marriages but if they wish to in the future they can opt in and provide same sex marriage ceremonies.

We should take this in conjunction with the statement from the CofS spokesman. Alan Hamilton, Convener of the Church’s Legal Questions Committee: ‘The Church of Scotland holds to the mainstream Christian belief that marriage is properly between a man and a woman.

‘Although there are a range of views on this issue within the Church, this will remain our view unless changed by our General Assembly, the supreme decision-making body in the Church, which meets each year in May.’

Technically accurate but what it means is that the GA is wide open to the redefinition of marriage, and in the present climate how long will it be before the GA reverses its position? We have ministers who whole heartedly approve of same sex marriage and will themselves take the opportunity to enter such an arrangement. Can we realistically see the GA saying it disapproves of their action or considers such to be un-Christian?

Some day in the not too distant future a homosexual couple will approach a carefully selected Church of Scotland minister and ask for a church wedding. If the minister complies, as is entirely possible, they get their wedding and the church gets a problem. The church will have to decide what to do about the minister. If they don’t institute disciplinary proceedings the church de facto accepts same sex marriage. If they do discipline the dissenting minister he or she will inevitably become a martyr to the cause and focus of dissent within the denomination leading to the eventual acceptance of same sex marriage. If a civil case were to be brought against the church by the minister can we be sure that in the prevailing climate the church would win?

It does not take the gift of prophecy to predict this, merely reflection on recent events. Whenever the homosexual lobby have campaigned for a gain it has been with the assurance that this would be all they wanted. As soon as they get what they want they move on to the next gain. We can all remember declarations that all that was desired was civil partnerships and that there was no wish for marriage.

This will happen because the homosexual lobby is relentless. Their view of freedom is that they should be free to say and do what they like and we should be free to agree with them. Dissent from the prevailing homosexual orthodoxy is not a permitted option.

Homosexual orthodoxy already has such a grip that many Christians find themselves in extremely difficult positions. I recently had a letter from a young friend asking for advice. A gifted classical singer, choral director and composer he finds himself under pressure if he wishes to continue working in his chosen field. The same letter, however, could have come from a teacher, a medic, a registrar, a couple wishing to adopt, from any of us. With his permission I include part of his letter.

‘I experience and have experienced first hand a form of militant liberalism from within and without the church which I find, frankly, terrifying. Having been a Christian all my life, living out my Faith as best I can, I suddenly find myself labeled as an extremist, a fanatic, and considered a danger to society. This is not an exaggeration! When I was a scholar in a certain episcopal cathedral, some of the beliefs I held were regularly described as abhorrent (though I must confess I was not, at the time, brave enough to profess them openly).

‘I would value any advice on how a young Christian with some influence should respond to the environment in which I regularly work. I must confess, I find myself increasingly living in fear of being asked direct questions which, answered honestly, could lead to me being black-listed at best and hated a worst. I am most afraid of being read wrong. For example, I have many friends and colleagues who are gay. How could I expect them to understand that their life-style does not make me love them any less, and yet I cannot agree that homosexual relationships are acceptable. And then the other end of the spectrum: I believe that God has given me a calling for working with children and I spend great amounts of time and energy on that calling. As a young, single male, you can guess how many of my peers view that calling…

“Any words of wisdom / scripture references and/or advice would be most welcome.”

What advice or help would you offer to a young Christian friend?


Things have come to a pretty pass when we look across the Channel and think to yourself, “Mm, those Frenchies are so much better at this.” Yet yesterday afternoon whilst watching our elected representatives in Parliament debate homosexual marriage it had to be admitted that the Frogs are so much better.

The French Make Their point
     The French Make Their Point

Opposition in Parliament and elsewhere is based on the defence of marriage. This fails to acknowledge that we began to sell the pass on marriage fifty years ago back in the sixties. Slice by slice we have reduced its significance until today we have reached the stage where marriage is a minority choice and a conservative Prime Minister refuses to bolster marriage in the tax system.

Totalitarian progressives get their way in part by the use of mawkish sentimentality. Every time they wish to make a dent in society they bring forward an emotional case. Reason plays little part in their advance. Divorce, abortion, homosexual rights, multiculturalism, these have all been advanced on the back of appeals to sentiment. Yesterday Parliament set in train vast social change on the back of sentimental sob stories and spurious appeals to equality and fairness.

The French in their opposition to homosexual marriage have actually thought things through. It is no coincidence that it was a Frenchman, the philosopher, mathematician and first wearer of a wrist watch Blaise Pascal, who said Travaillons donc à bien penser. Voilà le principè de la morale. “Let us labour, therefore, to think well. That is the principle of morality.”

French opposition to the homosexual restructuring of social norms, unlike the British, ranges over the whole of society from ultra Catholics to avant garde socialist head-bangers, Jews and Muslims, dedicated immoralists and Reformed pietists. This is because they have not just reacted emotionally or sentimentally but have thought about the matter and united around the concept that human nature exits and follows laws in its constitution.

What our government is intent on doing is creating a new law of nature. That this has gone unremarked is due to the makeshift nature of the education system in the UK where systematic thought is not encouraged. In today’s UK philosophers are academics who by and large  are  apologists for progressive power enlargement. Recourse to systematic thought is rare in an intellectually impoverished UK where pandering to homototalitarianism has stifled honest investigation.

Attempting to redefine a triangle as a plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the centre, demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of geometry. To attempt to redefine marriage as the union of two people of the same sex demonstrates abysmal ignorance of moralphilosophy.

The French grounded their protest against homosexual marriage and adoption philosophically, in the constitution and nature of the human person—something even some France’s weirdest leftists publicly acknowledged by participating in the recent mass protest.

In an article in Le Monde in November a group of prominent intellectuals subscribed to a joint statement rejecting homosexual marriage and adoption. Top of the list was Chantal Delsol a member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of the Institut de France. She is also an outspoken advocate of a federal Europe, hardly a knee-jerk right wing position.

Chantal Delsol
               Chantal Delsol

In Unlearned Lessons back in 2000 she wrote:

The norms of a given time and place build upon the essential determinative traits of the human condition: by nature man is a sexed being; by culture, he institutes the matriarchal or patriarchal family. Late modernity rejects these various natural and cultural determinations, either because it still clings to the utopian idea that humanity has no inherent shape, or because it rejects previous cultural models because they are all relative.

More recently writing of the domination of emotionalism in politically correct thinking she said:

[O]ur era overflows with treacly sentiment. It is almost as if the feelings that were once associated with a certain type of piety have contaminated the whole population …. Seeking the good while remaining indifferent to the truth gives rise to a morality of sentimentality. Reactive judgment, deprived of thoughtful reflection, engenders fanatical emotion and an absolute priority of feeling over thought. In fact, it is not actually a question of sentiment, since sentiment supposes a historical and rationally consistent background. We are dealing here less with a reaction of the heart than a gut reaction.

Clearly the spirit of Pascal lives on, at least in France. Another prominent philosopher signing the article was Sylviane Agacinski, wife of former socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.

Sylviane Agacinski With An Ex-Politician
Sylviane Agacinski With Her Husband

In her latest book she caused a stir by describing “queer theory” as a “false discipline” because it taught that the differences between men and women were merely a form of social construction. For this reason she rejected homosexual marriage and adoption.

Through such argumentation, philosophers from all parts of the political spectrum provided the France-wide protest its conceptual foundation which was accepted by people of every religious and political perspective. Meanwhile in the UK we have mawkish appeals by those who are for homosexual marriage, and fighting on a long lost battleground for those against it.



The culture triumphs eventually, it always does. Politicians are reasonably useful people most of the time, but they are not leaders, they are followers. True political leaders who are prepared to speak unpalatable but necessary truths to the populace are as rare as vegetarian cannibals. In a functioning democracy politicians can usually be relied upon to take the path of least resistance.

Take homosexual marriage. The cultural consensus is pretty much settled on this matter and a three line whip has been imposed through the BBC, films and the mainstream media of every kind. Within a couple of decades the institution which gives structure to our society and which has endured throughout our history has been culturally redefined, and politicians are reduced to playing catch-up by legalising same-sex marriage.

What David Cameron personally believes concerning homosexual marriage is uncertain, if he has any actual firm opinion at all. He maintained a resounding silence concerning the matter throughout his career. He was silent on the matter at his selection as a parliamentary candidate, silent at various elections including a party leadership election, silent during his humiliating failure to win outright a general election against one of the least popular of PM’s, ending up being maintained in power through the increasingly ludicrous Lib Dems.

David CameronOur Pincipled Prime Minister
David Cameron
Our Pincipled Prime Minister

Suddenly in mid term he broke his silence and announced that he is “passionately” in favour of homosexual marriage, not despite being a conservative but because he is a conservative. It is only a coincidence that this principled stance which has seemingly emerged from the core of his political ideology only emerged into public view when it was clear that opinion polls were trending in favour of homosexual marriage. David Cameron exemplifies one approach to the cultural hegemony, appeasement.

To avoid criticising the BBC too much, as though this were possible, let’s think of advertising. Businesses, for much the same reason as politicians, follow the culture. Advertising is aimed very precisely because people do not buy products, they buy images of themselves.


The logo BP is derived, as Obama delighted in pointing out, from British Petroleum. Before Deepwater BP pushed an advertising campaign based on BP as “Beyond Petroleum”. We were treated to images of BP scientists exploring alternative energy sources, as though BP were sandal wearing majority funders of Greenpeace.

That BP should seek to use the concept of a major oil company focussing their R&D budget on windfarms is understandable, environmentalists are gullible enough to believe anything. They were not buying fuel they were buying an image of themselves as serious and caring people. The adverts enabled them to fill up their cars with non-renewable fuel whilst supposedly supporting the development of environmental science.

Unfortunately such appropriation of popular cultural stances serves to reinforce the very cultural attitudes on which they seek to piggy back. The more they are portrayed in a positive light in every form of media the stronger the cultural attitudes become. Advertising impacts values. Whilst of necessity it reflects society it also has the serious effect of normalising values or behaviours.

Who sits in Parliament or who controls the levers in a multi-national company is of less importance than who within the media is shaping how they think.

We are told that advertising is about giving people an informed choice between products, when advertising might not even promote choice after all. The subtle manipulation of its target group may in fact stifle actual choice which involves reasoned judgement.

Much advertising is subliminal, drip-feed, all about creating positive associations whilst avoiding conscious thought. In the words of Agnes Nairn and Cordelia Fine advertising “operates darkly, beyond the light of consciousness”. As one advertising agency says “Intuitive brand judgements are made instantaneously and with little or no apparent conscious effort on the part of consumers”.

We need to be more aware of advertising. We can’t do away with advertising, but we should examine it, ask more questions, try to see where it leads, and minimise its harmful effects on society. The problem is the drip-drip effect of advertising, we too frequently find ourselves accepting as a society what we did not choose as individuals.

The latest figures from the Advertising Association predict that total advertising spend in the UK is expected to reach £16.8bn for 2012, and £17.2bn in 2013. What is the church doing to counter this influence? A few brave Christians are engaged in the arts, more than many would think, but when was the last time you heard a sermon or read a book about how to be culturally aware, even at the everyday basic level of how to watch adverts?


What most people don’t fully appreciate is that it is jolly hard work being offended. If you want to further your cause and are tempted to go down the route of offence be warned, it requires planning, patience and an underlying passion rarely seen today. 

Homo marriage

The simplest way is to be offended because of your chosen sexuality. If you wish to advance your cause, say the further acceptance of homosexuality, whilst acknowledging that you are pushing at an open door, you have to accept that there is still work to be done. 

Fortunately there is a well worn path to follow. The example to emulate is that of the plucky B&B pioneers. Their route also has the added advantage of the increasing marginalisation of the Christian faith.

First of all comes the research. Christian magazines often carry adverts for B&B establishments. That does narrow the field significantly but it is just the start. The next step is an internet search for those establishments whose website clearly states that they don’t let rooms to unmarried couples. 

The casual B&B user doesn’t appreciate just how difficult that is. The vast majority of B&B’s couldn’t care less who slept with whom in their rooms, as long as they didn’t go “Baa, baa” too loudly in the night. In some rural areas this is not an insurmountable obstacle.

It requires diligent research to find a B&B which would refuse occupancy to practicing homosexuals. You can’t expect to just stumble over them by accident, the chances of that happening are astronomical. You may have to book into hundreds of B&B’s before you manage to find one which will turn you down because of your homosexuality? It is not an easy path you have chosen, but if you persevere you will find the mother lode and finally be offended.

Once you have your target you have to choose the correct season. You don’t want to choose a time of year when they are likely to have vacant rooms. Being turned away on the specious excuse of being full up may have got Mary and Joseph the sympathy vote but they would never have won the court case. Remember, you are after something more important than a room for the weekend.

Having found your target establishment and checked the seasonal occupancy pattern you then have to drive past hundreds if not thousands of other establishments to your target B&B. Once arriving unannounced you then, at last, have the opportunity of being offended.

From then on it is plain sailing. You can immediately contact a well-heeled organisation which exists solely for the purpose of furthering your passion and they will take up your cause. The BBC will portray you as civil rights martyrs, the Guardian will express outrage at this latest manifestation of fascistic homophobia, there are legions of lawyers all too ready to defend your human rights and a myriad of politicians who will support your cause. The whole politically correct establishment will rally to your side.

There will be court cases and television interviews, media calls and messages of support from those who “feel your pain.” All very trying but you can be assured that when it reaches this point you have already won. It is hard work but no doubt the diligent offence seeker will feel that it is worth it in the end.

That is how it has worked in the recent past and there is no reason to suppose it will not work today. When it becomes the law, as it will, that homosexuals are allowed to be married in churches we can be sure that some vaguely religious establishments will allow it.

Even in those denominations which refuse to sanction homosexual marriage some individual ministers will throw over the traces. Given the inability of mainstream denominations to discipline their ministers for even the most appalling heresies they will be perfectly safe. There is little likelihood that the minister will become a martyr, but they will get what amounts to second prize for the progressive Christians, recognition as a civil rights pioneer.

Being allowed to be married in only some religious establishments will not satisfy the eager to be offended. It is a virtual certainty that some homosexual couple will search out a congregation where the minister refuses to carry out homosexual weddings.

They will ask, they will be refused, the whole circus will start all over again. It will go to court, if the court finds for the church there will be appeals, eventually the European Court for Human Rights will intervene and we have a pretty good idea of how they will decide. What will happen when the minister refuses to pay a fine?

David Cameron states categorically that in any forthcoming legislation there will be provisions for those churches who refuse to marry homosexuals. But then Cameron is the politician who gave the British people a “cast iron promise” on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and we know how reliable that promise was. A bit of window dressing in the form of a few insignificant changes to the Treaty, a new name for it and Cameron smiled it through. 

David CameronMerely Posh
David Cameron
Merely Posh

David Cameron may come from a wealthy, privileged background, he may have gone to Eton, know the right people and be distantly related to the Queen, but he is not a gentleman. You can trust the word of a gentleman. Nadine Dories is right, Cameron is merely “an arrogant posh boy.”

Cameron claims to be “passionate” about homosexual marriage. He should realise that there are others who share his viewpoint, and they are willing to push the limits at every opportunity. That may mean the shattering of the church, but for them that is a small price to pay, you see they too are passionate about the acceptance of homosexuality.

It’s Not Just Christians

Español: Intercambio de anillos entre los novios
Marriage Is Worth Defending

In our society support for homosexual marriage has become a touchstone of moral decency, only those in the grip of bigotry could possibly oppose it. Even those traditionalist MP’s who oppose legislation on homosexual marriage do not express their opposition as a matter of principle but rather in terms of “We have more important things to consider, such as the economy.”

But a wish to be seen as morally acceptable is not the only reason we find politicians like David Cameron jumping on the homosexual bandwagon. There is the pragmatic political reason; by taking a pro-homosexual stance they plug in to both an activist community prepared to spend lavishly in support of those who will further its aims, and into the influential opinion formers in the media who are strongly pro-homosexual.

They also demonstrate to the general public that they are modern, advanced, progressive and all the other touchy feely things which focus groups recommend; and that they are not reactionary, stuffy, hidebound, homophobic and all the other nasty things traditionalists are accused of being.

Yet there is another and more important political reason. This issue represents a deep seated change in politics. Politicians, especially in Britain, realise that they are effectually powerless over the major issues, decisions concerning these are increasingly taken in the EU and G20. Being shut out of the macro-political issues they turn instead to the micro-political issues, such as homosexual marriage.

No longer able to shape the major issues in society our legislators turn to what the Labour Party terms the ‘politics of behaviour.’ They attempt to reshape the actual way we think of ourselves, the way we live, our relationships, and our lifestyles. Homosexual marriage is an integral part of that statist impulse. Homosexual marriage gives politicians an opening into reshaping the family, the one social structure which has been seen as a sovereign entity free from the interference of the state.

The radical interference of politicians can be seen in David Cameron’s consultation on homosexual marriage which proposes that terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ be dumped and replaced with ‘partner’ or ‘spouse.’ This at least is better than Canada where homosexual marriage has been legal since 2005 and even the terms ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ have been rejected in favour of ‘Partner 1’ and ‘Partner 2’ although which is #1 and which is #2 is a matter of conjecture.

As Orwell observed, when the state and the powerful wish to change our perception of reality a vitally important aspect of their social engineering is to change the language. If you are no longer a ‘Mother’ or a ‘Father’ but instead merely ‘Parent 1’ or ‘Parent 2’ what in terms of perception stands in the way of the state deciding that ‘Parent 3’ or ‘Parent 4’ is better fitted to parenting duties?

When we allow the state to define such organic relationships as marriage and the family we allow them to interfere in and regulate our lives in a way which is essentially destructive to freedom. The function of the state is to recognise and protect the way in which we choose to live our lives; in future it may well see its function as determining how we choose to live our lives.

Traditional marriage is a union between a man and a woman which, through bringing into being and nurturing the next generation of humanity, binds the family to a much wider community. Heterosexual marriage is an indispensible building block of society. Unlike homosexual marriage which is an atomised partnership affecting primarily those involved, heterosexual marriage is a societal institution. To destroy this institution is of benefit to no one except those who, unable to perform their proper political function, look for a role in society to justify their positions.

Opposition to homosexual marriage can be seen as a faith issue, as such it is of concern to Christians. It can also be seen as a freedom issue, as such it is of concern to all.

The Drunk Or The Dictator?

As you are aware I am a simple sort of chap. I am content with this. Not knowing what a Higgs Boson is or being unable to discern the subtle brilliance of Damien Hurst’s aesthetic causes me no sense of disappointment. I have simpler pleasures. The high point of yesterday was the news that my broad beans are sprouting.

Unfortunately yesterday also brought the strong possibility that I will be denied another simple pleasure. It seems all too possible that we may be seeing the end our local MP’s career. Now that he faces three charges of assault it seems unlikely Eric Joyce will be standing again.

Eric "There are too many Tories in this bar" Joyce

“Drunken Scotsman headbutts Tory” is hardly newsworthy, that it occurred in the palace of Westminster is. Eric seemingly headbutted a Tory MP and launched a fusillade of punches at a few others. That at the time he was surrounded, rather ineffectually it would seem, by eight policemen raises questions concerning not only Eric’s sobriety but also his sanity.

Many enjoy seeing a self-serving careerist brought low. Especially so when he is known mainly for his ability early in his career to parrot the party line however ludicrous the position taken by that mendacious mountebank Tony Blair. Eric also has achieved fame for the extraordinary level of his expenses claims, at over £200,000 last year, by far the highest in Parliament.

When we moved to Airth I imagined that one of the simple pleasures in store was being able to vote against Eric.  In my daydreams about this it didn’t really matter who I ended up voting for; SNP, Monster Raving Loony, Tory, it didn’t matter as long as they stood a chance of unseating Eric.

But then I began to ask myself, would I vote for just ‘anybody’?

No, there are a few parties which because of the rank nature of their public pronouncements and stated aims are beyond the pale. Obviously the Lib Dems would have to be excluded.

I am not so simple that I could vote for the party of whom Austin Mitchel MP said, “The Lib Dems aren’t a grown-up party but a collection of middle-class deviants, odds  and sods and those too squeamish, silly or selfish to join one of the two great alternatives.” Who can say fairer than that?

We see just how illiberal and undemocratic the grotesquely misnamed Lib Dems are with the latest plea by Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone. Ms Featherstone thinks that the Church should stop putting its oar in during discussions about the possibility of legalising homosexual marriage in England and Wales.

Featherstone claims that “This is not a battle between gay rights and religious beliefs. This is about the underlying principles of family, society, and personal freedoms.” Restricting how those with religious belief articulate their views in discussions about the underlying principles of family, society and personal freedom is deeply totalitarian.

Lynne Knows Best

In today’s Telegraph Featherstone talks of ‘debate’ concerning homosexual marriage yet ends her article with’ “That is why you will not find us watering down this commitment.” It is quite clear that she has already made a commitment about how this ‘debate’ must end. Any ‘consultation’ she conducts is clearly about how to implement her desire for homosexual marriage rather than about whether it should happen at all. Scratch a Lib Dem find a bully.

‘Marriage’ is to be redefined, whether we like it or not. The progressive urge to redefine the actual content of words is reminiscent of Orwell’s Newspeak, a characteristic of both totalitarian dictatorships and modern progressives. If words are redefined our thoughts are reshaped, and we eventually become new people by governmental action.

The progressive desire to restructure society involves an assault on individual freedom of conscience. To demand that the majority show ‘equal respect’ towards a minority, whatever the nature of that minority, is to weaken the freedom of expression of the majority.

None have a supposed right to respect or a right not to be offended which can be guaranteed by legislation. It is absurd for one person to claim a right not to be offended by another, if only because the latter person is likely to be equally offended by the opinions of the former. The only way out of this impasse is to elevate one group above another. For the progressive this means privileging homosexuals over biblical Christians and all who hold to traditional values emanating from Scripture.

If we designate one group as privileged over another we not only violate the principle of equality before the law, but the state becomes the arbiter of which beliefs are more fundamental and worthy of protection.

The question is: Would I vote for a drunken failed careerist or a representative of the bunch who wish to dismantle our society and remake it in their own “deviant,” and “selfish” image?

The drunks have it.

Two Types of Leadership

The widespread disconnect between the people and our political masters is a given. This is seen in the shrinkage of popular membership of political parties and the consequent requests that electoral activities be forcibly funded by the state because so few will voluntarily support them. It was noted that at the recent party conferences party activists were heavily outnumbered by paid lobbyists.

The European situation has thrown this into relief. At home prior to the last election both main parties, plus the LibDems made manifesto commitments to a European referendum. The election safely over when we petitioned for a referendum there was wall to wall Parliamentary three line whips against a referendum.

In effect the political elites told us that we had already performed our democratic function, electing them, now we should be quiet and let them get on with the job. After all they are the people who know best and have done such a sterling job of running things already.

The suggestion that the Greek people should actually have a say in their future was greeted with horror in Brussels. They might get the wrong answer and who knows what could have happened happen before the resits. Because whenever there is a referendum which goes the ‘wrong’ way the Eurocrats give us a chance to resit until we get it right.

Politicians hunger for power and resist giving it up, although serious that’s to be expected. Where the leadership problem becomes dangerous is when church leaders abdicate. Where the church cannot articulate clearly the Word of God society has no safety.

The reaction of the CofE to the Occupy London protest has been embarrassing. The Chapter of St Paul’s showed ineffectual dithering, disagreement and capitulation. The leader of the Anglican communion Dr Rowan Williams has, until recently, led by silence. In a typically obfuscatory article in the Financial Times his contribution to the problem was to propose an alteration in the corporate tax regime, “a comparatively small rate of tax (0.05 per cent) being levied on share, bond and currency transactions and their derivatives, with the resulting funds being designated for investment in the ‘real’ economy.” So much for the spiritual leadership of the CofE.

Neither the archbishop nor the Chapter has made mention of the violence, moral laxity and illegality evidenced in the camp. The CofE has been as quiet as the BBC.

Campaigners have left the camp in disgust over what has been described as an arena for bawdy hedonism, drink and drugs. The Times reported one demonstrator left after a series of incidents including a friend being threatened at knifepoint and another anti-capitalist urinating in his tent. Zackandrew Roberts said that what began as a serious campaign highlighting economic inequality had degenerated into a bunch of “drunks and drug takers… here for a laugh.”

The sanctimonious protesters, who would have had Paul arrested for ‘hate speech,’ fly banners asking “What would Jesus do?” It is entirely possible that He would say, “Go, and sin no more.”

In Scotland it is different. In the CofS leadership doesn’t even exist.

The SNP government have proposed legalising homosexual marriage. The Catholic church made its position clear immediately. The Muslim position has been made clear. The reaction of the CofS? “A committee will report in due course.”

Do any seriously imagine that when the committee eventually reports it will do anything other than fudge? “On the one hand… and on the other. We desire sensitivity to the sincerely held views of all, and further dialogue…” We will have a repeat of the St Paul’s situation with fudge and well meaning obfuscation leading to an eventual capitulation to those destructive forces which call themselves ‘progressive.’

Perhaps if church leaders spoke about the hyper-sexualisation of society and the misery and distorted lives it brings in its wake, especially amongst children, we might have more respect for them. Perhaps they could speak out about the men who leave women in the lurch to bring up children on their own.

They could actually take up some unfashionable cause. Everyone says bankers are greedy, but how many church leaders spoke out against the selfish greed of rioters and looters? All we heard from them was breast beating about poverty and deprivation, much to the anger of the vast majority of people living in poverty who try to live decent lives and bring up their children not to steal and burn down shops.

Our church leaders tend to play it safe and avoid ruffling any feathers, except those it is fashionable to excoriate. Perhaps they could try leading.