Sometimes His Grace wonders why he would bother getting up in the morning if it were not for issues Islamic and matters gay.They have become the staple diet of the MSM where ‘religion’ is concerned: there is scarcely a story on the Roman Catholic Church which does not touch upon priestly paedophilia; or on the Church of England which does not touch upon the gender or sexuality of clergy.
The BBC have even managed to turn the 400th anniversary of the Authorised Version into a gay-fest on the sexuality of King David. Howard Brenton, the gay playwright who presents the programme, said: “To a secular reader the story of David and Jonathan’s love is obviously homosexual, the only gay relationship in the Bible.” He acknowledges that the idea is ‘controversial’.
But it’s not, you see.
If he had sought to discuss this superlative literary creation in the context of the history of Christianity, or the development of the Church of England and the evolution of the English language, that would have been ‘controversial’.
But the juxtaposition, imposition or appropriation of the ubiquitous gay mindset and the secular-liberal agenda is most certainly not in any sense controversial: it is banal conformity to the ‘homophobia’ narrative which coerces while it inducts.
And so it is with matters Islamic.
Scarcely a day goes by which does not touch upon ‘extremist Muslims’, ‘Islamist terrorism’ or ‘Islamophobia’.
Baroness Warsi provides today’s fare, inculcating the sense of victimhood while coercing us to deny the facts. For if we may no longer divide Muslims into ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’ because this, she avers, ‘can fuel misunderstanding and intolerance’, precisely how are we distinguish between the peaceable and the jihadist?
She preaches that we should not use the terrorist offences committed by a small number of Muslims to condemn all who follow Islam.
Of course we should not.
But neither should the Baroness use the ignorance of a small number of kuffar to condemn all who seek to address the genuine socio-religio-political concerns posed by the virulent Wahhabi strain of Islam which now pervades.
It is interesting to note that at 10.00pm on 19th January, James Kirkup posted his article on Baroness Warsi’s speech on the The Daily Telegraph site, and that by 8.00am on 20th January this article had recorded some 1500 posts, the overwhelming majority of which were not receptive to her argument. It is telling that the comments facility is now closed and cannot even be accessed to read.
Baroness Warsi is right to blame ‘the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media’ for making Britain a less tolerant place for Muslims. If The Daily Telegraph blogs do not permit discussion of the issues (though they berate the Church of England with impunity), it is no surprise that alternative blogs emerge to give a platform to free speech.
But what the Baroness fails to appreciate is that this ‘patronising, superficial’ approach to religion extends to Parliament and the whole of contemporary political discourse: the Conservative Party itself is complicit in censoring intelligent discussion and reasoned debate about the profundities of religio-political matters of immanent and acute concern. They would rather demote an MP for ‘racism’ or sack a parliamentary candidate for ‘bigotry’ than entertain rational discourse, for fear offending a particular constituency.
But, as with the Telegraph, such hyper-sensitivity and consideration does not extend to the Church of England.
Baroness Warsi is undoubtedly right to warn of the dangers of religious prejudice and intolerance: there ought to be no place in civil society for those who seek to incite violence against any group of people on the grounds of their religious adherence. There is, indeed, an ‘ongoing battle against bigotry’ which needs to waged for the poison to be drawn.
But in the popular narrative discourse surrounding religion, ‘bigotry’ has become synonymous with contrariety: mere dissension is equivalent to a ‘closed mind’; to question religious doctrine connotes sectarianism; the ‘bigot’ has become the one with whom we simply disagree.
Which brings His Grace back to the the judgment in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull.
The speech being made today by Baroness Warsi would not be made by any Anglican on the Conservative benches. To talk of the marginalisation of Christianity and the diminution of Christian liberties would have the secularists and humanists foaming at the mouth.
But as His Grace has considered this judgment, he wishes his readers and communicants to consider that Labour’s Equality Act 2007 amounts to the provision for the state imposition of Satanism under your own roof.
The judgment in favour of Martin Hall and Steven Preddy was correct and fair in the sense that Mr and Mrs Bull appeared not to make their policy on the sanctity of the marital bed clear at the time of booking: if you journey hundreds of miles for a holiday, only to discover on arrival a restrictive regulation about which you had not previously been informed, then compensation is indeed due.
But the judge went further: he ‘clarified’ the definition of marriage beyond that decreed by Parliament in the Church of England’s liturgy; and he imposed a severe limitation in the right of a homeowner to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in one’s own home, where that home also constitutes a business.
Mr and Mrs Bull did not refuse Mr Hall and Mr Preddy a room on the basis of their homosexuality: indeed, a twin room would have been offered had one been available. This would have provided them with accommodation to enjoy their holiday. As the Judge observed: ‘Putting it bluntly the hotel policy allows them so to do albeit in the confines of a smaller bed.’
Much has been written about the potential implications of this case (eg here, here, here and here).
The rights of homosexuals, it appears, trump the rights of Christians.
But it must be observed that Labour Equality Act was also concerned with religious discrimination: it is illegal to discriminate against people in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of religion or belief.
If devout Christians seek to run their home as a B&B, and do so in accordance with the perceived principles and precepts of their faith, have we now reached that juncture where they would be obliged to tolerate Satan worship under their own roof?
And His Grace does not mean the recitation of the odd private prayer to the inhabitants of Hades: but the mandatory accommodation of the paying guest in one’s own home who insists on bringing pentagrams across your threshold, erecting shrines to demonic idols, replete with candles, books of spells, chicken sacrifice and perverted sexual practices.
This is not a trivial question, for HM Armed Forces have already been obliged to accommodate Satanism upon Her Majesty’s naval vessels.
Satan worship is already accommodated by the state, and so officially recognised.
Judge Rutherford prefaced his judgment with the history of the development of Judaeo-Christian jurisprudence. It merits quoting at length:
In 1882 Her Majesty Queen Victoria opened a new court building. It is in the Strand just at the entrance to the City of London. It was built to house the superior courts of this land with the exception of the House of Lords. No one who enters can fail to be struck by the similarity of the great hall with the interior of those gothic cathedrals with which this kingdom is so richly endowed. But if, before entering, you gaze upon the façade of the building you will notice four statues.Judge Rutherford suggested that the statues ‘emphasise the Judaeo-Christian roots from which the common law of England was derived’, but noted: ‘a great deal has however happened since King Alfred and his Saxon laws, and even more has changed since Moses, King Solomon and Jesus Christ walked upon this earth. Those Judaeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted'.
There you will find King Alfred who made such a notable contribution to Saxon England by codifying the laws of his day. You will find Moses to whom was given the ten commandments and to whom, by tradition, is ascribed authorship of the first five books of the Bible in which you will find in great detail the laws governing the children of Israel. Also there on the façade is King Solomon whose wisdom has become a legend and who displayed outstanding qualities as a judge when sitting in the family division in the only reported case of which we have details. And the fourth statue is that of Jesus Christ who, I imagine, needs no introduction to those involved in this case.
Parliament and the Church are no longer equal pillars of the Establishment co-existing ‘in tension’: the law of Parliament increasingly has no regard at all for the Law of God.
If, as Judge Rutherford observes, social attitudes in Britain have changed to the extent that the laws made in Parliament may ‘cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society’, we are now obliged by statute to accommodate the Satanist under our own roof.
And if we should seek to expel them, we shall be dragged through the courts and fined.
Parliament now imposes its orthodoxy of ‘rights’ and religious uniformity to the extent that we may no longer say, with Joshua: “But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
But doubtless His Grace is a ‘bigot’ merely for making the observation.
