How Long Before Christians Are Actively Persecuted in England?


I think it would be useful to begin this article with a brief statement of the facts. Eunice and Owen Johns are an elderly couple from Derby, who fostered a number of children in the 1990s, and who recently offered their services again to Derby City Council. Their offer was rejected on the grounds that, as fundamentalist Christians, they might teach any children in their keeping that homosexual acts were sinful. They took legal action against the Council, arguing that their beliefs should not be held against them. On the 28th February 2011, judgment was given against them in the High Court. The Judges ruled that, where the laws against discrimination are concerned, sexual minorities take precedence over religious believers. Because Mr and Mrs Johns might not remain silent about sexual ethics, there was a danger to the “welfare” of children taken from their homes by the Council.

The Judges insisted that this did not represent a “blanket ban” on the fostering of children by religious believers. There was no issue involved of religious liberty – no precedent being set for wider discrimination by the authorities. It was simply a matter of child welfare. You can read all this for yourself on the BBC website.

I think we can take it as read that the Judges were talking hot air about the nature of the precedent they were setting. There is already a modest but settled ruling class bias in this country against Christianity. This does not extend, so far as I can tell, to Jews and Moslems. But the bias does certainly apply to fundamentalist Christians, especially when it is a matter of what they believe and might say about homosexuality. Yesterday, they were barred from fostering, and perhaps also from adoption. It is only a matter of time before they are barred from teaching. It is conceivable that they will eventually be classed – on account of their beliefs – as unfit parents and will have their children taken away from them. Before that happens, of course, there will be laws against home education, and an inquisition in the schools of what they have been telling their children.

This is my most important observation arising from the case. The issues in themselves are not at all to my taste. I dislike the idea of fostering. There are times, I accept, when people are so violent or negligent that children must be taken away for their own protection. In these few instances, though, I prefer that children should be kept in orphan asylums or offered for adoption. The present system allows immense numbers of children to be snatched away by social workers – often for trivial, and even perhaps for corrupt, reasons – and then put into the temporary care of strangers. I will not deny that many foster parents do as fine a job as circumstances allow. Probably, Mr and Mrs Johns were good foster parents in the 1990s, and would have been again. Even so, those who volunteer as foster parents are giving support to a system that is mostly used to steal children who are in no reasonable danger.

Also, I oppose all anti-discrimination laws. People have rights to life, liberty and property. Deriving from these are the specific rights to freedom of speech and association, and to due process of law. No one has the right not to be hated or despised, or not to be excluded. People have the right to hate or despise anyone they happen to take against, and – so long as they refrain from any breach of the rights mentioned above – the right to put their beliefs into action. While there is good reason for insisting that the authorities should not discriminate, I fell no general sympathy for people who make use of anti-discrimination laws to get their way.

But, this being said, I return to the matter of our ruling class bias against Christians. Why? Why should Christians be so disliked? Why should Christian hoteliers be persecuted for refusing to take in homosexual guests, or refusing to let them occupy double beds? Why should Christians not be protected – given our apparently comprehensive anti-discrimination laws – when forbidden to wear crosses at work? Why should banknotes be printed with pictures on them of Charles Darwin? The facts that Darwin was a great man, and that I think he was right about evolution, are beside the point. For very large number of British citizens, he was a gross blasphemer. Why are the few British colonies that remain being ordered to remove any reference to Christianity from their constitutions? Why do many local authorities keep trying to rename Christmas as Winterval? Why is there so much evidence, both anecdotal and on the record, of an official bias against Christianity?

One answer, I suppose, is the current power of the homosexual lobby. The prejudice against homosexuality that has existed throughout much of European history is blamed – perhaps unjustly – on the Christian Faith. Certainly, Christian leaders were, until very recently, forthright in their condemnation of homosexual acts, and they opposed the legalisation of such acts. There are many homosexual activists on the lookout for historical revenge, and who are making use of every law that now stands in their favour.

But I am not satisfied by this explanation. It is impossible to know how many homosexuals there are – indeed, sexual preference should not be seen as a matter of homosexual or heterosexual, but instead as a spectrum on which most people cluster far from the extremes. But there are not that many embittered homosexual anti-Christians. If they are being listened to at the moment, I do not believe it be because they are powerful in themselves. They are getting a hearing because what they say is what those in power want to hear.

We are moving towards a persecution of Christianity because Christians believe in a source of authority separate from and higher than the State. Until recently, it was the custom of absolute states to make an accommodation with whatever church was largest. In return for being established, the priests would then preach obedience as a religious duty. Modern absolute states, though, are secular. Such were the Jacobin and the Bolshevik tyrannies. Such is our own, as yet, mild tyranny. In all three cases, religion was or is a problem. Though a Catholic, Aquinas speaks for most Christians when he explains the limits of obedience:

“Laws are often unjust.... They may be contrary to the good of mankind... either with regard to their end - as when a ruler imposes laws which are burdensome and are not designed for the common good, but proceed from his own rapacity or vanity; or with regard to their maker – if, for example, a ruler should go beyond his proper powers; or with regard to their form – if, though intended for the common good, their burdens should be inequitably distributed. Such laws come closer to violence than to true law.... They do not, therefore, oblige in conscience, except perhaps for the avoidance of scandal or disorder.” (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 96, 4, my translation)

Certain kinds of bad law do not bind in conscience. And there may be times when even the avoidance of scandal or disorder do not justify obedience. Then, it will be the duty of the Faithful to stand up and say “No!” It will be their duty to disobey regardless of what threats are made against them. Any ruling class that has absolutist ambitions, and is not willing or able to make an accommodation with the religious authorities, will eventually face a wall of resistance. It will eventually go too far, and command things that cannot be given. The French Revolutionaries were taken by surprise. The Bolsheviks knew exactly what they were doing when they hanged all those priests and dynamited those churches. Our own ruling class also knows what it is doing. The politically correct lovefeast it has been preparing for us throughout my life requires the absolute obedience of the governed – absolute obedience to commands that no fundamentalist Christian can regard as lawful. Therefore, the gathering attack on Christianity.

As said, this does not yet apply to the other religions. The Jews are untouchable. Besides, religious Jews are a minority within a minority, and involve themselves in our national life only so far as is needed to separate themselves from it. The Moslems and others are not really considered part of the nation. Otherwise, they are considered objective allies of the new order under construction. Otherwise, no one wants to provoke them to rioting and blowing themselves up in coffee bars. But it goes without saying that they must eventually be persecuted should the Christians ever be humbled.

I think this explains what is happening. Whatever the case, it is wrong. Now, the accepted rule for defending any unpopular group is to begin with a disclaimer – for example: “I am not myself a Christian/homosexual/white nationalist, etc. Indeed, I bow to no man in the horror and disgust these people inspire in my heart.” There are further protestations that depend on the circumstances. But the concluding plea is the same: “It is therefore only out of a possibly misguided commitment to Victorian liberalism that I ask for these people not to suffer the extreme penalties of law. All else aside, it sets an unwise precedent that may be used on day against undoubtedly good people.”

Well, I do not propose to make this sort of defence. I am a Christian of sorts, and I think that even fundamentalist Christianity is a very fine religion. It is the historic faith of my country, and part of my national identity. It is also connected, however loosely, with the growth of civility and the rule of law. I do not like to see it persecuted. And the persecution is wrong in itself. I may not have a clear message to give about the refusal to let two elderly Pentecostalists to become foster parents. But I do object to the creeping delegitimisation of the Christian Faith in England. Any Christian who is willing to stand up and speak in the terms set by Thomas Aquinas gets my support.

But now – and only now – that I have said this, I will talk about precedents. Sooner or later, the present order of things will come to an end. It is based on too many false assumptions about human nature. It is based, indeed, on too many misapprehensions about the natural world. In the short term – even without pointing guns at them – people can be bullied into nodding and smiling at the most ludicrous propositions. In the longer term, bullying always fails. The Bolsheviks had seventy years, and murdered on a scale still hard to conceive. They never produced their New Soviet Man. Except for the worse, they never touched the basic nature of the Russian people. Our own ruling class will fail. What new order will then be established I cannot say. But I suspect it will be broadly Christian.

What we shall then see may not be very liberal. Possibly, homosexual acts will be made criminal again, or everything just short of criminal. I spent my early years as a libertarian denouncing the legal persecution of homosexuals. I have now spent years arguing against persecution by homosexuals. I may sooner or later need to turn round again. As with all collective revenge, the individuals affected will not be those who are now behaving so badly – just as those now persecuted probably did not make any fuss about the 1967 Act that legalised most homosexual acts. But that is the nature of collective revenge. Because the most prominent homosexual leaders have not been satisfied with a mere equality of rights, ordinary homosexuals in the future may find the current precedents used against them.

For the moment, however, England is a country where Christians are fair game for harassment. I do not suppose that the case of Mr and Mrs Johns will be my last reason for commenting on this fact.

Gay madness


Forget about muslims, this is about homosexuals and the absolute, injust power of the state.

It's disturbing that homosexuals can adopt and raise children, just like they are some kind of pet that homosexuals are entitled to buy or get, but at tesame time, normal caring people are forbidden to give children sensible education.

Homosexuality is a paraphilia, homosexuality is against the universal norms of mankind. Children have rights on their own and can't be used as things just to make homosexuals believe their behaviour is normal. Tesame for marriage.  

And religion has nothing to do with all this. 


Question: If those persons would have been Muslims, that were known to teach the inferiority of women, and the divine obligation to kill whomever insults the Koran, would you still find them suitable for fostering?

parsing the decision

The recent Administrative Court Decision, a copy of which can be read here:

In the court's decision, the idea of competing claims judged by an ostensibly neutral court manifests. The court's finding, that there is no discrimination against Christians, in spite of the obvious discrimination is not surprising. The court makes a pretense of even-handedness, however given the nature of the law, one wonders whether the outcome could have ever been in doubt? What we find from the decision is a principle—non-discrimination (really, equality) that must necessarily require discriminatory standards for enforcement. It also shows how the phony “science” of social work acts in conjunction with state authority, and demonstrates how, once the facts are understood, the verdict could not have been any different. In one way, the court appeared to find in favor of the defendant (the state) by way of a strict interpretation of the law. Unfortunately for the claimants, they faced positive secular law using revealed law in conjunction with natural law. The court was not agreeable.

One can observe the “set-up” from the beginning. According to the court document, “the claimants were assessed by Jenny Shaw, an independent social worker.” This begs the question, how ever was Ms. Shaw determined to be independent? From her written testimony:

"I expressed my concerns regarding their views on homosexuality and said that I felt that these did not equate with the Fostering Standards where they related to the need to value diversity, address a child's needs in relation to their sexuality, enhance the child's feeling of self-worth and help the child to deal with all forms of discrimination.”

Here we see that the independent social worker in fact held an opinion in line with the court's eventual ruling, and consistent with the view of the state. Implied is her own acceptance of the Fostering Standards and the value of diversity. At most it appears she offered but a supporting opinion, one hardly independent of the established regulations. One almost gets the impression that the “independent” interview took the form of an interrogation wherein the claimants (the Johns) realized their errant ways, and attempted to modify or soften their views in an effort to accommodate some sort of acceptable compromise. The Johns were given a set of hypothetical situations and then asked how their Christian beliefs might allow them to act:

“[Social Worker Shaw] recorded her judgment as being that "Eunice's response to these hypothetical situations was somewhat superficial, and ignored the impact that her strong beliefs on the issue, could have on her work with young people." However, at a much earlier stage in the process Mrs Johns had assured a social worker that she would never seek to impose her belief system on a child or to denigrate the parents for their lifestyle or sexual orientation.”

It is clear that Mrs. John's naivete and unsophisticated manner trapped her in spite of an expressed willingness to adapt to non-Christian norms in the course of their adoption. Another social worker, Lynda Williams, testified: “It is fair to say that I retain a number of reservations about their potential to meet the wide range of expectations we have of carers to fulfill this very demanding and complex role and would struggle to recommend them for approval as mainstream foster carers [italics added].” Note how the traditional Christian view of sexuality is considered to be out of the ordinary, and how the so-called professional discipline of social work has become simply a tool of the state.

In an effort not to appear discriminatory, the state Fostering Panel essentially accused traditional Christians of “homophobia,” but indicated that their rules are certainly not discriminatory against Christians. In fact, they were quite cognizant of the contradiction. “The department needs to be careful not to appear to discriminate against them on religious grounds. The issue has not arisen just because of their religion as there are homophobic people that are non-Christian [italics added].” Also, “the ability to promote diversity is the main issue." At this stage in the procedure one would have to believe that the claimant's verdict was a fait accompli.

The court seemed at times perplexed by the claimant's Christianity as it wrote:

“Certain facts are asserted by the defendant in its detailed grounds for contesting the claim. Thus the defendant [Derby City Council and aforementioned Equality Commission] says that it has approved foster carers who are very committed Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs – whatever that means – and devout Muslim carers who are similarly committed to their religion, but who in both instances are able to value diversity notwithstanding their strongly held religious beliefs [italics added].”

The state offered as evidence:

“Over 200 pages of literature said to bear on these issues has been produced by the Commission, the two most important documents being 'Social exclusion of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Europe', written by Judit Takács on behalf of ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association) and IGLYO (the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Youth and Student Organisation) and published with the support of the European Commission – The European Union against discrimination in April 2006, and 'Young lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people', a briefing for health and social care staff written by Dr Julie Fish as part of the Department of Health's Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Advisory Group's work programme and published by the Department of Health in 2007.”

Ms. Takács it should be noted is a political operative, and proponent of both the so-called same sex marriage idea, and homosexual adoption. Julie Fish, a self described feminist teacher at De Montfort University, Leicester, writes exclusively on homosexual issues, arguing for social equality and acceptance. The claimants offered their own rebuttal documents, yet the court stated they could not possibly sort any of it out, and that, really, there was no need for it to do so. Instead, it relied on legal precedent. Nevertheless, the court termed the claimant's statements of Christian discrimination, “a travesty of reality.” Especially since the court judges within the reality of a “multi-cultural” community of many faiths. For the court, the idea that “ 'Christianity is part of the common law of England' is mere rhetoric.” Against this, the court did, however, rely on the European Convention on Human Rights ruling in Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v Russia.

But courts must be courts, and eventually they must decide law. In keeping with The National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services published by the Secretary of State for Health under the Children Act of 1989 and of the Care Standards Act 2000 it found: The fostering service ensures that children and young people, and their families, are provided with foster care services which value diversity and promote equality [bold in original]. Finally, in its supreme statement of nondiscriminatory law, the court indicated that, “treatment of the claimants would not be less favourable than that afforded other persons who, for reasons other than the religious views of the claimants, expressed objection to, or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships...[italics added].”

So, we see that at least in the court's reasoning it wasn't about religion at all. The problem is not religion, the problem is anyone expressing disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle. One cannot help wonder, though, as England becomes increasingly Muslim, how theoretical non-discrimination as practiced in policy will mesh with sharia. We can only hope that the court has the necessary specialist, some social worker, some LGBT academic, along with a Russian legal precedent that will explain it quite sensibly to everyone’s satisfaction.

Left & Right

Was it not said any son of man would be persecuted for righteousness sake?

Children are the target of those who would seek control of them through upsetting them. "Disociation of Affection" is known to be the cause of mental illness, The Stockholm Syndrome and sexual attatchments and  fixations. These foster parents gave abandoned children the security to form their own minds... the natural defence to the unatural.

In a polarized society between Liberal Socialist, Radicalized Muslim and Libertine Homosexual the Christian (who forgives us!) is the target simply  for perceiving there is something weird with those preaching Love not War, everything Halal & Haram, and  all things merely  beneficial or harmful.  Never about right and wrong.

Next, Christians will lose jobs by declaring their faith not compatable with same-sex relationships thus breaking of the Equality Act 2010 with a thought-crime, no matter how equal they treat the ego of the orgy from the night before.  The State is owned by the very small group of unelected bed-fellows that produced a Law of Preferred Rage, (no Founding Fathers these), where the meek shall never inherit the Earth.

The male cross-dresser will not give up until you not only call him "Anita" out of respect, but you believe he is Anita.  Because you see, he does not quite believe he is Anita.  The outer informs the inner. No matter  if a few lower ribs are broken and  reset to fit the corset.

Such are the minds of these insecure, but now powerful (where are the Englishmen for England? Oh, at the back of the queue),gods of  Mother-State, Father-Allah and Child-Inversion.