Wednesday, May 29, 2013

We should all invite the EDL for tea and biscuits


From Brother Ivo:

Meet Tommy Robinson, or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, or Paul Harris.

He has a chequered past that reputedly encompasses football hooliganism, criminal convictions and imprisonment, and now he has re-invented himself as a political activist, and as such is the major spokesman for the English Defence League. This group can now be seen marching raucously in many of our town and city centres, primarily protesting the growth of Islamism, but also, by necessary implication, highlighting the alleged intellectual torpor of the principal parties and metropolitan elites as they struggle to strike the balance between security, liberty and the cultural diversity they enthusiastically promoted.

Rough-hewn people like Tommy Robinson used to be denied the oxygen of publicity through back-room discussions between politicians and a handful of leading editors. But today the Internet proves that if they share little else, the EDL and Islamists slip with ease through all attempts to silence them.

Opinion, like water, finds its own level, and there is little the great and the good can do to stop it.

This new world of communications presents a paradox: while once there was a shared cultural narrative which could be shaped and promoted by a relatively small class of opinion formers, now each of these outlets for news and opinion (including this august blog) feeds into its own self-selecting audience. We can hear and know much more, but we tend to use this freedom to compartmentalise ourselves into more entrenched ghettos of opinion. Community is fragmented, and when this is coupled with ‘multiculturalism’ it is little wonder that our political rulers are struggling to keep up with the fast-moving monster they helped to create.

They did this in a variety of ways. The progressive movement thought it had captured the commanding heights of the media economy when it gained dominance in the BBC and the major newspapers. We saw its early successes in writing the agenda for a Palestinian state, the EU, abortion reform and Irish Republicanism. It was the BBC that undermined British Government attempts to marginalise Sinn Fein by employing actors to voice the words that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness were not allowed to speak for themselves. Unfortunately for that strain of opinion, the chickens are coming home to roost. We are fragmenting in our news sources and our communities.

If bomb-planting Irish Republicans and Palestinians deserve to be heard, why not violent Islamists? And if them, why not the EDL? If one media outlet ignores such opinion, another will promote it.

Their voices and views are not only available to those immediately seeking them out, but by links and references, especially on Twitter, where new unknown and unsought material can arrive by re-tweet.

It was by this route that Brother Ivo encountered Mr Robinson. Brother Ivo's history is not one that has taken him often into such circles: he protested against Enoch Powell as a student; has been in business partnership with both a Muslim and a Jew; has sponsored two Muslims to British citizenship; and was on one occasion the sole civilian witness against the then Chairman of the National Front when that gentleman was successfully prosecuted for fomenting public disorder in his town. He is not in sympathy with racists, xenophobes, or the religiously intolerant.

So when he began listening to Mr Robinson, it was from no stance of sympathy but rather one of open-minded scepticism, which he tries to adopt whenever he confronts a new problem or unfamiliar argument.

As he listened, he reminded himself that there have been many grass-root movements that are loved by the Left. When banker-hating ‘Occupy’ besieged St Paul's, its then Dean insisted we listen and resist their lawful bodily eviction. When demonstrators at Lady Thatcher's funeral held placards simply stating ‘Tory Scum’, we were encouraged not to be outraged. Billy Bragg will still get an audience for his songs about the Poll Tax riots or the miners bravely defending their communities by fighting the police.

It should surprise none of us that a working class movement like the EDL is attracting support in towns which have been transformed by immigration policy. These are the people whose children attend schools, where teachers struggle to teach children of a dozen or more different languages, or attend doctors’ surgeries where the speed of throughput is extended by the need for interpreters. Neighbours move: streetscapes are not as one remembers, and such change always breeds resentment. Working-class community resistance to change was captured 50 years ago when Lionel Bart wrote ‘Fings ain't wot they used to be’. It had nothing to do with race or immigrants, but tells us where working-class communities come from when there is change afoot. Even Witney might resist the odd windfarm or three.

Hatred of the newcomer is not acceptable: impatience with politicians from Notting Hill and Hampstead who never seem to share these problems is both foreseeable and understandable.

The more he reflected, the more troubled Brother Ivo became that part of the issue is a looking down on this movement because it does not have a veneer of bien pensant articulate celebrities to speak for it. Yet, historically, men like the EDL protesters have been significantly represented in the armed forces. The Duke of Wellington described the men who defeated Napoleon as ‘the scum of the earth’. Yet were these not also the same kind of men who defeated the Kaiser, as Harold Macmillan famously remarked about the striking miners?

Many have re-written history so that the armies that defended our liberties and freed Europe were not apparently acting from the patriotic impulse of such like the EDL, but were apparently ‘anti-racist’. This significantly overlooks that there were no black officers in the Brigade of Guards, and that it was a segregated Army which stormed the beaches of Normandy and defeated Hitler, while higher-minded intellectuals claimed conscientious objection.

Brother Ivo's reflections have had to be developed with the news that the hacking group Anonymous has apparently taken upon itself to publish the personal information online of those who may or may not be senior leaders or in sympathy with the EDL. That sympathy might extend to those who absolutely hate immigrants, or be qualified and limited to an objection to the blood of British troops blood being shed on behalf of people who do not seem to appreciate it.

It is interesting that Anonymous never felt the need to hack and expose the identities of those behind Islamist websites. They are as narrow-minded as the worst of their opponents. Equally, it is interesting that the BBC reported with equanimity that the police may not commit much resource to tracking down the hackers and bringing them to justice.

Does anyone notice a disparity of response here? We expended millions of pounds to protect the establishment darling Salmon Rushdie when he offended Islam, yet ordinary people who exercise their freedom of speech can apparently be placed at risk with barely a shrug of the collective Establishment shoulders.

There appears to be a range of opinion within the EDL, as in so many political movements. One of the most heart-warming stories this week was of the York imam who invited EDL protesters into his mosque to take tea. It is significant that the invitation was accepted. Community peace is developed by such personal interactions; not by self-righteous denunciation.

It appears that even Mr Robinson has found common ground with a reasonable Muslim commentator who came to one of the rallies to interview him:


That photograph called to mind another unlikely pairing:


Before debates can begin, however, there must be a law-abiding, civil society.

Whether we are considering healing the divisions of Belfast or Luton, there will be grievances, progress, setbacks, disagreements, sabotage, stereotypes and emotions. If Muslims and the EDL can make tentative moves to talk, surely our mainstream politicians and media can begin to show similar understanding? When people are engaged, dogma can be challenged. A useful starting point emerged on Brother Ivo's twitter timeline:

‘Multiculturalism is the politically correct term for Apartheid.’ Discuss.  

(Posted by Brother Ivo)

84 Comments:

Blogger Albert said...

A thoughtful post.

‘Multiculturalism is the politically correct term for Apartheid.’

Yes, I can see what you mean, but I wonder if Apartheid also aimed to suppress people's culture (as multiculturalism seems to) or just to ghettoize it?

29 May 2013 at 10:51  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

I am not sure that multiculturalism seeks to truly suppress other cultures, merely direct it to the purely personal sphere of life. It's basically the same as ghettoising it.

29 May 2013 at 10:58  
Blogger Albert said...

I'm surprised you think that, Youthpasta. Yes, you are probably right about the private sphere, but that is suppression. For Christianity is a public faith, force it only into the private sphere and you suppress it (or part of its nature at least):

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us." But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."

I suspect that if the apostles had kept their faith only to the private sphere, the authorities would have been happy with that. The suppression was precisely about the public sphere.

29 May 2013 at 11:11  
Blogger David Hussell said...

An exceedingly well written and interesting, thought provoking article Brother Ivo.
I am all for Christian hospitality and I like the invite to take tea and the resulting brotherly hug. However much we all abhor community schisms let alone appalling violence it takes two to tango. But with the notable and honourable exception of the "come to tea" inviter I am aware of only limited efforts at integrating from many of the non-Christian heritage immigrants, and their offspring, and that is the key to it, I believe, as the "hug" succinctly demonstrates.
And apart from the vital sociopolitical, cultural and religious concerns we must acknowledge this country's perilous lack of food security, in an an increasingly fractious world, which we are told is experiencing reducing food production due to that bogeyman, the alleged anthopogenic climate change. Moreover the country is acutely lacking in living space, especially in the south of both England and Wales. Our soaring population is a serious threat to everyones happiness and welfare, not to mention our ecology and beautiful landscape. As Mark Twain I believe, observed, 'they've stopped making land", unless you think in geological epochs anyway.

29 May 2013 at 11:11  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

he protested against Enoch Powell as a student

The protests in which Brother Ivo joined were instrumental in removing immigration from national discourse until recently, those who sought to express their concern being ostracized as ‘racists’, for whom Brother Ivo declares himself to have no sympathy.

If the warnings given by Enoch Powell had been heeded, if they had not been drowned out by the slogans chanted by Brother Ivo and his fellow Christians, Drummer Rigby would be alive today. Does Brother Ivo accept responsibility for his death?

29 May 2013 at 11:21  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 May 2013 at 11:30  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Unfortunately, but of no surprise, our Establishment and media still think that the white working class is "the scum of the earth".

This week I was drawn to listen to Tommy Robinson on youtube and, setting aside my reaction to the bar chested football chanting supporters, what he says chimes with most peoples opinions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjNfQGm2HeI

Time is long past for our "leaders" to reassert OUR culture and way of life.

There is no equivalency between a muslim culture that clings to sharia, child grooming, honour violence & killing, religious hatred, FGM, terror, dehumanising people as Kuffars, plannning to make our country Islamic etc. and a civilised western Christian secular nation.

We were happy and progressing nation before mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Let us not forget that.

Let no-one brainwash you otherwise.

29 May 2013 at 11:31  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Apartheid was a racial divide. Multiculturalism is of course a cultural one and complicated by close correlation of race with culture and religion. Apartheid was used to enforce racial supremacy by law. Multiculturalism is more of a competitive scramble for supremacy in a battle of 'rights' for some and 'restrictions' for others. It replaced the earlier failed strategy of Integration.

The authorities undoubtedly find it convenient for the EDL to be damaged or destroyed by hackers. Therefore we see a laid back response . When these hacktivists attack government or commercial computers the response will of course be rather more animated.

If, God forbid, someone is butchered as the result of these disclosures the backlash and recriminations would be appalling.

29 May 2013 at 12:02  
Blogger Nick said...

‘Multiculturalism is the politically correct term for Apartheid.’

True, and politcal correctness is by definition "the absurd notion that you can pick up a turd by the clean end"

As to the EDL, I myself have been asking why this group is so villified by the media and the hard-of-thinking. Surely they must have committed some vile racist crimes to be treated like the "scum of the Earth". None that I am aware of. As far as I can see they are street protest movement, with some rough characters, but are probably less agents of hate than the bunch of gays who sent death threats to a newly-wed couple photographed with the C4M petition outside No.10, or those beacons of high morality, the hackers. Incidentally, Anonymous might be doing this "good deed" one day, but hacking your bank account the next. Such is their complete hypocrisy.

29 May 2013 at 12:05  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Johnny Rottenborough

Well said.

Looking across the broad sweep of crime in this country and you will see that many thousands of British people have been the victims of migrant criminals - little girls groomed and gang raped, stabbings, shootings, muggings, drug cartels, terrorism, religious hatred, human trafficking, disease, overwhelmed public services, no-go areas.....

http://londonmostwanted.crimestoppers-uk.org/

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/wanted/#55/13/BN

http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/camera-alerts/wanted-on-warrant

In what way have we been "enriched"?

Who cares about the needless victims?

When will our politicians get their heads out of the *rses and sort out the mess they have created over the past 50 years?

29 May 2013 at 12:07  
Blogger Albert said...

Jay Bee,

Multiculturalism is more of a competitive scramble for supremacy in a battle of 'rights' for some and 'restrictions' for others.

I see multiculturalism as being a bit like secularism. It pretends that there is a position of neutrality from which to judge all the other competing positions. As a result it is really a theory to impose a particular view on the world.

29 May 2013 at 12:32  
Blogger John Wrake said...

In response to Harry-ca-Nab at 11:31, there is no such thing as a 'Christian secular' nation.

What we have at present is a Christian nation which is decaying because intellectuals and closet Marxists allied to the careless majority are content to accept the moral base which the Christian faith has given us but will not accept the demands of that faith personally.

Let no one deceive you by calling this nation 'secular'. Look at our Queen, our Constitution, our Law, our History. Those are facts. The rest is propaganda.

John Wrake

29 May 2013 at 12:47  
Blogger richardhj said...

At the beginning of the year I slipped and the resultant broken bone meant that I was unable to drive for a while.
During the period I was forced to take a number of taxis and usually used the same company. A few times I even had the same driver and one of the "regulars" was a Muslim.

On one journey, he told me two things.
He had been required to sit in an interview and translate for an applicant for a position of driver who could not speak English. He had been told that the company had been instructed by the Council that they were not allowed to discriminate against people who could not speak English.
He believed this to be a total nonsense. How could they possibly get people where they need to be if they didn't speak the language? He said that this driver was employed but sacked a couple of weeks later as he (no surprise) couldn't do his job.

The second thing he told me was that during some football competition he put an English flag on his taxi. He was instructed by the Council to take it down as it might offend non-English people. He wanted to know why he couldn't fly the flag of his country on his taxi.

The vast majority of Councillors here are white. The Council leader and most of the cabinet are white. Most of the senior officers are white. The vast majority of the residents of the area are white.

And yet it is these white (British) people who are making these stupid rules and are often offending the hard working, integrated Muslims that they claim to be trying to protect.

Perhaps if members of the EDL met with more ordinary Muslims there would be less issues all around.

We would all be far better off without the interference of the lunatic liberals who have taken over the political parties.

And then maybe we could have some decent politicians who could concentrate on stopping those trouble making Muslims (and others) and dealing properly with them.

29 May 2013 at 12:55  
Blogger bluedog said...

An excellent article, Brother Ivo.

Thus communicant suspects that EDL are currently astonished by the level of internet donations to their cause. There will be many who see them as performing a useful function.

Brother Ivo says 'He is not in sympathy with racists, xenophobes, or the religiously intolerant.'. Let us hope those sentiments are directed at the South Asian, Arab and African Muslims, who are manifestly racist, xenophobic and religiously intolerant. It would be wrong to say that what used to be called Coloured Immigration was ever welcomed by the White British population outside a governing elite. However it was generally, if reluctantly, tolerated. Now the tolerance of the White British is exhausted and the Muslim community of what ever race is seen as an existential threat to Britain. Furthermore the Muslim community is seen as representing a double jeopardy. Not only is the Muslim faith an apologetic for extraordinary violence, but the numbers of Muslims are growing at a rate that frightens the living daylights out of the White British. There may only be 3 million Muslims, or 5% of the population now, but 10% of the population under 25 is Muslim. When Albert Einstein was asked to name the most powerful force on Earth he said, 'Compound Interest'. The Muslim birth-rate gives an astonishing lesson in the effects of compound growth and seems set to continue to do so.

What exactly will Britain be like if the Muslims become the majority population? On current trends they will be, well within the next fifty years. Already 25% of all children born in London are to non-White British mothers. Soon that figure will creep up to 50.1%, and higher.

In summary, this communicant respectfully suggests that any White British citizen who is not at present racist, xenophobic and religiously intolerant with regard to Islam and the Muslim population should wake up and smell the coffee.

Mine's a flat white and I don't mind Arabica in this context either. How's that for multicultural broad-mindedness?

29 May 2013 at 13:13  
Blogger IanCad said...

What a great post Brother Ivo.

Food for thought indeed!

29 May 2013 at 13:18  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Albert@12:32

Good point about the pretense of neutrality . Multiculturalism can never work because the competing positions will always be in conflict. Their values are incompatible.

29 May 2013 at 13:20  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Albert, John Wrake,
Thank you both for those brilliant posts. Albert, you have summed it up in a few concise words. John, yes you are right, it's still a Christian country, just, but decaying very rapidly now. It won't hold for much longer.
And as richardhj tellingly says, it is the idiot politicians and their lackey bureaucrats who are forcing the white people and the ordinary, peace loving Muslim majority apart. Face to face meetings, preferably over tea and biscuits, IS the way forward. The political, intellectual elite are clueless and compounding the problem.

29 May 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Harry-ca-Nab (12:07)—It’s quite extraordinary how much damage is done by the do-gooders.

@ David Hussell (13:39)—Egypt’s Christians could do with some of your magical tea and biscuits to placate the ‘ordinary, peace loving’ Muslims whose faith teaches them to revile the infidel. Likewise the Christian minorities of every Muslim country.

29 May 2013 at 14:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

David H

"And as richardhj tellingly says, it is the idiot politicians and their lackey bureaucrats who are forcing the white people and the ordinary, peace loving Muslim majority apart." Nonsense.

The only reason the peace loving muslims are 'peaceful' is because they are in the minority..unless of course you go near the muslim only areas policed by those 'peace loving' yuffs,you know, the one the muslim community say are not there, where the lack of peace and love is snarled most menacingly to the non muslim in our own country.

Laughed at the muslims saying they are scared to go out at night..Come to south east London and see the white community cower away from high streets at night or the Asian transport users wearing backpacks (the 'must have' fashion accessory for the modern muslim) and looking round for the worried reactions of the non muslim travelers.

Whilst searching for both Atheistically ruled or Muslim ruled countries that show the milk of human kindness to their fellow humanity, Ernst has looked without success for where these successful ideologies may have sprouted but alas they can only parasite from christian nations..Most Telling!!

Blofeld

Ps

If the governments of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Somalia offered to donate money for these islamic inspired atrocities, both home and abroad, would Help For Heroes tell them to sling their hook?

His Grace tweeting Muslims gathering flowers for the murder of a dead hero on our streets cuts no ice with Ernst, rather the handing over of the extremist amongst them would suffice but then of course, they are their own, true muslims and koran following ones at that.

29 May 2013 at 14:11  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

John Wrake

My point was that we are a Christian country with a secular space that tolerantly allows for those of other religions or none.

Or at least we were - which was my other point.

It was going well for us as we rose up after WW2 and started to have a great country. Now it's Balkanised, and will never be put back together again.


29 May 2013 at 14:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

bluedog

the Muslim community of what ever race is seen as an existential threat to Britain.

It's perhaps better to say that the Muslim community exposed the existential threat. That threat would still exist absent the Muslim community. It's basic math, after all. If the people who form a culture aren't willing to replace themselves, then that culture will itself be replaced. Birth rates are low. Abortion rates are high. People live their lives on the assumption that life is about personal gratification and self-fulfillment. That can't go on indefinitely. Gradually there emerges a lack of available workers. The difference has to be made up through immigration. Otherwise the economy starts to contract.

Do you want to find the existential threat to the West? You will find it in the relentless focus on self. That isn't going to be fixed by blaming the Muslims for the crime of having children. The world doesn't play buy Western rules. I understand we in the West have organized our lives to suit our own desires, and we would prefer no consequences attach so that we can keep on living the way we want. That is an adolescent fantasy. We either pick up those obligations to the next generation or we die off. That is the source of the existential threat.

The threat is not found in the other. It's found in the self. That selfish self-focused self-centered Western ideal that long ago decided it was the center of the known universe. Well, now it is discovering that it isn't the center of the known universe. And it doesn't like it much. "Why should they rule over us just because they produce children?" But ask the reverse question? "Why should we maintain dominion when we haven't produced a subsequent generation to receive the responsibility of our dominion?"

The answer to that question is cold and hard and pitiless.

carl

29 May 2013 at 14:41  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Carl Jacobs,
You have a point in that the immigrants, "exposed the existential threat". Yes the threat to ourselves was always there, in our own short sighted selfish natures. Worshipping consumerism and individualism, rejecting The Almighty and failing to think through the societal implications of our actions, we blindly failed to acknowledge the basic laws of nature, and look where it's got us. But can it be reversed? Have a look at the article on Bishop's Michael Nazir-Ali in The Telegraph. It's posted on Anglican Mainstream.

29 May 2013 at 14:58  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (14:41)—If the people who form a culture aren’t willing to replace themselves, then that culture will itself be replaced

If the people who form a culture have wise leaders, immigration is severely restricted and those from antipathetic cultures are forever denied admittance. Under wise leaders, the culture cannot be replaced.

Birth rates are low

If the native British wish, at this point in their history, to restrict the size of their families, they have every right to do so. As Britain’s population is far too high for the available land (the official figure of 61 million is nearly 20 million too low), a reduction would be welcome. In any case, the stable, socially cohesive Britain of years past had no trouble maintaining her population.

Otherwise the economy starts to contract

Given the choice between a smaller economy and a decent country to live in, I think most native British would choose the latter. We’re odd like that.

29 May 2013 at 15:13  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

n interesting post that for me misses the crucial point that Islam is a global movement and no amount of Tea with Tommy will address its behaviour in Britain. Worse still, Islam is in a constant state of civil war but capable of being as one for the sake of being at war with the West.

We will never in harmony with any group of immigrants who place their religion/culture before those of the host nation. Muslims want to live in our land but in insulated communities and on their own terms.

Unfortunately, Patriotism has been redefined into something derogatory by the Left leaning movement for political correctness which has infected every level of the public sector, media and academia.

The EDL, while being hardly representative of anything approaching politically representative, is giving voice, however embarrassingly, to what one would have expected from anyone with an attachment to a British cultural heritage. Within their ranks are ex-servicemen who politicians praise when they or their comrades are beheaded, blown to pieces or maimed for life, but as part of the common 'street rabble' their very existence is denounced.

The EDL wouldn't need to exist if politicians acted upon the will of the electorate and actually did what they were elected to - represent the British public.

29 May 2013 at 15:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Johnny Rottenborough

If the native British wish, at this point in their history, to restrict the size of their families, they have every right to do so.

Yes, they certainly do. The prodigal son was also perfectly within his rights to spend his inheritance on alcohol and gambling and prostitutes. What they cannot do is demand the consequences of such a decision be set aside. You can bleat about 'rights' all you like. When birthrate falls below replacement you trigger inevitable population decline. And that has necessary long-term impacts on both prosperity and security. Your birth rates have been below replacement for close to four decades. That's a little more than a 'point in history.'

The question you need to ask yourself is this. How do you turn situation this around? There isn't a built-in self-correcting mechanism, after all. The Birth rate is not going to adjust upward at just the right time so that the population stabilizes at whatever size you consider ideal. People are making individual private decisions, and those decisions have nothing at all to do with the total population of the UK. They are trading off the impact of children on career and lifestyle and deciding that children are more trouble than they are worth. Children have become a tragedy of the commons. That attitude took decades to cultivate. It isn't going to go away simply because the population falls below 60 million.

carl

29 May 2013 at 15:45  
Blogger Nick said...

Interesting item on Sky News...

http://news.sky.com/story/1096865/edl-contact-details-leaked-by-anonymous

At least EDL had the courage to speak to a reporter, instead of hiding behind an anonymous YouTube video. Interesting reading and makes you wonder who the real hate-mongers are.

This will probably turn out to be some useful and positive publicity for the little-known EDL.

I believe that under data protection law, a persons political affiliations are considered "sensitive" information and therefore to reveal them is an offence. However, the police cannot act against a faceless unknown individual, so I guess this crime will go unpunished.

29 May 2013 at 15:54  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

More likely they will prosecute the EDL under the Data Protection Act for inadequate security measures.

29 May 2013 at 16:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The significance of population numbers are relative to GDP and balanced by fiscal modulation rather than an ever increasing birth rate. The UK has taken the route of the latter through immigration instead of employing creative innovation and technology to sustain ourselves.

The US is unique in the fact that it was a nation founded and grown on policies of liberal immigration, but is now a shadow of its former industrial self. Similarly the UK post industrial revolution, post colonial presence, has not needed the millions of factory workers and raw labour it once needed and exploited.

Paying people to have children as we do, without reference to an independent self sufficient income source, is why we have developed a welfare dependent domestic economy and why many immigrants want to live here. Their logic at least makes more sense than that of the successive the governments that have brought us to this sorry state.

We need quality not quantity.

29 May 2013 at 16:47  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

In my comment of 15:13, for ‘Given the choice between a smaller economy and a decent country to live in’ please read ‘Given the choice between a large economy and a decent country to live in’.

29 May 2013 at 17:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

Yes, for a finite period of time, you can compensate for population decline by increasing the productivity and value of the workforce. But you cannot sustain this situation indefinitely. You must eventually achieve and sustain a birthrate of 2.05 live births per woman in the childbearing quintile. Otherwise the law of diminishing returns will inevitably defeat your ability to compensate. The productivity increase must eventually fail to keep up with population decline.

Even so, a couple of things about this:

We need quality not quantity.

1. The quality you seek is instilled by stable families consisting of mother and father and natural children born to that union. Western culture has over the last 50 years done everything in its power to destabilize that vision of family life in the name of adult autonomy. The price for that effort is principally born by children. You are dismantling the very institution needed to produce the high-value work force that is needed. And now your country is on the verge of obliterating the connection between father and child by defining children right out of marriage. Given the current dysfunctional state of family life in the West, you haven't a hope in hell of achieving this objective.

2. People are not equal in any temporal sense of the word. There is wide variance in terms of traits like intelligence and creativity and character. So numbers do count. The more people you have, the more likely you are to find people on the high end of the spectrum - people who are capable of driving innovation. You can't force the population up the distribution curve by sheer force of effort.

3. Don't forget the French obsession with birth rates in the 1930's. There was a reason the French were so concerned about German fecundity. You may think the world has evolved beyond war. I think the world is more dangerous now then at any time since 1939.

carl

29 May 2013 at 17:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Greetings Ivo. One recalls the EDL arose after a certain poppy burning incident. For every force there is an equal and opposite force, what ! Nature abhors a vacuum, that kind of thing. The organisation is a manifestation of anger, and that is a good thing. If you suppress anger, you tend to get underground movements involved in bombs and assassinations.

Although this man personally wouldn’t get involved with them, they do a good job highlighting, {AHEM}, ‘difficulties’ that arise. One remembers they promised to appear in any district that was considering renaming Christmas or similar rot by councillors who were embarrassed about being white and English. It worked everywhere. Hopefully that kind of treason is a thing of the past. For positive reasons like that, the Inspector commends them, and wishes them well…






29 May 2013 at 18:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



More of the Inspectors thoughts…

Fellows of a certain age will remember having cod liver oil slipped down their throats by mum while dad stood there in case you made a bolt for it. (Good Lord, remember that - not that blasted liquid, but when every child had a mum and a dad…). Multiculturalism leaves a similar certain taste in the mouth. You didn’t want it but apparently it was for the good. We knew it was for the good because well respected politicians told you so. (Good Lord, remember that - when politicians were well respected – how things have changed !).

Interestingly, the only people the Inspector sees nowadays extolling the virtues of multiculturalism are BBC Midlands news presenters, but at least they do give an apologetic grin of sorts. That chap Nick Owen is good at doing that. A kind of “look, it’s on the teleprompter, I have to read it out” apology. You see, half of Birmingham is black or Asian. The ugly half, so they say, and right they are…

Now that we are grown ups, we don’t need cod liver oil and neither do we need its snake oil equivalent, multiculturalism. Lets go back to how it used to be. Immigrants who want to become part of mainstream society, and immigrants who want to keep themselves to themselves and not participate in mainstream life. If the latter want to keep their customs going, they do so in their own time and at their own expense. This is how mankind operated for millennia until the socialists came to town. Thus, if you need an interpreter for example, YOU pay for it. And don’t expect your benefits forms to be in other than English either. And that reminds this man, what are you on benefits for anyway ? You’re supposed to be an asset to your new country, not a bloody burden. We’ve enough of our own like that…

Struth ! Just remembered National Dried Milk. It were tough back then, so it was…





29 May 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The quality you seek is instilled by stable families

That's not the half of it. We lost millions of skilled men in two world wars. Serious numbers of War Widows brought up their children on their own and many of those kids went on to rebuild and drive forward our country.

We used to use a figure of approx 2.3 children per couple as an ideal bench mark. Large Victorian families were a product of poor live birth expectancy. You should be able to have as many children as you can afford to support if you so wish; what is not needed is masses of desperate bodies competing for shrinking resources as is happening on the global scale.

I think the world is more dangerous now then at any time since 1939

and you think over-population has no part to play in this?

29 May 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl; I intended to add, that in the UK there are 250 people per sq km or (646 people per sq mile) while the US has 32 persons per sq km or (83 per sq mile).

It's no wonder you don't see large families as a problem when the US has so much breathing space you are hardly experiencing the same conditions. Lucky you.

29 May 2013 at 18:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

That's not the half of it.

Isn't it? Well then you have nothing to fear from the culture of illegitimacy and divorce and cohabitation and fatherlessness. Dad skipping off with his new girlfriend is just like dad getting killed in a war. We'll just overlook the fact that father-absence is the overwhelming best predictor of juvenile troubles. What's all this fear about character formation, anyways? Fathers aren't necessary for that. Single mom with three kids by three different men will do just terrific, thanks. That's why we just approved gay marriage. The kids will be fine. They will hurry themselves off to class and learn calculus all by themselves. The modern economy is saved.

You should be able to have as many children as you can afford to support if you so wish; what is not needed is masses of desperate bodies competing for shrinking resources as is happening on the global scale.

That is not responsive. It doesn't matter how many people live in Bangladesh. You still need to achieve a certain birth rate or your nation dies. The indigenous population of the UK hasn't been achieving even the replacement rate since the early 70's. The UK compensated by bringing in immigrants. And now you are running scared of the immigrants because they won't assimilate and yet produce so many children. Well, why should they assimilate and become like you when you are literally and openly contracepting yourselves into oblivion? You want prosperity without the responsibility that attends it. You want water to flow uphill at command.

and you think over-population has no part to play in this?

No, I think it has to do with the emergence of China with that huge market and that huge population base and the huge number of PhDs they are producing. Not to mention the huge gender imbalance caused by their efforts to control ... wait for it ... over-population. They have so many excess males, they could lose 100,000,000 men in a war and consider it a social good. That's twice the number of total dead from WWII in all theaters combined.

The dominance of the West has been driven by technology. If we cease to be the dominant center of technological innovation, we will quickly lose our place in the world. And given the marked decline in West as reflected in the diligence and character of its (few) children, I don't know how that can be avoided.

carl

29 May 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

The price for that effort is principally born by children.

That is not entirely true. It is immediately born by children, but we all suffer it eventually. Children from unstable backgrounds tend to need more support from the state and tend to grow up to be a problem to society as a whole.

But it's a price worth paying for the short-term pleasures of sex.

29 May 2013 at 19:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

It's no wonder you don't see large families as a problem

Do you consider a family with three children to be a large family? Because some fair number of women must produce at least three children to compensate for those who are infertile or die (or in the modern world) have just decided they would rather not be 'incubators.'

And you do understand the basic math here, right? A birth rate below replacement does not lead to a stable population at a lower level. It leads to continuous decline. Do you want to see Britain disappear? Unless you reverse the child-hostile nature of your current culture, that is what will happen.

carl

29 May 2013 at 19:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

You are right of course. That fact has been the central theme of every post I have made on this thread.

carl

29 May 2013 at 19:29  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Albert - fair point on suppression, though maybe I might have been better saying "fully" rather than "truly" as it isn't looking to suppress to the point of non-existence (yet at least!). Personally I'd phrase it as restrict, rather than suppress.

29 May 2013 at 19:33  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The posts about birth rates needing to above the replacement level are right of course, demographics are destiny as they say. But the entire thrust of this society's trajectory expressed through individualism, feminism, consumerism etc all of which is reflected in Government policy, is families, if at all, below replacement level. Just look at Dave's refusal to give the married a tax break, his exhortations to get mothers back to work early and the whole shebang! The total mindset is negative towards children. It is depressing but true. Where do we see any glimmers of hope?

29 May 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Inspector

Interestingly you briefly touch on an extension of my thoughts that did not " make the cut", but which is very relevant.

If we want to improve matters we could usefully have recourse to the law and some old concepts that would clarify matters for everyone.

Simon has already written on the value of charging British Nationals with treason when they take up arms against the crown or assist those who do. It is a relatively simple charge and whether the facts make out the charge should be a decision for 12 jurors.

A second concept with considerable flexibility is that of conspiracy. There was once a charge of " conspiring to commit a public mischief." It would , for example, be applicable for the behaviour of the anonymous conspirators who published the private data of those associated with the EDL.

Simple flexible laws in the hands of determined prosecutors and robust Judges can greatly enhance all our security.

29 May 2013 at 19:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Absolutely Ivo !

We’ll need to get out of the socialists jurisdiction and leave the ECHR. That’s a certain, what !

And there’s one working gallows left, and it’s at Wandsworth gaol. We’ll need that too. We’ll bring these blighters to heel, and hang the one’s who won’t come round.

I say, you’ve really cheered a chap up, you know. Of course, the Scotch helps....

Tally ho !

29 May 2013 at 20:09  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

your country is on the verge of obliterating the connection between father and child by defining children right out of marriage. Given the current dysfunctional state of family life in the West, you haven't a hope in hell of achieving this objective.


Unless you reverse the child-hostile nature of your current culture, that is what will happen.

why should they assimilate and become like you when you are literally and openly contracepting yourselves into oblivion?

It doesn't matter how many people live in Bangladesh.

You want prosperity without the responsibility that attends it. You want water to flow uphill at command.

And what has all this and much else of what you have written to do with the OP?

You seem to be adopting a complete scatter gun approach to hit anything that will give you a platform to preach your own very insular views.
I won't be joining you this time.



29 May 2013 at 20:36  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Apologies all - Simon = Simon Heffer

29 May 2013 at 20:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

That fact has been the central theme of every post I have made on this thread.

Sorry, I didn't have time to read it all!

29 May 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Don't be willfully dense, Dreadnaught. If I am anything, I am focused and on point. This thread - like every recent thread about Islam - is about fear. You are all collectively scared sh*tless of it. And you keep blaming the Muslims for it. But the existential angst beneath all that fear isn't about them. It's about you.

Follow the EDL. Do exactly what they say to defend your culture from the wolf you have invited in through the front door. Even if you succeed, you won't silence the fear. It will still be there. Muslims aren't killing you. You are killing yourself. You know this. You understand the math. You just don't know what to do about it - because you aren't willing to sacrifice that which is bringing about your own demise.

carl

29 May 2013 at 21:18  
Blogger Albert said...

David Hussell,

The posts about birth rates needing to above the replacement level are right of course, demographics are destiny as they say.

Amusingly from a Catholic point of view, the Telegraph reports that we are also getting thicker. It seems that contraception means the clever and educated people limit their progeny, while the less able types don't quite get their act together. Assuming this is correct, the long term effect is to put natural selection into reverse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10053977/The-Victorians-were-smarter-than-us-study-suggests.html

Marie Stopes and other Hitler-loving eugenic contraceptionists who promoted contraception in order to get the "retarded" working classes to breed less would have been appalled.

Once again, Catholicism is proved right - wisdom is justified by her deeds. At any rate, I find the way in which secular liberalism undermines itself so infallibly, very amusing.

29 May 2013 at 21:23  
Blogger bluedog said...

Sobering thoughts Mr Carl, and very well argued. It's hard to disagree with what you say.

Your point about technical superiority is particularly topical given the news that China is systematically ransacking the West through cyber spying in order to neutralise our technical lead. Isn't this an act of war? If this communicant was POTUS he would be seriously considering a surgical strike on Chinese centres of hacking and Chinese communication satellites. After all, the Chinese recently disabled an Indian comms satellite. Who next in the Chinese firing line? Any guesses? Yes, it's 1914 or 1939 redux.

But as Brother Ivo infers, political initiative and leadership in the UK now comes from the people. Empowered by the internet and social media there are a number of seemingly unstoppable popular movements, specifically UKIP and to a lesser degree EDL, that are challenging the conventional wisdom of the elites. Within them may lie national salvation, and it won't be politically correct in implementation.

29 May 2013 at 21:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Just reading a bit more on this, and you are absolutely spot on. I am amazed you are not a Catholic at times.

29 May 2013 at 22:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Well, I guess I could be a RC ... except for all the RC doctrinal errors. ;) To be honest, though, I don't consider my posts on this thread to be particularly Protestant or Christian or even religious. It's all just common sense to me.

carl

carl

29 May 2013 at 22:25  
Blogger Albert said...

I agree Carl (about the common sense, not the other stuff!), but there's so much in what you say that coheres with Catholic sexual ethics:

The indigenous population of the UK hasn't been achieving even the replacement rate since the early 70's. The UK compensated by bringing in immigrants. And now you are running scared of the immigrants because they won't assimilate and yet produce so many children. Well, why should they assimilate and become like you when you are literally and openly contracepting yourselves into oblivion?

My feeling is that the West is descending into a kind of chastisement. The only thing that can save us is repentance. This is necessary from a practical point of view (as you demonstrate) but also from a spiritual point of view.

In the light of the French Terror, the various revolutions of the 19th Century and the horror of the 20th (Stalin, Hitler etc.), one wonders how bad things have to get before people realise secularism (in the dogmatic sense) really is satanic. That we end up destroying ourselves by contraception is divine comedy - though too funny for my tastes.

29 May 2013 at 22:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Does it not occur to you to wonder why it is that the one organisation that stands out against the contraceptive mentality is the Catholic Church?

29 May 2013 at 22:48  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Blue dog,

And of course you have the alice in wonderland senario of Britain and France arming the Syrian Rebels, who are um, kinda like Jihadist fundies?

And with Russia arming Syria and Israel wanting to stop the Jihadist getting hold of Syrian's weapons &saying to Russia, if it gives Syria advanced missile tech Israel will bomb it... stage set for another Arab-Israeli war - and that's before we mix Iran into things...

29 May 2013 at 23:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

I get the impression that you think I am an exception to the Protestant rule. I am actually quite ordinary. If my statements on sexual ethic sound Catholic, it is because both Protestant & Catholic draw sexual ethic from the same source. There are obvious differences at the margin (like, for example, the difference if any between NFP and a condom), but not when it comes to the core purpose of sex, marriage, and procreation. I frankly don't know any serious Protestant who would disagree with what I have said.

carl

29 May 2013 at 23:22  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Why the gallows? Wouldn't (aside from it being a French invention) "Madame Guillotine" be more efficient and humane?

29 May 2013 at 23:29  
Blogger Peter D said...

Carl said ...

"To be honest, though, I don't consider my posts on this thread to be particularly Protestant or Christian or even religious. It's all just common sense to me."

Indeed; and yet 'common sense' in this area is what God printed has on all our hearts for our own good if we but paid attention.

29 May 2013 at 23:45  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (19:05)—The indigenous population of the UK hasn’t been achieving even the replacement rate since the early 70’s. The UK compensated by bringing in immigrants

Where to start? Europe lost many of her young men in the Second World War and Third World immigrants were brought in; it was originally intended as a temporary measure. Christopher Caldwell, in the first chapter of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, writes:

‘Mass immigration began—with little public debate, it would later be stressed—in the decade after the Second World War. Industries and government in Britain, France, Germany, the Low Countries, and Scandinavia set up programs to recruit manpower to their booming postwar economies.’

The immigration Europe has experienced since then has been largely driven by the desire of her ruling élites to create multi-ethnic societies as a means of destroying national identity, thus easing the way for the countries of Europe to be merged into a superstate.

29 May 2013 at 23:50  
Blogger The Explorer said...

That final sentence for discussion.

Apartheid has been likened to Nazism, but the circumstances of the two ideologies werre different.

WIth Nazism, a majority turned on a minority; with Apartheid, a minority turned on a majority.

South Africa 1950. Whites 20% or so of the population, and disparity set to get worse. Solution: white enclaves, where blacks would be forbidden to live but allowed as guest workers.

Racist? Yes. Unfair re allocation of land? Yes. Mislabelling people 'guests' in the land in which they had been born? Yes. Doomed to long-term failure? Yes.

But at least in their alarm over the demographics, the framers of the policy had it right.

Since the ending of Apartheid, the white/black population disparity has increased, and the trend seems set to continue.

30 May 2013 at 09:15  
Blogger bluedog said...

Indeed, Hannah @ 23.16. One can only hope that the Anglo-French policy has been coordinated with Israel. Certainly the Israelis are too close to the action to take sides; they need to be able to exploit the chaos in Syria on their own terms. Securing the Golan for another fifty years would have to be a priority.

As for 'Madame Guillotine' (23.29 to OIG), where's Mme Defarge? Every guillotine needs its tricoteuse.

30 May 2013 at 09:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I frankly don't know any serious Protestant who would disagree with what I have said.

I wonder how you are using the expression "serious Protestant". Does it include Anglicans? Most of the Protestants I know are Anglican and they would regard your position as extreme. The CofE's webpage on the matter merely speaks of the moral rightness of contraception. It says nothing of moral connection between sex and procreation. Even in 1930 the Lambeth Conference was allowing contraception to avoid parenthood (granted it required a "clearly felt moral obligation" for this, but you can imagine how long that lasted in the Anglican consciousness).

Meanwhile, today, the nice Bishop of Salisbury has compared those of us who support basic Christian teaching on gay 'marriage' to supporters of slavery and Apartheid":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10087845/Opponents-of-gay-marriage-like-supporters-of-apartheid-says-senior-bishop.html

The ground is clearly moving in the CofE. A number of bishops has come out in favour of gay 'marriage' and even Evangelicals who were traditionally opposed to such things are saying the Church should bless Civil Partnerships. Those of us who are seasoned watchers of the CofE can see what is happening.

Anyway, how confident are you that those Protestants believe in a moral connection between sex and procreation? Are do you hold the view that Anglicans are not "serious Protestants"?

30 May 2013 at 09:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert (09:28)

Interesting, that comparison to Apartheid.

Apartheid was concerned about population issues. How concerned about population issues is gay marriage?

30 May 2013 at 10:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

Yes, if anything the rub is the other way. Apartheid can be only justified from scripture at a great stretch. It was really a response to a very modern cultural situation and as a response was plainly contrary to scripture. Now does that sound like gay 'marriage' or opposition to gay 'marriage'?

I think he should apologise or resign. Perhaps Cranmer could start something off - he must be as angered as I am.

30 May 2013 at 10:21  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert

I don't think Apartheid can be justified from Scripture: certainly not from the New Testament.

But I do get irritated by people like the Bishop who throw around words like 'Apartheid', 'Nazi' (Jews as NAZIS?) or that creme-de-la-creme 'Fascist' without any reference to what these words might actually mean.

30 May 2013 at 10:29  
Blogger The Explorer said...

As far as I understand it, the thinking that created Multiculturalism went like this.

What causes war? Nationalism. How can we destroy nationalism?
Destroy the nation.

For anyone who can get hold of it, I do recommend E.H. Dance's 1960 book 'History the Betrayer'. Not because I agree with it, but because it perfectly illustrates the mindset from which Multiculturalism sprang.

30 May 2013 at 10:36  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert

In linking Apartheid and hostility to gay marriage, the Bishop seems to me to be blurring something.

Take a white rapist. Can he avoisd being white? Can he avoid being a rapist? If the one is as biologically driven as the other, then morality's out of the window. Empty the prisons: no one's to blame.

And, equally, you can't blame racists, Fascists and other assorted bigots for being the way they are: biology has doomed them to their viewpoint.

30 May 2013 at 11:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Bro Ivo 19.52 29/5

Totally agree with the sentiments and observations but when did common sense have any impact on politicians or the law.

30 May 2013 at 11:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

If the one is as biologically driven as the other, then morality's out of the window

Quite. The move from "I did not choose my homosexual orientation" to "therefore I should have homosexual sex" to "therefore there should be gay marriage" is totally illogical.

The illogicality is illustrated by the Telegraph which recently drew attention to work in evolutionary psychology which shows that homophobia may well be innate in human beings ("natural" as homosexuals might say) for evolutionary reasons. However, anyone of any sense realises that that does not entitle anyone to behave in a homophobic way. What's sauce for the goose...

But most of these discussions are not really about finding the truth. The West isn't really interested in the truth. It is interested in the will - hence its corruption.

30 May 2013 at 13:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

I wonder how you are using the expression "serious Protestant".

It's a matter of authority. Scripture is to a Protestant as the Magisterium is to a RC. A serious RC is under the authority of the Magisterium. A serious Protestant is under the authority of Scripture. At least that's how I am using the word. So the determining factor for your question becomes Sola Scriptura. It's really not that hard to parse out.

Does it include Anglicans?

Of course it does. But this is a personal determination and not an organizational determination. You can't infer seriousness from membership in an organization.

Most of the Protestants I know are Anglican and they would regard your position as extreme.

Ordinary broad-minded tolerant middle-of-the-road inclusive me? Inconceivable!

The ground is clearly moving in the CofE.

So let me put on my revolutionary Leninist hat for a moment. The best thing that could happen to the Church in England is the implosion of the CoE. Its leadership is shot through with corruption, and is inevitably leading the CoE down the same road as TEC. As an example, I read a little while back that 3% of the priests in the CoE are atheists. What kind of leadership can allow such a circumstance?

There is no saving the CoE. Eventually the remnant of believers in the CoE must depart from it, and the sooner the better. Objectively speaking, I should hope that the CoE imposes women bishops with no provision for dissenters whatsoever. As painful as it might be in the short term, this will trigger the creation of a new orthodox free Anglican church and isolate the liberal corruption from growth and financial resources. The whole liberal edifice will collapse from lack of interest.

This is a controversial position. Some conservatives say "You are abandoning the field and creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Stay and fight." But the leadership is lost. Once the leadership in lost in a hierarchical organization, there is no going back.

carl

30 May 2013 at 15:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Scripture is to a Protestant as the Magisterium is to a RC.

No. The Magisterium is to a Catholic what private judgement is to a Protestant.

But my question was about the use of artificial contraception. I think you would be hard-pushed to find many Anglicans who would accept your position. Before I got married, I asked my spiritual director for his opinion on contraception. He said, I was the first person ever to asked him that question. Considering he was retired and had spent much of his ministry as a theological college principal, training Anglican clergy, I was somewhat surprised by this. When I expressed this surprise, his response might charitably be characterised as indicating everyone was totally complacent about the matter.

The best thing that could happen to the Church in England is the implosion of the CoE.

Often I feel like that. After all, the announcement by the Bishop of Salisbury about supporters of proper marriage being in the same position as supporters of Apartheid or slavery undermines Christian teaching in this country. And those who have no interest in that teaching will doubtless appeal to his opinion as if it is Christian at the expense of proper Christian teaching.

On the other hand, there are still things about the CofE I love. I still have many Anglican friends, and they good people. So I suppose my reason agrees with you, but my heart disagrees!

30 May 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

I think you would be hard-pushed to find many Anglicans who would accept your position.

My position is thus. I see no moral difficulty with non-abortifacient birth control given that it is used to space and regulate but not render the marriage childless. The choice to live a sexual life carries with it the concomitant obligation to receive and care for children. The commandment to be fruitful and multiply has never been repealed. A RC would disagree only in that he would assert 'birth control' must be replaced with 'NFP.' What is controversial about this?

carl

30 May 2013 at 18:50  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

What is controversial about this?

This bit:

I see no moral difficulty with non-abortifacient birth control given that it is used to space and regulate but not render the marriage childless. The choice to live a sexual life carries with it the concomitant obligation to receive and care for children.

I think few Anglicans would go along with that. They would say that if a couple wish to be childless, that is up to them. I could be wrong. I would also question how many would really worry about abortifacients.

30 May 2013 at 18:57  
Blogger Mr. Morden said...

Not so much apartheid, more sectarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism

30 May 2013 at 19:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

I think few Anglicans would go along with that.

The word 'Anglican' covers wide terrain. It can mean many different things. The CoE is an established church that serves first and foremost a political function of cultural unity through religious homogenization. By design, there isn't a doctrinal center to it, but rather three mutually exclusive poles - Evangelical, Anglo-catholic, and Liberal - that co-exist in a form of tenuous stability. That reality breeds doctrinal confusion. It is the source of trouble in the CoE.

Given modern attitudes about divorce, I could believe that you are correct. But that would be a function of the collapsing confidence of church leadership and its unwillingness to take positions that might prove costly. The watchword of much of Western Christianity is 'compromise.' People don't like to be told hard things.

carl

30 May 2013 at 19:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

But that would be a function of the collapsing confidence of church leadership and its unwillingness to take positions that might prove costly.

About ten years ago Bishop Nazir Ali spoke against couples who deliberately remain childless. He was rounded on and gained the nickname "Nazi-Rally" (though perhaps he had that already). No one supported his defence of Christian teaching and I don't expect the matter has been raised since.

30 May 2013 at 20:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert said ...
"So I suppose my reason agrees with you, but my heart disagrees!"

Careful, now. Remember You haven't got a heart - just cold, rational logic. I mean you're a convert!

(Good discussion between you and Carl, by the way).

Albert said ...
"The Magisterium is to a Catholic what private judgement is to a Protestant."

Carl said ...
"By design, there isn't a doctrinal center to it," (Anglcanism) "but rather three mutually exclusive poles - Evangelical, Anglo-catholic, and Liberal - that co-exist in a form of tenuous stability. That reality breeds doctrinal confusion. It is the source of trouble in the CoE."

I go further and say it follows from private judgement and the five solae of protestantism.

30 May 2013 at 21:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Peter D

The incoherent organization of the CoE is not an outcome of Sola Scriptura, but rather an outcome of its denial.

carl

30 May 2013 at 21:59  
Blogger Peter D said...

Carl

Yes, any protestant says that to defend his own particular private interpretation of scripture.

30 May 2013 at 22:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Peter D

Your argument might have a shred of credibility if the CoE hadn't been formed as an act of political expedience.

carl

30 May 2013 at 22:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Careful, now. Remember You haven't got a heart - just cold, rational logic. I mean you're a convert!

:-)

The incoherent organization of the CoE is not an outcome of Sola Scriptura, but rather an outcome of its denial.

Carl, are you claiming that Sola Scriptura leads to unity?

30 May 2013 at 22:43  
Blogger Peter D said...

Carl

I agree the Church of England was a compromise. It was a political settlement aimed at preventing the imposition of Calvinism on an essentially Catholic nation. The evangelical bit was a latter arrival.

That this is so doesn't undermine my view that protestantism, based, as it is, on private judgement in interpreting scripture, must inevitably result in heterodoxy. How can it be otherwise when sincere, honorable, intelligent and God loving people arrive at such different opinions? And of course not forgetting the more malign ones in there. All claim guidance from the Holy Spirit in 'understanding' scripture.

You read and understand scripture one way; others a different way. Agreed, the Catholic Church has scandalised itself over the shocking mismanagement of sexual abuse by some of its senior leaders and the conduct of some of its Priests, Bishops and Cardinals. It will recover in time if it pleases God.

However, to date, I know of no senior cleric speaking openly in support of accepting homosexual behaviour as moral or disputing key doctrines and dogmas of the Church. Some come very close to doing so and are silenced or disciplined, if outrigh heresy is preached.

Maybe the Church should be tougher and take more decisive action against the minority of outspoken 'modernisers' and 'liberals' who speak ambiguously or outright defiantly on key issues such as women priests, homosexual unions, abortion and contraception.

Despite the scandals and these divisions in the Church, there is still acceptance of the Pope's authority; though some question the extent of this. The mechanism is in place through the Papacy and the Magisteriuum - both, according to Catholic belief, Divinely instituted. The key questions are whether the Pope will choose to use this authority and in what ways.

31 May 2013 at 00:46  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Bruv Ivo
'Multiculturalism is the politically correct term for Apartheid.’
People were not allowed to marry others of a different racial group so Apartheid South Africa was hardly multicultural in the sense of the word's present meaning.

31 May 2013 at 07:30  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Brother Ivo,

A cup of tea, salted Herrings and a glass of Scotch. Would that bring the EDL into our Synagogues for a chat or would it be bricks through the window?

Johnny,

Are you against all immigration or just Islamic immigration? What do you think of the white Eastern Europeans who have come over to the UK?

31 May 2013 at 11:24  
Blogger Flying Tiger said...

Since the only dominant, technological and civilised culture on the Earth was and is anglo-saxon, multiculturalism can in fact seen for what it truly is- an attack by outsiders from benighted realms directly and particularly on the anglo-saxon- his race, culture, technological superiority, freedom and equality of sexes.

As to where multiculturalism originated- doubtless that would be a tad too much truthiness for any gatekeeper blog.

Cleanse the Shire.

1 June 2013 at 11:59  
Blogger Peter D said...

Have you heard the expression: Pride comes before a fall?

1 June 2013 at 22:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older