THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IN MODERN BRITAIN

Just a few years ago, there would have been no doubt but that England should be considered a Christian country, no longer. Few may have entered a Church, but most would have described themselves as C of E or even Methodist! Sunday along with all the Christian holidays have been maliciously abolished. There were at one time consistent social and moral conventions; no abortions but illegal ones; homosexuality was illegal and most people would have had little understanding of what it involved anyway; divorce was rare and such a couple would be viewed with some suspicion and disapproval. All this has changed, and so very rapidly and with little or no public consultation.

 

PART ONE: THE DESTRUCTION OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY: THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

 

Until 1967 homosexual acts between men had been a criminal offence. Similar acts between women were never outlawed. Initially, what was permitted in law were acts ‛between consenting adults in private.’ Who supporting a change in the law then could have foreseen what has developed since? We have seen aggressive gay lobbying on many fronts, and finally the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples. Laws outlawing ‛discrimination’ were introduced to make sure the position of homosexuals could not be legally undermined. Persistent propaganda aims to secure the view that homosexuality is normal in the minds of those who know it is not. This has encouraged attacks by ‛gay activists’ on Christian businesses with the express purpose of closing them down: bakeries who refuse them wedding cakes, bed and breakfast proprietors who deny them double beds, the list continues. Dissenting Christians in public service such as teachers, registrars, and others are also singled out. Churches services in progress are disrupted and the worship disturbed. Some with the temerity to oppose ‛gay rights’ have been attacked and their property vandalised. Families enjoying a quiet meal in a restaurant with their children have been harassed. These actions demonstrate with what kind of people we are dealing. No one any longer enjoys the freedom to express opinions on these matters that deviate from those of our ruling élite.

We are being asked to accept that homosexual liaisons are the same as a Christian commitment in marriage of one man and one woman for life, “in sickness and in health, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, as long as we both shall live.”Objectors will quickly have the abusive term ‛homophobe’ thrown at them. This strategy was first developed in Stalin’s cruel Soviet tyranny and was then repeated by Hitler. Those holding dissenting views were diagnosed as insane and shipped off to an asylum. The suggestion is that an objection to same-sex relationships is a morbid, irrational fear akin to arachnophobia or agoraphobia, a mental illness. Once upon a time, Britain was a tolerant country. All has changed. What we have now is government-backed, institutionalised intolerance by which a few have decided what everyone else should think and believe about everything.

Of course, the ‛gay agenda’ is much wider than a matter of equality. It is just one element to create a world in which there are to be no sexual boundaries. Perhaps under such a change paedophilia and bestiality would also be acceptable practices. ‛Promiscuity’ is a word that ought to be expunged from our dictionaries because there can no longer be any such thing; it now being a well-accepted form of behaviour. Evolving when homosexual rights became an issue, the word ‛heterosexual’ is also destined for the dustbin. The whole notion of heterosexuals must go according to ‛gay activists’. Émigré, anarchist and lesbian activist, Masha Gessen, living in the USA where her views are listened to with great respect and care - as against in her native Russia - has said quite clearly: “Our goal is to destroy marriage as an institution, so that there is no longer the concept of marriage.” Previously to all this, heterosexuality was assumed by almost everyone to be the normal state of affairs and it was homosexuality that was unusual. Men went with women. Men going with other men was not normal. Yet today, expressing such views is a thought-crime.

Casual sexual encounters between those of different or the same gender are the ‛new normal’ where everyone is the same. If sex with consenting adults is allowed why not between consenting children or children and adults? How long before paedophilia is also lauded as permissible for those who want to indulge their lusts in that way? Given the support for the Paedophile Information Exchange by some members of parliament and the predilections of others now exposed within a network in high places, the refusal of prosecutors to take action against establishment figures known for years to have been guilty of the most vile behaviour towards children,  it would seem only a matter of time before the abominable becomes the acceptable.

Man is just another animal, there is no real distinction, even animals now have ‛rights’. So sex with animals is also part of this new and equal society. Denmark has been forced, apparently with some reluctance, to introduce anti-bestiality legislation to discourage the spread of animal brothels and attacks on animals in the countryside. Despite this, the Danes managed to produce and distribute a film, shown on BBC without a whimper of objection, depicting a graphic portrayal of an act of bestiality with a cow.

The conduct of our untrustworthy political leaders demonstrates over and over that their words cannot be relied upon and that lies continually slide over their lips without a blush on their faces. Not one of the political parties in the 2010 election indicated in their manifesto any intention to redefine marriage. Just three days before the election the Conservatives published a Contract for Equalities in which an undertaking was given to change the law so that civil partnerships could be classified as marriage. Yet, later on during the very same day, David Cameron gave solemn assurances that he had no plans to introduce same-sex marriage. It is clear now that he was being something less than honest. Just eighteen months later, the duplicitous man was singing a very different tune. Cameron announced during his Conservative Party conference speech that he would legislate for same-sex marriage. He said, “I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.” Here is something of contradiction in his use of the word ‛conservative’. Less than half his own MPs supported this move and he chose to ignore all objections, including a petition signed by two-thirds of a million people. Showing his usual unrestrained arrogance, he pressed ahead anyway. Such actions have a nasty habit of returning to bite: it is just a matter of time. It must be added that the leadership of almost all other parties represented in parliament supported Cameron. In fact, the Liberal Democrat minister for crime prevention, speaking on the radio claimed that she was “the originator and architect of same-sex marriage” and that it was Liberal Democrat policy. Following this, Ed Miliband, when asked by Jeremy Paxman what he respected about David Cameron, he responded without hesitation, “His commitment to equal marriage. It was hard on his party. It was the right thing to do for the country.” There were those in every party who resisted the threats being made against them and showed tremendous courage in standing up for marriage as a lifelong commitment of one man to one woman.

A Conservative parliamentary candidate made known his view that Christians ought not to be penalised for saying homosexuality is wrong and could not accept that such behaviour was normal, nor would he encourage children to indulge in it. Needless to say, with unseemly haste he was deselected as a candidate and also suspended from his job as a primary school teacher. His observation was that Christian views are no longer acceptable within the Conservative Party. Were they ever? Britain has become in recent years an intolerant, illiberal, oppressive country.

On the 26th June 2015, the US Supreme Court imposed recognition of same-sex marriage in all States, including the 14 States where there had previously been a ban. The United States and President Obama in particular, have made clear their intention to impose the spread of same-sex ‛marriages’ throughout the world exerting pressure on all countries by using political and economic instruments. Speaking on economic and political advances on a visit to Kenya in July 2015, he urged Kenya to ‛embrace diversity’, a clear reference to gay rights. Obama was quickly rebuffed by President Kenyatta who made it clear that Kenya did not share the same values. A similar response was forthcoming from Alexey Pushkov, head of the Russian State Duma Committee on International affairs who believes this approach is unlikely to get very far. Speaking at the Public Chamber hearings on the occasion of the United Nations 70th anniversary, he  said, “A huge stratum of humankind will refuse to accept these new values, but this does not stop the US which has already said that one of the main goals of its policy will be to globalize, to universalize same-sex ‛marriages’. ...And here, I think, it will act, of course, not through the UN mechanisms, but through its own inherent ones such as unilateral pressure and by imposing these principles on other countries.” The firm stand by Russia against western ‛values’ is an important element souring relations. The US and its allies will act through the Council of Europe where the support for gay pride marches and demonstrations enjoy official support.

The marriage of one man to one woman for life lies at the heart of the structure of a nation. Out of it grows the independent family unit and out of the family unit grows the nation. Anarchists like Masha Gessen must oppose marriage because it stands in the way of achieving their political agenda. To change the definition of marriage is to change society radically with wide-reaching implications for our families and the nation. These changes are deliberate and imply far more than the rights and wrongs of who ought to have sexual relations with whom. What we are looking at in our modern western democracies is the gradual dismantling of marriage and the family in the interests of a social change agenda.

This deconstruction of society is essential if a new society in which all are ‛equal’ is to be built globally with new building blocks, an ersatz ‛kingdom of heaven’ on earth, a ‛new Jerusalem’. They will replicate a living hell on earth. The Dutch Vice-President of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans, has vowed to impose single-sex marriage on all EU countries. “I am now going to personally take this up and push it forward. Even if you don’t want to have same-sex marriage in your country, at least have the decency to accept that other countries do have it an recognize that marriage when people move to your country who are married.” This is an unusual use of the word ‛decency’. There is tolerance and democracy extended only to those who go along with Timmermans. Any country now wanting to join the EU, as for example countries in Eastern Europe where homosexuality is still resisted, will in future be legally obliged to allow gay parades and homosexuals must be given full legal rights and by implication also marriage rights.

Where there are no distinctions drawn, where there are no differences, yet where all are identical to each other a meaningless society evolves. Were all words in a sentence nouns, where would be the verbs, the adverbs, the adjectives and conjunctions? The differences make meaning and communication possible. Nietzsche was right to say, “I fear we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar.” All things are not identical, neither in rank, form or function. Thankfully, we are all different. It is what makes the world go round.

Political leaders in the west are intent on imposing around the world, by force if necessary, what they term democracy. This ‛democracy’ has little to do with everyone having a say in the way things are run. Were this so, it would soon be removed. Politicians have little or no regard for what any of us may think or wish, still less are they willing to relinquish the least power or influence to those whom they govern and despise. Democracy is a levelling down, an extreme form of individualism that removes all distinctions, binding relationships and responsibilities. This thinking is applied not just to differences of gender but also of race. There are to be no boundaries, not even between neighbouring countries. The current swarm of mass immigration overrunning Europe from the Middle East at this time has been caused by unwarranted meddling by western nations. Now it is pay-back time. Nevertheless, it is welcomed by supporters of ‛democracy’.  They promote quite openly a no-borders world. Many are engaged not simply in charitable efforts or alleviating misery, but in the case of the UK, in assisting the illegal entry of migrants across the English Channel. Their goals are political rather than charitable. Carefully note who they are offering this limitless invitation. This is not a demonstration of humanitarian compassion nor is it the ‛moral’ duty they claim it is. These are they who propose the demolition of our nations brick by brick. This will include the destruction of the Christian faith and the teachings of the Scriptures. How long before they ban the Bible and outlaw the preaching of its contents as the truth?

The term ‛racist’ was first used by Leon Trotsky. Anyone who recognises a distinction or difference between people of a different race, even a benign one, is a ‛racist’. The demise of communism in Eastern Europe does not mean Marxist ideas have died. Far from it, paradoxically they are very much alive and well in the West. Nearly all the Neo-Cons in the USA have a Trotskyist pedigree and much of the ideology they and their predecessors once openly espoused has remained with them. The  Communist Manifesto of  Marx and Engels (1848) contains most of the policies being thrust upon us by ‛progressive’ politicians of all colours today: the abolition of marriage; the taking over of responsibility for children from parents to the authority of the State; multiculturalism and the abandonment of national differences and borders - “the workers have no fatherland. One cannot take from them what they do not have”. These things are all related, from marriage, one man to one woman comes the family and groups of families or tribes as they were once known, families together make up a nation. Jacob and his family went down into Egypt a group of families centred around his sons, they emerged a powerful nation made up of twelve tribes. The diminution and final abolition of marriage, family, nation is essential for the reconstruction of society our world leaders have in mind.

The levelling down and the rejection of marriage has also been reinforced by the way we are taxed. Governments of all colours have removed all recognition of marriage in the collection of taxes, couples no longer being regarded as single taxable entity. A tyrannical State always feels itself threatened because marriage and the traditional family, being independent, presents an alternative source of authority, undermining its own. Within the family circle different moral values will frequently be disseminated, a different understanding of the world to that of which the ruling élites approve. The Named Person legislation in Scotland by which the raising of children is monitored directly by interfering busybodies appointed by the State is just the beginning of intrusion into family life aimed at the eventual removal of parental authority as we have known it. The Scottish Government’s draft statutory guidance is contemptuous of parents and their children: “The guidance is not written in a way which will make it accessible to most children, young people and parents.” (Paragraph 1.1.5) Opting out will be seen as ‛hostile’ and ‛non-engaging’ and precipitate further action against the parents by the State. We must expect this to be followed by similar moves in England and Wales. All this reflects the understanding the establishment has of ‛democracy’, quite the opposite of the people themselves having a voice in the way our nation is run.

In contrast to the modern secular State, the Christian faith has always emphasised the moral consequences of sexual activity. In the Book of Common Prayer, now so widely maligned in the Church that gave it to us, the marriage service, better called the ‛Solemnization of Matrimony’ contains in its opening words a concise definition of marriage hardly bettered outside the Scriptures.

“DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.”

Marriage is “a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication”. Today, where all kinds of deviance are accepted and protected, where few have any concept of immorality or sin, for those who use the word ‛fornication’ a form of abuse will quickly be found for them. What can transcend the beautiful words of the Prayer Book that marriage was “ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other”? This bears no resemblance to the practices of the promiscuous engaging in activities that are not even fit to be mentioned in circles where any decency remains. Sex has over the years become a leisure activity having very little to do with a lifelong commitment and conventional marriage.

Self-gratification has replaced moral responsibility as the guide. Believing and propagating anything else has become a criminal offence. Buggery and sodomy are still offensive to most people, but who can be surprised that they are no longer a criminal offence? Under the equality laws brought in by Blair’s government, the effect has been to make it illegal to teach the Christian doctrine of marriage to children in schools.  It is no longer permitted to say that marriage is normal, a natural relationship, the union of one man and one woman for life. Teachers are bound to say that some religions believe that the traditional form of marriage, one man to one woman, is the proper institution for a sexual relationship. Education minister, Nicky Morgan, has instructed teachers to watch for extremist views among school students of which opposition to homosexuality is but one. Although said to be aimed in the first instance at identifying Muslim extremists, as in other areas, it will without doubt be also rigorously applied to the children of Christian families by the school inspectorate assisted by a complicit media. One Tory MP recently emphasised the determination of the government to prosecute anyone teaching homosexuality is wrong. Our children and grandchildren are now to be taught that homosexuality is nothing out of the ordinary, that they should be encouraged at an early ago to identify their own gender. They will grow up with it and get used to this way of thinking. Under the same laws, Christian ministers continually run the risk of prosecution for speaking out against sodomy and adultery. A wealthy homosexual couple is currently suing the Church of England for denying them the opportunity to marry. This tendency is likely to continue and expand.

David W. Norris

Next article: DIVORCE AND THE DISSOLUTION OF SOCIETY