I Don't Think It's The 'Slavery' That's The Issue....

Nothing to see here, just the Church of England putting up a monument to a slaver...and you probably will guess why. 

What the Cathedral describes as 'a bold new artwork' is a twelve-foot-tall bright red effigy of the ruler of the African kingdom of Benin, Oba Ovonramwen, who was deposed by a British expedition in 1897. There is no doubt about the celebratory intention of this work: its artist, Victor Ehikhamenor, describes it as 'reawakening Oba Ovonramwen and every other person that was violated during that oppressive attack on the Benin Kingdom.'

Yep, sometimes it's so blatant even The Cucktator has to acknowledge it.

Wait until someone tells this Victor guy about the oppressive attack on the Confederacy. 

For now though, I note a complete lack of effigies of Jefferson Davies in Anglican Cathedrals. 

Of Pigs And Proms

My thoughts exactly.

Like I said in the comments, we've been this way before. Less than a decade ago, we were told that anyone who thought civil partnerships would be the camel's nose for gay marriage was clearly a tin-foil hatted Jesus Freak. Now it turns out that not supporting gay marriage is a sign you're a tin-foil hat wearing Jesus Freak. Either way, they hate you, they really hate you.

Mind you, the old Endowment Flogger does have a point. Whichever side of the conservative movement you're on, the traditionalist wing or the minimalist government wing, once you accept that marriage is whatever the government says it is this week, what can't it do?

All of which reminds me of the guy who visits a farm and sees a pig with a bunch of medals hanging round its neck and a wooden leg. He asks the farmer what's going on and the farmer tells him about all the times the pig has saved the lives of members of his family, like pulling the farmer out of slurry pits, protecting his young daughter from wild dogs and waking them up when the house catches fire. The guy says 'well, OK, that explains the medals, but what about the wooden leg'? The farmer replies 'hey, a pig like that, you're not going to eat him all at once are you'?

Message to social conservatives: you are that pig and establishment conservatives are the farmer.

On the plus side, at least social conservatism's perfect record is intact: fifty years without ever having won one.

All of which means it's time to revisit the old advice about doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes. Is there a better way? Yes, actually. There's a - possibly apocryphal - story about a US lesbian who sued her Mid-West High School to win the right to take her girlfriend to the Prom and not have to abide by the dress code. She won, of course, and on the day in question the two of them strode boldly into the Prom, doubtless dressed in matching boiler suits, followed by a pack of journos anxious to document how they 'rubbed the right's nose in diversity'.Except...

Something wasn't quite right. Band playing? Check! Decorations up? Check! Any noses to rub in diversity? Errr.... not so much.

In fact, their fellow students were all across town at a 'Not The Prom', having a whale of a time and blatantly keeping their noses unrubbed. That's the key point here. The State could demand the right for these two jerks to attend something called 'The Prom' but it couldn't breath life into it. Instead, these two were left as Queens of the Empty Room, proud holders of the right to walk round an empty gym. They'd have stuck it to The Man, if only the The Man had stuck around.

That's the secret right there. Gay marriage might be a tactical win for the forces of chaos, but it's also a sign of their strategic weakness. We've had a half a century of the Gaystapo on the rampage but in cultural terms, they're batting 0 out of 10. They're firmly mired in parody and pastiche unable to create a single lasting cultural institution of their own. Hence the desire to hijack other peoples.

So now the government has decided that gay marriage is legal. Well, just that then. It's time for the Churches to leave the Prom. They need to refuse to perform legal marriages. If - for some insane reason - Christians want to follow up their Church wedding by inviting the state to get involved in their lives they can turn up at State Registry Office 2473 some wet Wednesday when they're both off work and fill the papers out. Other than that, the Hell with it.

Nothing will let the air out of the gay marriage movement like that moment when these tools are all performing fellatio on each other on the steps of State Registry Office 2473 (take that, daddeo) and a young Christian couple in jeans ignore them as they pass by on the way to get their Offical Government Stamp of Marital Approval.

Think of it as their Marily Manson moment.

Richard Dawkins' New Book: 'Hey, This God Thing Is Pretty Neat, After All'

In so far as the Archbishop of Canterbury's attack on the Ayatollah Khameron has succeeded in making The Dave look good, it counts as a miracle all on its own.

Not everyone can make Lord Snooty look statesmanlike, but having a too crazy for the Guardian leftist whose organisation is Britain's largest landowner wax lyrical about poverty and democratic mandates certainly qualifies.

On the plus side, we now know what the Pope was doing over here last year: sneaking into Lambeth Palace with a false moustache on to convince Archbishop Weirdo that the way back for the Anglican Church was to go over das edgen like a fruitenloopengaggle.

It's that German humour again.

Either that, or the Archbishop really thinks people turn to religion to answer the central mysteries of human existence, like whether or not giving greater autonomy to low-level business units will lead to a more responsive health service.

Apparently, when Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, he was actually referring to fully paid-up members of the National Union of Pacifistic Trades. On the other hand, at least the Archbishop accepts that the Ten Commandments are still valid, even if he thinks they're not exactly set in stone.

Still, there's a certain irony here. The Archbishop is trying to curry favour with the left by adopting their idiotic worldview wholesale, and never mind that the people he's trying to pander to just plain don't like Christianity in the first place. He ought not to be criticising Cameron, he ought to be learning from his example. The Dave was a heroic reformer just as long as he was sliming the right, but as soon as circumstances forced him to threaten the supply of £40K pa non-jobs, that Strange New Respect disappeared faster than you can say 'worse than Fatcha'!

So it always is: you can get into bed with liberals, but they won't respect you in the morning.

BBC Ignored By Yoof, Asks 'Is It Time To Reform Our Kids'?

Now here's a revealing insight into what these guys are on about: last Sunday in the 11 AM slot, Radio 2's Michael Ball was chatting to his first guest, an alleged media expert, and both admitted to being baffled by how many young people had turned out to see the Pope.

As a frank admission that the BBC had been blind sided by a cultural trend, that would be one thing, but instead these guys were just shocked! that da kidz had turned out to see an old establishment squarro like the Pope instead of adopting the groovy, rebellious position taken by our plucky, upstart, £3.5 billion pa State broadcaster.

It's a mystery all right....and likely to remain so as long as Beeboids keep interviewing fellow media luvvies all day. Hey, Beeboids, for a free clue, try this from a, now sadly off-line, review of the movie '300' by Big Hollywood's John Nolte:

After forty years of liberal rule in Hollywood it is nihilism that’s old-fashioned. It is moral relativism that is tired. It is political correctness, the always-noble people of color, the always-evil white guy, and the metrosexual that is clichéd. A film with a clear divide between good and evil is something new. A film that celebrates patriotism, heroism, sacrifice, freedom, and honor is something revolutionary. In 1955 300 would be old-fashioned. In 2007 it makes a counter-culture statement as strong as Easy Rider in its day.

About That 'Panzer Pope' Thing...

Mark isn't impressed by the Left's attacks on the Pope's supposed Nazi past.

It's even worse than that! Thanks to Nick in the comments to this post, for pointing out the dubious history of the left's majority shareholder, Spectre No 1 a.k.a George Soros.

Yes, Soros's own position was indisputably worse even than Ratzinger's, but on the flip side, he both profited personally and remains unrepentant about doing so. Besides, under the left's new Pope Rules, it looks like anything short of ritual suicide counts as collaboration anyway.

The Ever-Evolving Gospel According To The Reverend Dale

Personally, I'm thinking Iain Dale has been kind of hard on David Laws:

Sometimes, you just hold your head in your hands and think 'how on earth did people like this get through the candidate selection procedure?'....

[David Cameron's] called Laws to account and I hope any Conservative does the same if they encounter people in the Government who hold similar lawless, and profoundly dishonest views. They should be chucked out of Parliament for good - not just suspended.

Oops. My mistake. He was actually writing about Philip Lardner, who had dared to question the gay agenda.

Meanwhile, Daily Mail readers were treated to the sight of the Reverend Dale giving David Outlaws the written equivalent of a full Lewinsky.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, this means that if you think the question of who an elderly grandmother, running a B&B half way up a mountain in Mid-Wales, rents a room to is purely a private matter, you, sir, are worse than Hitler! On the other hand, if you think the question of who an MP uses public money to rent a room from is a not a private matter, then you, sir, are also worse than Hitler!

The good news is that if only we can trick Laws into trying to rent a room off an elderly Christian lady, the whole gay rights movement might implode into some kind of logical death spiral.

Most. Bogus. Scandal. Evah!

On the plus side, the second election debate suggests that even some open borders nuts have now internalised the concept that not everyone should be let into the country. Then again, it was the Pope they wanted to keep out.

As far as I can make out, the main charge against His Holiness is that he didn't take paedophilia seriously enough, unlike liberals who...

[Dawkins] wrote then that 'we live in a time of hysteria about paedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witchhunts of 1692'.

Yes, indeed: until about 10 minutes ago there was no better way to mark yourself out as an urban sophisticate than to sneer at those pesky witch hunters out there chasing mythical 'paedophiles'. Apparently, all those times groovers referred to 'paedo panic' what they actually meant was that they strongly supported enhanced screening for suspected paedophiles.

Or maybe it's the other thing: the Church wasn't harsh enough on priests who really were paedophiles. The Vatican scheduled them for counselling by senior clergy, rather than the punishment favoured by the intellectual classes, which is counselling by a psychologist. Or, to put it another way, the difference between hipster sophistication and Papal depravity is the difference between counselling based on a bunch of superstitious, unscientific garbage, and counselling based on Christianity.

I would point out the absurdity of people who wail about mythical vigilante mobs criticising an organisation for not indulging in extra-judicial punishments, but it's eclipsed by the even greater humbuggery of the same folks complaining that the Church didn't do enough to keep paedo priests away from children, even as they denounce the dirty masses for not being thrilled at the idea of unrepentant predators being housed on estates full of children. Hey, if you're down with Gary Glitter being free to do all but mail snaps of his naked backside to the families of Ian Huntley's victims, you're not best placed to criticise the Church for not opening its own version of Gitmo (and I still say a higher proportion of the suspects at Gitmo are terrorists than priests are predators).

Still, we can take one lesson from all this: let's compare the Catholic priesthood with the liberal equivalents. All of which means....

No, wait, I hear a squeaking from the corner: Mr Liberal would like to point out that Catholicism looks down on sexual excess generally so priests who abuse kids are, like, totally huge hypocrites.

See, that's the problem with child rape - everything would be OK if the assailants had previously spoken out in favour of child rape but they didn't so clearly this invalidates everything Catholics have ever said about anything.

Now we're getting to the truth of the matter. Our right on pals wave the bloody shirt of priestly child abuse (and only priestly abuse) because they hate the whole idea of morality. They can't say anything positive about the lifestyles they promote, so instead they try and drag everyone else down. If only the Church would join them in the sewer, these priests could sign up for the Roman Polanski Misunderstood Artists Program and Tom Hanks would win a Oscar for playing one.

On the other hand, I'm guessing everyone expects liberals to be degenerate filth anyway, so that must be why teachers and social workers sodomising their charges is yawnerooney, but why do they get so mad when I point that out?

The Cannibal State

Laban rightly points out the modern liberals have given up even hiding the fascist nature of their ideology. Still, there's something more going on.

Of course, there's the usual leftist humbuggery of claiming people have a right to force other people to hire them. Huh? But that piece of insanity is par for the course these days. Then there's the sheer absurdity - which even a lot of social conservatives miss - of claiming that organisations should be forced to hire people who violently and publicly object to their very existence. Hey, the Vegetarian Society isn't being forced to hire Bernard Matthews and Jeremy Clarkson's got no chance of getting voiceover work from Greenpeace, but those guys who parade through the town centre, dressed as nuns and sticking crucifixes up each other's backsides? Cruelly discriminated against (by being held to the same standard as any other potential employee).

Oh, and by the way, anyone know what proportion of employees at our publicly-funded universities 'wimmin's studies' departments are conservatives? Or, indeed, are there any conservatives at all?

But even that's not the whole thing. Liberal fascism demands that its enemies be ground to dust, the ground on which they stood salted and their works cleansed from history ... but here they are asking that the Catholic Church - aka the Worst Organisation Ever - give their insane cult members undeserved jobs and credibility. A-huh!

Forget all this talk of girrrl power and the pink pound. The defining feature of these freaks is parasitism. Their ideology may be, behind the half inch layer of touchy-feely drivel, driven entirely by hatred of western civilisation, but it's also entirely dependent on that civilisation, and more specifically those evil white males, continuing to support these worthless liberal dregs. Not only in the specific sense, that they need men (and evil corporations too!) to keep the lights on and the water flowing, but in the general sense that they require male taxpayers to keep their noses to the grind stone to keep the whole outhouse in orbit. Compare the breakdown of the sexes in the private and the public sectors to see who's really leeching off who. Ditto with the special people, some of whom in the more... enriched parts of the UK are finding out that mild social criticism may not be as bad as it gets, after all.

To the point, the only reason these spoilt brats are free to spend their lives raging about the horrors of western civilisation is precisely because the people they hate keep working themselves into an early grave trying to stave off the inevitable results of the left's insane ideology.

Hey, the Aztecs may have performed human sacrifices, but at least they didn't expect the victims to cut their own hearts out.

They Expected The Spanish Inquisition?

NNW points out that the critics of religiously-motivated child abuse only ever seem to get motivated about one particular religion. True enough, but there's an even bigger humbuggery about it all here.

Consider this: the hipsters are enraged! that the Catholic Church tried to rehabilitate paedophile priests instead of handing them over for punishment.

Say what?

Wasn't the whole 'punishing paedophiles' thing supposed to be the litmus test that separates us knuckle-dragging socio cons from our sofistikeyted betters? Weren't us proles supposed to be the crazed lynch mob demanding punishment, while our natural ruling class rolled their eyes and explained patronisingly that 'good' and 'evil' were social constructs?

Bottom line: strip out the metaphysical aspects and the Vatican's 'talk it over' policy sounds mightily like our elite's preferred Therapy Nation strategy. So just what is it that they actually object to?

Hey, Liberals: This Is What A Theocracy Looks Like

Who'd have thunk it? After approximately 800,000 movies, books, plays and operas about paedo-priests, the left has decided we're all being too cruel to Catholics.

But wait... what's else do I find at Ross's place? Why, yes, it's a reference to one paedo-priest scandal the left will never make a movie about. Actually, I'm pretty sure this is just variant six on the same theme but, like I say, there's a virtual news blackout on all this.

This is the anti-matter version of victimhood poker. Call it villain poker. Normally, the left loves to bag the Catholic Church. Hell, an alien watching TV would conclude that The Faith was a nonce's organisation infiltrated by religious kooks (in between all those shows in which flawed-but-loveable sexual predators are harassed by crazed Jesus freaks). Still and all, no matter how evil Catholics are, that doesn't justify saying anything nice about Ulster Unionists.

The MSM has spent years depicting Ulster Unionists - or Ulster Protestants in their absurd formulation - as bowler-hated, taig hating illiterates. Yet we keep coming across cases proving that, yes, the Republic was an utterly corrupt theocracy after all. What the priests did to those alter boys is what the Republic wants to do to Ulster. No bigotry required - the Unionists are motivated by a perfectly respectable disgust at a pre-Reformation basket case state beyond the imaginings of Hollywood's most crazed Palin-haters.

Liberals Shocked! Pope 'Catholic'

Don't be shocked, but the Reverend Dale has had a squealing fit. He's claiming that His Holiness's Christmas message proves he's a really big Nazi.

Given Dale's penchant for creative writing, I thought I better check the original text and, wouldcha'believe it, it turns out....

Just to run through the scores on the doors: His Holiness suggests we need to protect the social environment as well as the physical one - a point which surely comes under 'Blindingly Obvious' even for those of us who don't play a conservative on TV - and Dale calls him a Nazi. Hmmmm...remind me again which side of the debate keeps yammering about 'hate speech'?

See, this is kind of the point: if even the most tepid support for sexual restraint sends you into an unhinged screaming fit then, yes, you do have a problem with morality. You certainly have a problem with any recognisable form of Christianity.

But no: apparently, 'True Christianity' turns out to be like 'True Conservatism' - whatever Dale and pals say it is that particular day.

Have Yourself A Very, Merry Winterval

Take that right-wing maniacs and your pathetic claims of a war on Christmas!

Meanwhile, also at that link, the Reverend Stephen Coulter besmirches a glorious name by banning the hymn 'O Little Town Of Bethlehem' because he considers the lyrics no longer appropriate now that Bethlehem is a war zone - y'know, as opposed to the oasis of peace and reason 1st Century Judea was.

Still, the winner of Best In Show is the Reverend Wriiiiiight, for remembering that 7th December all those years ago when America dropped the bomb on Japan.

Hey, how was Obama to know his spiritual mentor of 20 years standing was a complete loon?

What They Do

The Cameron Years have already provided us with no end of sleazy, obnoxious or just plain loopy pronouncements from the Nu Tories, but one stands head and shoulders above the rest for pure toxicity: Tim Loughton explaining that the only reason respectable members of the public hate social workers is because they're too stoopid to know what social workers 'actually do'.

Rarely can a single statement has summed up so much of what is wrong with a political ideology, illuminating as it does both the elitism and the moral nihilism at the heart of Cameronism. What, for the sake of Loughton's foul argument, are social workers actually doing in a case like this?

Of course, social workers may be acting honourably in trying to stop children being cared for by their own grandparents, but they sure do seem to act like people with something to hide:

On their side were three council officers and a note-taker. On ours were Gail and Graham, myself (invited as a friend) and Norman Lamb, though Social Services had twice rung to say his presence would be ‘inappropriate’ – hinting darkly that there could be facts that the Curlews might not want their MP to hear.

Mysteriously, no such incriminating allegations materialised.

Let's assume Loughton is as morally retarded as he appears - just as an MP, doesn't social workers trying to pressure people not to involve their elected representative offend him?

But, no, thanks in large part to the tacit support of pretendey-cons like Loughton, these people are quite openly fascistic:

‘This is all to do with Mr Curlew not working with the department in a co-operative way,’ she said.

Isn't this like a bank robber blaming the teller for her own murder on the grounds that she should have just handed over the money?

To put it another way, these thugs are justifying their destruction of an innocent family on the grounds that the victims were insufficiently cooperative in their victimisation.

Doubtless, in another dimension Matthew Hopkins is kicking himself for not having thought of that.

Oops, no: can't say that: might imply life after death. Only Marxist atheism is allowed:

Another accusation against them is that they’ve told the children they can have ‘secrets’ from their foster carer.

This may sound incriminating – until you hear what the secret is. The children have been told by their foster carer that they can’t say their prayers: ‘We don’t do God in this house.’

They were upset and Gail reassured them: ‘You can pray in your head. God still hears. It can be a secret.’

And thus was shattered the image of social workers as Marxist fanatics. Needless to say, the negative effects of prayer must be another topic which only people with special social worker jedi training are aware of.

The children’s guardian – appointed by the State...

So at least you know she's independent!

But anyway:

The children’s guardian – appointed by the State – insisted the children had told her they wanted to live with the foster mother. I asked where the conversation had taken place. She said it had been in the foster carer’s house.

‘Would it be helpful to interview them at their grandparents’ house too, in case they are saying what the adults want to hear?’

‘I’m not going to work at weekends,’ she replied. ‘Why not meet them on neutral ground one weekday afternoon?’

‘I’m not committing to anything,’ she said angrily. ‘I’m not going to be told what to do.’

And what's more she won't tidy her room!

Hmmm... shouldn't supposed experts on raising children sound a little less like they're fourteen years old themselves?

And now there's the inevitable sequel.

Again, to repeat a point made above, if social workers are acting ethically, why are they so desperate to prevent public scrutiny? Forget Loughton's blathering, the issue is absurdly simple. Should public servants be able to arbitrary destroy families, try to intimidate the victims from asking their elected representative for help and publicising their case and even attempt religious indoctrination?

To ask it is to answer it. Loughton's position is not sophisticated or nuanced - it's just plain depraved. On the one hand we have degenerate Marxist fanatics who destroy entire families to make trivial political points, on the other soi dissant conservatives who throw their principles under the bus rather than rub shoulders with the common herd. Maybe the question we need to ask is this: what do Tory MPs actually do?

Liberal Morality: Like Whatever

Stan makes an important point here: it can't hardly be a coincidence that our civilisational collapse has coincided with the hollowing out of public morality.

True, there may be no a priori reason why a society has to be based on Christian morality, but nothing so far has come close to replacing it, least of all the kind of slippery, situational ethics currently dominant. Consider, for example, the Cameroonatics' position: they support traditional values, except for the values they don't support. Who couldn't sign up to that ? Who would ever be inspired by such an obviously tactical position ?

Still, there's more to it than just the vacuums at the centre of our society. Law is supposed to be the codification of public morality, but our political elite has instead adopted the culturally Marxist position that the law is merely the means by which those with power impose their views on those without.

Once you accept the Marxist view of law, then all bets are off. Government is free to do whatever it wants. Consider this case. No one disputes that this money was obtained by deception, but they don't think they should pay the money back anyway. Apparently, fraud is OK, providing your pay cheque comes from Her Majesty.

Ditto, this case. Incidentally, in so far as senior officers can qualify for bonuses by reducing the crime figures, this surely would be fraud in almost any other context.

The trouble is that if the law is simply the means by which those in power impose their agenda on those without it, then absent that power the law has no force. Or, as Sir Robert Peel put it: 'Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.'

Of course, Peel assumed that the role of the law was to uphold the values of society, not to change them. Marxists seek to totally remake society and so the power they require must be total too. The law must be used a tool to impose the new order and if that pesky morality gets in the way, it'll just have to go.

Liberals Get Slapped Again

Don't be shocked, but another group of liberal thugs has just caved when faced with actual resistance:

A couple rejected as foster parents because they refused to condone homosexuality have won a major victory...

The couple had provided weekend respite care for troubled children from 1996 to 2000, when their catering business began to take up too much of their time.

They re-applied this year to resume their care work expecting that the nationwide shortage of around 8,000 foster parents would help support their case with Derby City Council.

They fell foul, however, of anti-discrimination legislation. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation), which came into force last April, makes it illegal for any business or organisation providing a public service to discriminate on grounds of an individual's sexuality.

And if you think that's despicable, wait until you hear the next bit:

Mrs Johns, from Oakwood in Derby, said: "They were asking us: 'What would you do if a ten-year-old child came home and said they had been picked on because they were homosexual?'".

Disappointingly, these folks were too nice to give the obvious response, namely 'what kind of degenerate pervert thinks about the sexuality of ten year olds' ?

Note this next bit though:

Their fostering application was halted until lawyers from the Christian Legal Centre began preparing a bid for a judicial review of the refusal. On Saturday they received a letter from the council saying they could reapply.

Yep, another grass roots effort. But, of course. After all, the Nu Tories have already surrendered in the culture war. Well, who needs them anyway ?

Actually, that is the question. Who does need the Tories ? The Cameroonatics believe they can throw the right under the bus, since we've got nowhere else to go, and besides, they're the only hope of ridding ourselves of Nu Lab. But do we care ?

If the Tories can't see what's wrong with requiring Christians not only to disavow their religious beliefs, but to actively propagandise against those beliefs, why does it make the slightest difference whether or not they win? Meanwhile, as this case shows, for the right, the action's anywhere but Westminister. Before this case, Christian's were discriminated against, now they're not. That's a win, a successful pushback against the left.

The British right can continue to delude itself that replacing one set of Metropolitan elitists with another bunch will bring forth a new age of conservatism, but winning the culture war means supporting those groups that are actually fighting it.

Doesn't 'Satire' Require An Actual Point ?

Cedric detects a certain inconsistency in the way the BBC handles charges of religious insensitivity. He's right, of course, plus consider the difference between these two cases. This hatred of man's best friend is one of the most conspicuously insane parts of Islamic ideology, on the other hand, the Bible doesn't really spend much time talking about adult incontinence. There's no satirical point to putting Jesus in a nappy it's simply been crude and offensive for its own sake. Meanwhile, joking about Islam's bonkers hatred of dogs is beyond the pale.

Outrage D'ZZZZZZZZ

Totally shocking news, everybody! The BBC is planning to produce a version of the Nativity with Mary and Joseph as asylum seekers. They're so cutting edge - at least they are if you mean in the sense of doing something that's been before by every talentless left-wing hack on the planet.

There's nothing that induces deja vu like the avant garde. That's the bit that really grates actually. It's not just that, yet again, the BBC is using public money to make childishly predictable agitprop, or the contempt for Christians on show - it's both of these things put together.

The BBC isn't producing this blasphemous garbage to make any kind of point. This production has nothing to say about religion or faith or man's place in the world. The heartfelt religious beliefs of a significant chunk of the population are being used merely as a coat hook for the BBC to hang a load of drearily predictable Guardianista trash.

This is liberalism all over. Liberals have nothing worthwhile to say about faith, or patriotism, or morality or a whole bunch of other things because liberalism is a small, mean, runt of an ideology and liberals are perpetual adolescents, unable to offer anything more profound that sneery eye-rolling.

Outrage D'Jour

Clearly, another right-wing provocateur.

It's The Special Olympics Of Victimhood

Hmmmmm......

What a dilemma for libs. On the one hand, the chance to bag one of the last serious Churches, on the other, the opportunity to slime England. Looking at the background doesn't make it any easier either. There's murderous theocrats waging war to enslave free nations - see, the libs were right about those 'Catholics' after all - but there's also England standing alone as an outpost of freedom in a Europe enslaved by unelected degenerates. Catholicism or Euroscepticism ? Which do libs hate more ?

Actually, I'm guessing the whole 'fighting against murderous religious nutcases' thing will finally push libs into the Vatican's corner. Besides, the Royal Navy used fire ships - just think of all that CO2.

Fat Moron Talks Rubbish Again

Talking of non-hateful speech from the left, Jabbah the Hut's retarded brother has taken time out from snivelling about 'homophobia' and penning rape fantasies to rant about the homicidal tendencies of Christians (except they hide their true nature so well that only a morbidly obese Jewish pervert with an IQ leak really knows what goes on in 'church').

UPDATE:

Down in the comments, Max points out that Hari isn't actually Jewish, after all. I'm still trying to decide whether Hari having possibly been in a church once or twice makes it more or less ridiculous for him to believe - or claim to believe - that Christians are permanently hovering on the edge of a head-chopping rampage.