I don’t WANT to keep blogging about the sexual revolution, but it won’t go away, and I fear that the late Malcolm Muggeridge and Mary Whitehouse were right, it will not end well.
This commentary from a US based organisation is not based on the ramblings of a daft old woman, as Mary Whitehouse was written off for, but a serious piece of research from the prestigious Centre for Disease Control. Various forms of harm including substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and behaviours and unwanted or forced sexual experiences are significantly more common in homo/bisexual students, and least common in the sexually chaste.
It makes grim reading. It has seemed obvious to me for a long time that departure from God’s norms for sexual conduct is unhealthy, this major scientific study strongly confirms that impression. Will the sexual revolutionaries listen? Will the liberal left media report this CDC study? Will government and other institutions stop attacking advocates of traditional sexual values?
The proportion and absolute number of children growing up without a father at home has massively increased as a direct result of the sexual revolution, supported by government policies. This has always been, very obviously, a bad idea, but to say so attracts accusations of bigotry etc.
There is now a ton of properly collected evidence backing up the common sense observation that children should be raised my their mother and their father in a stable home. Fatherless children suffer and fail in all kinds of ways. Click on the link for some evidence.
If we care about child abuse, shouldn’t we be strongly supporting traditional (i.e. Biblical) sexual ethics? Or perhaps seeking personal gratification is a higher goal?
A long and difficult sermon from John McArthur, but he nails it. We are doomed, and we chose it.
A major news story on Radio 4 Today this morning is of a court battle to force UK taxpayers to fund unprotected promiscuous sodomy.
‘Active’ homosexual men want to be able to take a drug called PREP (PRe Exposure Prophylaxis) so that they can bugger away to their hearts’ content without bothering with condoms, yet avoid the predictable outcome for such conduct (1). It will only cost the UK taxpayer £400 per homo (2) per month, for life. But, the protagonists say, this is cheap compared to the £380,000 per person per lifetime of keeping AIDS infected people healthy with antiretroviral drugs. ‘We have a right-Just finance it!’
By the way, the above statement (made and not challenged on peak time BBC radio an hour ago) isn’t even true on it’s own terms £4,800 a year for 40 years comes to £192,000. So the cost would only just break even if without PREP 1 out of 2 recipients got AIDS. Lets say there were 100,000 ‘active’ homosexual men eligible, that would come to £480 million a year. That is by far the least cost effective health care intervention I have ever heard of. But I have been following the AIDS/sexual liberationist movement for long enough not to expect truth or perspective from them.
The British taxpayer has no say in this matter, it will be decided by our ruling liberal elite, long dominated by sexual revolutionaries. There was of course no balancing opinion to the government funded AIDS activist on the radio this morning, or any discussion about which other services could be scrapped in order to meet the prodigious bill for this new demand. Perhaps they could stop funding care for people over 80? After all, a lot of them voted for Brexit anyway.
This sort of thing is one of the reasons why Muslims believe that God has mandated them to take over the corrupt and dying West, which they are doing with mass immigration, high birth rates and a total refusal to accept our permissive values. See yesterday’s post about ISIS and click on the link. Conservative Christians like me are only saying we want free speech to be able to criticise the homosexual life style and not to be forced to support it-militant Muslims (including a very high proportion of so-called moderates) want to kill all homosexuals. And they do , when they can. This homicidal hate for homosexuals is well documented and not, as some say, limited to the radical hard liners.
It seems to me that apart from any question of disapproval of promiscuous sex (anal or otherwise) that the people who are demanding a £4,800 a year drug to protect them when they choose to have anonymous, random unprotected sex KNOWING THE COUNTRY IS BANKRUPT AND THE NHS IS ON IT’S KNEES are, to put it mildly, bloody selfish.
(1) Romans 1:27 ‘In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.’
(2) if ‘homophobia’ is an acceptable term, so by definition is homo.
The Labour supporting Daily Mirror has written about the reasons why ISIS hates the West. This is somewhat brave of them, given that the prevailing narrative in the UK MSM is that these people are nothing to do with Islam ‘the religion of peace’. The item can be read in full here. And here is another account from a more conservative source
This is from ISIS’ latest propaganda journal. The first reason they say they hate us is exactly what Christians like me who have actually read the Quran have been saying all along. They hate the West because they hate Christianity. I quote…
1. Because you are disbelievers
“We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices.”
So there it is in black and white. As ever, take my word for nothing but check it out. This is what mass murdering Antichrist psychopath Muhammad wrote in the Quran, and it remains mainstream Islam. OF COURSE Muslims living in the West keep quiet about it. They are steadily increasing their numbers until they are strong enough to take over. It’s called taqiyya (lying to infidels to advance the cause of Islam) and hudna (a false truce until Muslims are strong enough to strike and win).
Islam is and always has been utterly-and violently- opposed to Judaism, Christianity, polytheism and atheism. The present statement by ISIS is authentically Muhammadan and represents a return to the values of 7th century Islam. Which they plan to impose on the entire planet.
The article finishes saying ‘”The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands (*), we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”
I am more pained at the thought that I could be arrested and charged with ‘hate crime’ and lose my job for posting the above by my own allegedly Christian country’s government than I am that I might be martyred by the age old enemy of the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for saying it.
Friends, believe what you like but if you don’t want your grandchildren to live under Sharia law, do some research before you repeat either (A) that ‘all religions are the same’ or (B) ‘it’s only a tiny number of people who have misunderstood Islam.’ Neither of these popular sayings can stand up to even the briefest of researches into the facts of the matter. As ISIS has helpfully reminded us, once again.
(*) I don’t have time or energy to address these lies one by one, except to say that is mainly ISIS doing the bombing, torturing, vilifying and invading.
Before the body of murdered Normandy priest Jaques Hamel is even cold, the anti Islamophobia backlash is in full swing as our rulers and other key opinion leaders insist that when 2 men in Muslim dress burst into a Catholic church, shout anti-Christian slogans and slit the throat of a Catholic minister of religion before the altar, it is nothing to do with Islam the religion of peace’.
Well they are wrong. Culpably and dangerously so. And we must tell them at every opportunity.
This sort of thing is not an isolated incident, it is part of a pattern, and it is entirely consistent with the core beliefs of Islam. Don’t take my word for this, get some facts.
Click these links here for news of Islamic mass murder of Christians in Pakistan in Libya, Egypt , Iraq and Nigeria. These were all unprovoked attacks carried out by Muslims, in the name of their religion, praising their deity and shouting the name of their prophet. And it was entirely consistent of them to do so, because the teaching and practice of Muhammad was to intimidate, threaten, invade, enslave, rob, rape and kill those who opposed him. Or whom he just fancied robbing or raping.
Let us be clear about one thing. Whenever Christians of any degree of orthodoxy (*) meet together for worship, they blaspheme Muhammad. This is inevitable, since Christians proclaim that the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Eternal Son of God, the Third Person of The Blessed Trinity. the Holy One, the Saviour and died on the cross and was raised again and ascended to Heaven. There is no form of religion having the most tenuous claim to call itself Christianity that does not affirm all of these doctrines. And this Jesus taught consistently that after Him, false prophets would arise and lead many astray. And then along comes Muhammad, denying every single one of the above core doctrines of Christianity, and raising armies whom he inspired to spread his message by the sword. As they have done ever since whenever they were not constrained by main force.
So, if Jesus was a true prophet, Muhammad was a major league false prophet, a lying impostor and a child of hell. This is the most basic logic. We Christians generally like to keep quiet about this, for fear of (A) causing offence, or (B) getting our throats slit. But it’s there. Muslims understand this if leftists, secularists and liberal Christians don’t.
To summarise, when I meet with my brother and sister Christians in church and declare aloud in our worship that Jesus is God and died for our sins, rose again, ascended to heaven and sat down at God’s right hand, I am calling Muhammad a liar because he denied all this. And he was a liar, a foul, wicked liar with a tongue set on fire by hell, where he now deservedly resides.
The point is, this ain’t going away folks. Muslims and Christians have at times and places agreed to live peaceably side by side, but whenever Islam has had the upper hand, it has done what it does. And it is struggling to get the upper hand in Europe. There is blood in the water and the sharks are homing in. They smell cowardice and defeatism. Our ancestors thought their civilisation was worth defending and realised that Islam wanted to take over Europe, so they fought those much misrepresented defensive conflicts, the Crusades. If they had not pushed back against Jihad (which preceded the First Crusade by some 400 years) Europe would have been Islamified centuries ago. Robert Spencer, who writes and speaks about this, lives in guarded secret location in fear of his life, and is barred from entering Britain. His views on the Crusades are well researched, well argued, and banned as politically incorrect. I think that speaks more eloquently that the dhimmi BBC. Time to read some history, although it may already be too late.
Baghdad church massacre (one of many)
(*) I am an ex-Catholic and disagree with many of their core beliefs because they diverge from Biblical teaching. However, much Catholic doctrine is biblical, for example the Triune nature of God and the atoning death of Jesus. There is no perfect church on earth, we all fail in differing degrees. Out of charity and solidarity in the face of the twin threats from militant secularism and Islam I am prepared to call Roman Catholics brother Christians unless proved otherwise
I recently posted on a friend’s Facebook page in a conversation about Justice. What do we mean by justice, or indeed fairness? Its a bit like ‘human rights’, and indeed breastfeeding or growing food without synthetic chemicals. Sounds great, very hard to speak against. I mean, who could possibly be against ‘fairness’? Demonstrably, only an unfair (therefore morally evil) person. But what do these words MEAN? Do people not realise that there are such things as con men? Calling something justice doesn’t make it just. Your idea of ‘fairness’ may look like theft to me. And maybe worse than theft.
For some people, including FAR too many professing Christians, it means a Big State and massive welfare payments. I copied this from the FB discussion in question today after receiving the criticism posted below, minus the name of the other protagonists. As you can see, the respondent believes I am morally evil for asserting that the State guarantee of free housing, clothing, social care and food (free medicine and free education go without saying in Britain) has in fact increased levels of fatherlessness, which is a very great social evil. My initial response is also posted.
I found a very good US based web site which I commend.
Whichever parameter you measure, children who are raised without a father (and in Britain and America today this is almost always due to divorce or birth outside marriage) is an ABSOLUTE DISASTER for the children and for the society they will grow up in. And we are being forced to pay for this epidemic, on pain of PRISON, through our taxes. And if you object to this, as my post did, you can expect to be called evil, heartless, stupid bigots by the virtue signalling left. Some of whom call themselves Christians.
Perhaps they are genuine believers, we all get things wrong. A wise man accepts correction, a fool boasts in his folly. As for me, I am a sinner who is hopefully saved by grace. I can prove from my bank statements over the last 30 years that I am passionately concerned with relieving poverty especially for widows and orphans. I have sponsored (i.e. given regular money to) 2 children in poverty in developing countries and much more. God commands charity to be directed towards the widow, the orphan and the disabled. But the automatic assumption that we are acting compassionately and doing good by giving ever increasing £billions of taxpayer pounds to give a safety net for men and women who fail in their responsibilities towards their offspring, each other and society (to say nothing of their Maker) is based on profoundly unexamined assumptions.
If we as a society are concerned about the welfare of children and to avoid their abuse, let alone to level up educational and economic outcomes which the Left claims to want, we should most urgently and diligently examine the great social evil that is epidemic State sponsored fatherlessness. But few even dare to raise the issue for fear of being shouted down by those who establish their own righteousness by demanding an ever bigger State.
Of course, many of our key opinion leaders are ardent fornicators and adulterers who reject their Maker’s reasonable restrictions on sexual activity. This explains a lot.
There was an agreement to suspend campaigning after this cruel and lawless murder, but the Remain side carried on campaigning, indeed intensified it. According to the polls, it may have worked. We shall see.
Deliciously over the top cartoon by Ben Garrison about the Brexit vote. Alas, it has been a nasty few months with lies and misrepresentation on both sides, but very much nastier since the cruel and lawless assassination of Mrs Jo Cox MP last Thursday. Campaigning was officially suspended by both sides over the crucial last weekend prior to the big vote on 23rd June, but then the Remain side carried on campaigning, weaponising Mrs Cox’s cruel murder by a lone psychopath to blame Remain/Brexit for ‘creating an atmosphere of hate’ which had caused her murder. Utterly deplorable. And these are the same people who, as Paul Joseph Watson of INFOWARS puts it, apologise for Islam after every single jihadist murder rampage.
So, this cartoon may be over the top, but it’s a lot fairer and in better taste than hereditary Labour MP Stephen Kinnock using Jo Cox’s memorial to smear everyone who has a problem with uncontrolled mass immigration with Mrs Cox’s blood, as he did yesterday in Parliament.