He's in with the in crowd

Nothing gets a progressive liberals knickers in a twist more than someone having a go at one of their pet victim groups - ethnics, wimmin and gays. Thus we have Iain Dale getting all bent out of shape by the pope condemning homosexuality as "damaging to the future of the world as the destruction of the rain forests".

In defence of the pope, the statement is quite clever - i.e. it depends on how damaging you think the destruction of the rain forests is to the future of the earth to make a judgement on how damaging homosexuality is - some might say "not very", but they aren't likely to be liberals.

Dale wonders why the pope hasn't done more to root out homosexuals from the Catholic priesthood - conveniently ignoring the fact that Catholic priests are celibate so it doesn't matter whether they are gay or straight. Either way they can't procreate. But Dale makes this assumption ....

Perhaps he thinks it's OK as long as they keep themselves to themselves. Except that most of them don't.

.. and then goes on to make this leap of faith.

The trouble is that bigots like "His Holiness" (it's almost a joke writing those two words in this context) continue to believe that homosexuality = paedophilia. If you're gay, you must a) be promiscuous and b) be attracted to anything in shorts, no matter how young. He could not be more wrong.

So one minute he is saying that gay Catholic priests can't keep their hands to themselves, but then goes on to claim that it's the Pope who thinks all queers are kiddy fiddlers? Maybe Dale thinks it's something to do with the dog collar that turns ordinary gay men into unrepentant sex offenders - or the Holy Water maybe?

He also believes that homosexuality is a choice. It is not. It is in theory true that you can choose (if your resistance to temptation is stronger than most) not to practise it, but its existence within you is not a matter of choice.

All sexuality is a choice. It's the ability to choose that makes us different from the other animals. The "I was born that way" is the same argument used by paedophiles to justify their disgusting perversion and if Dale is seriously suggesting that we can not be expected to control our base sexual urges then we may as well legalise that (not that we're very far from that anyway).

Dale goes on to say "[t]he Pope is entitled to his view, and he's entitled to express it. But I am also entitled to say that I find his views repellent and disgusting." - well if the Pope were aware of who Dale was he might say the same thing about him, but I doubt that he'll be too bothered.

As someone who is totally ambivalent towards homosexuality I don't particularly care what people say about gays anymore than I care what anybody says about crocodiles. I'm not offended by the Pope's comments and I don't particularly care if he upsets Dale or anyone else by saying it - but what does bother me about Dale's post is the last line.

PS I do hope the LibDem bloggers who were so 'outraged' by my comment yesterday (see below) will be just as vociferous in their condemnation of the Pope's comments.

Hmmm - sounds like Dale is trying to win back some favour with certain people.

Back to the (moral) baseline

Over on the Civitas blog, there is a thoughtful post from David Conway regarding moral collapse. He makes some good points about the refusal of those charged with solving the problems to actually acknowledge what the problems are, but like so many he falls into the trap of identifying symptoms as causes.

It is often the wilful refusal of politicians and the social services to admit the crucial link between family and social behaviour of young children that prevents the requisite steps being taken to address the problem. Instead, money, or rather lack of it, is claimed to be the crucial variable. It simply isn’t. From the refusal to admit this link flow all manner of mistaken social policies many of which only make matters worse.

Absolutely spot on, but .....

The real problem concerns what might be done to achieve the social circumstances that reduce such risk where they are already missing. In other words, the problem is how to break the self-reinforcing vicious circle that repeats itself across the generations where the relevant stabilising factors are missing........ [t]his is simply the admission of what the relevant risk factors are: namely, that single-parenthood, especially among low-income groups, militates against boys growing up with the wherewithal to resist the pull of gang-culture.

.... is wide of the mark. It is not single motherhood per se that is the root cause, but why so many now choose single motherhood. The reason is something which I have written about before, but I make no apologies for returning to it once again.

Some people will insist that the cause is welfarism - i.e. many women choose single motherhood because it suits them financially to do so, but again this is missing the point. What motivates them to make that choice in the first place? Why make such a choice when the consequences are so well known and widely acknowledged? It is possible for the child of a single mother to grow up well balanced and a valuable member of society, but everyone knows that the chances for that child to do so are significantly reduced.

The real cause of all our problems is the lack of a single moral baseline - a minimum level of acceptable moral behaviour upon which we all (or nearly all as there will always be a few recalcitrants) agree.

The moral baseline was something that existed right up into the sixties. It was based on Christian beliefs, but was not limited to strict adherence to Christianity - just an acceptance that some things are immoral and always should be regardless of personal circumstances. Thus it was considered immoral to have children out of wedlock even if there were benefits - financial or otherwise - for doing so.

Then along came the progressives who introduced moral relativity into the mainstream - the belief that morality is dependent on personal circumstances and therefore a flexible thing. The first and most enduring of the myths they put forward is that morality is related to poverty - i.e. the poor are unable to maintain the level of morality society expects because they don't have the wealth.

This myth was first put forward back in Victorian times (by the progressives of the time), but was laid to rest by Charles Booth's survey into London's East End which found that, despite the crushing degree of poverty, the people were every bit as moral as anyone else. Unperturbed by this, the progressives just waited half a century then reintroduced the myth once Booth was forgotten and it is a myth that persists today.

Once moral relativity had been established the next stage was to introduce moral equivalence - the belief that one person's morality is every bit as good as anyone elses. The tool for this was non-judgementalism based on the now established moral relativity. This is the "who are you to judge?" mentality which held that just because you don't approve of someones behaviour doesn't mean their behaviour is wrong.

This required breaking down many social taboos and stigma - such as motherhood out of wedlock - and making them part of societal norm. The obvious consequence of that was that people, regardless of circumstance, started to base their behaviour not on what society deemed acceptable but on what they alone considered moral - the "if it feels good do it" mentality.

The first signs of the consequences were apparent soon enough, but because society had accepted this new "morality" rather than deal with it various governments made it easier for people to behave how they wanted.

To cope with the increase in adultery they made divorce easier. Because more and more people were divorced and there were more single mothers around they made more benefits available to them. Then they found that this was costing a fortune, so they widened access to "family planning" in the hope that easier access to contraception would mean fewer babies. That failed so along came abortion on demand and sex education for kids. Children saw sex education provided by the state as a tacit admission by the state that it was OK for kids to have sex, something which was previously taboo, so they started to experiment - and so the whole thing snowballed.

Even though there is no common moral baseline today the vast majority of people still adhere to the old standards. They disapprove of the way many people behave but, because they've been frightened by the progressives into not appearing judgemental or critical of the "poor" they hold their tongue.

What we need is a return to the old moral standards that used to apply. As a Christian I completely believe that the easiest way to do that is by the reinforcement of Christian beliefs - but with the Anglican church as riddled with progressivism as the rest of the establishment this is unlikely to happen under the current Church leadership (though I do see signs that the conservatives in the C of E are coming back).

The Church needs to rediscover its moral compass. It needs to stop pandering to the progressives and their self-perpetuating myths. Because progressives spent years telling us that immorality is linked to poverty, the underclass have become increasingly immoral (it's not my fault, it's 'cos I'm poor init).

The poor are as capable as anyone else of being moral but, just as anyone else would, if you give them an excuse not to be they won't. That is the nature of people.

Quote of the day

From the ever excellent House of Dumb in relation to Baby P and social services.

Social workers have totally assimilated the cultural Marxist view of the world as an endless battle between the oppressed and oppressors. Anybody who can make a plausible claim for victimhood, such as ethnic minorities, junkies, the deranged or just members in good standing of the underclass, are, by definition, victims. Meanwhile, everybody knows that the traditional family is by definition an abusive environment, especially if there's a danger of the children being exposed to Christianity.

Why can't we get similarly astute and acerbic comment from the MSM instead of the drivel we have to put up with? Thank God for blogging!

Why Christianity matters

As any builder will tell you, the strength and resilience of your edifice depends on the foundations upon which it is built. You can have different types of foundation, but once that edifice has been constructed it is vital that those foundations remain in place. Take them away and the whole thing will crumble around you.

This is as much the case with a conceptual edifice as it is with a cathedral or skyscraper and the edifice of British law and morality was constructed on the foundations of Christianity. That is undeniable. Equally undeniable is that since the 1960's there has been a consistent and sustained undermining of the Christian foundation of our law and morality - as a result, the whole thing is tumbling about us.

The problem is caused because those who sought to undermine the Christian heritage which underpinned our culture, law and morality did not consider what would replace it. Their only concern was to eradicate the Christian faith from our national consciousness. Once it became apparent that doing so would cause the collapse of law and order there have been attempts made to shore up the structures - through mechanisms such as the Human Rights Act - but these are shifting sands in comparison to the rock of Christianity.

Until we understand that we are not going to solve the problems that are engulfing Britain today. Family breakdown, the collapse of marriage as the central rock of family, moral breakdown and rising crime all have their roots in the loss of Christianity as the foundation of our moral and legal code.

From rule of law to mob rule in one generation

The issue of yooficide following the tragic, brutal, sadistic murder of Ben Kinsella has got the progressive liberals wringing their hands like never before. Well, not since the last major hand wringing.

"Why? Why? Why?" they moan - and then the reason hits them.

Knives!

Knives are the cause of all this murder and mayhem. Knives are evil. Knives kill. We must crack down on knives.

Ring any bells? It was the same reaction when a deranged loner lost the plot and murdered some children in a Scottish school - except then it was guns. So the progressives banned guns and the result? Gun crime escalated. But hey, problem solved eh? It must be true - Michael Moore says so.

They estimate that almost half of all 12-17 year olds carry a knife these days, but I come from an era when just about every boy worthy of the title carried a knife. Does that shock or surprise you? Admittedly they were only small penknives - pocket knives - which we used to whittle wood or dig out that dinosaur bone from the building site that turned out to be a discarded chicken thigh, but as the teachers used to tell us "you could have someones eye out with that".

But it never occurred to us to "have someones eye out".

So why are kids stabbing and killing each other today? No doubt the progressives will dig down to the root causes and discover - surprise, surprise - that it is "poverty and inequality" coupled with "lack of opportunity".

Bullshit.

It comes down to one thing and it happens to be something which the progressives themselves created.

The collapse of the rule of law.

What is the rule of law? Everyone who knows the phrase knows the principle of "rule of law" is that the law applies equally to everybody - including government - and exists to prevent the arbitrary use of authority by government against the people.

However, it has a second principle too - one that is not mentioned very often - and that is to prevent mob rule. Without the rule of law anyone can set themselves up as an "authority" - even an informal one - and with sufficient backing can impose their authority on someone else.

That "backing" could be a group of people and that authority could be imposed through legitimate means - such as the way hunting with dogs was banned - but mob rule doesn't require large amounts of people - or even another person. The basic principle behind mob rule is that "might is right" - so a single person with a knife has authority over a single person without one.

The interesting thing about the "rule of law" is that it is only a concept. Sure, there are mentions of it in grand documents and various legislation, but rule of law, by the vary nature of it, is not enforceable.

Why not? Think about it. The rule of law limits the use of authority by an authority. But law without authority is worthless. Someone, somewhere has to have authority or the law just get ignored. The law itself can not impose rule of law - law can not assume authority. Don't think that the police and courts can ensure rule of law - all they can do is catch and prosecute those that break the law (and they don't do that very well, anymore) - but they are not able to ensure that the principle of rule of law is maintained.

The principle of rule of law can only be maintained if there is a prevailing belief that - even if nobody else is hurt and nobody finds out I still will not commit an act that breaks the law. That belief relies on an authority. Some call it conscience, but a person's conscience is just a reflection of that person's morality. Morality is the authority.

So, if that is the case, where did the moral authority come from before the collapse of the rule of law?

Well, before Magna Carta the authority was the King, but Magna Carta changed that. So what became the authority after Magna Carta? What was it about the King that gave him authority before Magna Carta? It was the same thing that King Charles I believed gave him the authority over Parliament that led to the English Civil War. The belief that the King is the living embodiment of God.

Christianity is the moral authority.

Christianity is not just the basis of our law, it was the basis of our morality that ensured that the rule of law was maintained. The rule of law depends on everyone having, more or less, the same moral standards - what I call the moral baseline - by which that law is judged.

Without that moral authority there can be no "rule of law", but that moral authority was challenged back in the sixties through a series of progressive movements and, over time, broken down. The progressive belief in moral equivalence - that one mans morality is every bit as good as anyone elses - replaced the moral authority of Christianity.

But that belief in moral equivalence means that you can not have rule of law - because there is no longer a single moral authority which everyone accepts. Progressives believed they could remove Christianity as the moral authority and replace it with nothing else based on a single false premise.

That humans are naturally moral.

They aren't. Just the opposite in fact.

The rule of law, on it's own, is not enough to ensure the rule of law. An agreed moral standard is also required. Since the eradication of Christianity as the moral standard, progressives have tried to create a new moral code by bringing in a succession of "rights" - but, without the rule of law, these "rights" are nothing more than empty rhetoric.

You can bet your last pound that the killers of Ben Kinsella were not in the least bit concerned with Ben's "right to life", but you can be sure they have their own moral code that contains at least two commandments.

Thou shalt do whatever is necessary to uphold "respect".
Thou shalt not grass.

That is the moral code of vast numbers of young people today and that is the authority to which they subscribe. It is mob rule. The progressives can wring their hands for years and will never come up with the true cause of the problem.

The problem isn't knives- it is progressive liberalism.

The modern sickness

It's funny how sometimes, someone you've never met, never spoken to and never ever communicated with can still somehow make you feel they have something in common with you.

That's how it was for me when I read this article from Timothy Payne in the Niagara Gazette.

I am sick of not being able to take my family to a movie without having them exposed to nudity, homosexuality and the glorification of sex and narcotics. I am sick of reading so-called modern literature filled with language once found only on the walls of public toilets.

I am sick of fighting for freedoms overseas, but being helpless to prevent the erosion of our own citizens’ freedoms in our country. I am sick of drug-using entertainers appearing on television shows, deluging me with their condemnations of God’s moral standards. I am sick of dirty, foul-mouthed entertainers receiving gratitude for their performances. I am sick of the decline in personal honesty, integrity and human security.

I am sick of being told policemen and honest citizens should not have weapons, but criminals who use guns to rob, maim and murder should be understood and helped back into society before they are ready. I am sick of paying more and more taxes for schools that teach secular humanism with moral standards that are destroying our country. I am sick of paying more and more taxes to provide support for people who are able to work. I am sick of being told that God is the opiate of the people but that all kinds of sin should be legalized.

I am sick of being told that pornography is the right of free press, but that freedom of the press does not include being able to read a bible on public school grounds. I am sick of cynical attitudes toward patriotism and immoral politicians whose decisions are made with greed.And, most of all, I am sick because my country is growing sicker when we have the greatest nation ever established on the face of this earth, a country where most of the world’s people would love to trade places with the most underprivileged amongst us.

Yes, I may be sick, but I can get well, and I can help society and America get well. You will not find me taking to the streets, throwing rocks or making bombs. You will find me, however, at work within my community, expressing my concern in letters to our leaders.

You will find me at the polling place, to cast my votes for an America where people can walk the streets without fear, for an America that will be educated, not indoctrinated. You will find me voting for an America of brotherhood and understanding, for an America that is no longer embarrassed to speak to it motto: In God we trust!

I agree with every word.

The society we created

As usual, after someone goes on the rampage with a firearm in the USA, the liberal progressive reactionaries call en masse for more gun controls as if this was the answer. Clearly, from the UK example, it isn't and never will be.

The belief that imposing tighter and more restrictive gun control will prevent mass murder has been demonstrated to be false on many occasions. People hell bent on killing other people will find a way as we have seen all over the world - in Beslan, Madrid, London, Canada, Thailand, Indonesia and Iraq.

To suggest that just because one gun owner has abused the privilege to go and kill on a mass scale is a just reason to ban gun ownership is specious. There are millions of gun owning Americans who have no intention of ever using their firearm to kill fellow human beings, but because one does is a reason to prevent them from having a gun?

The young man who went into Virgina Tech to slaughter his fellow students was an immigrant. If anyone uses the argument that gun ownership should be banned as a result of this then, by the same reasoning, you could reasonably argue that even though there are millions of immigrants in America with no intention of following this example, banning immigration will solve the problem. Of course it will not and it is ridiculous to think so.

Even so, the idiotarian brigade have reacted in their usual knee jerk way. They know it won't make any difference, but it fits in with their amoral world view. Guns are bad. What they forget is that it is not guns that are bad, people are. People who have lost touch with the boundaries between right and wrong, moral and immoral. They've lost touch because the boundaries have been blurred over the years by liberal progressive moral equivalence - where anything goes as long as you're cool about it.

The fact is, this sort of thing happens not because people own guns, but because we've created a society which enables this sort of thing to happen. And this society is a product of progressive liberalism. This is what they wanted - nations without a moral baseline, people with no shared beliefs. When everyones morality is equivalent then no morality is wrong - even immorality.

This is what they wanted and they got it.