Amnesty International is begging for money on British public transport, informing us that “a teenager faces a death sentence for being gay”.
The ad continues: “will you send a text?”
Oh, Aaahh, uhhh, who would not send a text in solidarity to the poor teenager?
In littler fonts, we are then informed that in ten countries, people can be put to death for “loving someone of the same sex”.
Oh well, it's not about “being gay”, then. It's about Sodomy! A criminal offence in all civilised Christian countries, when they still were both!
Now, we can disagree about whether the death penalty might not be a tad too harsh. I personally think it is far too harsh; but by all means, feel free to disagree. It's a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, anyway.
The point is, though, another one: being homosexual does not force anyone to commit acts of sodomy, exactly as being a pedophile does not force anyone to rape children.
All this is, though, conveniently forgotten by our atheist, Morality-free friends. They suggest, instead, that you text a certain number, after which Amnesty will have another plug possibility everytime they think, or suspect, that someone, somewhere, may, or might, be at risk of being executed for “being gay”. I'd love to have the statistics about real executions, by the way.
Hardly a genocide, I am sure.
If you know any Christian friend or relative of yours who is inclined to give money to these people, you may want to educate them to Faggotry International's agenda: the shameless promotion of heathenism and sexual perversion as a way to get to your wallet.
No, it's not for “being gay”. It's for being a sodomite. A very free choice, that requires overcoming a very strong and very natural sense of disgust, and which is very painful anyway.
I won't send my text. My phone will stay faggotry-free. Fag chappy will have to keep his perversion under control.
And it came to pass a faggot recovered in the hospital after a heart attack told the priest giving him the last rites (I imagine the risk of death must have been rather serious, then…) how beautiful he found it that Francis is one who “does not judge” those whom he calls “gay”.
(Let us stop for a moment here. Several months after Francis' disgraceful slogan, this has become the banner of sodomites the world over. Francis does nothing against it. If he himself is popular, then clearly everything must be fine).
The fag allegedly asks the priest if he has a problem with him being a pervert. Allegedly, the priest says “no”, but then inexplicably – according to the report – refuses to administer him the Sacrament. If it doesn't seem to make sense, it's because it doesn't.
Let us, then, reconstruct how things very probably went, if Catholic priests do what they are supposed to do.
An obviously unrepentant fag is in the hospital after a heart attack, and is either looking for a fight and some headlines, or wants the priest to tell him that homosexuality is next to holiness. The priest might have been more or less orthodox and sensible, and might have told him – or not, as the case may be – what an atrocious perversion homosexuality in itself – qua homosexuality; not talking of the sin of the sodomites here – is.
At some point, though, the priest must have asked the fag if he is fine with his perversion; because you see, if one is openly impugning the known Truth he is clearly not in the position to receive the sacrament, and it is therefore fully irrelevant whether he has a live-in Elton at home or is rather like Daffyd, “the only gay in the village”.
Now, let us see the facts: a priest goes to the rather unusual step of refusing the sacrament to a man officially at risk of dying: was it because he didn't like his mug, or because the conditions weren't there? Yeah, I thought that, too…
You see again here how militant faggotry works: they attack Catholicism and try to force it to bend to their own perversion. They do so often with malice aforethought, so that it is certainly possible the man called the priest precisely in order to provoke him with the “are you fine I am a pervert” thing.
Last but not least, the idiot. This must be the man, or woman, or perverted mixture of the two, who told the press the hospital expects those “working” in the hospital to “adhere to our values”.
Which values? Sodomy? Should the priest have blessed the fag's perversion? Does he work for the hospital?
Or the value is “Tolerance”, perhaps? Well, if tolerance is a value, why it is not tolerated that a Catholic priest does his job? And what does this idiot think, that he/she/whatever can tell to a Catholic priest how to adhere to his own values?
Obviously, there might have been some supreme cock-up from the journalist here; this one here is able to say that the Church “suggests” that “gay couples” are “living in sin”. No she doesn't “suggest” it, you nincompoop. Stop getting your Catholic theology from nonsensical interviews. You're supposed to be a journalist, not the washerwoman.
So there you are: fags and their minions want to impose their own perversion on everyone, and be accepted – otherwise you are raping their “human rights” – as normal, or even good. Heck, they even think they can pick and choose which sacraments they can receive!
We must stop this aggressive militant faggotry at once. We must react as we did with the ” Man Made Global Warming” madness. It can be done. Just let us stop being the sensitive sissies, and the humous for outspoken journalists, politicians and even bishops will be created.
This, or prepare for a Nazi dictatorship of the most intolerant kind.
It won't be funny. Just look at what they do with each other's backside.
This is the oh so moving statement which appeared this morning on my screen as I happened to use – which I do every time I forget to use duckduckgo – the Google service. The link with the Winter Olympics might, methinks, not be entirely casual.
Now, this statement could make half sense – and we would have to discuss about that, too; very much so – if the Russian Government had declared that any known and openly homosexual athlete will be stopped at the frontier and not allowed to take part to the games. Last time I looked, though, nothing of the sort had happened, and the terrible crime of the Russian government is merely to ban homosexual propaganda to minors; which is still far milder than, say, Christianity all over Europe only two generations ago, where sodomising faggotry was pretty much everywhere a criminal offence.
Now, our little queens at Google do not make an explicit statement concerning this. They avoid directly angering the Russian Government, whilst sending a message pleasing enough to the secular masses in the West. It is as if hundreds of millions of people would wake up every morning with a keen desire to “feel good” in some way or other, and Google – who are every bit as rotten as the UN – were only too happy to oblige with sugary good-ism that doesn't even make a real statement, but allows the popolo bue – ah, you should learn Italian! – to swallow another pill of self-validation.
Obviously, Google will not be alone in this kind of exercise. Expect a real festival of sugary statements from politicians everywhere in the West. They pander not only to the very tiny minority of perverts – be assured they don't care for them; and would let them fall like hot potatoes if it was politically expedient – but to the masses of people who decided to make of this tiny minority their favourite pet, at least for the time being.
I know it's difficult to avoid Google. I lapse myself, as Google is now so omnipresent at home and at work that one forgets to avoid them; particularly considering DuckDuckGo isn't really good at image search, which I need for this blog anyway, so I kept falling back to them as a matter of course. Still, we could do worse than putting an extra effort to avoid Google, or at least to avoid it more often. Difficult, I know; but every little helps, at least as a small signal that, if not noticed at Google's headquarters, will be noticed in Heaven.
May I suggest, for this day, three Hail Marys for Mr Putin. I know he is not Catholic, but it seems to me in many things he is more Catholic than, well, the Bishop of Rome, and the former certainly takes his duty to defend Christian values far more seriously than the latter.
Long live Mr Putin, then, and may the Lord inspire him to a more and more incisive action in defence of Christian values.
And it came to pass in France some smartass thought perversion makes for good business and, encouraged by the newly approved satanic legislation, decided to organise a fairy concerning marriage “for everyone” (note the attitude).
Now, what the organisers and those who booked the stands have neglected to think is that heterosexual people might not have a great enthusiasm for mixing themselves with pervs, and the pervs are very, very limited in numbers.Besides, fags hate fags.
The result? A catastrophe. Around 150 people have visited the fairy in total; the total of sales amounts to two rings, bought by a heterosexual couple. It appears the organisers have even hired some young people as “extras” to walk around the place and give the impression it’s not Fukushima after the accident.
What do we, the thinking people, learn from the episode?
1. The vast majority of people, even in a heavily secularised country like France, does not care a straw for perverts. What sways them in the wrong direction is all the screaming about “homophobia”, and the desire to feel vaguely “good”; but really, it appears most of them they do not care one Hollande.
2. If there were the courage to call a pervert a pervert, and this were made clearly and insistently instead of saying “who am I to judge”, this issue could be dealt with in just a few years. Then we could move on to the next interesting step: the destruction of the career of all those clergymen and politicians who have used sexual perversion to promote their own personal advancement.
Alas, it will not happen. As long as the perception is there that it pays to insult God’s laws, there will be no scarcity of people ready to do it from the parliamentary seat, the pulpit, or the Popemobile.
That ridiculous tool in drags going around under the usurped name of “Archbishop of Canterbury” has given another little proof of his total ignorance of the very basics of Christianity.
He is quoted by Vatican Insider with the following words:
[it is] “completely unacceptable and profoundly wrong to look down on, belittle, isolate and cast out those who have different sexual orientations. Homophobia is a huge sin.”
“Mundabor” – they used to say at school – “what does the author want to say”?
He wants to say the following:
1. Every “looking down” of “belittling” of a faggot is “homophobia”. (Yes, ma’am; this is very gay).
2. God makes faggots, as it is clear from the context in which he uses the word “orientation”.
3. To “belittle” a faggot is a huge sin, but we are not told what the sin of the sodomites is. Hey, it’s an “orientation”, though, so come on…
Welby is the typical example of the effeminate society we live in; a society for which God’s laws count for nothing, and the protection of perverts come to the point that even the “belittling” is a “very grave sin”. One would be tempted to ask Mrs Justine what a “sin” is according to her. It can’t be what displeases God, then in this case sodomy would be right there at the top.
It must be what displeases modern sensitivities. Then the wannabe archbishop in rags is spot on. Very grave indeed.
This man is seriously confused. Or perhaps a closet homosexual.
Just what the so-called “c of e” needs to go to hell as soon as possible.
I seem to notice a new turn of phrase around: “men who have sex with men”, short: MSM.
Whilst it is always difficult to know what moves libtards to always new stupid expressions – I struggle to follow the ever-expanding series of initials for faggots, dykes, trannies and assorted pervs – in this case it seems to me the reason for this Neo-libtardism is evident:
1. To suggest that a man might have sex with another man and not be a faggot.
2. To avoid the use of the word “gay”, thankfully now commonly used as mockery.
All those libtards are either practicing perverts, or think there's nothing like “perversion” even if they “happen” to be straight. Therefore, they must try to create the legend that a man might be “bi”, or – as they also say, hilariously – “curious”.
Erm, no. Men like women. Not dykes, nor faggots, nor strange surgeon freaks. Women.
I truly wonder whether the people who use words like “MSM” would mount their dog (MMD), or sleep with their sister (MSS) or their mother (MSMo), or their aunt (MSA) out of “curiosity”. I do not want to know the answer.
These bunch of perverts or aspiring such are trying to sell perversion as another form of normality, and to persuade you it is even compatible with being normal. Their aim is to persuade the mainstream idiot that a “gay person” is not even “different” in any perceivable way from the “normality”.
I truly wonder how many of these perverted retards produce faggots and dykes, or whatever might be in the middle. I mean, what has remained of masculinity in a man even thinking in this way? How can he raise a normal boy, or a sane girl? Is not a man who cannot find anything wrong in a pervert the very epitome of one, though he might not be practicing his perversion? Which sane person would want to have such a father? And this is supposed to be the generally accepted thinking?
Beware of words. They are very dangerous.
I did not know there are people as stupid as that, but evidently I was wrong.
The Poofington Post has an article about a kind of vegan/affirmation cafe shop clearly riding the wave of the many people thinking they can solve their problems, or their existential questions, with extremely gay new age bollocks.
Can you imagine a grown man going to a cafe and ordering his product saying “I am peace” instead of saying what he wants? Apparently, the server answers with “you are peace”, or the like, not only to confirm the – exclusively Vegan; only bad people like Jesus eat meat – order, but clearly mainly to let the sixty-Eighter in front of him feel so good with himself.
These people must be three years old. Five, tops.
The entire linked article is an involuntary parody of liberal America. The chaps “give thanks” to the neighbourhood supporting them. What? Is this Thanksgiving? I assumed that to be grateful to God for your prospering business on occasion of Thanksgiving would be so… un-Vegan.
The shop owners talk like post-lesbian feminists just back from their last Indian trip. They talk of their business as “making a difference”, which means every greengrocer was always a benefactor of humanity without knowing it. The entire thing stinks to the skies of the main ingredient of every conversation among liberals: the desperate desire to feel good with themselves, and to make themselves beautiful with others. No surprise the business is good: the target audience in Southern California must be huge. Ehy, the omnipresent “celebrities” visit! So it must be cool! I wish one day someone would make a census of “celebrities”, and tell us why we should care about what they do. Don’t hold your breath.
The liberal way is obvious: do not care for your salvation. Follow every stupid fad. Behave like a faggot in front of an audience. Praise yourself without ceasing. And most of all, think happy thoughts. It’ll give you a mini-fix for the next two minutes as you keep sliding away in a life without Christ, but making you ohh so thankful to your cat for making your life so wonderfully unique.
This, my dear readers, is the problem when a President tries to polish his image by honouring and being photographed with fags: fags are perverts, and they are going to get themselves into trouble, and the President with them.
The young fag in question, a Caleb Laieski, was managing to build a rather precocious political career as “fag liaison”, or “youth and diversity liaison”, for the mayor pf Phoenix, who obviously considers it extremely important to know first hand what young faggots think and, it is to be supposed, how they act. Clearly, Obama could not let such a photo-op go to waste. Unfortunately for all parties involved, the “think” part may make them look beautiful among Libtards, but the “act” part led to statutory rape.
Alas, it turns out the young fag was even completely aware he was committing statutory rape and resisted at first; but in the end his perversion got the better of even his political ambition. One horny fag, this one.
Lesson for everyone past kindergarten age: a pervert is a pervert is a pervert. Scratch the veneer of White House respectability, and the truth will come out.
Notice that the fag doesn’t write to his young victim “this is wrong”. He writes to him, in so many words, “this could damage my career”.
So selfless. I am moved to tears.
Also notice that – as some of the commenters have pointed out – there seem to have been no fathers around, and it is alleged the mother of the youngest was in agreement with the sodomitical activity of her child. This is the liberal society at its best; that is, its worst. No father figure around, mommy thinks with her liberal v@gin@, and allows her son to be thoroughly perverted so she can continue herself to do what she pleases in an utterly non-judgmental environment. Unnatural parents begetting unnatural sons. The sins of the… mothers, and all that.
I know, I know: dyed-in-the-wool Liberals can cope with Roman Polanski sleeping with a thirteen-years-old child, so they will not have for this fag anything else than sugary understanding. To them a fag is more worthy of protection than a Panda cub, or the Polar Bear.
Still, many other people, who are not so blind, might begin to see behind the thin veil of liberal progressivism, and discover the ugly truth of satanical perverted behaviour.
Well done, Barry Boy.
You deserve the photo with the statutory rapist fag, for future memory.
For many years now has the Gaystapo tried to force their perverted views into the cinema screens and living rooms of the West. Due also to the extreme infiltration of perverts and their friends in Hollywood, where Liberalism is the only accepted religion, they started to make inroads in cinema productions, not as object of more or less amused disgust, but as “new normality”.
At first, faggots were the “friend of the protagonist” in, say, romantic comedies. Visible, horrible, but not at the centre of the action. Then came “Brokeback Mountain”, and faggotry claimed, for the first time in mainstream cinema, “equality” with normality. Needless to say, real and honorary faggots (like David “brown nose” Cameron) were all there queueing at the cinema in front of the press.
After a while, it became endemic: I particularly remember the trailer of a faggot comedy with Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor (not only did I not see the movie, but I never went to see a film of either again), but there were several example both sides of the Atlantic, with the BBC (the Buggers Broadcasting Corporation) having the faggot element in basically every film they co-produced (the “History Boys” one, and the one with the “Marigold Hotel” to mention just two).
Then something, I am told, started to happen. Besides the at times questionable success at the box office, the DVD and TV sales started to lag. Families do not buy or rent the romantic comedy with the “positive” faggot very much, and TV stations must pay more attention than liberal film producers to what they do. Suddenly, things started to go back (or forward…).
I am a rather attentive and frequent cinema goer, and the turnaround seems very clear to me. I haven’t seen “faggot friends” of the movie star for a while, and I have actually seen a movie (“Seven Psychopats”) with a beautiful quip just at the end that only a couple of years before would have caused a storm (remember: Vince Vaughn had to “apologise” for his character saying that the Toyota Prius “is gay”; which, by the way, it certainly is).
The last episode of this slow faggoty Stalingrad is the recent movie about Liberace. Notwithstanding two Hollywood heavyweights and a very media effective, if very stupid, campaign around Michael Douglas, the movie didn’t work. In Germany it is considered the flop of the year, and I was yesterday informed in the US it did not even find a distribution network, ending as a “straight to DVD” that is the best sign of a production that bombed. Now think of this: in order for the movie not to even get a chance it must have been considered radioactive, and the danger of losing money far worse than every bullying and threatening of the Gaystapo. In the end, consumers choose, and I think we can now confidently say the consumers have spoken and said they do not consider perversion normal: they keep their children away for it, have no time for it, have no money for it, and have no interest in pushing the faggoty agenda beyond the ideologically motivated “token gay friends” of some of them.
The people have chosen, and the Gaystapo can go wherever they please. I do not doubt it will be many years before the cleaning has completed, but I can’t imagine there is a going back now.
How the times have changed. From Brokeback Mountain to broke production houses. It serves them right.
In the wake of a controversy between the blogging priest and the blogging queen (search, and you shall find) I would like to offer my two cents in matter of what I see as proper terminology, and proper behaviour for everyone.
I use the word homosexuality to describe the perverted attraction toward people of the same sex. Concerning this, then Cardinal Ratzinger had the following to say:
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
There can be no mistake here: the churche hates homosexuality, because homosexuality is intrinsically evil. This not only corresponds to 2000 years of Christian teaching, but also to sanity and common sense. The one who is not disgusted at the thought of sodomy isn't better than the one who is not disgusted at the thought of incest, bestiality, or child rape. Still, the Church will tell you that the inclination of a person to incest (or homosexuality; or child rape) is in itself not a sin as long as no consent has been given to the thought. I never see this argument used to say that the Church “loves child rapists and hates child rape”. I wonder why?
Therefore, yours truly uses the following words to mean the following:
Homosexuality: that particular kind of sexual perversion consisting in sexual attraction for those of one's sex. Homosexuality is a perversion, and it is in the same ballpark as incest, & Co.
Homosexual: the person afflicted by this particular sexual perversion. This person might try to be a good a Catholic, and not consent to his perversion. In this case he might not sin, but he is still a pervert, and the fact that he fights the good fight may exclude the sin, but it will not negate the perversion.
Faggot (Fag, Sod, Sodomite, Queen): the man who commits the sin of the sodomites. Often, he is vocal about it, adding scandal to sin.
Homosexuality is a perversion. It is extremely bad, revolting, disgusting, an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. The homosexual who does not consent to his homosexual attraction may not sin in the particular instance, but he is not less of a pervert than the paedophile who does not consent to his own kind of abomination. Whilst we try to be charitable to everyone, we can't make what is bent straight for the sake of niceness, and I personally wouldn't want either as neighbour (thank you very much; and you're welcome), particularly if I had children.
“Oh, but he is sooo chaste”
Bully for him. Wish him all the best. My next rosary is for him, that he may get rid of his perversion by God's grace. Sincerely.
But would you have a pedophile as neighbour because he says – or you think – that he is reforming himself? Thought not. If in doubt, ask your wife.
The faggot is, in all probability, Satan's fodder. He bears very clear signs of reprobation, and extremely strong ones if he also gives scandal. I can't imagine many of them repenting, and I can obviously not imagine a single one of them escaping hell who does not repent.
It is a great mystery to me how modern Western societies have de-coupled their judgment of the child rapist from the one of the sodomite, but the most probable reason is because they have forgotten what a sin is: the violation of God's law, rather than the act of ” harming” someone. Sheer stupidity might play a role, though.
The question remains how a homosexual is supposed to behave concerning his affliction. I get rather angry when I read of homosexual, and allegedly pious ones, insisting that they be allowed to “out” themselves.
Does society allow people to say “I am a Caholic and I would love to foxtrot my dog, or my mother, or the neighbour's little child?”. No, it doesn't. The one who has such perversion is required to pray very much and shut up more, lest he gives scandal.
In every demand that one's perversion be “acknowledged” lies the implicit demand that such perversion be accepted. There can never be anything like “Homos for Christ”, because the very shouting that one is a homo goes against the very idea of shouting that one is a Christian.
In fact, the very fact that one is a homo precludes him the Priesthood, and for extremely good reasons. Here it is recognised that a great flaw is present: a flaw that is there even in those instances in which no sin occurs. Said in a blunter way, it's never OK to be a “homosexual Christian”, because it's never OK to be a homosexual.
Therefore, the homo is required to think, speak, and behave straight, without any “born that way” bullcrap. There can be no excuses of “it would be as absurd for me to play straight as for you to play bent”. God does not make any man a homosexual, He makes every man man. Therefore, the homo who adopts a manly behaviour is still going with, not against, his nature, and is conseuenly rightly required to behave accordingly.
Any other behaviour is scandalous, implies the desire for acceptance of one's perversion, and unavoidably leads to the demand of its approval.
There. Now you even have Mundabor's code of conduct for Catholic homos.
What more can you want.
I have already written in the past about what an important weapon -in many ways, a decisive one – language is. Today I feel compelled to make some additional observations.
Most people are, as we all know, shallow and easy to manipulate. Nothing has changed in this respect from the time Alessandro Manzoni spoke of popolo bue, thus highlighting how dim witted and easily steered the masses are. Lenin, who by all his shortcomings was a very smart guy, knew that too. Organised perverts are acutely aware of it, and at least in this we should learn from them.
Modern social battles, almost always pacific, are fought largely with words. Short and punchy slogans are repeated obsessively, until the steers (the masses) start going that way. Words like “gay”, “homophobia”, “inclusiveness” or “LGBT” have been used in this way with great success. When their use became mainstream, people at large simply forgot (respectively) that homosexuality is a disgusting sexual perversion and an abomination in the eyes of The Lord, the repulsion towards perversion is a healthy instinct and the sign of a healthy conscience, moral distinction must always be made in life and sexual perversion comes in a variety of form, all of them revolting.
The newest slogan is “marriage equality”. “Equality” sounds awfully good, you see. Uncritical, or unthinking minds will not enquire whether the case is one in which equality is justified; rather, in their shallowness they will tend to think the one who says “equality” has already won the battle, as how can anyone be against “equality”?
How do we react to this, you may ask. My answer is that we must learn to use the weapon called “language” to our advantage rather than leaving the initiative to our enemies.
For countless generations, shame and ridicule were attached to sexual perversion, and rightly so. Insults and mockery linked to wrong behaviour are an extremely powerful instrument of social control. When perverted behaviour is the target of mockery and devastating remarks, the taboo going with them will be perpetuated and, besides limiting the damage to souls, will make it utterly impossible for the perverts to put themselves at the centre of the public debate.
All this starts to change when the language changes. When a sodomite is not called (I use only one of the many words) a faggot anymore, at some point he will be called… “gay”. When this happens, the stigma has gone, the taboo is dead, and from then on the slippery slope of political correctness will take its course undisturbed.
At this point, the faggot will start wailing like a mutt in a summer night, sure that every mockery directed at him will be stigmatised by all the “nice” people who have long lost the concept of what an abomination faggotry is. The devastating effect of ridicule (so well-known in fact, that during wars no cartoon character escapes the “draft”) has also been voluntarily abandoned, and this will make it very easy for the pervert to pose as victim, and to accuse sound thinking people of discrimination. At this point his game is easy, because most people will have forgotten the extent of the abomination (if it can’t be mocked, it can’t be so bad) and will find themselves at a loss to explain why what their guts tell them about perversion is also the right attitude towards it. The more so, when disgraceful people like Cardinal Woelki, Cardinal Schoenborn and, most recently, Archbishop Paglia pop in, confusing the faithful even more because they are very confused themselves.
When we gave away the mockery and the stigma attached to it, we started to lose. When we recover the consciousness that we have not only the right, but the duty to contribute to the stigmatisation of perversion, we will start to win again, because the shallow unthinking masses now uncritically accepting the rather suave adjective “gay” will be terrified of being even remotely associated with perversion properly called.
You might have noticed no one says “some of my best friends are kiddie-fiddlers”, either.
If you ever had any doubt that David Cameron is the enemy of every Christian in this country, every doubt must have been dissolved after the chap revealed of being strongly in favour of so-called “gay marriages” and to want to start consultations to introduce it next March.
Cameron’s behaviour – certainly not approved by many among his own people, but very probably accepted as part of the effeminate cowardice now become prevalent within the once glorious Tory party – is fully in line with the Cameronian idea that bed-and-breakfast owners who do not want faggots to sleep more uxorio under their roof are intolerant, and with his blatant mockery of Christian values under the usual veil of being “compassionate”.
I will not say what I think of the man, because you know already and I would avoid becoming too explicit.
What I will follow with interest in the next months will be the reactions within: a) his own party (David Davies? Liam Fox?), the Catholic Church and, in case Christians are still among them, the Anglicans.
Let me say that I do not have much hope, as the first group have reduced themselves to street workers ready to do everything if it helps them to stay in power – learning from their boss, no doubt, who has been developing political whoredom to a fine art for many years -, the seconds are led by a clear – if not explicit for reasons of job security – heretic and supporter of sodomy, and the thirds have largely forgotten what Christianity is in the first place.
Still, you never know when the pendulum starts to swing the other way: in the United States the signals are increasing that the decision of the State of New York has been the event that will now start a massive offensive in favour of basic Christian decency (no: decency tout court) and it can’t be excluded that here in the UK this latest push towards institutionalised sodomy will cause the opposition to get organised and to become vocal.
I have said many times – and repeat now – that pieces of legislation like this deprive a country of his democratic legitimation -. Democracy is certainly not a bad idea in itself – Pope Pius XII was a great supporter – but when a democracy betrays Christian values, this democracy loses its right to exist. When the next British Franco comes out – and make no mistake, unless things change radically it is only a matter of time before he does – Christians will certainly not be on the side of such a democracy and those on the side of such a democracy will certainly not be Christians.
It is very naive to think that democracies are destroyed because some small clique of evil people manages to overcome the will of the peaceful, democracy-loving majority. On the contrary, democracies make themselves vulnerable and worthy of getting rid of because they fail to get the support of the masses on the secular plane, and/or want to defy God on the heavenly one.
The Italian democracy succumbed to Fascism because most people were perfectly all right with ditching the first and getting the second. The German democracy was defeated with utterly democratic measures, showing its failing of democratic legitimation in the most democratic of ways. The Spanish democracy died when it was clearly on the way to being substituted by an anti-Christian repressive apparatus. One sees analogies, for sure.
Cameron is working against Christianity, and he is working against the British democracy. He may think that whatever brings to him an electoral advantage in the foreseeable future works for him, but he will change his mind the day he dies at the latest, and his initiative will, in time, further alienate vast strata of the British population from a government system not seen anymore as being in tune with their own values.
In the meantime, you would expect that the Catholic bishops would rise up in arms and start telling Cameron very clearly to shut up and repent, nicht wahr?
Catholic bishops, yes; but no, not our bunch of heretics. They’ll meow a bit, if they really must, but that will be all.
The battle will be fought – and won – primarily in the United Stated. Old, weak, de-Christianised Europe will, as always ,follow.