I have no doubt readers of this site will by now be aware of MP Mark Spencer’s suggestion that recently-introduced anti-terror powers be used against those teaching traditional Christian beliefs regarding gay marriage. Like most traditionalists, orthodox Christians, and proper conservatives in general, I realised quasi-totalitarian legislation designed to combat the meaningless abstraction of “extremism” would inevitably be turned against traditionalists, orthodox Christians, and proper conservatives in general. I did not, however, expect to see the idea floated so soon, and by a “Tory” MP no less.
It is indeed a strange state affairs when an MP whose party leader (and PM) has stated emphatically that Britain is a Christian country can suggest with a straight face that orthodox Christian teaching regarding homosexuality is extremist or somehow a violation of British values. I suppose Mr. Spencer also believes a change to the Union flag is in order, seeing as it depicts three crosses. Perhaps we should also demolish Westminster Abbey while we’re at it, and exhume the corpses of practically every soul on the island, as they were undoubtedly all gay-hating, anti-British Christian bigots.
It speaks volumes about the cultural wasteland that is modern Britain that a “Conservative” MP can imply the radical, cultural Marxist notion that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships have social and moral parity – an idea sprouting directly from philosophical seeds planted by the Frenchmen Rousseau, the Frenchmen Calvin, the German Luther, the Italian Gramsci, and the German-Jewish academics of the Frankfurt School- is a “British” value.
One thing that most certainly is a British value, arguably uniquely so, is liberty. But as the Progressive war on both Christianity and liberty only intensifies, with little protest if not outright assistance from the formerly-Conservative Party, it becomes painfully apparent that there are British values and then there are British values. The former of course being the unsavory and offensive opinions held only by those nefarious Breitbart London, UKIP, or Traditional Britain Group types, the latter being whatever values CCHQ believes will make the party appealing to sexual deviants, ethnic minorities, feminists, and effete, effeminate man-children.
T.S. Eliot observed that culture derives ultimately from the cult; British culture is directly linked to the Christian religion, and one cannot hope to preserve (actual) British values without preserving the cult that created the culture that created those values in the first place. Perfectly reasonable social opinions rooted in Christian morality, opinions that for most of British history would have been considered perfectly normal by any sane, educated person, must be protected.
The problem of course is the abstract, meaningless nature of the word “extremism”. Most liberals and progressives undoubtedly find my traditional beliefs extreme, just as I find their poisonous, amoral radicalism equally as beyond the pale. This anti-extremist legislation was ostensibly brought in to protect British society against radical, very un-British Mohammedans with very un-British values, you know, the sort who advocate Sharia law, think women should be forced to wear tents, and encourage people to run off and join ISIS.
If that really is the case, the current legislation should be amended to target Islamic extremism specifically. All “extremism” is not created equally. The worst a Christian teacher is likely to do is hurt the overly-pampered feelings of an adolescent homosexual (the horror!). An Islamic terrorist, on the other hand, is going to murder people. Don’t know about you, but I know where I would like the government, police forces, and courts to be focusing their attention.