two recent examples of breathtaking hypocrisy

Watching television news over the last week threw-up (an apt expression) two examples of hypocrisy more breathtaking than usual.  The first by a leading advocate of homosexuality, Peter Tatchell and the second by Islamic supporters.

Peter Tatchell takes the sexual moral high ground

Pope Benedict XVI is soon to visit Britain.  Now I am no supporter of the Pope nor the Catholicism he represents.  Indeed, I am astonished and not a little dismayed at the level of adulation that is already being exhibited by Catholics.  To me, it seems close to worship.  It is certainly hero-worship.  Yet, that being said, Peter Tatchell’s moral outrage at the Pope (and Catholicism) highly publicized by a left-wing media is by any measure jaw-dropping cant.  Tatchell accuses the Pope of protecting paedophile priests and embedding policies that promote the spread of AIDS (his refusal to allow condoms).

This from the man who only a few years previously advocated the reducing the age for consensual sex to 14, a move in the direction of legalising paedophilia and guaranteed to increase promiscuity and further sexual disease including AIDS.

The primary cause of AIDS is promiscuity.  I do not hear Tatchell denouncing this.  Moreover, as Peter Hitchens reveals, Tatchell in 1997, the same Tatchell attacking paedophilia in the Catholic Church, gave his support for a book that advocated sex between adults and children.  I quote from Hitchens’ article:

For on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start­ling letter to the Guardian newspaper.

In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored. When I contacted him on Friday, he emphasised that he is ‘against sex between adults and children’ and that his main purpose in writing the letter had been to defend free speech.

He told me: ‘I was opposing calls for censorship generated by this book. I was not in any way condoning paedophilia.’

Personally, I think he went a bit further than that. He wrote that the book’s arguments were not shocking, but ‘courageous’.

He said the book documented ‘examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal’.

He gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where ‘all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood’ and allegedly grow up to be ‘happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers’.

And he concluded: ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’

Well, it’s a free country. And I’m rather grateful that Mr Tatchell, unlike most of his allies, is honest enough to discuss openly where the sexual revolution may really be headed.

What he said in 1997 remains deeply shocking to almost all of us. But shock fades into numb acceptance, as it has over and over again. Much of what is normal now would have been deeply shocking to British people 50 years ago. We got used to it. How will we know where  to stop? Or will we just carry on for ever?

As the condom-wavers and value-free sex-educators advance into our primary schools, and the pornography seeps like slurry from millions of teenage bedroom computers, it seems clear to me that shock, by itself, is no defence against this endless, sordid dismantling of moral barriers till there is nothing left at all.

Tatchell’s sanctimony is nauseating as is the left-wing media that gives him air-time.

Islam, the religion of peace attacks those who oppose it

The second example of cant is from the wider world.  It concerns an American Pastor’s resolve to burn the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11.  He insisted that Islam was not a religion of peace and was intent on burning the Koran as a protest.  Now the Pastor was undoubtedly misguided in his resolve.  Book-burning is inflammatory.  Moreover, it was an act likely to endanger Christians and soldiers in Islamic countries.  However, it is just here the hypocrisy arises. For around the world a surge of Islamic outrage erupted – not peacefully but violently (it seems as if the Pastor had a point).

And this aggressive and intimidating outrage against an insignificant Pastor (why did the media even pick up on such an minor person, a pastor in a church of less than fifty) threatening to burn the Koran is no isolated act of Islamic aggression.  Islamic countries – ruled by the Koran, the book of peace – regularly  turn a blind eye to the deliberate raping of Christian women by Islamic men, the persecution of Christian minorities within their culture, the murder of Muslims who convert to Christianity, and often the abuse of Christian missionaries who work in their country.

However wrong the American Pastor was in threatening to burn the Koran, his assessment of Islam seems to be true.  The response of Islam to his threat was hardly peaceful and the record of Islamic countries in matters of basic human rights bears little scrutiny.  Islamic outrage is humbug and is hollow.

the pope and harriet harman

Cranmer is a well known blog.  It is Conservative with a big ‘C’ politically and fairly conservative with a small ‘c’ religiously.  Its purpose is to examines ‘religio-political agendas with politico-religious objectives’ in society.  It is amusing, acerbic and apposite.  Below is an extract from blog on the recent climb-down by the Labour Party on the Equalities Bill due in no small part it appears to the public criticisms of the Pope.  Five Million Catholic votes no doubt matter to Labour at this point.  Whether you are blue or red (or yellow) politically Cranmer’s comments are on the button.

When it was decreed that ‘the Pope of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England’, it was a declaration that the government of England is not subject to any foreign prince or potentate.

But, like nature, politico-religiosity abhors a vacuüm.

The greatest sorrow and tragedy is that the Pope’s intervention has demonstrated the undeniable spiritual vacuum which emanates from the black hole within Lambeth Palace, and the almost total abdication of responsibility by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Of course the Pope should not be ‘interfering’ in UK politics: that is the constitutional role of the Established Church. And yet, if they are silent, God will speak through another and say what He wants to say.

And the people are evidently listening, whatever their politics, religion, race, gender or sexuality: the Pope has articulated something of the English tradition of liberty and the instinct of the people for freedom from tyranny.

And the reality is that people now feel less threatened by the Pope than they do by their own government: they fear the Vatican less than they fear Parliament; they despise politics more than religion; they respect the Roman Catholic Church more than the Church of England; and they honour the Throne of St Peter more than the Throne of the United Kingdom.

It is a sad day indeed when we need the Pope to remind us of our history, customs and traditions.

But when we are already subject to a foreign power, unable to make our own laws or govern ourselves according to those customs and traditions, and when our Parliament, Government, Monarch and Church are all apparently complicit in that occupation, one must thank God that the King of the Vatican is prepared to ‘interfere’ and remind us of the source of our spiritual strength, the fount our political power and the origins of our philosophical greatness.

The rest of the blog can be found here.

not so gay

Please read this revealing article in The Times by a practising homosexual who is now ‘going straight’.  It is a valuable exposé of  homosexual culture.  It will upset many campaigning homosexuals, demonstrating as it does that the carefully constructed public image of responsible sexual behaviour and close warm relationships in the homosexual community is effectively a myth.