Normalising perversion/fornication: Alfred Kinsey BBC Teens

[Caz]

The following posts were originally under the BBC Teens Page thread, link here: http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12273

and are now available below:

[Caz]

[Caz]

Mark Gobell Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:16 am

[Caz]

[Caz]

Caz Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:41 pm

[Caz]

Caz Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:57 am

http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/en/media/xcms_bst_dms_19827_198 28_2.pdf

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

England used to be a more Christian country – true or false?
http://gettingtothetruthofthings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/england-used-t o-be-more-christian.html?m=1

(Note: This blog is a summary of Matthew Grimley’s brilliant journal article ‘The Religion of Englishness: Puritanism, Providentialism, and “National Character,” 1918-1945’. With a few asides from me.)

Ever heard this said? “Forget it, when was this supposed golden age? It’s a total myth. Britain isn’t a Christian country now and it never was anyway.”

Get ready for the surprising truth. Get ready for some facts. And when you hear them, I think you will conclude that there really was a more Christian England, and it wasn’t very long ago. Even non-Christians agreed: Englishness had a lot to do with the church. And the church had a lot to do with Englishness. Despite what some would have you think, this English Christianity was not a jingoistic England of imperialist religious institutions. This was the gentle humane Christian-styled culture of the ‘ordinary’ English people. When was this? Broadly, this essay reflects the changing world of 1900 to 1960. Growing up in the 60s and 70s, I could see that world still existed in part, but that’s another story.

As recent as the Second World War, “The Miracle of St Paul’s” gave the English people hope. What was this, you may ask? In the blitz of falling German bombs, with London burning, St Paul’s Cathedral was intact. It stood proud. This was God’s providence, people said. It was a symbol that God would deliver the nation from the terror of Hitler’s forces, and the nation drew hope from it. Don’t just put this down to the war. This was possible because people were used to seeing pictures of churches as part of the beautiful English land, as a symbol of the English people, and not just in books. Day-trippers in the 1930s visited churches. Novels featured churches as a positive symbol. The wartime images were riding a popular wave that had already been flowing before the war.

What kind of Christianity was this? It was distinctly English, with deep roots in English history. It was Protestant , it was tolerant, it wasn’t very demonstrative. For the first half of the twentieth century, that was how the national character of England was thought of. You may have thought that the 20th century church was always in decline – not so! Church attendance for one thing yo-yoed up and down. Protestant churches gained numbers in the 1920s. That goes for the Church of England and for other Protestant churches, such as Congregationalists, Baptists and Methodists. Then in the 1930s they all declined, although the Church of England managed to keep people on its electoral rolls by and large – it seems people still felt more attached to the Church of England. Indeed after the ravages of war, the Church of England’s numbers by 1960 were back to pre-war levels. But the other denominations were shrinking.

But here’s the thing. Don’t just look at numbers. That’s the sort of mistake that lazy newspaper editors make. The church had something much more powerful, what some people call ‘soft power’. Whereas church membership would be ‘hard power’, this soft influence was seen in the Christian aspects of British culture, politics and ethics. Our older generations can remember how it was just taken for granted that there would be regular Christian broadcasts on the BBC, or that there would be Christian remembrances of the war dead. These things were started then, but are being challenged now. They were more acceptable to society then because it was felt that England’s “national culture and identity were inexorably tied up with Protestantism.” (Matthew Grimley’s words).

This idea of English ‘national character’ applied to the broad mass of English people around the nation, not just their politicians and leaders. This character wasn’t really about jingoistic colonial patriotism, even if some would have you think that. Actually, writers across the political spectrum thought of English national character as celebrating gentle virtues: “tolerance, modesty, eccentricity, and individualism.” (Grimley) It was something about the English. Scottish writers said so too – they saw the English as having a different character from the Scots. Of course, we have these things from a small pool of writers from those times, but there was a national audience that lapped it up – the evidence is there in the records of talks on the radio, popular history books, newspapers. This was not merely the stuff of old institutions, as some would have you think. It was of the people too. The spiritual dimension of Englishness – if there was one – was a thing fused from England’s memories, its religion, its language, its education and law. Another nation could have a story to tell of its own character, and the English had a character of their own.

This was not about the English people as a ‘race’. It was an idea of the English as a ”people”. The racial part of English national character was less significant compared to the bigger factors of the environment of England and English culture, including its religion. To make the point that it was not just about an English “race.” even between the wars, there were writers making a virtue of the diverse ancestry of the English – for example the benefit brought to the country by Christian-heritage refugees from France – the Protestant French Huguenots.

To make the point that this was not just about institutions, take the fact that England’s most influential religious teachers were laymen in church terms, from lay preacher Wycliffe’s English Bible translation, through the poet George Herbert, John Bunyan, or the ordinary people as Puritans. The English people love a layman, and were - still are - a bit suspicious of professional experts. (Perhaps the influence of amateur political thinker Russell Brand on young people – a huge irritant to many including myself - is actually quite a traditional English phenomenon, dressed up in modern fashions. He’s a nod to the English eccentric too.) The English always saw practical experience and tradition as the best teacher in life. Some have thought that this was the reason that ideologies, especially ones that demand obedience – for example, communism – never really captured the public imagination enough to break the English way of life.

Now you may know that Wycliffe, Bunyan and others were persecuted for their faith. True enough. But in the tolerant Christian England of the early 20th century, it was safe to rehabilitate the memory of long-dead Christians who had been mistreated by the so-called Christian State.

The English were – and are - a bit inward-looking, a bit restrained, so the tendency of their religion to be one of private piety (with occasional flourishes) is not surprising. Let’s qualify that a bit. On the one hand, the Church of England is traditionally celebrated for being moderate, able to compromise between its different traditions, and able to live with Non-conformists next door. On the other hand, the Non-conformist churches are traditionally celebrated for volunteering themselves to bring needed change to society – from the temperance movement to the Salvation Army’s social work among the cast-offs of society. In the 20th century, these two wings were no longer really seen as rivals for the soul of England, but as historic shapers of English Protestant character.

Between the wars, Englishness had more or less stopped being anti-Catholic too, because Ireland seemed less of a national threat after it achieved its independence in 1922. Catholics weren’t really seen as English but Englishness was no longer seen as a movement away from Catholicism. In fact, Englishness was freed a bit from broader Britishness too by other events – such as when the Welsh Anglican church was disestablished (in 1919) as well as the Irish church. Welsh and Scottish churches were asserting different cultural traditions, so the English were free to be English in a distinct way. And Nonconformists, with more freedom in the nations, were more comfortable with the Church of England being part of national life and being an emblem of national character and more representative of the nation’s Christianity. It wasn’t all like this of course. The Oxford Group (heard of them?) was paving a path to more charismatic Christian spirituality, while the likes of Brethren churches as ever liked to keep themselves to themselves. But the Church of England and the Non-conformists in general were the big influence. (The steadfastness of Nonconformist churches over the generations was, in the 20th century, recognised as a healthy influence on English character.)

Meanwhile, the English (King James Version) Bible – along with the Book of Common Prayer - was seen as a healthy and vibrant influence on the English language. I remember an old Brethren elder very attached to his King James Version, resisting the growing influence of the New International Version Bible in my church. This, I think, was an example of this English attachment to the literary English brilliance of the KJV. I wasn’t appreciative of it then, but now I realise that it was part and parcel of Christian England. It was the translation loved by both by the Church of England and the Non-conformist Christians. It is the Bible people had in their homes and their churches. I don’t use it – language has moved on – but it is beautiful English and it was a source of the language of the ordinary people. Even non-Christians like George Orwell loved it, and regretted that others did not know it as well as they should by the mid-20th century. Even in the early 70s, in school assemblies we infants were praying to our Father 'which art' in heaven. Not just because this was fossilised religion, but because this was the religion a people long held.

Come to that, in those same school assemblies, a parable usually called The Unforgiving Servant was expounded and it has stayed with me ever since, just as a few old hymns do: There Is A Green Hill, We Plough The Fields, He Who Would Valiant Be. This was the stuff of Christian England.


That brings me back to the ‘ordinary’ people. I was surprised to discover that before 1960, common English people would be proud to be called ‘Puritan’. Why was I surprised? Simply, because in my lifetime the word has been used as an insult to suggest religious people are killjoys, sexually repressed ‘Puritanical’ types, a negative influence on life. This has how things have been spun. I feel I’ve been sold short. Because now I know that Puritanism was – to the ordinary English people – the beating heart of the English. The Puritan tradition had shaped our national character. Once the provenance of the Non-conformists, the term ‘Puritan’ had become a common term of approval. It embodied tolerance – the Nonconformists strove to be tolerated by the establishment in past centuries and showed tolerance in return. Puritanism also embodied the virtues of following one’s conscience, independence, hard working, taking life seriously, even “manly vigour” (Grimley). Writers on England’s national character wrote positively of the Puritan tradition in national life.

How on earth did such a positive word as ‘Puritan’ come to mean sexual repression and negativity? Because like so often in the confusion of the modern world, lies and spin have buried England’s Christian past in a grave of untruth. Barely glimpses remain in our language today, but you see its legacy here and there. The veteran Labour MP, Dennis Skinner, not a name on the lips of many Christians, was once noted for his ‘puritan and temperance brand of socialism’. In a recent interview for the Morning Star (a socialist newspaper), Skinner said this on drinking alcohol in Parliament:

“Coming from a mining background , if anybody had been in the Miner’s Welfare [a bar] before they went in the shaft, if the onesetter knew that someone had been going in the pub they’d not go on shift. So I decided I wouldn’t go in the bars [in Parliament]. It’s not because I’m puritanical. People said I was eccentric and it wouldn’t last, but it has. And I don’t feel any the worse for it after 44 years [as an MP].”

Funnily enough, although Skinner uses the word ‘puritanical‘ in a negative tone, he is speaking up exactly for the traditional attitudes of the English Puritan – temperance, integrity, independence, hard work – and here too is that hint of English eccentricity. Here, in this Englishman of a working class mining town, is the old Puritan Christian England, but without Christian faith. He is precisely an Englishman of the 20th century, an elegy for a world disappearing around him. The hints are everywhere when you start to see them. Even D.H. Lawrence whose heavily sexualised novels have played a part in the de-Christianisation of sexual ethics in England, saw Non-conformist hymns as “the clue to the ordinary Englishman.”

The greater weight given to democracy in post-World War One England came from the Christian Puritan’s independent conscience and from the practices of Congregationalist assemblies. This democracy was a tradition that had grown and developed separately from the institutions of the State. It was voluntary – it was a product of the Christian people. Our political freedom and social progress owe a lot to England’s Puritan tradition. It was always distancing itself from the institutions of the State. It was people power, separate from State power, especially from any religious control which would try to overrule your conscience. It is a spirit of liberty. Some have argued that this sort of peaceful ‘anti-State’ attitude in the ordinary people is just the sort of thing that Germany was lacking in falling under the spell of dictatorship in the 1930s. In the war that followed, English radio was still speaking to the English about traditional things like “Anglican moderation, Puritanism, the English Bible” (Grimley) – and these are all things that reflect the traditional Christian English resistance to control by the State.

This wariness of the State had strengthened after the horrors of the First World War. These had led many to doubt that God worked through the State at all. God’s providence used to be understood simplistically as the hand that gives the State victory. But English Christians grew in the belief that God’s providence could hold the State back from abusing its power. (So it was even argued by some that God’s will for the British Empire was really to help the peoples of the Empire to learn how to run their own countries and empower them to independence.) All the same, come the Second World War, Churchill’s belief in God’s providence helped him and the British people to go through the war in hope of victory. And St Paul’s cathedral, standing intact in the blitz, was a symbol of that hope in God. There were National Days of Prayer: the last one was in 1947.

Then came times of new doubts. Handing over the Empire to its peoples confused many of the English. What did that mean for God’s providence over England? Also, after the war, there was large scale immigration into Britain of Commonwealth peoples of other religions, which brought the ‘What about other religions?’ question to the surface. It seemed too simplistic to make a generalisation about England being a Christian country now, or about what the national character of England is. Nowadays, talk of ‘British values’ seems confusing and meaningless to many, but this is a new problem. Before the 1950s, it really was not such a problem. This was culturally a Christian country and the national character of the English was Christian in many ways. (Other groups – Catholics especially – were on the periphery, but that’s another story.) What now? Well traditional English ideas of religious tolerance have found a place in discussions about multi-culturalism. But multi-culturalism is itself a rejection of the idea of one national character. So we are in new territory for the English.

In this era – our era – in which the idea of one embracing national character is dead, English religious observance has declined too. The shared national sense of being a Protestant country held up better for longer than religious observance. But only for a time.

That concludes my summary of Grimley’s article. Now for my confessions. Part of me says, “That old world was Christendom, in which people were taught they were Christians but weren’t taught the gospel. Good riddance to it! Bring on the true gospel!” A friend of mine hated the Church of England because, having never heard the gospel in all his years of growing up there, he only later heard it in an evangelical church. He was anguished - why hadn’t he heard it in the Church of England? He was so bitter over it that I found it difficult to listen to, but I knew what he meant. I never heard the gospel until I went to an evangelical Christian Union at University. And when friends shared the gospel with English people, they encountered people who had no understanding of the need to respond to the gospel because they had undergone infant baptism, and they thought that was all they needed. It was frustrating. It seems simple to condemn this absence of the gospel. But there’s another side to this. The seed needs fertile ground to grow in. Perhaps our Christian surroundings had helped me and my friend to respond to the gospel when we finally heard it.

Let me put this another way. In the 1950s, Billy Graham preached the gospel in Harringay. Well over a million people heard the gospel during his mission. People who responded to the gospel numbered tens of thousands. It was an overwhelming positive response. Was that something to do with it being in some ways a Christian country still? Would he find the soil so fertile now in secular England?

The knowledge of the past helps us as we face the challenges of today and the future. New hope for Christianity in Britain has come from a number of directions, not least from church communities from Africa who are mission-orientated. But the threat from secularism is growing. Secularists say secularism is neutral when in fact it is not: it wants to ensure there is no fertile ground for the gospel such as we used to know. We must not hand ground over to secular ideologies. We must not throw away Christian England’s virtues that were ours after hundreds of years of endeavour.

It is not all against us. The English are still suspicious of elitist professional experts. Perhaps that is why many in England highly resent the ivory tower academic ideologies of political correctness. PC dogma has the whiff of everything the ordinary English distrust. Secularism has not fully won the day, and anxious secularists know it. Secularism was a failed 20th century experiment but secular elites are still shaping our culture, according to Dave Landrum (director of advocacy at the Evangelical Alliance). In government and media, a secular worldview is the default, whereas it would have been a Christian worldview that was the default in the past. For this reason, the only way to get a Christian worldview heard in the public space is to do it ourselves and not leave it to someone else, to provide Christian leadership in public life – a voice that is not ashamed of the gospel. When there is talk of ‘English values’ or ‘British values’ it is down to us to tell the truth about how the heart of these values is the church. Without the church, British values might be running on empty. They are already being overtaken by ivory tower values that are as un-British as you can get. The State is ordering the ordinary Christian to leave his or her conscience at home and follow the dictats of secular Political Correctness – or else. Non-conformists of the world, unite!



The Truth Of Things
Dedicated to getting to the truth of things. A Christian since 1984. (Just a Christian, without pigeon-holing into a denomination.) I like people to be free to ask their questions about Christianity and the church. I like to approach faith questions with my brain switched on. A qualified classicist and historian. Tweet: @colin_bluenose And I don't look like James Garner. Enough about me already.
Tuesday, 26 May 2015

[TonyGosling]

One woman’s quest to expose the pedophile Alfred Kinsey and his demented sex ed curriculum

Abortion , Alfred Kinsey , Contraception , Croatia , Propaganda , Sex Education , Transgenderism

December 22, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Alfred Kinsey. That name ought to evoke outrage. If it doesn't, then you don't know the man, his work, or his legacy.

I am one of those persons who had never heard of Alfred Kinsey, the so-called father of sexual education. I, like many of my generation, went through sex ed at school and never really thought of the reason I was learning what I was learning. My experience was with the Fully Alive program in a Catholic school in Ontario, where I learned about the detailed parts of the male and female genitalia in grade 6 and about masturbation in grade 7. I was a grossed out young girl, but that was the way it was supposed to be, I thought.

Then I discovered Karolina Vidovic-Kristo, and Alfred Kinsey.

This discovery happened in 2013 as I was researching an article I was writing on Croatia and the newly introduced sexual education. As my father is a Croatian immigrant to Canada, I try to keep abreast of current events in the motherland. In 2012, the Croatian government introduced a revised sex ed curriculum which sparked outrage. Sounding the alarm bells with this curriculum was Vidovic Kristo, a respected Croatian television journalist employed with the state public broadcaster.

Vidovic Kristo was recently in Canada at the invitation of the Croatian diaspora. Her message was pertinent for all Canadians: expose Alfred Kinsey, his research, and its aftermath. I had the opportunity to hear her story, and understand her message, when I heard her speak at an event in Toronto and later when I interviewed her.

Dr. Alfred Kinsey was an American zoologist and later sexologist who founded The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. His research on human sexuality sparked controversy in the '40s and '50s, with the publication of his reports "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (1948) and "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" (1953). He is considered the father of the sexual revolution, as his reports changed social mores forever. Kinsey's questionable research was also catalytic in changing several U.S. state laws, including legalizing prostitution, legalizing homosexuality, and reducing and eliminating most sex crime penalties.

Vidovic Kristo, 40, was the producer, editor, and investigative journalist of an international Croatian program on HRT (Slika Hrvatske/Picture of Croatia), promoting Croatia abroad and keeping the diaspora connected to their homeland. "I had three kids in primary school," she said, "and when I attended parents council meetings, 90% were against sex ed, and 10% were for it. However, all of these parents could neither explain nor defend their positions. I was compelled to research sex ed myself."

As the debate over sex education was heating up in Croatia, a country where 86% of the population identifies as Catholic, Vidovic Kristo found herself watching The Kinsey Syndrome and Kinsey's Pedophiles, documentaries exposing the horrors of Kinsey's research. These horrors include Kinsey paying pedophiles to rape children and time it with a stopwatch. "As I watched the production, I felt sick and disgusted. I felt awful. I thought: people don't know what has happened. They need to know!"

At that moment, she decided to do a show on sexual education and expose Kinsey's research. In December 2012, Vidovic Kristo aired her program, which included excerpts from Kinsey's Pedophiles. The public reaction was immediate. "My phone was ringing off the hook. Parents who were once divided on the sex ed issue were now uniting against sex ed, simply because they were informed of Kinsey's crimes."

The following morning, the TV network board publicly apologized for the show, refuted its contents, and then indicated that Vidovic Kristo would be reprimanded for misusing her position and being unprofessional. The state, the network, everyone official was against her.

"However, people were supporting me. For the first time, the Croatian people came together. Croats – no matter what nationality, religion, ideology – everyone was on the same side of protecting children. This is because they got to know the truth and stood out to protect those who cannot protect themselves – the children."

Soon, Vidovic Kristo found friends and allies around the globe and across faiths: American Kinsey expert Dr. Judith Reisman, who has published several books, papers, and movies on Kinsey's pedophilic and fraudulent research, and Timothy Tate, an British agnostic and left-leaning liberal, who produced and directed Kinsey's Pedophiles. Both came to Croatia shortly after Vidovic Kristo's program was aired to give her support to discuss Kinsey and sex education and to comment on Kinsey's research.

According to Kinsey's books, his published research, and the statements of his assistants in various interviews, not only was Kinsey's research flawed, but it was also criminal. Child sexuality research data was collected from the personal logs of several pedophiles – one in particular kept detailed diaries of over 800 sexual encounters with children, and even with babies as young as two months old. Kinsey also collected data and financially compensated fathers who were sexually abusing their own children. He even collaborated with infamous Nazi pedophile Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, who diarized his sexual abuse of hundreds of pre-adolescent girls and boys. At the trial of von Balluseck, the judge criticized Kinsey for not having reported these crimes to police.

Kinsey also presented his research as representing the average American man and woman. Yet to obtain his data during the war, many of the men he selected to represent the average male were prison inmates, many of whom were jailed for sexual crimes. Kinsey also included several hundred male prostitutes in his sampling. To collect data from married women, he broadened the definition of "married" to include any man who lived with a woman for a year, including prostitutes who lived with pimps.

As a result of his questionable "research," Kinsey made unbelievable statistical claims, including the following: 10-36% of men are homosexual; homosexuality, incest, rape, pedophilia, and even bestiality are normal, and 95% of men engage in these behaviors; 40% of married women are having affairs; 25% of married women are having abortions. This abortion statistic is said to have been the catalyst in convincing lawmakers to legalize abortion.

In the film Kinsey's Pedophiles, Dr. Paul Gebhard, Kinsey co-author, states on camera that the Kinsey team solicited child abusers and obtained child "sexuality" data from pedophiles as well as a pedophile organization. Off camera, as part of the court reporter's transcription, Paul Gebhard states that this organization was the predecessor to NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association).

So was any of Kinsey's research valid? According to the New York Times (December 11, 1949), W. Allen Wallis, then chairman of the University of Chicago's committee on statistics, commented: "There are six major aspects of any statistical research, and Kinsey fails on four."

According to the film The Kinsey Syndrome, Kinsey convinced U.S. lawmakers to lower the age of consent and reduce sentencing for sex crimes, going state by state to achieve this objective.

In her book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequence, Dr. Reisman explains how since the '60s The Kinsey Institute was determined to incorporate Kinsey's philosophy into sex education material for children. They partnered with Planned Parenthood to achieve this objective. Dr. Reisman exposes how it was Kinsey's research that claimed that children are sexual and potentially orgasmic from birth and are unharmed by incest and adult-child sex and often benefit from such activity. His influence also inspired Hugh Hefner to launch Playboy Magazine.

So all of this sexual psychopathology is what started sexual education? Apparently, yes. Kinsey's research (which was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation) led him to draw the conclusion that children are "sexual beings" from birth. This flawed premise (flawed because the research is flawed) is what sexual educators in the world use to justify their mission. However, as Karolina Vidovic Kristo learned, and then shared with society, sex ed will never be acceptable as long as it is based on Kinsey and his pedophiles.

As a result of her exposé on national television, Vidovic Kristo was nominated for "Homophobe of the Year 2013" by Zagreb Pride, the organizers of the annual pride parade in Croatia's capital. In their open nomination, Zagreb Pride emphasized that they nominated her because she uncovered that sex ed is based on pedophilia. In response, Vidovic Kristo wrote an open letter demanding to know who is actually accusing her and why. She demanded to know why an organization, which promotes itself as a gay-organization, felt attacked if somebody researches pedophilia as a crime. After that letter, they stopped attacking her, and this past September, she won a court settlement for her defamation suit against Zagreb Pride.

Vidovic Kristo has received death threats – against herself and her children – yet she continues her mission to expose Kinsey's crimes.

"How could people know about Kinsey? The only country where this truth was aired on public television was Croatia. There is no mass media who talks about Kinsey in this spotlight. No one talks about Kinsey. So how would people know?

"If we say Kinsey is what he is (as his own personal research notes clearly demonstrate), then how can his work be called science? How can his thesis that children are sexual beings from birth be relevant in any way when we know that his thesis is based on pedophilia?

"Modern sex ed began in the sixties. It was based on Alfred Kinsey's model of human sexuality. Everyone's sexual education in the past 50 years came right from the Kinsey Institute. How can we teach sexual education? His research was based on crimes and lies. Raping babies, infants, and children is a crime everywhere. His so-called science, including sex ed at schools, which is based on Kinsey, should therefore be dismissed immediately. Everything else, any discussion about the unacceptable, is like hurting all those innocent children, all those victims, again and again."

In April 2014, the United Nations granted The Kinsey Institute ECOSOC accreditation. In response, Dr. Reisman, Timothy Tate, and Karolina Vidovic Kristo, among others, launched a campaign from Croatia called "Don't Touch the Children," with one of their first items on the agenda asking the U.N. to re-examine the Kinsey accreditation. A letter was sent to each head of U.N. member states explaining the nature of the Kinsey research, including the pedophilic data and evidence. Not one member state acknowledged the letter. Yet in the face global apathy, her precarious employment situation, and death threats, Vidovic Kristo soldiers on.

"I don't consider it so difficult. Yes, every time I think about those things [Kinsey] did, it makes me sick. If I know this information, do I have the right to keep my mouth shut about it? It is easier for me to continue this work than to fight myself, my conscience, and do nothing."

[TonyGosling]

WHILE THE CHURCH SLEEPS...
Dr Lisa Nolland says we need to take seriously the pan-sexual revolution which is overwhelming our society
https://www.e-n.org.uk/2016/11/features/while-the-church-sleeps/

The only suitable open space for trying out flail tanks was a local cricket pitch. Complaints were silenced with: ‘But there’s a war on’.
After reading John Benton’s editorial ‘I hope I’m wrong…’ (en September), the scenario of a war came to mind. The editor points to the evident suppression of religious freedom around human rights issues on sex and marriage across the West and ponders an underground church future.
Those of us who track the present ‘wars’ (the pan-sexual revolution which is becoming increasingly totalitarian) have long been alarmed. Most evangelical Christian leaders seem unable to comprehend the magnitude of what is going on and the woeful inadequacy of our engagement.
Before it’s too late

However, it is not too late. In the main we are in this situation because our church leaders have refused to challenge the claims of the sexual revolution or admit the epic consequences of failing to do so. My goals here are: first, to learn from the past; and then, second- ly, to explore positive, strategic responses.
Readers may or may not agree with my analysis. However, I ask that the full significance of current events be allowed to sink in. These wars are not ‘just one more thing’, but world-changing as well as insidious. They have enveloped Western institutions while an apparently vocal, thriving and upbeat church was busy elsewhere. If leaders are not fussed, why should others worry?
A recent example involves a Christian primary school teacher a year or so on from heavy involvement in her university CU. Now, forced to teach her 5–6 year olds about gay marriage in a ‘nice’ CofE school, she has concerns. She even had a child announcing he was ‘gay’. Though well taught by her CU, she ponders the lack of attention to this area.
Déjà vu

It is not overblown to say that events of the 1930s are relevant to present struggles. Here are three observations:
First, we look back on the 1930s with angry incredulity at the blindness of German Christian leaders. How could they have ignored events at the heart of public life, occurring before their very eyes?
Well, are we any different? The press of preaching duties, conferences, programmes, financial and pastoral crises, etc., mean that politically-incorrect, controversial issues just get buried. The herd/tribe mentality is as strong as that of ‘Let’s just be positive. God is good, all the time!’
The culture in church circles is a million miles away from that of many secular workplaces. Moreover there are potent but subconscious assumptions made by leaders. Given (almost daily) LGBT conditioning, many in their flock now ‘see the light’, but because of the subconscious but tacit ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, aren’t saying.
Habits of the heart

Another way of speaking about this relates to de Tocqueville’s ‘habits of the heart’, unspoken but powerful operating assumptions which pre-determine what we are willing to give plausibility to and engage with.
Why was Churchill unwilling to ignore what was happening in Germany in the 1930s? What did he have which far more respectable opponents like Halifax lacked? The latter chose to turn a blind eye and thus tacitly collude and, after September 1939, actively appease. Churchill was willing to know, which made all the difference. People may not be losing their lives but they are losing their jobs for being non-pc.
What counts as evidence?

Secondly, and this time from the Jewish angle, what factors led some Jews to flee, while others, facing the same horrific developments, chose to stay? Was it a matter of where they chose to focus their attention?
I am hearing evangelical Christians dismiss concerns like mine. For instance, Stonewall isn’t in their school now so why the fuss? And I am told that people like me just give Christianity a bad name.
So what happens when staff (and Stonewall supporters) demand their school become ‘safe’ for all? With set-ups like: ‘So, you want gays to kill themselves then, do you?’ it is game over. Of course we don’t want gays to kill themselves, but the set-up’s point is simply to shut down any argument.
The implications of the fact that Stonewall (just one LGBT programme) is presently in several hundred schools appear not to have registered with Christian leaders, nor have milestones like Prince William’s and the Red Arrows’ recent promotion of gay rights. Though Christian leaders can and do ignore them, others are not so lucky.
Undoubtedly some educators, Royals and RAF members are deeply disturbed, but where is the resistance?
I’m all right, Jack

Thirdly, I think of Niemöller’s haunting saying: ‘First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out…’ ending with Niemöller’s own arrest with no one left to speak for him.
In the same way, countless Western Christians are sacked, fined, etc., for opposing LGBT rights in public but find themselves deserted and even blamed for the mess. Just because we may not agree (necessarily) with every aspect of every case does not mean that we don’t need to stand for freedom of conscience and speech and association for all. And church leaders need to show the way in this.
Positive strategic responses

We are involved in two different but related theatres of war. The first revolves around the increasingly ‘alternative’ pan-sexual revolution which is particularly targeting our children. The second is an alarming growth of political totalitarianism under the guise of being PC and non-discriminatory. Note: I agree some PC concerns are good; I focus on the bad.
Justin Welby now heavily promotes LGBT concerns. Though I believe his solutions are wrong, he is right to highlight their plight.
The New Atlantis has recently exposed ‘born gay’ mythology while affirming sexual fluidity; lesbian psychologist Lisa Diamond has also re-emphasised sexual fluidity and the reality of change for both minors and adults of both sexes.1 Given Lambeth’s ethos, will Archbishop Welby even get the memos?
In terms of the wider church, because there is such profound ignorance and mistrust of psychology, those who find themselves with unwanted same sex attraction (SSA) are not being offered proper help.
Joseph Nicolosi explores the imprisoning role of unresolved shame and trauma; www.josephnicolosi.com/ has more. Mike Davidson and CORE Issues Trust in this country help increasing numbers out of homosexuality as well: www.core-issues.org/
The ‘New Normal’ Conference

Christian Concern is putting on The ‘New Normal’ Conference on 12 November, meeting at Emmanuel Centre, London, to equip delegates to engage with the increasing confusion about sexuality and gender at home, in schools and in society. What would you do if your daughter says she is a boy or your son decides he’s gay? What about Stonewall’s claims to make schools ‘safe’? Safe for whom? These and other concerns will be addressed.2
The church is understandably wary of direct political engagement. However, because almost everything now is ‘political’ it must up its game. ‘Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics won’t take an interest in you’ (Pericles).
In Maryland, for instance, biological males who claim they are females now can play on girls’ sports teams, and that includes showers, overnight sleeping arrangements, etc. Parents must not be informed. Trans’ rights trumps all, even those of youngsters who could be seriously traumatised. Where is the outrage?3 Massachusetts is also forcing LGBT accommodation onto the church, yet who sounds the alarm?4
We live in a democracy and have a duty to get involved, based on proper information. The American elections are coming soon. Do Christians know where both candidates stand on vital issues such as LGBT rights and religious freedoms? They are very different, yet I am constantly hearing the opposite. LifeSiteNews and Franklin Graham offer helpful analysis.5
Finally, because we live in a global village, please pray! My Kenyan colleagues are worried sick by the thought of a Clinton victory, largely because of how they have suffered under Obama’s LGBT Crusade, and she promises to up the ante.6 So for them November is almost a matter of life and death.
1. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender. pdf; http://www.aoiusa.org/american-psychological-association-course-correc tion-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-not-fixed-after-all/
2. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-new-normal-tickets-26945911948
3. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/transgender-madness-is-sweeping-our -schools.-parents-protect-your-children
4. https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/09/09/massachusetts-forces-lgbt-accommo dation-rules-on-churches/
5. For instance, https://www.lifesitenews.com/ajax/email-article/news/hillary-clinton-r eligious-objections-to-homosexuality-like-supporting-honor; https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-reaches-out-to-catholics-names -advisory-board-that-includes-santorum; https://decisionamericatour.com/about/
6. http://www.advocate.com/current-issue/2016/7/25/advocate-interview-hil lary-clinton

[Life]

This bunch of academic hooligans needs to be included in the promotion of all things debauchery :

In Profile : György Lukács and the Frankfurt School

http://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/profile-frankfurt-school/#st hash.5pwyUxKS.dpuf

[TonyGosling]

More British people identify as nonreligious than Christian, finds report
Deconversion the 'major factor' in rise of population without religion

Jon Sharman 4 hours ago5 comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-christia n-more-non-religious-faith-agnostic-atheism-report-a7737856.html

Nonreligious people like atheists now outnumber Christians in the UK REUTERS
More Britons say they have no religion than profess to be Christian, according to a new report.

According to the British Social Attitudes Survey and the European Social Survey, the "major factor" in the development is that people who are brought up to be religious are losing their faith. More than two-thirds of non-religious people were raised as Christians or in another faith.

Nearly half - 48.6 per cent - of UK adults say they are not religious, compared to just 43 per cent who are Christian. The proportion of Christians in the UK has dropped from two-thirds of adults in 1983.


READ MORE
US faith leaders unite to decry Trump’s ‘weaponisation of religion'
Professor Stephen Bullivant, of St Mary's University in Twickenham, analysed the data and said the "rise of the nonreligous" was "arguably the story of British religious history of the past half-century".

Scotland, Wales and the south-east of England were the least religious parts of the UK, where more than half of people said they had no personal faith.

Inner London, where more than a quarter said they followed a non-Christian religion, was the most pious part of the country, where only 31 per cent of adults were atheists or otherwise nonreligious.

The Anglican Church has suffered a "heavy" decline since 1983, Prof Bullivant said. And "the age profile of Anglicans, especially, is very heavily skewed towards the older generations".

Prof Bullivant wrote: "No religion has been Britain’s largest religious grouping for over two decades: 1993 was the first year to record more Nones than Anglicans, and this has remained the case ever since.

"Looking at the long-term pattern, the nonreligious share of the population has shown strong growth over our whole period, with a mean increase of 0.5 percentage points per year from 1983 to 2015.

"The year 2009 was the first in which Nones outnumbered all Christians put together. With the single exception of 2011, this pattern has held ever after. In two years, 2009 and 2013, Nones formed a majority of the adult British population."

At Easter it was revealed about a quarter of people who did say they were Christian did not believe in a central article of the faith - that Christ was resurrected from the dead.

A ComRes survey even found that 5 per cent of people who described themselves as "active" Christians did not believe in Jesus' resurrection.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Sexuality: publicly normalising under age sex, pornography, infidelity, fornication and all forms of sexual deviance is nothing less than a war being waged on society. While the plight of the poor & homeless is virtually ignored.

[TonyGosling]

Government error delays online pornography age-check scheme
20 June 2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48700906

An age-check scheme designed to stop under-18s viewing pornographic websites has been delayed a second time.

The changes - which mean UK internet users may have to prove their age - were due to start on 15 July after already being delayed from April 2018.

The culture secretary confirmed the postponement saying the government had failed to tell European regulators about the plan.

Completing the notification process could take up to six months.

In the House of Commons, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright said an "important notification process was not undertaken for an element of this policy".

All you need to know about the under-18 porn block
How do your porn habits compare?
Does pornography still drive the internet?
He said the UK government had failed to inform Brussels about key aspects of the scheme.

Mr Wright apologised for the delay and said it was still the government's intention to bring in the age-checking system.

No silver bullet
The plans for compulsory age-checks for UK porn viewers - which the government has described as a world-first - were designed to stop children "stumbling across" inappropriate content.

Once enacted, it will mean pornographic sites will have to verify the age of UK visitors by law. If they fail to comply they will face being blocked by internet service providers.

There has been confusion over how it will be enforced, with suggestions that websites could ask users to upload scans of their passports or driving licences, or use age-verification cards sold by newsagents nicknamed "porn passes".

Campaigners have also repeatedly raised concerns about the privacy and security of the scheme.


Media captionPast moves to police pornography in the UK
Critics also say teens may find it relatively easy to bypass the restriction or could simply turn to porn-hosting platforms not covered by the law.

Twitter, Reddit and image-sharing community Imgur, for example, will not be required to administer the scheme because they fall under an exception where more than a third of a site or app's content must be pornographic to qualify.

Likewise, any platform that hosts pornography but does not do so on a commercial basis - meaning it does not charge a fee or make money from adverts or other activity - will not be affected.

Furthermore, it will remain legal to use virtual private networks (VPNs), which can make it seem like a UK-based computer is located elsewhere, to evade the age checks.

However, the authorities have acknowledged that age-verification is "not a silver bullet" solution, but rather a means to make it less likely that children stumble across unsuitable material online.

[Caz]

BBC Radio One:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/50295603@N02/48888768292

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Why We Should Legalize Bestiality (Hear Me Out, It's Not as Crazy as You Think!)
By Sabrina Miller • 14 August 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20210608011817/https:/fleajournal.com/summ er-2020/rough-why-we-should-legalise-bestiality-wait-hear-me-out-its-n ot-as-crazy-as-you-think

See also
https://electronicintifada.net/content/meet-sabrina-miller-student-who -waged-campus-war-israel/34176

At a dinner party with friends, I casually mentioned, between bites of crispy potato, that I thought bestiality should be legalised. Unsurprisingly, I was met with howls of moral outcry. People riding in on their high horses (no pun intended) filled to the brim with disbelief and disgust. In between bites of overdone chicken, and medium-rare steak they unironically lectured me on the importance of protecting animal rights.

The hypocrisy was perfectly illustrated in that brief exchange. My friends are happy to consume cattle, consequently consenting to the murder of around 1.97 million bulls a year. They’re happy to drink dairy, implicitly subscribing to the forcible impregnation of domesticated cows, but sex—sex is where they decided to draw the line. Arbitrary, no?

We as a society don’t care about the consent of an animal (I mean we don’t exactly ask it for permission when we slaughter it for meat) so I see no reason why the government needs to legislate against bestiality. It’s not protecting a vulnerable party (or at least one that’s deemed worth protecting)—that is why the meat and dairy industry is thriving—and therefore it is absurd that the government should control such an intimate aspect of our lives.

Legalising bestiality does not encourage it, nor does it make it compulsory (for those of you who were getting worried). But for the few individuals concerned it allows them to live freely, and in a way that makes them most comfortable.

Honestly, why not? According to the National Survey of research in 2018, 52% of people said they ‘do not regard themselves as belonging to any religion’. We need to let go of our sentimental Judaeo-Christian ideas about sex. We must free ourselves from moral inconsistency and let people do what they want with who, or whatever they want (as long as they are safe about how they do it).

Let’s be as laissez-faire as Finland or as liberal as Hungary (both of whom have no legislation preventing bestiality) and roll back this invasive and hypocritical law.

People unsuccessfully try to argue that having sex with animals is far crueller than murder; however, that argument isn’t fooling anyone. You cannot genuinely believe forced impregnation, separation of calf from cow at birth, and gruesome murder is less cruel than sex. If you don’t support bestiality because you believe it contravenes the rights of animals, you should probably stop lying to yourself and try veganism (or at the very least become a vegetarian).

As you’ve probably guessed by now, this reductio ad absurdist argument lends itself more readily to a pro-vegan argument than it does to a genuine ploy for beastiality. Whilst society is consistently inconsistent, we must try our hardest to ensure our values are as logical as possible. If you really think porking an animal is more inhumane than killing a pig and eating its pork then I think you need to ask yourself why that is, and perhaps think long and hard about the way animals are treated by the meat industry.

I tend to avoid preaching about vegetarianism or veganism, but once in a while we need to think about how darn inconsistent we are when it comes to the way we treat animals. The fight for bestiality is definitely a unique segue into veganism but for me is far more compelling than attaching a link to ‘cowspiracy’.

Whilst we live in a society that unflinchingly murders animals, legalising bestiality seems to make a lot of rational sense. Ideally however, I would like to live in a society where the rights of animals are totally protected—in and outside of the bedroom!

Sabrina Miller studies English Literature at Bristol University.

The painting is titled ‘Uh Oh’ by Lucy Harwood. Lucy studies Art and Philosophy at Reading University. You can find Lucy on Instagram @lucy_h_art.

[TonyGosling]

The Billionaires Behind the LGBT Movement
by Jennifer Bilek
1 . 21 . 20
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-billionaires-be hind-the-lgbt-movement

Not long ago, the gay rights movement was a small group of people struggling to follow their dispositions within a larger heterosexual culture. Gays and lesbians were underdogs, vastly outnumbered and loosely organized, sometimes subject to discrimination and abuse. Their story was tragic, their suffering dramatized by AIDS and Rock Hudson, Brokeback Mountain and Matthew Shepard.

Today’s movement, however, looks nothing like that band of persecuted outcasts. The LGBT rights agenda—note the addition of “T”—has become a powerful, aggressive force in American society. Its advocates stand at the top of media, academia, the professions, and, most important, Big Business and Big Philanthropy. Consider the following case.

Jon Stryker is the grandson of Homer Stryker, an orthopedic surgeon who founded the Stryker Corporation. Based in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the Stryker Corporation sold $13.6 billion in surgical supplies and software in 2018. Jon, heir to the fortune, is gay. In 2000 he created the Arcus Foundation, a nonprofit serving the LGBT community, because of his own experience coming out as homosexual. Arcus has given more than $58.4 million to programs and organizations doing LGBT-related work between 2007 and 2010 alone, making it one of the largest LGBT funders in the world. Stryker gave more than $30 million to Arcus himself in that three-year period, through his stock in Stryker Medical Corporation.

Stryker founded Arcus right when the AIDS epidemic was being brought under control in the U.S. Before he started Arcus, he was president of Depot Landmark LLC, a development company specializing in rehabilitating historical buildings. This would serve him well when he later renovated space for Arcus in Kalamazoo. He was also a founding board member of Greenleaf Trust, a privately held wealth management firm also in Kalamazoo.

Jon’s sister Ronda Stryker is married to William Johnston, chairman of Greenleaf Trust. She is also vice chair of Spelman College, where Arcus recently bestowed a $2 million grant in the name of lesbian feminist Audre Lorde. The money is earmarked for a queer studies program. Ronda and Johnston have gifted Spelman $30 million dollars overall, the largest gift from living donors in its 137-year history. She is also a trustee of Kalamazoo College (where Arcus bestowed a social justice leadership grant for $23 million in 2012), as well as a member of the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows.

Pat Stryker, another sister to Jon, has worked closely with gay male Tim Gill. Gill operates one of the largest LGBT nonprofits in America and has been close to the Stryker family since Jon created Arcus. In 1999, Tim Gill sold his stakes to Quark, his computer software company, and went to work running the Gill Foundation in Colorado. Working closely with Pat Stryker and two other wealthy philanthropists, who together became known as the four horsemen due to their ruthless political strategies, they set out to change Colorado, a red state, to blue. They proceeded to pour half a billion dollars into small groups advocating LGBT agendas. Gill noted in his opening introduction for Jon Stryker at the 2015 GLSEN Respect Awards that, since knowing each other, he and Jon have “plotted, schemed, hiked and skied together,” while also “punishing the wicked and rewarding the good.”

Prior to 2015, Stryker had already built the political infrastructure to drive gender identity ideology and transgenderism across the globe, donating millions to small and large entities. These included hundreds of thousands of dollars to ILGA, an LGBT organization for equality in Europe and Central Asia with 54 countries participating, and Transgender Europe, a voice for the trans community in Europe and Asia with 43 countries participating (Transgender Europe has also funded smaller organizations like TENI, Transgender Equality Network Ireland).

In 2008 Arcus founded Arcus Operating Foundation, an arm of the foundation that organizes conferences, leadership programs, and research publications. At one 2008 meeting in Bellagio, Italy, 29 international leaders committed to expanding global philanthropy to support LGBT rights. At the meeting, along with Stryker and Ise Bosch, founder of Dreilinden Fund in Germany, was Michael O’Flaherty—one of the rapporteurs for the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (principles outlined in Indonesia in 2006). With the Yogyakarta Principles, the seeds were planted to bring in and attach gender-identity ideology to our legal structures. O’Flaherty has been an elected member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee since 2004.

Out of the Bellagio meeting, Arcus created MAP, the LGBT Movement Advancement Project, to track the complex system of advocacy and funding that would promote gender identity/transgenderism in the culture. Simultaneously, the LGBTI Core Group was formed as an informal cross-regional group of United Nations member countries to represent LGBTI human rights issues to the U.N. Core Group members funded by Arcus include Outright Action International and Human Rights Commission. Core Group member countries include Albania, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, El Salvador, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, and the European Union, as well as the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

These initiatives promote gender identity and transgenderism by training leaders in political activism, leadership, transgender law, religious liberty, education, and civil rights. The lineup of Arcus-supported organizations advancing the cause is daunting: Victory Institute, the Center for American Progress, the ACLU, the Transgender Law Center, Trans Justice Funding Project, OutRight Action International, Human Rights Watch, GATE, Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA), The Council for Global Equality, the U.N., Amnesty International, and GLSEN. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS), in partnership with Advocates for Youth, Answer, GLSEN, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), has initiated a campaign using a rights-based framework to inform approaches in reshaping cultural narratives of sexuality and reproductive health. Sixty-one additional organizations have signed a letter supporting an overhaul of current curriculums.

In 2013 Adrian Coman, a veteran of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (a driver of transgender ideology that has begun initiatives to normalize transgender children), was named director of the international human rights program at the Arcus Foundation, to drive gender identity ideology globally. Previously, Coman served as program director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. And in 2015, Arcus worked closely with and funded NoVo Foundation programs for transgenderism. NoVo was founded by Peter Buffett, son of billionaire Warren Buffett.

These programs and initiatives advance gender identity ideology by supporting various faith organizations, sports and cultural associations, police department training and educational programs in grade schools, high schools (GLSEN, whose founder was brought to Arcus in 2012 as board of directors, has influenced many K-12 school curricula), and universities and medical institutions—including the American Psychological Foundation (APF). Arcus funds help APF (the leading psychology organization in the United States) develop guidelines for establishing trans-affirmative psychological practices. Psychologists are “encouraged” by those monies to modify their understanding of gender, broadening the range of biological reality to include abstract, medical identities.

Concurrently, Arcus drives gender identity ideology and transgenderism in the marketplace by encouraging businesses to invest in LGBT causes. Lest we forget, Stryker is heir to a $13.6 billion medical corporation. One only has to look at the corporations supporting LGBT during pride month this year to ascertain the success Arcus has had in this arena.

As the example of the Arcus Foundation shows, the LGB civil rights movement of yore has morphed into a relentless behemoth, one that has strong ties to the medical industrial complex and global corporatists. The pharmaceutical lobby is the largest lobbying entity in Congress. Although activists present the LGBT movement as a weak, powerless group suffering oppression and discrimination, in truth it wields enormous power and influence—power it increasingly uses to remake our laws, schools, and society.

Jennifer Bilek writes from New York City.