One of the stupidest stories ever covered in the news is, alas, in the news again. And yet again the point is missed. Ashers bakers refused to decorate a cake with a picture of two characters from Sesame Street because they objected to wording which was to go with it: ‘Support Gay marriage’. Their barrister told Ireland’s ‘supreme court’:
“They would equally have refused to provide that cake with the slogan to a heterosexual customer. Their difficulty was the content of the cake, not the characteristic of the customer.” The customer, Gareth Lees, is an ‘activist’ who perhaps chose the prominently Christian business by mistake. I have no doubt he’s a thoroughly nice person. Continue reading
I don’t really understand the argument against grammar schools because I don’t understand what’s wrong with the principle of selection by ability. It’s used pretty much everywhere else, from sport to space-programs. If there was a way I could know how it felt to be opposed to the idea of grammars then I would try it.
Am I right in thinking that selection by ability is the only way to have a ‘two-tier’ system which is fair? A ‘two-tier’ system cannot be avoided because parents don’t care about other parents’ children. It seems to make sense, then, that the state mitigate this natural trait.
I used to be a red-meat-loving angry and intolerant atheist, whose favourite pastime – when not sucking marrow from the bones of dead babies – was munching on pork scratchings and slurping them down with a cold pint of chicken blood.
Things have changed.
Tim Farron has resigned. This seems to me to be evidence for the existence of God, and an answer – finally! – to the ‘problem of evil’.
Why does God allow evil to exist in the world when he has the power to do something about it? Well, now it seems God has finally taken action to reduce the evil in the world by removing Tim Farron from politics.
Peter Hitchens has written a lengthy piece in response to the latest islamist attack. It is a predictably thoughtful and eloquent article. It’s the most intelligent response I’ve seen. There is much in it to agree with. It is a shame our so-called ‘leaders’ can’t offer responses of this standard. Instead they call the terrorists ‘cowards’ and ‘losers’ when the killers haven’t lost anything and cowardice stifles action. It is our so-called ‘leaders’ who are the cowards.
Mr Hitchens asks on the question of the killers’ enthusiasm when stabbing:
‘I was struck by a particular report in ‘the Guardian’ on Tuesday, in which a London surgeon, sadly used to dealing with stab wounds, remarked on the unusual force of the wounds inflicted by these merciless human horrors on Saturday night. This seemed to me to suggest a level of cruelty and ruthlessness way beyond the ability of a normal person, even a normal criminal. What is the source of this? Some people will say ‘fanaticism’, and I will agree with them that it is a necessary condition in this kind of killing. But is it a sufficient one? Well, how capable are you, or how capable do you think you would be, of real, homicidal violence, even in a cause to which you were committed? I am a former fanatic. I espoused a set of beliefs with homicidal implications. I am not a pacifist, and am ready to defend myself with force. But I was as incapable then, as I am now, of driving a steel blade into a human being.’ Continue reading
I mentioned in a comment elsewhere that Douglas Murray is doing us all a favour by going about the place telling the truth about the Islamist project. Another commentator, who I think is a Christian, said on the serious question of the reponse to the Manchester attack:
This is frivolous in the extreme. What follows are some simple ideas about how to tackle the Islamist project. And a ‘quick fix’ it aint. Continue reading
I detest political correctness. I think it’s the enemy. I mean there are many enemies, but they all come together under one rubric, which is one person is trying to tell another person how to think.
Mr Utley has commented on the wooden delivery of Mrs May’s response to the Manchester mass-murder. As it happens, I agree with his analysis, but I think it misses the point. To consider her style of delivery is to choose not to consider the content – and it’s the content that matters. Probably this point is self-evident, but when we consider surface-matters we can easily be distracted from what’s important.
This morning Quentin Letts suggested that Tim Farron had ‘sold his soul’ over the question of his views on homsexuality.
He doesn’t have one to sell.
The story is a little old now, but it oughtn’t to be, for Tim Farron has some questions to answer; alas nobody would let the likes of me ask them.
Apparently, Mr Farron has ‘clarified’ his views according to Christopher Hope:
‘Tim Farron has finally clarified his view on gay sex after admitted that it had come a distracting “issue” for his general election campaign. The Liberal Democrat leader said in a BBC interview that gay sex is not a sin, after five days of pressure to clarify his stance on the issue. Mr Farron had faced criticism for days for failing to answer questions about his position on homosexuality. Mr Farron refused to say four times in an interview with Channel 4 News last week whether he believed being gay was a sin.’
The most interesting story is missed.