The Bayview Review

EMMANUEL MACRON: A Man For Various Seasons.

By Paul Merkley.

……………………………

Recent European National Politics.

Just recently, European national politics has come to be dominated by novices – men who had little political experience before being swept into top office by a bedazzled electorate.

(In fact, we could broaden that canvas to include Donald Trump, elected  President of the USA in 2016 while never having held public office  — but that’s a subject for another time.)

The most significant of the factors behind this phenomenon is, of course, the magic of national and international news-media and general entertainment media, working in tandem to produce instant fame  – thus short-circuiting processes which until recently normally required years and even decades.

In Western Europe, the sudden celebrity of national politicians is linked to another phenomenon — the abrupt appearance of brand-new political parties, led by new and untested political personalities. This story has played out within the last few years in Spain, in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Western Europe.  With little notice, these new parties have in just the last two or three years bounced out of government the long-established political parties (generally described as ‘centrist” by their supporters and “elitist” by their enemies) which have dominated governments of Western Europe since the end of the Second World War.

Typical of these recent political whirlwind romances  is the story of the movement called Us with Salvini, which  sprung up suddenly in Italy as a poplar response to the out-of-control immigration of Syrians and other Arab-Muslims, tolerated by an Italian government that was founded on older “centrist” parties. Supporters of Salvini’s party, like supporters of like-minded “populist” movements in the Netherlands, in Spain and elsewhere, have come to sudden notoriety on account of their hard-boiled stand against illegal immigration and against the attitudes towards this reality that have characterised national media and elitist opinion generally. Salvini’s party, in cooperation with a  sister party, Lega Nord, participated in the June, 2018 general election, gaining enough seats to qualify  the party for partnership in the  government and to qualify Matteo himself to take the job of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior. 

Recent French National Politics: The Meteoric Career of Emmanuel Macron.

Definitely belonging to this broader European story has been the sudden rise to the Presidency of France of Emmanuel Macron. Significantly before Macron the youngest French head of state had been Napoleon—who virtually blasted his way to power. We live in a gentler age: the same numbing effect that Napoleon achieved over the French mind was accomplished almost overnight on behalf of Emmanuel Macron by means of quiet, well-organized journalistic propaganda campaign.

But today, as I write (January 9, 2018), President Macron is well into the third month of massive civilian protests against what the French public perceives as his indifference to their daily struggles, his attachment to the interests of the rich and powerful, as the economy sinks further each month The “yellow vest” (gilets jaunes) movement began at the end of November as a grassroots rebellion against taxes on diesel fuel and the high cost of living. It opened with the blocking of roads, occupying highway tollbooths and the rush of citizens from the countryside into Paris.

Understandably, given the duration of the protest, the numbers participating have declined. But those who remain to thrust themselves to the front ranks have begun orchestrating ever more violent provocations. At one point they brought a forklift truck to the doors of a government ministry compound, torched cars on and around the Champs Elysees, and managed at one location to kick riot police officers to the ground. Last Sunday, Macron wrote on Twitter: “Once again, the Republic was attacked with extreme violence – its guardians, its representatives, its symbols.”

The number of active demonstrators began tending downwards early in the New Year. But the police have begun responding with greater severity, and it is not clear which side has the public’s sympathy for now. Retail sales have been ravaged, as fear has kept the public away from some of the most prestigious centres of commerce. (See, Helene Fouquet, “The Miseducation of Emmanuel Macron: Stunned by December’s vehement protests, France’s president takes refuge in the past,” December‎ ‎20‎, ‎2018‎ )

These protests take their name from the yellow vests all French drivers are required to keep in their cars in the event of an emergency on the road. There’s a paradox!  The government, by mandating this item for inclusion in in everyman’s automobile, has been laying-by the uniform for the greatest mass-movement of the French people’s resistance against itself since end of world war Two!

Arguably, absolutely everything in France needs fixing. The national debt is close to 100 percent of gross domestic product, and interest payments cost €42 billion this year alone . (“Emmanuel Macron calls for order after ‘yellow vest’ attack on police,” December 23, 2018, Agence France-Presse.)

Beyond doubt, President Macron has been cut down several pegs, and is beginning to look more and more like President de Gaulle, the wartime hero of the “Resistance”—who posed successfully as an inflexible pillar of strength – until he abruptly turned away in disgust and resigned after losing a referendum in 1969

We know that Emmanuel Macron is not a man for all seasons—not a man of steady convictions. He has proved inconstant (to put it mildly) in matters of political loyalty—having started public life as a Socialist. Likewise, in the matter of  religion.  As a teenager, he  sought and received baptism as a Roman Catholic, against the protests of his parents — usually a decision that requires some steadfastness in this post-Christian age. But later he confessed that he was not so sure about that any more.. He explained much later that he was then “at “the start of a mystical period that lasted for a few years,” until he turned agnostic and left the Church.  Then, prior to meeting Pope Francis in June of 2018, Macron told the world that he was an agnostic.

Asked last year whether he believed in God, he would divulge only that “I believe in a form of transcendence, that’s why I thoroughly respect the role of religions in society” – which has the stamp of a declaration of faith composed by UNESCO.  (“Meeting with Pope puts Macron’s religious views in spotlight,”. The Local. 25 June 2018 (via Wikipedia.)

 It would be foolish to imagine that such a man has the steadfastness to lead France, let alone “the Free World,” through its the present global crisis of confidence

The Case for the cursus honorum

While it is clear that modern media have made possible instant fame, they have also contributed to the illusion that fame is the same thing as accomplishment.

The politics of the Western world stands in need of many things, but possibly what it needs most is resuscitation of the ancient Roman concept of  cursus honorum—the principle that people should not move on to the highest offices until they have proved themselves, and grown a few years older, in a sequence of lesser offices.

…………………………..

THE BIBLICAL WITNESS TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS

By Paul Merkley.

………………………..

When I was twelve years old ( I think ), our Pastor, Caleb Harris, called on me to read the lesson for the Sunday Service during the week of Christmas  (1945, I believe.) My Mother smiled up at me from the front row. My Father smiled from the choir – not  the heavenly choir ( not for a few decades more), but the Indian Road Baptist Church of Toronto Choir.

The text that I was given begins:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.).And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.  And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David… to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. Luke 2:1-6.

If I have the chronology correct, my mother was likewise great with child – which turned out to be my younger brother, David.

As I had rehearsed my part in the service, alone before Pastor Caleb Harris a few days earlier, I formed one of the great intellectual commitments of my life: that the Bible, which I already understood was meant to be the source of the faith that would see me through to my end, was also a book of History – made of the same materials as the History lessons that we had at school.

I wanted to know: “Who was Caesar Augustus? Who Was Cyrenius?

I have read enough of the academic and semi-academic and pseudo-academic literature on the matter of the “historicity” of the Gospel accounts to have no concern whatever that anything is due to appear anywhere in time and space that will have the power of contradicting the historical truth of the Gospel account – the most developed account anywhere of the circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ.

In his next Chapter, Luke spews out boldly names of the famous people of his time, who would be recalled clearly – if not in their persons, in terms of their current fame –by his first readers:

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,  Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Luke’s intention is clear—and it is bold, even brazen. He is challenging  people contemporary to events of his Gospel to draw back their minds to those days, only a few decades back in time, and try to remember where they were when these famous characters strode the earth. It is all meant as a challenge, thrown down to contemporaries, to check Luke’s story against their own  recollections or those of their parents and friends. The challenge was to any and all who doubted the events  of the Christian story — everything that His disciples were now saying about His life and his message, as they set out after His resurrection to walk to the ends of the earth.  There is no escaping the spirit of Luke’s challenge to his contemporary audience: If I have got any of the details of this story wrong step up and challenge me.

I have never believed that these lines from Luke’s gospel compel belief in the meaning that Christians attach to the life of Jesus of Nazareth , but I can say that that Sunday morning over seventy years ago I believed that I was proclaiming historical fact and that the congregation, in responding, was confirming confidence in historical fact.

It is not at all an ambiguous matter: Christian faith is based upon proclamation about the meaning of events that are among the most thoroughly-documented of their time. Along life’s way I have met lots of partially-educated souls, many of them clergymen, who pretend to believe that historical validity is somehow extrinsic or even irrelevant to the Gospel story. “What matters,” they say, “is that Jesus is in your heart.”  But this remains a precious fraud: if Jesus did not walk and talk and speak as the Gospels what is in my heart remains something without objective reference –an exercise in solipsism: Are you really sure that what lives in your heart really does derive from the life and the testimony of the Man, Jesus of Nazareth?

This contempt of certain pious souls for two thousand years of continuous witness takes solid flesh at the so-called Garden Tomb, or Gordon’s Tomb outside the northern wall of the Old City of Jerusalem. Here a continuous caravan of America tourist buses pulls up before a cluster of three tombs, in a familiar First-Century style. These caught the attention of the famous General Gordon as he reclined in comfort, across the street, in the home of an America family, the Spauldings, who ran the so-called American Colony of Jerusalem. “Gosh,” said the General ( or something similar) “Are those not long-abandoned tombs that I see over there?”  Indeed they were – abandoned some time early in the Second Century. You will see many others of the same kind and of the same provenance elsewhere in the Holy Land. “And don’t’ those little mounds behind them look like great Skulls? By Jehovah, that must be the Place of the Skull (Matthew 27) and these must be … yes, yes, yes, the remains of the tomb of Jesus! This means that that Church of the Holy Sepulchre cannot be what has been claimed for it! Protestants could now take custody of the real Calvary, conveniently located far away from the dark and spooky site secured about for about 1800 years already, by archeology and by faith. Most providentially of all: there is no parking problem here!

Only a Nineteenth Century Model of a Model Major-General would ever have imagined that the world would sit to hear such arrogance and such ignorance of history played out. But it has worked. Sadly, most of the grown men and women who sign on for tours of the Holy Land under auspices of the major “Evangelical” and “Pentecostal” denominations will never get within several city blocks of the site where, as History and Archeology thoroughly validated over nineteen centuries ago, took place the execution and the Resurrection of Jesus.

Does it matter ? Of course it matters! These things cannot have happened both  there and here!.

The Gospel make claims about the largest matters that are and they claim that these matters follow from specific claims, built upon specific events in specific time and specific place. The contemporaries of the Apostle Paul fully understood this. They were not interested in hearing yet another fantasy about things that go on in otherworldly realms above or below us. The woods were full of such fantasies in those day.

But now today, such is s the contempt for History  among our publically-educated masses today, that leaders of our churches are  sedulously instating fantasies, made of the same stuff, back into the empty spaces where most people put the details of such history as they will ever hear in their lifetimes.

There are some small difficulties of reconciliation apparent in the Gospel’s historical narrative. For example: so far as the secular historical record shows, this gent Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was not the Governor of Syria at the time of the Gospel story, although he does seem to have been in that office a little later. If this is a discrepancy, it is the only one of note and seems to be pretty small change. (In my view, the most reliable source for these matters is a book now considered antique by today’s Bible scholars, but which is so well-fortified with scholarly reference that it is without rival among the literature of today. I have in mind Alfred Edersheim, The Life and times of Jesus the Messiah ,1883.)

As for the awkward anomaly that Jesus’s date of birth seems to have been around 6B.C., the fault here is with the shaky official Roman records and not with the Gospel record. [See Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel Publications, 1991, pp.24-28.]

To my knowledge, neither any archeological discovery nor any literary discovery has managed to discredit any statement of fact to be found in the Gospels. The fact that secular commentators manage to keep alive rumours along these lines is entirely owing to the low level of preparation for discussion of theology and history that obtains in nominally learned circles today.

…………………………………………………………………………….

PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIANITY.

By Paul Merkley

……………………………

Some Contradictory Trends in the Church today.

 Two contradictory trends mark the situation of the Church today.

 Despite the consensus among journalists and media types,– always supremely confident, almost always supremely wrong — the Church of Jesus Christ is growing in numbers everywhere in the world –in some places rapidly, in others barely. Nowhere in the world is the church in absolute decline, although here in the West it may be in modest, relative decline.

 The notion that the church is in decline supports the self-esteem of people who dimly remember being hauled off reluctantly to Sunday School or to Mass as children, and who now draw their imagery of self-liberation from the elite establishment’s contempt for the uneducated masses.

 The other false generalization about the Church today – dominating most minds in the West, whether “religious” or not –  is that Christianity began here in our midst somewhere and was subsequently disseminated there,  throughout the world, through various missionary enterprises – the missionaries being nowadays reckoned as prominent pioneers in the story of oppression of other races. On all counts, this is historically indefensible.

 When Christianity appeared in the second quarter of what we call the First Century Anno Domini, its home was in the place where now stands the State of Israel, but what was then Palestina—a Province of Rome’s Empire. The masters of that Empire despised the Jews for their record of un-governability; and, after destroying the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, they made clear their contempt for the Jews by naming the region Philistia, after Israel’s ancient enemy, the Philistines.

 So thorough and so brutal was Israel’s campaign against the indigenous “Canaanites” that they ceased to exist as an intact nation. In Jesus’ time on earth, however, travelers might encounter pockets of non-Jewish folk who called themselves “Philistines”. In the usage of the Jews of Jesus’ time, Philistines had become a generalizing and invidious label to describe Jews who dissented from the traditions of the mainstream of Jewish people.

 The people who call themselves “Palestinians” today are of course Arabs, descendants of the warriors who swarmed out of the deserts of Arabia on the advice of Prophet Muhammad in the mid 7^th century, sweeping away the several small Christian Kingdoms that then occupied these lands and imposing by force the new religion of Islam.

 Perversely, some leaders of churches here in the West have gone along with the hoax, advanced by Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO, that the local Arabs, the descendants of Muhamad’s conquering warriors, the people who call themselves “Palestinians”, are descendants of the Canaanites, and thus have an “aboriginal” claim to the land—trumping the claim of the Israelis.  The complicity of some church leaders in this massive hoax, is of course driven by contemporary deconstructionist politics and has no foundation in history. The fact that it gets off the ground at all is made possible by the massive spirit of contempt for history, which operates in tandem with the spirit of anti-Judaism – the source of all so-called “anti-Semitism.

 Geographical Aspects of the Future of Christianity

But now get a grip on something! It now seems that the centre of gravity of Christendom is shifting to Africa.  This should not come as an earth-shaking thought, given that, as Professor Brian Stanley of Edinburgh University’s Centre for World Christianity, points out, “The period in which [Christianity] appeared to be indissolubly linked to western European identity was a relatively short one, lasting from the early sixteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries.” https://www.christiantoday.com/article/a-growing-church-why-we-should-focus-on-the-bigger-picture/49362.htm

 About six centuries after Jesus’ time on earth, an entirely unrelated race, the Arabs, illiterate and uncouth, came screaming out of the East, bent on destroying everything related to the history of the region – for that matter, to all history everywhere. Christian people had been the masters on that scene, and therefore Christians suffered most from the depredations of these masters. But it was not until the Twentieth Century that it became feasible for Christians born in that part of the world to take their families, their culture, and (usually) their faith to the New World and begin a new life. For most, this involved trans-planting their old churches in unfamiliar soil.

 Christians are today under persecution everywhere. In our own part of the world, the persecution takes mild forms. Clergymen and bishop as well as virtually all persons who publicly identify themselves as Christians are excluded from the discussions that take place at the highest levels of social and political life. Our elites never stand up for Christianity; indeed, they do everything possible to be seen as indifferent or hostile to it. This fact creates great disadvantages in some respects; but, perversely perhaps, it can create advantages of a limited sort.  Only the most poorly informed imagine that Christians or Christianity are part of any oppressive force. No informed person sees Christians as part of the power elites.

 Perhaps the last toe-hold that Christian theology had in the open air was for that brief few days when the Baby Jesus appeared in public spaces everywhere in His wooden crib, while angels and shepherds presided. Even these vestiges are gone – driven away from popular gaze by atheist-zealots who imagine that they are protectors of the young minds from religious zealots The spaces previously occupied by manger-scenes is now give over to advertising Black Friday and Boxing Day Sales.

The theme of the Death of Christianity is assisted by the circumstance that the particular churches that might be remembered from youth by presently-aging members of the cultural establishment have been declining for decades. These would include Anglicans (Episcopalians), Lutherans, Presbyterians,  some branches of Methodism and a certain constituency among the Baptists. The branch of Protestantism that has most successfully overcome the pattern of decline that seems to apply everywhere else has been the branch called Evangelicals. Under which most include the Pentecostals. This company of “Evangelicals” includes a growing category of churches that are entirely unaffiliated to any denominations. “Evangelicals” now make up fifty-five percent of all U.S. Protestants.

Evangelical Growth is Good News for Israel.

It is among these Evangelical Christians that support for the State of Israel is most solid. Also worth noting by beleaguered Israelis is the fact that Evangelical Christianity has grown in numbers in most European countries since 1990 — even while the population of these same countries has declined.

Informed Jews (not the vast majority) know that the most devotedly pro-Israel, pro-Zionist, constituency of all is here, among Evangelical Christians  To take only one indicator- self-described  “Evangelicals” make up a larger portion of the annual company of visitors to Israel than do American Jews!.

But while these indicators of modest growth among European and American Evangelicals should re-assure most Jews this is as nothing compared to the dramatic the growth Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, in Africa and South America.

As for Africa: in 1900 there were fewer than 9 million Christians in Africa. Now there are more than 541 million. This works out on average at around 33,000 people either becoming Christians or being born into Christian families each day in Africa alone.

According to Molly Wall, the programme director of Operation World, “Generally speaking, the world is becoming more religious, and that is because the world’s largest historical non-religious populations (former Communist countries, especially China) are becoming more religious. Non-religious populations are in decline there, and overall global figures reflect that change.” https://www.christiantoday.com/article/a-growing-church-why-we-should-focus-on-the-bigger-picture/49362.htm

The Church is growing dramatically in most of the world.

Most spectacular of all is the growth of the African Church, although this fact never gets noted in our secular press. In 1900 there were fewer than 9 million Christians in Africa. Now there are more than 335 million. In the last 15 years alone, the Church in Africa has seen a 51 per cent increase, which works out on average at around 33,000 people either becoming Christians or being born into Christian families each day in Africa alone.

Summary.

Today there are more than 2.4 billion Christians worldwide — just over a third of the world’s total population. This figure includes many in our part of the forest who are of nominal belonging only but who nevertheless, speaking to the census-taker at the door, declare themselves as Christian.

Islam comes second, with 700 million fewer adherents than Christianity has

All around us there is taking place a campaign of low-grade mockery as well as overt mockery of Christian faith. All positive reference to Christian faith has disappeared from the academic literature as well as from secular commentary in the newspapers and journals.   Persons known to have a sincere Christian commitment never make it onto the rolodexes (or whatever they use today) of television talk show producers. This is happening precisely as our indigenous intellectuals are standing in solidarity against any  negative public expression about the virtues of Islam.

It is not yet clear what price we will ultimately pay for this perfidy. Sincere Christians should pray that it will stop short of complete erasure of the Christian legacy from our public life.

………………………………………………………

ANOTHER CLUE TO BRITAIN’S FUTURE UNDER EUROPEAN UNION

By Paul Merkley.

………………………………….

Discussion continues to rage around Britain’s decision to withdraw from the European Union.

So far as I can tell, almost all of this discussion revolves around what writers imagine will be the economic consequences of withdrawal.  These will of course be large, but, I expect, manageable—certainly worth the price of achieving greater sovereignty over Britain’s affairs in general.

Still, I suspect that most Brits voted to leave Europe because they had concluded that a great gulf had developed between Europe’s values and purposes and what Brits imagine are their own values – what they are today, and what they have been in the past. The instinct of most was that Britain had to recover its former distance from Europe and henceforth follow its own purposes.

In colorful illustration of this existential imperative we need look no further than to a decision issued just a few days ago by the unelected members of the European Court of Human Rights. (Soren Kern, “European Human Rights Court Backs Blasphemy Law,” October 29 [www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1302; “A Black Day for Austria,” ibid. December 26, 2011.]

The immediate object of this decision was something that happened in the courts of Austria, but the decision itself is immediately applicable to all of Europe. In the opinion of this body, Austria has violated the human rights provisions laid out in protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights. by failing to prevent Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, from dishonoring Prophet Muhammad.  The offending speech was an offhand remark by Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff during a three-part seminar on Islam held in in November, 2009, in Austria, under auspices of a body called “the Freedom Education Institute,” to the effect that Mohammed was a pedophile because he married his wife Aisha when she was just six or seven years old. Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff’s actual words were: “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”

The ruling establishes a dangerous legal precedent, in that it requires European states – and this would include the United Kingdom — to curtail the right to free speech if such speech is deemed to be offensive to Muslims and thus might pose “a threat to religious peace.” In effect, the decision would establish in the law-codes of Western nations the full force of the Islamic blasphemy code.

The case began when Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code. Her subsequent appeal to the Provincial Appellate Court in Vienna was rejected on December 20, 2011, as was her subsequent appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The decision at the ECHR was that states could restrict the free speech rights enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention if such speech was “likely to incite religious intolerance” and was “likely to disturb the religious peace in their country… [or was] capable of arousing justified indignation.”

In making this decision, the European court has in effect imposed an Islamic code about blasphemy upon the people of Europe and has done so for the sake of  preserving religious peace in Austria.  Their view was that “it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.”

Did you get that? You are deluding yourself if you imagine that you did. This is a clear case of smothering failed logic under impenetrable syntax — as ever, the clue to a bad conscience.

Still, it is clear that this decision now imposes on European governments – including that of the U.K. – the duty of curtailing the right to free speech of their citizens, if such speech is deemed to be offensive to Muslims. Such an obligation might not stop the President of France in his tracks; and we can be quite sure that it will not spoil Justin Trudeau’s day when, not if, the same matter comes to be deliberated by our courts.

The American tradition, following the British tradition, does of course acknowledge limits to the right of freedom of speech. These are best summarized in Oliver Wendell Holmes’s proscription of the right to cry fire in a crowded theatre. But only good sense, not jurisprudence, is needed for understanding these matters. The bottom line here is that proscription of free speech along the lines mandated by the European Court is plainly incompatible with what every grown up recognizes as my right to criticize other persons and/or the institutions which they embrace—as I am doing here.

The story behind this story is the campaign waged over recent decades by the Organization of  Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries, which argues for entrenchment  of the Islamic view-of-things at the United Nations. OIC  also claims to speak for the  interests of the exponentially-growing Muslim community in Europe and in North America.

Hard to grasp for us born-Westerners is the reality that these immigrant communities in our midst for which OIC claims to speak and who are made up of persons in flight from incompetent or oppressive Muslim governments in their homelands are telling us with apparent enthusiasm that they want to see established here,  in Europe and in North America, for themselves and their children and their children’s children,  equivalently oppressive Islamic institutions.

The cornerstone of the Muslim campaign against people like Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff who stumble into negative expression about the Prophet is an appeal to UNHRC Resolution 16/18, to which Canada like other Western nations subscribes, and which requires our governments to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of religion and belief.”

It never occurs to Roman Catholic or Protestant or Jewish organizations to fight this same fight under their own banners — even though ear-splitting mockery and abuse against Christian and Jewish faith and practice rings out all day long in lecture halls in every university and college in the West, and likewise finds unchecked expression in academic bodies and academic journals

If Britain intends to stay in the European Union, she will have  to promptly adjust her ancient vision of the rights and duties of citizens so as to conform to the utterly alien view of the same which has always obtained in the Islamic world. This is, indeed, what Europe is doing and doing gladly, as must be concluded from the judgments of the European courts with respect to the challenge to the peace caused by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

All by itself, this prospect should be enough to validate the  wisdom of the British public in the Brexit plebiscite of 2016, when they rejected by democratic ballot the project of total immersion of Britain’s identity in Europe’s

There should be no need for British libertarians to crank up a mighty public campaign against the creeping accommodations of British intellectuals to the clamoring of Muslim activists. All that is needed now   is for British politicians to carry through on their commitments to lead the British people out of the European Union.

……………………………………………………………………………..