A Coming Persecution

[Rusty]

[Christian]: Nope. Morals are given by God and you didn't address God.

That sort of anti-intellecual argument is rather unique to American Evangelicals.

Really, Del? Really? That's a mighty broad brush you paint with to make such an ugly picture.

A question for both of you. How about the Christian who would respond with --- "Morals are based upon something. So if you aren't sure what your morals are based upon or if your basis shifts, how can you be sure you can trust the base much less the ensuing morals? It's not only impostant to know what you believe, but why you believe it.?

Personally, I suspect this would be easy pickins for an evolutionist or atheist: Morals are based on the common good. As people better understand what is best for people, these morals are fine tuned. Frankly, it happened and happens all the time (see Onyx's post as an example) it's just implicit rather than explict. Also, the "Old Guard" generally has to die off for the change to be complete.

I imagine they may actually chuckle at the irony (for them) at this last statement: "It's not only impostant to know what you believe, but why you believe it."

"Based on the common good" begs the questions --- What's the basis of that? Got to get to the root. Just what is the root.

Then the question arises --- who decides what the common good is?

I answered that question. The basis is empathy. We decide what is the common good. Sometimes it's clear, sometimes less so.

Whose empathy? Just look to history.

What's your basis?

The Word of GOD and the Christ. It is there we find our judgment and our salvation.

But what is the basis of God, His Word and Christ? Why do they get to define the common good?

'Cause they're God. What are you after? This is an odd conversation with an Evangelical. What kind of answer would you buy?

Yeah, I figure my question sounds just plain dumb to most. But it was Hogleg who implied we need a "basis" for thinking that we can determine common good. My obtuse point is that - whatever we say is the basis for our ideals, you can always ask again, "well, what is the basis for that?" The only answer that some theists will accept is "God".

Yes, but we do understand that it's an absolute reference that is self-contained and closed. It doesn't refer to any other earlier authority.

It's very similar to the question of the first cause of creation. People ask me what initiated the Big Bang or the universe. Apparently, they don't accept that it can just happen withou a cause. And yet they don't require a cause for God's existence. If God can exist without a cause, why can't the universe with a potential for moral critters such as ourselves exist without a cause?

Yes, but cosmologists do not understand the physics during the first 10^-10 seconds. The energy levels are well beyond known physics. They're pretty sure that there is new physics there. So it's highly speculative to say it's spontaneous. It might be but there have been other speculations too eg Brane collisions. So there are no answers that have confidence. In this it's a bit like probing for a precedent previous to God.
You can see this honestly acknowledged in Baumann's Lecture notes - Here in '09 and here in a '12 successor set.

In '09: "The history of the universe from 10^-10 seconds (1 TeV) to today is based on observational facts and tested physical theories like the Standard Model of particle physics, general relativity, and fluid dynamics, e.g. the fundamental laws of high energy physics are well-established up to the energies reached by current particle accelerators (1 TeV). Before 10^-10 seconds, the energy of the universe exceeds 1 TeV and we lose the comfort of direct experimental guidance. The physics of that era is therefore as speculative as it is fascinating."

In '12: "By measuring the anisotropies in the microwave background and the large-scale distribution of galaxies in the sky, we can infer the spectrum of the of the primordial perturbations laid down during inflation, and thus probe the underlying physics of this era. Over the next decade, the inflationary era - perhaps 10^-30 sec. after the big bang - will thus join nucleosynthesis (3 minutes) and recombination (380,000 years) as observational windows into the primordial universe. However, while the workings of recombination and nucleosynthesis depend on well-tested laws of atomic and nuclear physics, respectively, the `physics of inflation' remains speculative. The Standard Model of particle physics almost certainly does not contain the right type of fields and interactions to source an inflationary epoch. To describe inflation we therefore have to leave to comfort of the Standard Model and explore `new physics' possibly far above the TeV scale. Some of the boldest and most profound ideas in particle physics come into play at these scales."

[Rusty]

Back to the growing enthusiasm for persecution:

We had in incident in near Madison last week. Our bishop was visiting one of the state universities in our diocese, invited by the Catholic students to speak there. A handful of dissident adult Catholics showed up with signs to protest the Bishop, because that is what they do. This put the bishop on edge, and he asked them to remain quiet while he spoke to the students. Then a local reporter started snapping pictures of the bishop and the protesters, as if they were a big deal. The bishop asked him please to stop.

The reporter insisted that this as a public building and he has a First Amendment right to be and do as he wished. So the bishop quit his talk, and the party moved to the local church building where we had more authority to tell folks to leave their signs and clicky toys outside.

All of this was done politely and with civil manners. No shouting or raised voices. That should have been the end of it.
============================================

Even th paper in LaCrosse, WI -- which is a different diocese and a different bishop.

Here is a Madison newspaper, recounting what all of the other major papers are thankful for, on Thanksgiving. Note the reader comments, typical of what we have endured all week.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/s ... 5ed9b.html

I don't understand. Why were Catholic adults protesting his visit to give a talk? And why would he object to the press at his talk?
It looks like the adults have a grievance and the press is not welcome? None of this makes sense.

Without understanding it can't be called persecution. Could you explain objectively?

I read the article: http://www.swnews4u.com/section/95/article/24864/

It seems to me that the bishop didn't want his speech made public while the reporter wanted to make it public. Frankly, it looks like the bishop did not want theological division aired.

I would assume that “Why Does Evil Exist?” isn't a theologically divisive topic among Catholics that brings out protestors. Their signs do mention evil but reference him. So it must be some other problem with history that involves parishioners and him. That's not persecution but instead some kind of issue that remains unresolved. They're angry with him. Why?

Ah ha.... Bishop Morlino Threatens A Wisconsin Parish With Interdict. Didn't a Pope do that with England? Hmmm...

He sounds like Del. http://www.realclearreligion.org/articl ... dtown.html

[Del]

I read the article: http://www.swnews4u.com/section/95/article/24864/

It seems to me that the bishop didn't want his speech made public while the reporter wanted to make it public. Frankly, it looks like the bishop did not want theological division aired.

That was essentially the case. The Catholic students invited him to come and talk about the Problem of Evil. This was open to the public, part of the students' outreach to their fellow students who may not be Catholic or Christian.

The event threatened to be hijacked by protesters, and to become a spectacle in the media. So our bishop cut off his speech and moved it to a different venue. And that became the spectacle.

I don't understand. Why were Catholic adults protesting his visit to give a talk? And why would he object to the press at his talk?
It looks like the adults have a grievance and the press is not welcome? None of this makes sense.

Without understanding it can't be called persecution. Could you explain objectively?

At UW-Platteville, the local parish also serves the Catholic student group. Our bishop has been well-impressed with the success of the Catholic student parish on the UW-Madison campus.... the key was to replace the typical campus hippy-priest with some authentic young priests who are not afraid to teach the truth against the prevailing college culture. The response has been tremendous.

So our bishop sent some missionary priests -- mainly to serve the college students -- as well as the local parish. The townies did not like this at all, and rebelled with all sorts of petty responses. Mainly, they decided to withhold their donations -- and they ended up forcing their own Catholic grade school to close. Our bishop stood by the priests whom he assigned to the parish. He told the offended persons that if there was anything that the priests have done wrong, the bishop would address it firmly. But he would not allow a parish to "fire" good priests for petty reasons.

Meanwhile, the college students love their new priests. Dramatic increase in Mass attendance and student participation, and at least two students have left their secular studies to enter seminary.

As to persecution:

1) As far as Catholics go, our primary fear comes from "secular Catholics" -- the ones who like to call themselves Catholic, but they will take up arms to resist anyone who calls them to live a Catholic life of faith.

2) The reason why I linked the original article was to draw your attention to the public comments. I expect persecution because more and more people feel comfortable voicing opinions like this anonymous public commentor:

It is unfair this avenue for social treason was not clearly and fully excluded when the 1st Amendment was drafted. It is time to correct that flaw left by our founding fathers and end constraints imposed by myth and superstition. Change the constitution remove any rights of religion, as it is demonstrated time and time again that churches cannot be trusted with good policy and respect of rule of law. The burden on society is alarming.
TAX THE CHURCH!
Soon after the IRS, FDA and Consumer Protection will reign reason down upon the church and those that cannot hold up to scrutiny (all of them) will have to shut down.

This guy thinks that churches should be actively punished for failing to obey his rule of political correctness.

There is a reason why Free Speech, and the Press, and Religion, and Peaceful Assembly are strictly protected. There must be ways and places where people can gather to teach, hear, and share ideas peacefully as we form our opinions about our governance. But this guy knows that he does not like what we are going to say in our churches about how we ought to run our society -- so he wants our churches to be punished for speaking.

[UncleBob]

There is a reason why Free Speech, and the Press, and Religion, and Peaceful Assembly are strictly protected. There must be ways and places where people can gather to teach, hear, and share ideas peacefully as we form our opinions about our governance. But this guy knows that he does not like what we are going to say in our churches about how we ought to run our society -- so he wants our churches to be punished for speaking.

That is my point. There would need to be major changes to the constitution before any persecution can happen in the USA. God Lord 'n Butter! Congress can't even agree enough to give themselves a pay raise! Wanting to persecute and persecuting are two different scenarios. And lets think this through... if all religions were taxed, that would not be persecution. If one were targeted, then that would be persecution.

[Hovannes]

There is a reason why Free Speech, and the Press, and Religion, and Peaceful Assembly are strictly protected. There must be ways and places where people can gather to teach, hear, and share ideas peacefully as we form our opinions about our governance. But this guy knows that he does not like what we are going to say in our churches about how we ought to run our society -- so he wants our churches to be punished for speaking.

That is my point. There would need to be major changes to the constitution before any persecution can happen in the USA. God Lord 'n Butter! Congress can't even agree enough to give themselves a pay raise! Wanting to persecute and persecuting are two different scenarios. And lets think this through... if all religions were taxed, that would not be persecution. If one were targeted, then that would be persecution.

Our current President apparently respect for the Constitution. Neither do many of his appointees.

[Kerdy]

There is a reason why Free Speech, and the Press, and Religion, and Peaceful Assembly are strictly protected. There must be ways and places where people can gather to teach, hear, and share ideas peacefully as we form our opinions about our governance. But this guy knows that he does not like what we are going to say in our churches about how we ought to run our society -- so he wants our churches to be punished for speaking.

That is my point. There would need to be major changes to the constitution before any persecution can happen in the USA. God Lord 'n Butter! Congress can't even agree enough to give themselves a pay raise! Wanting to persecute and persecuting are two different scenarios. And lets think this through... if all religions were taxed, that would not be persecution. If one were targeted, then that would be persecution.

Acts 9:5

[SteveH]

[Christian]: Nope. Morals are given by God and you didn't address God.

That sort of anti-intellecual argument is rather unique to American Evangelicals.

Really, Del? Really? That's a mighty broad brush you paint with to make such an ugly picture.

A question for both of you. How about the Christian who would respond with --- "Morals are based upon something. So if you aren't sure what your morals are based upon or if your basis shifts, how can you be sure you can trust the base much less the ensuing morals? It's not only impostant to know what you believe, but why you believe it.?

Personally, I suspect this would be easy pickins for an evolutionist or atheist: Morals are based on the common good. As people better understand what is best for people, these morals are fine tuned. Frankly, it happened and happens all the time (see Onyx's post as an example) it's just implicit rather than explict. Also, the "Old Guard" generally has to die off for the change to be complete.

I imagine they may actually chuckle at the irony (for them) at this last statement: "It's not only impostant to know what you believe, but why you believe it."

"Based on the common good" begs the questions --- What's the basis of the common good? Got to get to the root.

Then the question arises --- who decides what the common good is?

The atheists can chuckle all they want, but until they can answer the question and the root of what is "the common good" their chuckling is foolish. Also, sadly, they'll not be chuckling when their short temporal lives here end and all they have are their moral code of common good when they stand before the judgement.

The greatest happiness of the greatest number.

[hogleg]

[Christian]: Nope. Morals are given by God and you didn't address God.

That sort of anti-intellecual argument is rather unique to American Evangelicals.

Really, Del? Really? That's a mighty broad brush you paint with to make such an ugly picture.

A question for both of you. How about the Christian who would respond with --- "Morals are based upon something. So if you aren't sure what your morals are based upon or if your basis shifts, how can you be sure you can trust the base much less the ensuing morals? It's not only impostant to know what you believe, but why you believe it.?

Personally, I suspect this would be easy pickins for an evolutionist or atheist: Morals are based on the common good. As people better understand what is best for people, these morals are fine tuned. Frankly, it happened and happens all the time (see Onyx's post as an example) it's just implicit rather than explict. Also, the "Old Guard" generally has to die off for the change to be complete.

I imagine they may actually chuckle at the irony (for them) at this last statement: "It's not only impostant to know what you believe, but why you believe it."

"Based on the common good" begs the questions --- What's the basis of the common good? Got to get to the root.

Then the question arises --- who decides what the common good is?

The atheists can chuckle all they want, but until they can answer the question and the root of what is "the common good" their chuckling is foolish. Also, sadly, they'll not be chuckling when their short temporal lives here end and all they have are their moral code of common good when they stand before the judgement.

The greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Ah yes, hedonists practicing hedonism.

Happiness is not the key. Contentment is. See what Paul had to say about it in his letter to the Philippians.

[SteveH]

What nonsense! Utilitarianism, which that is, can demand the ultimate sacrifice.

Happiness is not the key. Contentment is.

Category mistake. Contentment is a variety of happiness.

[Kerdy]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/12/ ... as-parade/

Baby steps.

[Kerdy]

In fact, this guy shows all sorts of steps.

http://www.foxnews.com/archive/todd-starnes/index.html

Like this one you guys say will never happen.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/ ... -weddings/

“The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Tedesco told me. “The reality is – it’s already happening.”

[Thunktank]

Yes, persecution is coming, Kerdy. But look on the bright side. Liberals and other non conservatives are much less likely to support the death penalty than Christian conservatives. Besides, there's no precedent for use of the death penalty against those who are just being anti social naysayers. They'll just send you to therapy and reprogram you to help you find your happy place.

[Onyx]

Every time Kerdy links to Fox News I get a bit whiter.

[UncleBob]

In fact, this guy shows all sorts of steps.

http://www.foxnews.com/archive/todd-starnes/index.html

Like this one you guys say will never happen.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/ ... -weddings/

“The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Tedesco told me. “The reality is – it’s already happening.”

Wow. Now read the text:

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

[Rusty]

In fact, this guy shows all sorts of steps.

http://www.foxnews.com/archive/todd-starnes/index.html

Like this one you guys say will never happen.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/ ... -weddings/

“The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Tedesco told me. “The reality is – it’s already happening.”

Wow. Now read the text:

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

Yes! Get 'im. More more more. Like this style of persecution which looks like overruling discrimination. God-less America! If it's a biz that performs civil-marriages then gay marriages will there be performed. First amendment rights must not result in others forgoing their rights. Tough bananas. We said this one would happen. We said that churches will not be forced to marry same sex couples. JJ is the one that cleared up the question with churches/synagogues/mosques etc. But whether you're ordained enterprising minister or any other occupation that is licensed to perform marriages as a biz in a location that isn't a church matters not at all. As in Canada, the beliefs of the person performing the civil marriage are irrelevant. They're acting on behalf of the State in marrying them.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Let's cut to the chase …

If there is to be a persecution, there will be one against those who won't affirm Separation of Church and State as an absolute value. But you'll be good, if you can be a proper Reformational Protestant who knows his place.

And if there is to be a persecution, there will be one against those who won't affirm Separation of Material and Spiritual as an absolute value. But you'll be good, if you can be a moral Enlightenment Man who knows his place.

[UncleBob]

+JMJ+

Let's cut to the chase …

If there is to be a persecution, there will be one against those who won't affirm Separation of Church and State as an absolute value. But you'll be good, if you can be a proper Reformational Protestant who knows his place.

And if there is to be a persecution, there will be one against those who won't affirm Separation of Material and Spiritual as an absolute value. But you'll be good, if you can be a moral Enlightenment Man who knows his place.

Wow. Can you demonstrate any time when the US Govt ever did either of these things?

So it looks like folks here are expecting a Catholic-only persecution. Is that about it?

[Thunktank]

+JMJ+

Let's cut to the chase …

If there is to be a persecution, there will be one against those who won't affirm Separation of Church and State as an absolute value. But you'll be good, if you can be a proper Reformational Protestant who knows his place.

And if there is to be a persecution, there will be one against those who won't affirm Separation of Material and Spiritual as an absolute value. But you'll be good, if you can be a moral Enlightenment Man who knows his place.

Actually, it is the pre Enlightenment era that began the separation of material and spiritual. The material was pleading to be seen and understood while the spirit of those ages attempted to redefine it and make it fit their limited reason based upon strange metaphysics and ideal forms that had no real basis for belief. There are powerful trends just beginning to establish once again a unity of "spiritual" and material. A very different kind of spirituality than you mean though for sure. I tend to thing rationalism and empiricism is a reaction to poor theology, but in so doing has stripped man of some of his humanity. I think empiricism will eventually run out of steam for practical reasons. We can't afford to many more Higgs Boson level research projects. Our souls need attention and even the materialists are seeking ways to take what they've learned and apply it to their souls. Myths, art, legends and stories will be made once again with more accurate understandings of the material due to the important cultural evolution found in the Enlightenment. I predict we are not only in a post Christian time but a post Enlightenment time as well.

[Rusty]

+JMJ+

Let's cut to the chase …

If there is to be a persecution, there will be one against those who won't affirm Separation of Church and State as an absolute value. But you'll be good, if you can be a proper Reformational Protestant who knows his place.

And if there is to be a persecution, there will be one against those who won't affirm Separation of Material and Spiritual as an absolute value. But you'll be good, if you can be a moral Enlightenment Man who knows his place.

Wow. Can you demonstrate any time when the US Govt ever did either of these things?

So it looks like folks here are expecting a Catholic-only persecution. Is that about it?

There will be no discrimination. Good news. I have the CPS persecution account. So we can order all manner of secular State persecution for US CPS members... as long as you are Christian. It's well integrated with rattin' you out to the NSA, TTB, your local State tax collectors, the boss... all in one. So who's up first? We have tremendous variety of persecution options at our fingertips. <cracks knuckles>

[Hovannes]

Another point of view from Oz courtesy of The Spectator (sounds like persecution to me)



Gay marriage and the death of freedom

Rather than striking a blow for individual liberties, the dogma of gay marriage is stifling them

44 Comments Brendan O'Neill 6 December 2014





Has there ever been a sweeter-sounding, more goosebump-inducing phrase than ‘Freedom to marry’? Everyone likes freedom (even illiberal politicians pay lip service to liberty), and who doesn’t love a good wedding? Marry these two things together (pun intended) and you end up with an endorphin-releasing buzzphrase that will make anyone grin wildly.

So it has been following Senator David Leyonhjelm’s unveiling of the Freedom to Marry Bill. Across Oz, right-minded people who think gays must be allowed to get hitched experienced paroxysms of joy at the introduction of this new phrase into the political vernacular. Sure, those of a leftish bent had trouble computing the fact that it’s a classical liberal politician who’s championing their most beloved cause. But the instant they made peace with this seeming anomaly, they, together with small-l liberals, gay-rights activists and the Age-reading patrons of non-chain coffee shops across the land (well, in Melbourne), were giving themselves adrenalin rushes by whispering those three magic words: ‘Freedom to marry…’

I hate to rain on this fabulous parade, but there’s a massive problem with this happy-clappy rallying cry. And it’s this: everywhere gay marriage has been introduced it has battered freedom, not boosted it. Debate has been chilled, dissenters harried, critics tear-gassed. Love and marriage might go together like horse and carriage, but freedom and gay marriage certainly do not. The double-thinking ‘freedom to marry’ has done more to power the elbow of the state than it has to expand the liberty of men and women.
There are awkward questions the ‘freedom to marry’ folks just can’t answer. Like: if gay marriage is a liberal cause, how come it’s been attended by authoritarianism wherever it’s been introduced?

Consider France. Hundreds of thousands of French people — or ‘bigots’, as the gay-marriage lobby brands anyone who disagrees with it — marched against the legalisation of gay marriage in 2013. And they were beaten and tear-gassed by riot cops. Parisians in t-shirts celebrating traditional marriage were arrested for holding ‘unauthorised protests’. In the words of Parisian writer John Laughland, critics of gay marriage were turned into ‘ideological enemies’ of the French state. It’s a funny expansion of freedom that so violently pummels the right to protest.

Consider America. The authorities there haven’t had to whip out their truncheons because non-state mobs have policed the opponents of gay marriage on their behalf. In the words of the author Damon Linker, a supporter of gay marriage, Americans who raise even a peep of criticism of gay marriage face ‘ostracism from public life’. We saw this with the medieval hounding of Brendan Eich out of his job at Mozilla after it was revealed that — oh, the humanity! — he isn’t a massive fan of gays getting married. Linker says the gay-marriage brigade has created a menacing climate, where the aim seems to be to ‘stamp out rival visions’. Americans who fail to bow at the altar of same-sex hitching, from wedding photographers to cake-makers, are harassed and boycotted and sometimes put out of business. The ‘freedom to marry’ clearly trumps the freedom of conscience.

Consider Britain. One of the first things gay campaigners here did when they won the right to marry was demand Catholic schools be forced to teach that gay marriage is as good as straight; even though they don’t believe this. Screw you, freedom of religion. Perhaps Catholic schools should bring back ‘priest holes’ to discuss their beliefs free from the watchful stare of the gay-marriage lobby, which, in Linker’s words, demands ‘psychological acceptance’ of gay marriage from all.

Why is this alleged freedom so feverishly embraced by politicians who can’t spell the word freedom? There’s David Cameron, demolisher of press freedom; French officials, so allergic to liberty that they won’t let Muslim women wear what they want; Obama, Christendom’s spymaster-in-general. What draws such freedom-fearing rulers to the ‘freedom to marry’? It’s simple: gay marriage has diddly-squat to do with freedom. Rather, this new institution, invented from pure cloth by tiny numbers of sharp-suited lawyers and agitators, is better seen as a Trojan horse for the enforcement of a new morality, one which calls into question the old virtues of lifelong commitment and familial sovereignty and replaces them with the flightiness and flexibility more commonly associated with gay relationships. ‘Gay marriage’ is the lick of paint modern society gives to its own discomfort with the traditional family set-up and its desire to dismantle, or at least dent, that set-up in favour of pushing new, post-traditional, state-defined hook-ups.

Twenty-five years ago, American thinker Christopher Lasch argued that ‘progressive rhetoric has the effect of concealing social crisis and moral breakdown by presenting them as the birth pangs of a new order’. Bingo! There’s no better description of gay marriage. Here, too, progressive-sounding rhetoric is really the dolling-up of our atomised, risk-averse societies’ growing disdain for those deep relationships in which families and communities traditionally socialised the next generation, mostly away from the prying eyes of the state. This is why the gay-marriage campaign is so contradictorily illiberal, so hostile to dissent, and so attractive to petty-authoritarian politicians: because it isn’t about expanding liberty at all; it’s about unilaterally overhauling the moral outlook of the traditionalist sections of society and elevating the commitment-phobic, passion-lite, short-termist values of the chattering classes instead.
Aussie campaigners for the ‘Freedom to marry’ are actually lucky that the PM isn’t cheering their moral crusade. Because this means that when they finally win this illiberal liberty — which they unquestionably will — they’ll be able to present it as a great victory for civil libertarians who bravely took on The Man. When in truth, their victory will be built on the spilt blood of French protesters and the trampled-upon right to dissent of Americans and Britons and the transformation of gay marriage by Western political elites into a new orthodoxy that you question at your peril.

Poor Mr Leyonhjelm — he thinks he’s striking a blow for liberty, when really he’s completing the final act in a pink-tinged tyranny kickstarted by the new authoritarians of the modern West.

This article first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 6 December 2014 Aus