The material here is wide-ranging. It includes, for example, this 'The pretence that British history has been overwhelmingly or almost always a a force for good is is contradicted by many, many events.' And this, '[woke views] are less ridiculous and less harmful than the views of orthodox Christian doctrine.'
Here, I quote some comments I've posted in the comments sections of some anti-woke You tube videos and an anti-woke Website, the site of 'Conservative Woman.' Over the years, I've posted only a limited number of comments, although some of them are very long, much longer than most comments. I don't give the Web address in most cases. Fuller information will follow. The sites where I've left very critical comments include the sites of Conservative Woman, Simon Webb's 'History Debunked,' The New Culture Forum, GB News, Sky News Australia (an anti- woke news outlet which has no connection with Sky News in the UK.) The quoted comments here are numbered.
I'll give an assortment of evidence to justify the claim that Christianity is a liability for anti-woke sites, that although woke views are in general ridiculous and harmful, they are less ridiculous and less harmful than the views of orthodox Christian doctrine. It's a long comment but it could easily be much, much longer. Anti-woke people who find it too much effort to follow discussions which are thorough - nobody is forcing you to read any of this. Post your complaints if you feel inclined - if, that is, you can summon up the energy to post a one-or-two liner, probably not more, but nobody is compelled to read your complaints either ... [The remainder of the comment is provided as the last comment in this section. Not all the comments in this section are about Christianity. The material on Christianity is quite detailed - but may be useful as background information, and it leaves no room for doubt as to my reasons for thinking that orthodox Christian belief is vastly more ridiculous and harmful than the views of 'woke' people. I'm sure I can assume that all the people who signed the Open Letter are 'woke' people. ]
[The 'mocked, reviled and pelted with eggs Pastor here was protesting against a Gay Pride Event.]
From the Pastor's article: 'A video report on Sky News used the term ‘religious bigotry’ to describe our Christian testimony. Whatever happened to impartial reporting? Why did the reporter not come over to us and ask some questions? She would have found out that we are perfectly capable of engaging in civilised debate.
If the Pastor ever made use of the opportunity to have a 'civilized debate' with Sky News about homosexuality, I'd recommend to Sky News asking him for a comment on the material to be found in the Wikipedia 'List of people executed for homosexuality in Europe.'
If homosexuals loathe his orthodox views on homosexuality, it has something to do with awareness of what orthodox Christians have done to homosexuals over the centuries. They would loathe them even more the more they know about the horrific facts. Among the punishments mentioned in the article, including some from this country:
A German cross-dressing lesbian executed for heresy against nature
They were pierced in their tongues, hanged and burned; they were also charged with blasphemy.
German from Augsburg; burned in Rome with 3 heretics
From Augsburg; one burned, other 4 (all ecclesiastics) bound hand and foot in a wooden cage to starve[
both drowned in a barrel
Burned at Tudela for "heresy with his body"
And from the UK:
His trial was at the Old Bailey in November, where he was convicted
of having "a venereal affair" with James Hankinson. He was hanged at Newgate.
He was hanged with a forger, Ann Hurle - they were led out of Debtor's Door
and rather than the New Drop they were hanged by a cart being driven from
"Spershott's hanging was perhaps the last occasion at which was performed the folk ritual of the hangman passing the dead man's hands over the neck and bosoms of young women as a cure for glandular enlargements."
The last two men to be hanged for homosexuality in England. 
Is Pastor Peter Simpson perfectly capable of engaging in civilized debate or perfectly capable of becoming evasive when confronted by harsh realities?
Simon Webb has been praised by a substantial number of commenters who are a liability, commenters who should be an embarrassment to him. Given the views of these commentators, The New Culture Forum, which has invited him to to a discussion, should ask some probing questions about the issues if they ever invite him again. Simon Webb has a video on the invitation, 'A discussion with Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum.' Peter Whittle founded the organization and plays a very prominent part in its activities.
These are two hideous comments that follow a You Tube video of Simon Webb, 'How two Jewish academics in America created the modern concept of anti-racism.' More comments are quoted later on: in all the comments quoted, spelling, punctuation and grammar as in the original.
'thank you so much for being such a brave fellow this needs to be heard the truth will finally be revealed to the public one of these days the german man [obviously a reference to Hitler] tried to warn us but nobody listened people like you are so brave thank you so much sir for making this video god bless''
They [an obvious reference to Jews] even managed to make a teetotal vegetarian who loved animals and who enjoyed painting as a pastime ... into evil incarnate.' [an obvious reference to Hitler.]
Anti-semitism takes different forms, obnoxious but comparatively mild
and forms which are much worse than obnoxious. The antisemitic language
of the Nazis was terrifying, the kind that led to the policy and
practice of annihilation. The comments of these people on the Simon Webb
page aren't in that category but they are surely much worse than
The two academics who according to Simon Webb created 'the
modern concept of anti-racism' are Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict.
According to the evidence available to me, neither of them were
observant Jews. Even if they had been observant Jews, the description
Jewish academics would have been completely unnecessary. If Simon Webb
thinks that no objection can be taken to the description Jewish
academics, a large number of the commenters thought that the mention of
'Jewish' was very, very significant and responded, in some cases like
Nazis, in others like easily-led sheep.
It's very, very disturbing that Simon Webb never intervened and responded to the antisemitism of so many of the comments. He did respond to a single comment, which wasn't antisemitic. The comment: 'Did your wife write this one?' Writing as 'History Debunked,' the title of his You Tube channel, Simon Webb responded with 'That is an odd question! No, I wrote it myself.' The question posed in this comment was odd, but he preferred to be silent about the hideous spectacle which was playing out on this You Tube page of his. I find it impossible to believe that the only comment he read was this one about his wife. He must have known that vile claims were being made but chose to do nothing about it.
In a matter as important as this, responsibility doesn't end with posting a video. He should have known the likely response or a possible response from antisemites before posting the video. If his historian's judgment failed him and he had no idea of what could happen, the evidence soon came flooding in - and still he did nothing. He was culpable, he failed. He's welcome to come up with explanations or excuses, if he can think of any.
The New Culture Forum needs to consider this possibility: that the support of Simon Webb in opposing mistaken illusions and delusions and ideologies, including so-called 'woke' views, doesn't enhance the reputation of the Forum, that Simon Webb has become a liability to 'the cause' - except that there isn't a single, monolithic cause, even if many 'anti-woke' people have different ideas. There are nuances, small differences and, also some major differences, with the possibility of the contradictions, unexpected events, grotesque complications which are common in human life. And, contrary to the view of some neo-Neanderthal types to be found in our cause or causes, I think that fair-minded but not particularly gentle presentation of argument and evidence wherever possible.
The comments of what I call 'the rabble,' the rabble enthused or inspired by if not incited by Simon Webb, included these:
'Europe and the US would truly be something magnificent without them.' [i.e., the Jews. And the Nazis believed that Germany would be something magnificent without the Jews.]
'Good work here Simon, finally calling them out.' [Again, 'them' obviously refers to the Jews.] 'Oh yes he's finally addressing the tribe [obviously the reference intended is to Israel] ... Many other things they inflicted on the west.' [No attempt made to give examples. The Nazis did, of course, come up with examples of alleged harm to justify their policy of exclusion and then extermination.]
'I always appreciate your honesty Simon.' [Perhaps someone who is easily pleased - by, for example, an affable manner, by appearances, without delving any deeper.]
'The thanks we get for saving them.' [The commenter would find in Martin Gilbert's book 'The Righteous: The Unsung Heroes of the Holocaust' a great deal of information about 'Yad Vashem,' based in Jerusalem, which amongst other things honours, commemorates and makes completely clear the gratitude of the state of Israel for the many people who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. There are countless other pieces of evidence which could be cited.]
'Who would have guessed, a concept invented by the 'chosen' people.'
'It's always them. The same group behind everything.' [The Nazis had the same deluded conviction.]
This [the thesis which the writer of the comment finds in the video and found by so many others who added a comment to the video] is explained in 'Culture of Critique' by Macdonald.' [Wikipedia gives this information, 'The Culture of Critique series is a trilogy of books by Kevin B. MacDonald, an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology. MacDonald claims that evolutionary psychology provides the motivations behind Jewish group behaviour and culture. Through the series, MacDonald asserts that Jews as a group have biologically evolved to be highly ethnocentric and hostile to the interests of white people. He asserts Jewish behaviour and culture are central causes of antisemitism, and promotes conspiracy theories about alleged Jewish control and influence in government policy and political movements.' ]
'15.2 million Jews in the world. 6.3 million of those are in Israel. Therefore, there are only 8.9 million Jews in the entire world outside of Israel. Smaller than the population of London. They've got a lot to say haven't they? They do seem to be at the root of much of christian society's problems. I've never held antisemitic thoughts. I worked on a kibbutz in Israel when I was a teenager. However, even I am beginning to see a pattern here.'
'Oh yes he's finally addressing the tribe...Many other things they inflicted on the west.'
'Perhaps just perhaps that little fella with the strange moustache knew something all along ?' [Another obvious reference to Hitler.]
'Youll get the clicks. Thanks for sticking for the truth.' [Present statistics: 9,600 likes, no dislikes. It would have been far, far better for the reputation of his followers and admirers if for this video, there had been far less likes.]
'Your channel could be taken down soon if you keep this up. It's not
worth the risk. It's sad that merely speaking verifiable information
with proof is this risky.'
'But isn't it strange that they never insisted on equality between
Jews and Palestinians?' A reply to this comment: 'They don't consider
anyone else to be their equals. Their sense of worth is vastly out of
proportion to their contributions to humanity.'
Is the penny or should that be shekel starting to drop for Simon
after all these years?'
'Universal troublemakers' 'I don't hate them, but they've pulled the
wool over our children's eyes, enough is enough.'
'WOAH 6 MILLION JEWS WERE MURDERED BRUTALLY IN YHE HOLOCAUST HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE.' [I take the view for a variety of reasons, including stylistic reasons, that this wasn't a genuine expression of dismay that Simon Webb had criticized Jews but a facetious comment posing as a genuine expression of dismay. As such, given the use of the shocking statistic that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust - or rather misuse - this could be called a particularly shocking comment on the part of whoever wrote the comment.]
And with that, I leave Simon Webb and the New Culture Forum to think about the implications of all these comments, if they're so minded, and to consider their responses, if any. Perhaps any people who recorded their appreciations of the wonderful talents, the wonderful gifts, the wonderful personality of Simon Webb in many of the comments on that You Tube page and who find out about this dissenting view may like to think about the issues and consider this possibility: that this is a man less wonderful than they supposed, a man with some very substantial flaws. I think that Peter Whittle would benefit by reconsidering his obviously high opinion of Simon Webb. No professional historian who values his reputation would or should allow what Simon Webb did, complacently allowing so many of his admirers and followers to run riot, in effect.
Comment posted in the Comments section of a video of Sky News Australia.
Hampshire Police has blundered, Laurence Fox (who manipulated a gay pride flag to form a swastika) has blundered, the veteran was badly mistaken, so many anti-woke sites are badly mistaken in their interpretation of the events and now you're badly mistaken as well. The anti-woke sites and Sky News Australia are badly mistaken not about every aspect of the case but about a central aspect of the case.
Without thinking, you were quick to see the case with anti-woke vision - but the case raised issues which needed a very different perspective.
A central issue which has been neglected by the anti-woke media: it's essential not to equate the Nazis with people who are obviously not Nazis, such as people involved with gay pride events. To use the word 'Nazi' indiscriminately, negligently, without giving any thought to the barbarities which put the Nazis in a category apart - their cruelties rivalled by the cruelties which occurred in Stalinist Russia but exceeding them - has to be condemned. People generally know about Auschwitz and Belsen and Dachau and perhaps more concentration and extermination camps, and about some of the horrors which took place during the Nazi domination of Europe, but might benefit by enlarging their knowledge. The mobile killing units, the Einsatzgruppen, which accompanied Nazi forces during the invasion of Russia, are not common knowledge, perhaps, but their contribution to the horrors which took place under Nazi domination was immense.
To equate the men of the Einsatzgruppen who shot vast numbers of people, including babies and their mothers, in some cases, for bravado, killing both with a single bullet, with the actions (and antics) of gay pride is very wrong - despicable. It would be like saying of a gay activist, 'he's the worst person whose ever lived.' It would be an abandonment of all balance and fair-mindedness, completely ridiculous but also very disturbing.
I live in a country, England, whose wartime achievements are reason for intense pride, without forgetting that we were aided by people from many other countries. You Australians live in a country whose wartime achievements are reason for intense pride. Your achievements are beyond praise. 'Pride' is a word which tends to be overused and misused, like the word 'celebrate.' Limited achievements, very limited achievements, non-existent achievements are so often treated as 'awesome.' Some people seem to be forever 'celebrating' this and that.
To give just one example of those wartime achievements, the perilous low-level attack by RAF Mosquito planes on the Gestapo headquarters at Aarhus, Denmark which freed members of the Danish resistance in Gestapo captivity, which killed many members of the Gestapo and which destroyed Gestapo files, including ones on the Danish resistance. The attack has been described as the most successful one of its kind during the Second World War. But obviously there are countless more. Pride in the part played by Britain and Australia, and New Zealand and other countries in the Second World War is not just justifiable but to be encouraged.
The arrest of the veteran was obviously not just counter-productive but wrong, but anyone who supposes that being arrested by Hampshire Police can be equated with being arrested by the Gestapo is badly mistaken. The members of the allied armed forces who faced flame-throwers in battle, who risked being torn limb from limb, who faced all kinds of other dangers, dangers, in the Atlantic and Pacific, in all spheres of action, deserve not to have their achievements diminished by comparing the swastika, the symbol of hideous Nazi brutality, with the Gay Pride Flag. Hampshire Police mishandled the matter and made bad mistakes but they are no more Nazis than the Gay Pride people.
The Swastika is an ugly, hideous symbol of fanaticism and cruelty. It's not a symbol which lends itself to a Laurence Fox publicity stunt. There are different ways of regarding his manipulation of the images but I think they must all amount to adverse judgment on him. I get the impression that there's complacency in many parts of the anti-woke camp. Someone who is anti-woke may even believe that the anti-woke cause matters more than any other cause, or most other causes - another bad mistake.
Democratic, advanced societies face a vast range of problems, call upon a vast range of skills, are intrinsically intricate. Woke mistakes are only part of the whole and anti-woke activity is only part of the whole. Police forces may be sadly deficient in some respects whilst being efficient, good, perhaps outstanding in so many others. To suppose that they should be judged primarily for their action or lack of action in aiding the anti-woke movement is very wide of the mark. To overlook the fact that they face violence often, that they are sometimes injured in the course of duty, that a significant part of their work is unpleasant and intensely difficult is mistaken. It's essential to take into account the fact that their work often calls for great versatility and that inevitably, some or many members of police forces will be found wanting. It's essential to view these issues without smugness, without the delusions and illusions which can easily occur when people are sitting at their computers in a place of safety judging people who often have to work in conditions which aren't safe.
The atrocious misuse by woke people of 'safe,' as in 'safe spaces,' has to be condemned severely, but anti-woke people may lack appreciation of physical dangers, the kind that the police often have to face. The police forces which protect society against all kinds of threats can't, realistically, protect society against all threats.
Anti-woke candidates in elections are never or hardly ever
electable, because their speciality, anti-woke studies, doesn't address
so many of the problems which societies face. Anti-woke people can't
possibly claim immunity from reasonable, fair-minded criticism. There is
such a person as the anti-woke 'snowflake,' who can't face criticism.
Anti-woke people who can dish out criticism but can't take it should try
a different field for their talents, if they have any. I certainly don't
claim immunity from criticism myself. I won't give any details here, but
over the years, I've worked energetically to oppose 'woke' views (I'm
not at all keen on the word 'woke,' but for convenience, I've used it.)
If anyone wants to make criticisms of my views, go ahead.
Simon Webb is short on specifics - not when it comes to criticism of 'woke' views, but when it comes to his own 'faith,' his own 'beliefs,' such as his Christian beliefs. He makes no attempt to clarify 'homogeneous.' Is a 'Christian society' homogeneous? or is that not homogenous enough? He mentions 'Arabs and Jews murdering each other' but what of Protestants and Catholics murdering each other?
He's happy to put up a superficially convincing view when it comes to elementary cosmology and particle physics but getting him to put on record his view of Christianity will perhaps take him well beyond his comfort zone. I used the word 'disturbing.'
His most disturbing video has the title 'How two Jewish academics in America created the modern concept of anti-racism.' Here, he was playing with fire. It was his commenters, or many of them or the majority of them, who showed what his followers are capable of. One of them, 'Joe Shmoe,' commented on the video, 'This is explained in 'Culture of Critique' by Macdonald.
Wikipedia gives this information, 'The Culture of Critique series is a trilogy of books by Kevin B. MacDonald, an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology. MacDonald claims that evolutionary psychology provides the motivations behind Jewish group behavior and culture. Through the series, MacDonald asserts that Jews as a group have biologically evolved to be highly ethnocentric and hostile to the interests of white people. He asserts Jewish behavior and culture are central causes of antisemitism, and promotes conspiracy theories about alleged Jewish control and influence in government policy and political movements.' I've saved a copy of the comments on this video on the 'two Jewish academics ... ' I suppose that Simon Webb won't remove the video. If he ever does, I've taken copies of the comments
. None of the comments amount to Holocaust denial but they do amount to anti-historical propaganda. Commenters on Simon Webb's output - does he read your comments? If he read the comments on his 'two Jewish academics' video, he should have taken steps to distance himself from the hideous views expressed in so many of them.
At one point in the discussion, Peter Kiszely said, with reference to the use and misuse of the word 'safe,' 'We all know you can see it in the language.' Whatever good sense and sensitivity the host and guests showed when discussing the mistakes of the woke, their actions as well as the language they use so often, was nowhere to be found when it came to discussing the 'flag and the swastika' episode. On the evidence available, it seems that Hampshire Police blundered - a comical act with serious, even sinister overtones. But when Emma Webb gave her own interpretation, it was very disturbing, conniving in hideous misuse of language, and those highly accomplished bullshit detectors Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and Philip Kiszely seemed to find nothing wrong. Their minds, or their nostrils, perhaps, failed them, it seems.
Has there ever been a time when the word 'love' has been used and misused so often? Connotations of intense emotion seem to have disappeared. I remember seeing an advertising poster put out by the British Conifer association, 'Love me, love my conifer.' Equating a man's love for a woman or a woman's love for a man (or, of course, a man's love for a man or a woman's love for a woman) with loving a fir tree or a yew tree or a juniper bush seems ridiculous to me but the priorities of the people who grow and sell conifers are obviously different.
The word 'love' may be a lost cause, or largely lost cause, but it's essential not to equate the Nazis with people who are obviously not Nazis, to use the word 'Nazi' indiscriminately, negligently, without giving any thought to the barbarities which put the Nazis, probably, in a category apart - their cruelties rivalled by the cruelties which occurred in Stalinist Russia but exceeding them by quite a margin. If people know about Auschwitz and Belsen and Dachau and perhaps a few more concentration and extermination camps, and about some of the horrors which took place in the Nazi domination of Europe, they may not know enough. The mobile killing units, the Einsatzgruppen, which accompanied Nazi forces during the invasion of Russia, are not common knowledge, perhaps, but their contribution to the horrors which took place under Nazi domination was immense. To equate the men who shot babies and their mothers, in some cases, for bravado, with a single bullet, with the actions (and antics) of gay pride is horrible. For Emma Webb to equate Hampshire police with the Gestapo is horrible - a mistake, a bad mistake, a deeply disturbing mistake. Adolf Eichmann was a member of the Gestapo.
Peter Whittle, the founder of the New Culture Forum, declares that he isn't 'a religious man' but adds, 'That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the extraordinary works that churches do.' His comments appear on the Website of 'Premier Christian News,'
His comment is bland, almost formulaic, but is completely understandable, given the circumstances. The issue of the Churches and their contribution, not just their contribution now but in past centuries - the New Culture Forum has quite a developed historical sense - merits a much closer examination. I can't possibly give an adequate examination here but I think this outline should provide, not unexpected insights but material that contradicts any naive view of the 'wonderful work that churches do.' Peter Whittle may well be unaware that many, many Christians won't have nearly as favourable view of him as he has of the Churches. Here, I discuss not 'churches' in general but particular versions of christian faith. Their differences are often very significant.
It would be impossible to do more than touch upon the ridiculousness and harmful effects of Roman Catholicism over the years, over the centuries, which I would claim exceed the ridiculousness and harmful effects of 'woke' views, and not by a small margin. For the record, I've been and still am an opponent of 'woke' views, an energetic opponent, I could claim, but I can't possibly provide much evidence here. This comment is long enough as it is. All I can do is give a few snippets of information but I'll include comments on the ridiculousness and harmful effects of evangelical and other protestant views, a few comments on the Anglican Church's very substantial contribution (as the Established Church for centuries, it has had plenty of practice). I'll begin, though, with the Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Church has few rivals, or no rivals, for ridiculousness but as a source of harm, it's far from being one of the worst perpetrators. Nazism and Stalinism have been vastly worse. I don't in the least claim that individual Roman Catholics and other Christians are always negligible people, quite the opposite. There are many, many Roman Catholics and other Christians known to me with substantial strengths - massive strengths. The teaching of 'Saint' Thomas Aquinas, the 'Doctor Angelicus' ('Angelic Doctor') of the Roman Catholic Church: 'With regard to heretics,' the Angelic Doctor writes, 'two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.' The burning alive of heretics and execution by other means constitutes a hideous episode of Roman Catholic history.
A well known example: Giordano Bruno, who denied such Catholic doctrines as eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary and transubstantiation. He was found guilty and burned at the stake in 1600.
Protestants have also dealt with failures to conform to Protestant orthodoxy by methods far in excess of any used by 'woke' people. To give just one, well-known example, Michael Servetus rejected the doctrine and other Roman Catholic doctrines. He was condemned by the Catholic Church in France and fled to Calvinist Geneva. He was denounced by Calvin and burned at the stake for heresy in 1553, by the order of the governing council of Geneva.
The pretence that British history has been overwhelmingly or almost always a a force for good is is contradicted by many, many events.
I'd include in the ong list of exceptions this, the execution of Thomas Aikenhead for blasphemy, but this execution was as long ago as 1697. So far as I'm aware, the much more recent phenomenon of 'wokeism,' for all its harmful effects, has never executed anyone. Censoring of books has been an established, official practice of the R.C Church. The 'Index Librorum Prohibitorum' ('List of Prohibited Books') contained books which Catholics were forbidden to read. It included books deemed heretical or contrary to morals.
Books placed on the prohibited list included Kant's monumental 'Critique of Pure Reason,' Pascal's ' PenseÚs' (with notes by Voltaire), Spinoza's 'Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,' Locke's 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,' John Stuart Mill's 'Principles of Political Economy,' Edward Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,' Flaubert's 'Madame Bovary' - and all the works of the philosopher David Hume, all the works of Zola and all the works of Sartre.
Here, in its zealous pursuit of 'error,' wokeism comes close to the hideous record of the Roman Catholic Church or even surpasses it in some ways. The penalties for offending may be severe, if nowhere near as severe as execution. Over the centuries, Roman Catholics have persecuted orthodox protestants and orthodox protestants have persecuted Roman Catholics, often forcing them into hiding and often executing them when discovered. Well into the 19th century, members of Oxford and Cambridge University were required to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine articles of the Church of England, the statement of faith and practice which amongst much else articulated the doctrine of the Trinity and doctrines of sin and salvation which have hideous implications - I touch upon this briefly below. The universities were far from being havens of sanity and unfettered debate before the advent of 'wokeism.'
It would take a long time to give a summary of the ridiculous aspects and harmful effects associated with one Roman Catholic doctrine alone, baptism. Here, Protestant views are surely less ridiculous, less harmful (but, as I explain later, Protestant doctrines of salvation and redemption are very often much more ridiculous and harmful than Roman Catholic doctrines: the contrast between salvation by faith and salvation by works.
As in other parts of this comment, I must be brief, in full awareness that this collection of brief comments is adding up to a very long comment as things usually go in You Tube comment sections. Roman Catholic doctrines of the sacraments are markedly different from Protestant doctrines. The sacrament of baptism has very often been thought essential for salvation in the Roman Catholic Church. Augustine (the Augustine of Hippo, North Africa, not the Augustine of Canterbury) seems to have changed his views on baptism. In one sermon of his, he claimed that only people who had received baptism could be saved, a belief shared by many early Christians. A passage in 'City of God' may possibly indicate a belief that children born of Christian parents who died unbaptized were not necessarily doomed to hell. The Roman Catholic Church has in general shown the utmost reluctance to concede that unbaptized children could be admitted to heaven, hence the extension of doctrine to include the state of 'Limbo' for unbaptized babies, neither heaven nor hell. I'd say that 'woke' beliefs in general don't quite reach the ridiculousness of all this. Modern Catholic discussions of baptism equal or surpass in ridiculousness 'woke' views. A short extract from an article on the site
with a title which reflects the Website address, 'Emergencies and baptism: will soda water do?' 'A red pickup truck was overturned by the side of the road. The driver lay on the grass, thrown clear of the vehicle, crumpled, bleeding and unresponsive. A young man pulled his car off the road and sprinted to the side of the dying man. He called 911, then rushed back to his car and grabbed the waxed cup from a fast-food restaurant that was in the cup holder of his car. It held some melting ice and water, left over from a soda he’d drank earlier in the day. He poured the water from the melted ice over the man’s forehead with the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The man died a few minutes before the ambulance arrived. 'The next day, the young man posted the question on a Catholic Q&A site: “I’m just wondering — was it a valid baptism?” The helpful advice offered in the article included this, 'For a valid baptism of an adult, the Church requires an unbaptized person and pure water.' It gives this quotation from the 'Catholic Encyclopedia:' Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is ... valid. … As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalid matter is every liquid that is not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva, wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits and any mixture containing water which men would no longer call water.'
As for doctrines of salvation, redemption, orthodox evangelical views are unsurpassed for their hideous implications, but are widely shared by other Christians. 'Saint' Paul taught that the eternal destiny of a person is decided by faith or lack of faith in Jesus Christ as 'personal lord and saviour.' There are countless statements of Christian faith which present this bleak view. This is from a page of the Christian Police Association with the title 'Faith.' 'We Believe ... that 'those who have died having believed and received forgiveness will be raised, and together with those believers who are still alive, will be taken to live with Christ forever. Those who have refused to believe will be condemned from God’s presence forever.'
The Oakes Holiday Centre in Sheffield, which tries to mix fun with Christianity, can find no fun in this 'Statement of Belief' on their Website: 'The Lord Jesus Christ will return in person, to judge everyone, to execute God's just condemnation on those who have not repented and to receive the redeemed to eternal glory.'
These are some implications of these statements and similar statements from Christian Churches all over the country, all over the world. The list could be extended indefinitely. According to this doctrine of redemption, commonplace in Christian circles: All police officers are doomed to spend eternity in hell, except for the minority of police officers who have accepted Jesus Christ as personal lord and saviour, including police officers killed in action. All the troops who liberated the concentration camps and extermination camps are consigned to hell, except for the minority of Jesus Christ accepters. All the people executed by the Nazis for saving the lives of Jews are consigned to hell, except for that minority. Time to mention the case of one person, Ernst Biberstein, who studied theology and became a pastor. During the Second World War, he was the commanding officer of Einsatktommando 6, which executed thousands of people. The Einsatzkommandos were a sub-group of the Einsatzgruppen, mobile killing squads, who exterminated Jews and others in the territories captured by the German forces as they advanced Eastwards. After the war, he was tried and sentenced to death but the sentence was commuted. He was released in 1958 and returned to the clergy. There seems reason to believe that he was a committed Christian and qualified for salvation according to the orthodox Christian view, or one view of the orthodox Christian view. There's every reason to believe that virtually all the people massacred by his execution squads and the other Einsatzgruppen were not qualified for salvation according to the orthodox Christian view, every reason to believe that virtually all the people killed in the Nazi gas chambers were unqualified for salvation, according to this deranged doctrine. There may well have been some Christian converts amongst them, but the victims were overwhelmingly Jews, without a belief in Christ as Lord and Saviour. Loving mothers and fathers, loving mothers and fathers who have looked after disabled children, are all consigned to hell, unless they belong to that minority of believers. And what of the fate of the disabled children themselves - are they saved or damned? The Bible gives no information about an age above which young people qualify for damnation. I know of no Christian discussions of the issue, although there must surely be some.
And this: all supporters of the New Culture Forum are consigned to hell according to these doctrines, unless, again, they belong that minority of believers. Peter Whittle, who says that he isn't a religious man, is certainly destined for hellfire, according to orthodox evangelical belief and not just evangelical belief - unless he changes his mind, perhaps as a result of a miraculous conversion. Many, many Christians pray for that kind of thing.
The belief that all composers go to hell is yet another consequence. So, to give just one example, Dmitri Shostakovich: hell. Johann Sebastian Bach, heaven. All the working people who have done backbreaking and dangerous work - or backbreaking and dangerous work - are damned, including ones killed in pit disasters, in industrial accidents, all doomed - apart from the believing minority. The Christian Police Association also has this belief: 'We Believe that the Bible, as originally given, is the inspired Word of God without error and is the only complete authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.'
What are people who have this belief in the inerrancy of the Bible to make of these Biblical texts? Just a few examples. Psalm 137: 8-9 in the 'Good News (!)' translation: Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy are those who pay you back for what you have done to us - who take your babies and smash them against a rock. Exodus 22: 18-19, again, in the 'Good News' translation: 'Put to death any woman who practices magic.' By the way, this is Exodus 22: 20 'Condemn to death anyone who offers sacrifices to any god except to me, the Lord.' The Authorized version of the Bible gives this as the translation for another verse from a book supposedly 'without error,' Exodus 22: 18: 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' King James - the King James of the King James version of the Bible - believed that witches deserved death. His book on witchcraft, 'The Demonology' gives revealing insights into his state of mind. He was a ferocious persecutor of women he thought of as witches, and under his jurisdiction, many women were put to death. Simon Webb of 'History Debunked' has declared his belief in 'The Lord,' so his eternal destiny is secure, unless he loses his faith for any reason. On to other matters in this brisk tour of Christian theological artefacts.
A fascinating/ridiculous page https://anglican.ink/2022/05/21/growth-decline-and-extinction-of-uk-churches/
gives 'Estimated Extinction Dates for UK Churches.' 'The Church of England and Catholics should last until the second half of the century. However, they need to take urgent action now. Stemming losses is not enough. None of us can prevent ageing! Whatever their current denominational emphases, they should put all aside to encourage members to make new disciples who can replicate themselves. Praying for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit would not go amiss either.
'Sadly, the immediate future looks bleak for the Church in Wales, Church of Scotland, Episcopalians, Methodists, and older Welsh nonconformists. They need to seriously ask themselves how they have gotten themselves into a situation where extinction is less than 30 years away.' Extinction is hardly likely to be complete extinction. There will surely be isorated Christian believers and pockets of Christian believers and larger groups, although not numerically very large. The consequence, if orthodox Christians are to be believed (but they shouldn't be believed, not for one moment) is that the percentage of people headed for hell will increase enormously - an enormous contrast with the situation in the ages of faith, when Christians persecuted ferociously Christians with different shades of belief and non-Christians but there were so many people who did accept Christ as their Saviour.
There is no necessary linkage between conservative views and 'anti-woke' views and Christian belief. To very different extents, Simon Webb's 'History Debunked,' the New Culture Forum, GB News, the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator support or even endorse Christianity. I've particular knowledge of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator because I regularly bought the newspaper and subscribed to the magazine over a long period of time and got used to seeing pieces which assumed the importance of Christianity in the country's national life, even if they were never very frequent.
'Christian Woman' is yet another conservative outfit which treats Christianity as beyond scrutiny. I disagree with this view and many of the other views to be found on the site. There has been comment on the increase in numbers of working class conservative supporters and the possibility of losing that support, of course. If some conservative supporters want to lost that support, then taking for granted and promoting the Christian view of things may well contribute to that debacle. It won't influence me. I'm in no danger of voting for the greens, the Labour Party, the Women's Equality Party or any of the alternatives, including the candidates who fully expect to lose their deposits. Limitations of space have prevented me from discussing the views of Calvin Robinson and the New Culture Forum video '
'How to Return the Church to God & Reverse Its Wokery? My Conservative Views Stopped My Ordination.' I take it that he's not one of those people who identify with the conservative anti-woke brigade but seem very vague about these matters. Their Christian belief is an identification with village churches, immemorial traditions, vague uplift and the rest. He will have a belief in a selection of the orthodox Christian views at least. I'd be interested to find out about Calvin Robinson's Christian views, about the Christian doctrines he accepts or doesn't accept. There may well be sources of information which would provide some answers.
I've tried to argue that woke views are far from unique in their ridiculousness, far from unique in their harmfulness. It's essential to put 'wokeism' in a wider context. Here, I've made comparisons with Christian belief and practice. Comparisons with Nazi and Stalinist ideology and practice would show more far graphically that 'wokeism' may be a scourge but is far from being the worst of the worst belief systems to afflict humanity. Anyone who believes that 'wokeism' is just that is, I'd claim, deluded.
Simon Webb has been careless - reckless - in presenting his 'Homogeneity Thesis.' He hasn't thought things through. He doesn't seem to understand the difficulties in restoring homogeneity to a society which has become far less homogeneous. (His understanding of practical politics, of the realities of political action seems to me grossly deficient.) He doesn't seem to have realized that attempts to bring about homogeneity in societies have sometimes had catastrophic results.
One comment below - I don't name the commenter but it's easy to
find on the page was obviously addressed to Simon Webb: 'You
overlooked two other examples - Germany [Jews] and United Kingdom
[Catholics].' This loathsome comment unwittingly draws attention to
some of the dangers of the 'Webb Homogeneity Thesis.' The Nazis
wanted a homogeneous, Aryan Germany and saw the Jews as an obstacle,
so they used extermination to remove the Jews, killing about 6
million before the war ended and the camps were liberated.
Protestants who wanted a homogeneous Protestant society without the
'contagion' of the Catholics sometimes executed Catholics or went to
war against them. Catholics who wanted a homogeneous Catholic
society without the 'contagion' of the Protestants sometimes
executed Protestants or went to war against them. In both cases,
this led not to thousands of deaths but many millions, in the 17th
For the record, I don't in the least regard greater diversity as automatically enriching a society, to be advocated in all circumstances. For one thing, I support stringent and effective border controls, for a variety of reasons. One is the extreme importance of doing everything possible to keep out Islamist extremists. I was surprised to find a Simon Webb video which gives a very relaxed view of some aspects of Islamism, called 'Why some people have a bee in their bonnet about Islam,' with this amplification, 'One religion [Islam] seems to be the focus of a good deal of negativity.' I was glad to find that a large number of commenters took issue with his view of the matter.
The site of Migration Watch UK (an outstanding site, I think) includes a summary page 'What is the problem?' I agree with Migration Watch's approach to the massive problem -of mass immigration into this country. Intentional attempts to increase diversity can have a range of unintended consequences. For obvious reasons - the space which would be needed to discuss the issues - I can't give further details about my reasons here.