Lord Carey against “the diversity of our university”

archbishopcareyAdorning the façade of King’s College London is a ‘wall of fame’ displaying the portraits of the most deserving alumni.

One has to believe that by any reasonable standards an alumnus who rises to the highest ecclesiastical post in the land, that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, is deserving enough.

Yet a five-year campaign by homosexual activists, collectively known as ‘gay-stapo’, has just succeeded in removing Lord Carey’s picture from the wall. That portrait was expunged because it failed to “capture the diversity of our university community”, meaning Lord Carey staunchly opposed homomarriage.

Now anyone who refuses to be stamped in the dirt by the steamroller of our PC modernity is a criminal by common – and increasingly more often legal – definition. Yet one can still scrape together enough audacity to suggest that accusing a Christian prelate of opposing homomarriage is tantamount to accusing him of being, well, a Christian prelate.

The scriptural position on both homosexuality and marriage is so unequivocal that any priest who fails to oppose homomarriage ought to be summarily unfrocked and ideally excommunicated. Lord Carey thus remained within the confines of his remit.

That, however, doesn’t make him guilty of one of the greatest crimes against PC sensibilities, ‘homophobia’. Not to be pedantic, I won’t emphasise the simple lexical fact that ‘phobia’ means an uncontrollable fear, not hatred, which the term ‘homophobia’ is supposed to imply nowadays.

But however one defines it, I’m sure Lord Carey isn’t a sufferer. I’m certain he doesn’t turn pale with fear at the sight of, say, the Tory MP Alan Duncan.

Nor, as a Christian, can he possibly hate Mr Duncan, at least not for his open homosexuality. However, he can – indeed, as a Christian, must – hate Mr Duncan’s homosexuality. The distinction has been valid ever since St Augustine wrote “Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum”, which is roughly translated as “Hate the sin but love the sinner”.

For any Christian, rejection of homosexuality (and consequently homomarriage) is a matter of doctrine, not personal choice. Yet the doctrine also prescribes the ultimate virtue of Christianity: loving not only one’s neighbour but also one’s enemy, not only a saint but also a sinner.

Regrettably, such distinctions are lost on the homosexual stormtroopers of King’s, led by Ben Hunt and inspired by the patron saint (well, sinner) of homosexual activism Peter Tatchell. Hunt made the removal of Lord Carey’s portrait part of his manifesto when he stood for the post of LGBT officer, whatever that means.

He’s now president of King’s student union, using the power of his office to promote his parochial interests and merit a pat on the back from Tatchell himself, who commented: “No university should celebrate a public figure who fought so hard against gay equality.”

What amuses me is that Tatchell’s stormtroopers claim they’re in favour of tolerance. This side of Khmer Rouge and ISIS, I can’t think offhand of a less tolerant group than homosexual activists. It’s like Julius Streicher accusing his opponents of racial prejudice.

Some four years ago I found myself on the receiving end of their vaunted tolerance when I published this article in The Daily Mail on-line magazine: http://www.alexanderboot.com/so-attack-on-free-speech-is-a-sign-of-tolerance/

The gist was criticism of Boris Johnson, then mayor of London, who had allowed a campaign for homomarriage to appear on buses, while banning a rebuttal by Christian groups. Fair’s fair, I suggested. What’s sauce for the homosexual goose should also be sauce for the Christian gander.

In passing, I referred to homosexuality as an ‘aberration’, which it is, if only in strictly numerical terms. In retrospect, I could have couched the argument in more anodyne terms, but mine was indeed an argument, not a harangue.

Within hours all hell broke loose. On the evening of the same day my picture and all the relevant contact details appeared in Tatchell’s propaganda sheet called PinkNews. The paper demanded that all practitioners of what I criminally called an aberration express their feelings, all in keeping with the tolerance they swore by.

Come morning, I had received thousands of balanced and well-reasoned counterarguments, along the lines of “Eat sh*it and die, you c**t”. Also coming in thick and fast were death threats, expressed in the same refined idiom.

One chap displayed a diagnostic ability of enviable attainment, saying he’d joyously kill me, but there was no need because, judging by my photograph, I wasn’t long for this world anyway. Since the picture was taken at the time I had what was believed to be terminal cancer, I silently applauded my correspondent’s perspicacity.

Coming in the wake of personal communications were some twenty PCC complaints, threatening The Mail with lawsuits the size of Belgium’s GDP. In the good, if recent, tradition of British journalism, I was thrown to the wolves immediately – no one can be so intolerant of tolerance and get away with it.

Now the same gang has succeeded in kicking out not insignificant me but Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury. Much as I’d like to, I can’t blame them – that would be like blaming a dog for chasing a cat around the block.

But I can blame a society that allows openly subversive nonentities to win their pathetic little victories. Such a society has its survival imperilled – and I’m not sure it deserves to survive.

1 thought on “Lord Carey against “the diversity of our university””

  1. Hello Alexander, it’s been quite a while since I saw you last but I hope you’re well! I’ve always kept up with your blogs, which I look forward to every day, but with this one I thought it might be worth adding whatever insight I could from within.

    As my father might have told you, I’m currently studying Theology at King’s, and the influence of the ‘gay-stapo’ at the university has grown noticeably even in the few years I’ve been here. Same with the ‘anti-racist’ student activists. It was a fellow Theology student in my year who campaigned successfully for the introduction of ‘gender-neutral’ toilets, and the creation of the ‘Wall of BAME’ (Black And Minority Ethnic). This latter phenomenon was in response to a row of pictures in the main corridor of female academics, none of whom were sufficiently brown for this person’s liking. Unfortunately this obsession with superficiality and victimhood has infested the university, and its leading figures are largely succumbing to it. The most farcical thing, for my money, was the drama concerning the apparent racism behind the lower average marks achieved by BAME students at King’s. When marking essays, our professors are given nothing but a student’s candidate number, which is changed regularly. How anonymous marking is supposed to nevertheless encourage racism is beyond me, but this Theology student and his followers decided that walking out of lectures was the answer. No doubt this improved their marks.
    He eventually quit the course, denouncing King’s as a ‘racist institution’ in spite of its efforts to keep step with the progressive timetable imposed by himself and others.

    More recently, we were encouraged by the Theology & Religious Studies Department to fill out a survey which asked us for our details concerning ethnicity and sexuality, before posing a range of questions about whether we felt that the Theology course represented us appropriately. Perhaps unsurprisingly, plans are now in the pipeline to change the course to ‘Theology, Religion and Culture,’ coming into effect in 2018 so the head of department tells me, apparently to broaden the appeal and range of the course. Straightforward ‘Theology’ is hard enough to find nowadays for potential undergraduates, and even the course as it is now has its failings and glaring omissions. There is, for example, no module on medieval theology whatsoever.
    A good friend of mine also doing Theology, at the same time a ‘Student Rep,’ provides some official feedback to the department regarding the discontent all this has caused for those of us who retain some sense, but apparently his views are very much in the minority when it comes to the people who actually govern the direction of the department and the university. As you know, there is no debating with these people ultimately; the only thing one gets out of it is abuse.
    Anyway, it gives us something to pray about and struggle against. Wishing you all the best this Christmas and New Year,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.