Some people are gay – get over it!
Yesterday I was confronted by this story in the paper:
Apparently these parents think that having some homosexuals use the same pool (and not at the same time – it’s a private session) as their darling children without the protection swimming trunks is unhygienic. I’d never realised that Lycra trunks were such an effective barrier against disease.
Reading the piece I was immediately taken back to my school days when the bunch of ignorant, homophobic and immature boys who I went to school with (and was no doubt was just as bad as at the time) thought that you could catch AIDS if a gay man had sat on a toilet before you.
This isn’t ‘an outrage’ as these mums call it; it’s ignorance and ill-concealed homophobia. These parents need to be educated and quite possibly ridiculed rather than pandered to.
7:29 am on April 4th, 2008
Actually it makes you wonder how many of their little darlings have ever peed in their trunks while in the pool. I don’t think there has even been a child who hasn’t at some point in their early days indulged in that guilty, dirty pleasure.
12:21 pm on April 4th, 2008
I note the headline: “Some people are gay – get over it!”
‘Coincidentally’ this exact phrase was the slogan of a recent national billboard advertising campaign from the militant perverts’ organisation Stonewall. Of course the implication of the phrase is that homosexuality is normal and decent and so general society should accept it as such. It hardly needs to be said though [in sane company] that homosexuality is a disgusting depravity and a downright dangerous perversion. At the time of Stonewall’s campaign I wrote to Stonewall and pointed out to them that homosexuality is a perversion and objected to their perverts’ propaganda… interestingly Stonewall – usually so strident and swift to respond to Christian criticism and label people such as myself as ‘homophobes’ or ‘bigots’ – did not even muster a reply! I take that as an encouraging sign that I will yet live to see the day that this evil organisation and all it stands for is crushed and destroyed in the UK.
Anyway, to the swimming baths article…
The article itself is a classic piece of propaganda from the M.E.N. Of course there is no big issue of hygiene in regard of the perverts’ nude bathing group [provided the perverts aren't engaging in masturbation or anal intercourse during the session - in which case there would be semen, blood and faeces getting here, there and everywhere] so the article has ‘majored’ on this minor point of concern from parents as though it was the parents’ main concern. In so doing – in majoring on a minor – the article paints the parents as being silly and over-the-top in their objections.
However the parents major objection is not the relatively slight concern over potential hygiene issues but that it is fundamentally morally wrong and socially unacceptable to allow perverts’ nude bathing in a public baths – as any sane, decent and responsible adult will testify! It is an appalling travesty that the taxpayer-funded and postmodernist, immoral, secular humanist and anti-Christian Manchester City Council, (and the similarly motivated Manchester Evening News), are offending the great majority of right-thinking members of the public with this crime against morality and public decency. [And which would've been an imprisonable offence (though it would never have happened) not so long ago.]
Richard Carvath’s slogan is:
“Homosexuality is a Perversion – Admit the Truth!”
The implication is clear… homosexuality is NOT socially or culturally acceptable, should NOT be on public display or in the public domain in any way at all [indeed this should be illegal - as it was] and should not enjoy any favourable legal status, recognition or privilege.
I am confident that the majority of the public – including the Levenshulme Baths Parents – back me up… and quite right too!
12:37 pm on April 4th, 2008
Richard what is wrong with you, You views are stuck in the past, I fail to see how “Homosexuality is a Perversion” surely all people are made in the image of god and so therefore Homoexuality is NOT a Perversion, you need to read a bible.
The people complaining should get some sense, In my view it is odd to swim naked but I’m not going to stop it, swimming pools are chlorinated and the water is changed, If this was an issue of hygeine would these parents allow their children to swim in the sea which is likely to be filthier then a local swimming pool.
1:00 pm on April 4th, 2008
A friend of mine has pointed out that the Bible contains dozens and dozens of admonishments against the immorality of heterosexuals, but only half a dozen or so against homosexuals. I think it’s clear where you’re God’s major source of concern lies.
I find your quote: “Manchester City Council, (and the similarly motivated Manchester Evening News), are offending the great majority of right-thinking members of the public with this crime against morality and public decency” amusing in it’s idiocy. How is swimming naked immoral? How is a private swim an offence against ‘public’ decency? By right-thinking do you mean unpleasant bigotry and irrational prejudice?
Your incoherent bigotry is demonstrated by your objection to something that people are rather than something that people do.
For a man who professes to follow what Christians call the God of love you do a lot of hating. Different does not equal wrong. I wonder if all this anger and hatred is because you feel threatened somehow?
1:37 pm on April 4th, 2008
Richard Carvath’s reply with its violent language , its talk of ‘crushing’ and desroying etc, is certainly symptomatic of something but not true Christianity. Christ Himself did not mention homosexuality of course but was a friend of sinners and expressly forbade the judgemental attitudes Mr Carvath expresses. Homophobia, like all hatred is used to divide and scapegoat, as Christ was scapegoated, for the sins of others and their ungodly prejudices. As a traditionalist Christian, I find the ill-informed rants by the self-appointed ,uncatechised , theologically illiterate, one of the reasons for the divisions we see in the Church and a diabolical weakening of Christian witness to our broken society. We all fall short, Mr Carvath.
3:50 pm on April 4th, 2008
I note the various points raised by comment contributors in response to my original post; I am unsurprised (and unimpressed) by these remarks and see nothing in them which merits any specific reply or any further expansion of my original post. You’ll have to do better than ranting and sophistry if you want me to bother replying to you guys!
There is not presently on the internet a publicly-available definitive formal statement of my doctrine, ideology and attitude in regard of homosexuality but my position is the ‘mainstream orthodox conservative theology Christian’ position [I might say the Missionary Position!] as exemplified by the articles and apologetics available on the website of the Christian Institute. Interested parties would do well to study such material. And read the Bible (properly). And read the simply colossal mountain of medical, psychiatric, social scientific, criminological, historical and anecdotal evidence of harm caused by the homosexual lifestyle choice (both directly to perverts themselves but also more broadly to community and society).
I love [Greek: 'agape' love] homosexuals as people but hate their practice of homosexuality; I hate the practice of perversion but love perverted people. And just for readers of this blog, there is presently a handy pictorial guide to homosexuality on the ‘Notes & Miscellany’ page of my blog (you can click through from above if you fancy).
7:55 pm on April 4th, 2008
You’ll forgive me if I don’t much store in choosing my morals by interpreting what was written hundreds of years ago in a magic book.
9:05 pm on April 4th, 2008
Steve, I know you are not a Christian and furthermore that many of your firm ideological convictions stand in opposition to Biblical morality. Two points though:
(1) Even aside of the Bible’s clear and absolute condemnation of homosexuality (and all other manifestations of sexual immorality – indeed, all sin) [though Biblical morality is my primary basis for opposing homosexuality]… regardless of what you would presumably dismiss as ‘religious nonsense’… that still leaves all the rational scientific evidence of harm which stacks up overwhelmingly against homosexuality, and
(2) The implication of your phrase is – it seems to me – (whether deliberately intended or simply a subliminal reflection of your habitual mindset) that to be a Christian is somehow either illogical or indicative of a low intellect or poor education. In response to this implication I would simply state that:
(i) Some of the greatest historical and contemporary intellectuals in every field of academic endeavour have been and are Christians. As a writer, I might particularly highlight the great 20th century Christian scholars and writers of genius C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien (some of whose more popular works, if you will pardon my presumptuous guess, you probably appreciate)
(ii) From a simple rational logical standpoint, it is clearly absurd to be dismissive of a text for no other reason than its age. I am confident that you will find many contemporary atheist/secular humanist academics who will happily cite ancient Greek and Roman secular sources [of comparable age to the Biblical texts] as a basis of historical precedent and origin of academic discipline in a wide range of contemporary academic fields without any [obviously irrational] concerns that the age of such sources by or of itself negates or detracts from the essential quality of the material.
9:18 pm on April 4th, 2008
I’ve said it before – a blog and its comments section is a poor place for theological debate. You can believe what you like in my view – so long as you do not try to force other people to share your beliefs. I believe that people should be allowed to do as they wish so long as it harms no one. For the record, I do not include being offended by having your beliefs challenged (or ridiculed) as harm, but I do think attacking someone for what they are inherently is harmful. Secularism allows scope for people to believe in whatever they like; be it the flying Spaghetti Monster, God or anything else. Feel free – just don’t think because you claim that your personal morality is God given that you beliefs have any special validity as a result. I actually do think that Christianity has some valid ideas on goodness – but I don’t believe that they are good simply because they are claimed as Christian. Rather than spend any more time on this – if you wish to know my opinion on the matter, then you will find I have much in common with A. C. Grayling.
11:40 pm on April 14th, 2008
I am saddened and repelled by the way in which Richard puts forward his vitriol and attaches the label ‘Christian’ to it. He certainly does not speak for me. He tells us he sees homosexuals with agape love but there really is nothing loving or compassionate or, so far as I can see, godly in his attitude. I would not particularly share Cllr Cooke’s scornfulness towards the strangely anxious parents who think something nasty could befall their kids if they swam in Levenshulme Pool – but it seems to take this dipping of his toe into the murkier pool of people’s worries over sex and infection to bring out the rash in Mr Carvath. The Greek word for you Richard is ‘phobia’ rather than ‘agape’.
2:31 am on April 15th, 2008
My stance on homosexuality and my attitude towards homosexuals as people represents authentic Christianity. Homosexuality is a deeply depraved sinful perversion, the evil and destructive consequences of which lifestyle choice are clearly manifest in so many homosexuals’ lives (and in broader society as they impact upon it); therefore as a politically active Christian I am committed to eradicating homosexuality from public life [like in the UK only 50 years ago].
Regarding homosexuals as people I love them unconditionally [agape] as indeed I love [agape] all people in obedience to Christ’s example and command to anyone who would follow Him. The difficulty with being a Christian in the political realm (on this issue, and other issues) is that political goals are specific to politics and have to be pursued politically and politics is by nature adversarial.
Specifically in the political context when I write or speak about homosexuality I’m invariably in ‘polemical mode’ because I’m very clearly campaigning against the social and political manifestations of homosexuality and the militant pervert agenda. Furthermore when I use the word “pervert” I do not use it pejoratively [or, in the spiritual regard, 'judgementally'] but simply as the best word to convey the moral and medical truth of what it is to be a homosexual. I know full well that there are homosexuals (and those sympathetic to them) that dislike the word ‘pervert’ but I would be doing them a disservice if I did not remind them by this word that what they do is wrong and harmful (and furthermore urge them to return to normal).
Though I understand why some people genuinely misunderstand my motives (and even my moral message) on this subject and therefore sincerely – but errantly – conclude that my position or approach is ‘un-Christian’ – not least because of their ignorance of authoritative Biblical truth – there are others who attempt to misrepresent me as a ‘homophobe’ or a ‘bigot’ as it suits their own agenda despite knowing that I am neither.
I often find that a simple test of a person’s true heart attitude is whether they will associate with a particular group of people and how they relate to them. You will find that I am happy to associate with homosexuals in a friendly manner (at the same time as I disapprove of their homosexuality) so if the charge of ‘homophobia’ is to do with hating gays then that charge certainly won’t stick to me. You won’t get a homophobe saying “I love [agape] homosexual people”… but I just did.
1:15 am on January 18th, 2009
I just thank the Lord that Richard Carvath will never really achieve any power or great influence, because he is patently too right wing even for the Tories, and was expelled recently I believe.
Perhaps, Richard, you should consider a change of career, or a move to the States, to the God Hates Fags lobby in America?
Promoting prejudices based on absolute principles, that can never change due to being interpreted from ‘a magic book’, is far more insidious and dangerous than homosexuality ever could be.
8:26 pm on January 22nd, 2009
I can’t prevent twits on the internet (and elsewhere) from keeping up the ongoing campaign to misrepresent my views on homosexuality (or other issues).
Neither can I prevent [and this is a veiled reference to something else - not this comment thread] silly, immature and insecure little boys taking away their ball as the only way they can see to keep control of what they could not otherwise control by their own merit.
What I can do is periodically reiterate my position, which is:
I love homosexuals (as people) whilst at the same time I hate their perverse behaviour – their homosexuality – which hurts and damages the homosexuals themselves first and foremost, which is a tragedy I don’t want to see anybody suffer.
Because I love homosexual people so much, that’s the very reason why I am so strongly opposed to homosexuality and thus why I am a political activist opposed to the gay political agenda (exemplified most notably by Stonewall).
Love is my motive and my attitude towards homosexual people. Polemical political discourse should not be ‘decontextualised’ from its political activism primary context and neither should it be ‘mistranslated’ into judgements about how the writer relates to and speaks with [homosexual] people in an everyday social setting.
Polemical satire is a quite legitimate form of political action or protest (in that context), but it would be quite wrong to operate in the same way in other circumstances (and indeed would be counter-productive). As a political activist (exercising free speech) engaged in a socio-political cause, there is nothing wrong in, for example, my characterising the militant gay movement or Stonewall in particular as ‘The Botty Bashers Brigade’. If I were to refer to an individual homosexual person in a similar fashion in their presence – e.g. call somebody a ‘fag’ or similar – that would be deliberately insulting and hateful (and indeed I would never do anything like that because it would be quite wrong).
Any writing of mine on homosexuality on the internet must be understood in its proper context as political activism opposing the manifestation of homosexual perversion, practice and culture [so-called 'gay rights'] in public life and society generally. But of course I don’t go around talking to people one-to-one in the same fashion as a political essay or a lobby submission!
The purpose of my polemical political writings is to attack the evil of homosexuality in the best interests of both homosexuals and society as a whole and the motive for this is love… love which must be manifested in the adversarial arena of politics (’adversarial’ being the operative word).
11:29 pm on January 22nd, 2009
In the interests of balance, I feel compelled to reply to Richard’s post. Richard, you have your opinion and I feel proud that we live in a society where your free speech is a much of a right as the right for anyone to choose their sexual orientation.
Richard, did you know that the outlawing of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is supported by 90% of UK citizens? And that a poll conducted by The Observer affirmed that the majority of Britons support gay marriage?
Your motives are admirable, Richard, you clearly are a caring persons but I feel your view above represents a need to “save homosexuals from themselves” when in fact I would suggest that many homosexuals have struggled with their sexual orientation and it has taken great courage for them to admit that to family and loved ones.
You should be commending people who are happy with their sexual orientation (whatever it is) and not condemning their “perverse behaviour”. Their behaviour is within the law, regardless of your religious beliefs, so please let them be.
4:27 pm on January 23rd, 2009
Three points:
(1) What counts as “discrimination” is the heart of the discrimination issue. For example, it would be wrong for a Christian dentist to refuse to treat a homosexual patient simply because that person is homosexual, however it would be quite right for a Christian hotelier (say, running a B & B in his own home) to refuse two homosexuals a room together. Discrimination can be right or wrong. For example, practising homosexuals are ‘discriminated’ against when it comes to donating blood – indeed blood is not accepted from such persons – for the simple and sensible reason that because of the astronomically high prevalence of blood-borne infections amongst gays it would be dangerous to accept the poisonous blood of gays for use in transfusion.
(2) I dispute your assertions [or the poll which is your source] about what the majority views of the British public are on gay issues. [Bear in mind I'm well-versed in the findings of many polls on gay (and other) socio-political issues (and in the whole 'polling game' itself!).] I do not doubt the sincerity with which you offer these ’statistical claims’ though, which leads me to my last point…
(3) I don’t doubt the sincerity with which you have put forward your points – though I am in fundamental disagreement with your understanding of these issues – and neither do I doubt your respect for the person, which is rare in somebody who opposes me and what I stand for (re gay issues). Thank you; it makes a refreshing change from anonymous commentators on my blog likening me to the Yorkshire Ripper!!
It is very easy to understand the love of a Christian nurse as she nurses a twentysomething homosexual as he dies from AIDS. Nobody disputes the love of that Christian nurse. It is very easy to understand the love of a Christian police officer as he talks a suicidal homosexual (tormented by his homosexuality) down from a roof. Nobody doubts the love of that Christian police officer. But a Christian political activist campaigning against homosexuality and all its horrific consequences?… Love is the motive for every genuine Christian campaigning against homosexuality in the political arena but politics being what it is the campaigning process is not always a pretty sight! Neither was killing Nazis but it had to be done – the motive was right and the action justified.
6:33 pm on January 23rd, 2009
I am sorry Richard, but I am in disagreement with you, but that does not mean we cannot each discuss our own points of view (although I would suggest this is perhaps not the best place for that). Where you say “Discrimination can be right or wrong” I am afraid I can only disagree with you and instead offer my view that all discrimination is wrong but perhaps “Discrimination can be lawful or unlawful”.
In reply to your point (1). The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to protect men and women from discrimination on the grounds of sex. (quote from Wikipedia).
While the act does apply in the provision of goods and services, I doubt that In your example, the hotelier would be breaking any laws since I believe the hotelier has the freedom to choose whom he does and does not provide his services to. So in this case, it would still be discrimination – since the hotelier would refuse to provide a service on the basis of the sexual orientation of a potential customer. That may not be against the law, but it would be wrong (in my view).
In response to your point 2, I quote Wikipedia once again, you may check the link yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom
And while your last point is a little vague, I am in no position to doubt your motives or indeed your assertion that you love all homosexuals (I cannot say the same!), but I do want to make the point that just because you say something “is” does not make it so.
For example in one of your previous posts you have stated “homosexuality is evil” perhaps what you should have said was “I believe homosexuality is evil” I could quote other examples where you have stated something is true, when it is just your opinion.
I would ask you try not to distort your opinions into facts, but I would never ask anyone to withhold their views.
7:44 pm on January 23rd, 2009
I take your point [given you are not working from the same Christian mindset] that you question what is fact and what is opinion in regard of some claims that I make. Fair comment.
Of course sometimes – and particularly on these types of blog comment-threads – it’s just a case of “Hey this is fairly casual and quick commenting, not a formal academic essay, and people know something of my background and worldview, so I’m not too bothered about either how I present every point or what I say to back everything up.”
In these brief comments written off the cuff so much must necessarily remain implied rather than expounded in detail and with sources stated because there’s just not the time and neither is blogging the best forum for heavyweight discourse.
But I do appreciate your comment Steve… keeps me on my toes!
It’s not just a case of loving all homosexuals… it’s a case of loving all people (which of course includes homosexuals). [and even Liberal Democrats!]
On discrimination… we disagree here. I do not think discrimination is by definition always wrong (whether morally or legally or both). Though we tend to think of discrimination as meaning and being wrongful discrimination – and often this is so – it is not always (and necessarily) so. There is such a thing as rightful discrimination too.
It is right and proper to discriminate between what is morally right and what is morally wrong and to make decisions and act (or omit to act) on those discriminating decisions. [And in fact everybody does this, whether they are aware of it most of the time or not.]
Don’t you think it is right to discriminate against somebody of very low educational ability and say “Sorry but no you can’t go to Oxford University.”?
Or to discriminate against the paedophile and say “Sorry but no you can’t work as a teacher.”?
Or to discriminate against the visually impaired man and say “Sorry but your vision just isn’t good enough for you to hold a driving licence.”?
These are all examples of discrimination but none of these are wrong – quite the contrary.
12:26 am on January 24th, 2009
Unfortunately I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. We have been discussing ‘discrimination as a difference on a basis other than individual merit’ (paraphrased from the Merriam Webster dictionary) rather than distinguishing characteristics or, as you seem to be suggesting, between moral and immoral actions (right and wrong, if you like). Morality and immorality is often a matter of personal opinion – the kids that sit on my wall don’t think they are doing anything wrong, but I might well find it an intrusion on my property – and once again, opinion should be stated as such, rather than stated as fact.
In response to your question, yes I do think Oxford is right to choose one candidate over another based on their individual academic achievement. However, I believe they should not choose an individual because of their personal lifestyle choices… for example because they are a Muslim (or indeed a fundamentalist Christian). The other two examples you cite are slightly different since there is an element of physical safety. In the case of the paedophile, innocent children who are unable to protect themselves require the protection of law. Similarly, in the case of the visually impaired driver, it is other road users that require the protection of law.
Throughout your posts you seem to be suggesting that the public require the protection of law against homosexuality but I wonder who it is that you would aim to protect? Perhaps you would argue that it is the morality of society at large that requires protection. However, I believe, where the law does not dictate our actions, each individual is responsible for their own moral choices. It is not your responsibility to protect my morals or mine to protect yours. There is no physical threat to me, you or anyone else from homosexuals, and no innocent that requires protection. It is, however, against the law to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion and sexual preference.
As such, perhaps the title here, rather than being “Some people are gay – Get over it” should be:
“Some people are gay – accept it”
10:16 am on January 24th, 2009
A well written comment Steve; a pleasure to read.
Now it seems to me that the biggest dispute we have here [if we are to sidestep the fundamental moral issues] is over the harmful effects of homosexual behaviour and the public manifestation of homosexuality in society at large.
You wrote: “There is no physical threat to me, you or anyone else from homosexuals, and no innocent that requires protection.”
I strongly dispute this; there are major direct and indirect risks to the public at large from homosexuality. I do not have time to get in depth on it, but here are a few quick points:
(1) The threat to public health. Most practising homosexuals are highly promiscuous and so are major facilitators of the spread of infections; for example, male homosexuals are the largest reservoir of syphilis in the UK. [Let's not forget the cost to the taxpayer for all the NHS treatment needed either]
(2) The threat to children. Homosexuals are proportionately massively over-represented in the numbers of those adults who commit sex offences against children; homosexuals pose an enormous danger to teenage boys.
(3) The threat to the marriage-based family. The traditional [heterosexual] marriage-based family is the bedrock of any strong and civilised society. Homsexuality is the antithesis of this, and so its active promotion (such as through ’sex education’ promiscuity indoctrination to children at school) actively undermines the best basis for family foundation and the best setting for a sexual relationship – to the detriment of society at large [because we all have to live with (and pay for the costs of) our dysfunctional and disintegrating society which is directly attributable to the breakdown of traditional, stable family structures].
(4) The threat to moral and God-honouring society. [Doubtless you'll find this point difficult to stomach, however...] Homosexuality stands in direct opposition to God and to orthodox Biblical Christian morality. There is a reason why the UK is in such a chronic and diabolical state of crisis – the rejection of God and his standards – and the homosexual movement is one significant aspect of the cause of our state of crisis. The UK is founded upon the Judaeo-Christian ethic – this is our history and our heritage; we were at our greatest when we adhered to our Godly foundation; we are in dire straits now because we have drifted far away from God and His standards which were once our sure foundation when we were a strong, prosperous and respected nation. The homosexual movement is just one part of the prevailing political culture of [anti-Christian] secular humanism which has utterly destroyed the UK in just forty years.
Homosexuality is not benign in British society; homosexuality is a deadly cancer which is killing sane and civilised society in the UK (in conjunction with other similar evils, such as the poison that is pornography). Homosexuality is not just disastrous and deadly for its participants but is a destructive force which works its way through all of society. There is very much a public interest in returning society to a state in which nothing is done to condone, tolerate, promote or support homosexuality – in the best interests of everybody (without exception) in our society.
12:22 am on June 4th, 2009
Richard, since most of the argument on here has been from a thelogical stand point, I would like to wade in to this from a scientific/anthropological point of view:
If homosexuality is, indeed, unnatural, then why is it practiced amongst nearly all species in the animal kingdom?
As Robin Ince has said, reading the Bible and seeing, within it, condemnation of homosexuality is a little bit like reading Great Expectations and deducing that the book is a warning about the flammability of wedding dresses.
Why not try following the logical line of one of your own arguments rather than validating every comment you make by referencing a book written over 2000 years ago by many different -and conflicting- voices?
10:56 am on June 4th, 2009
Well, if you want to go and lick another man’s bottom or whatever, I can’t stop you, but my position is clear and my advice is don’t.
I’m afraid I won’t be making any further contribution to this comment-thread as I’m rather busy with other priorities. I have written about homosexuality in-depth in my book ‘Definitely Sexy’ (2009), which is freely available to read at:
http://www.richardcarvath.net/book.htm
The subject of homosexuality is mentioned in various parts of the book but the main chapter that deals with it is Chapter 18, ‘An Onus On Anus’ [which is, by the way, best understood in the context of the whole book's message].
1:52 pm on December 26th, 2009
Mr Carvath and his patrons at the The Christian Institute demonstrate the weakness of the anti-discrimination laws in this country in allowing, on the grounds of religious belief,the peddling of hate.They have exploited this weakness on many occasions in the past.
You cannot argue in any rational way with these fanatics.
The Christian Institute and its members,like their American counterparts are homophobic and anti-Muslim.They do not attack Jews because they recognise how powerful the charge of antisemitism would be.So they pick those they see as soft targets wielding their corruption of Christianity and with wealthy backers.
Unlike true Christians however but very reminiscent of pre-war Germany ,the Christian Institute are accomplished liars with their propaganda.