Far from being great communicators, most politicians are quite evasive when interviewed. A politician being honest and open should be a cause for celebration. Jacob Rees-Mogg was interviewed on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on Wednesday. Piers Morgan received straight answers to his aggressive questioning concerning Mr Rees-Mogg’s sincerely held views on abortion and gay marriage. The interview has been incorrectly described as a ‘car crash’, destroying Mr Rees-Mogg’s chances of leading the Conservative Party and becoming the United Kingdom’s first Roman Catholic Prime Minister.

Mr Rees-Mogg is the victim of a double standard. His beliefs were denounced as being out of tune with current law and policy. However the areas of law over which he disagrees are voted on as a matter of conscience by MPs. The House of Commons holds free votes on areas of public morals, lest political parties become hostages to fortune. The double standard is that Jeremy Corbyn’s beliefs are even more out of tune with the policies of the party he leads. Using the same logic, Corbyn should not be leading his party.

Mr Rees-Mogg is not the only person who has beliefs he defends. There are a number of Muslim MPs in Parliament. As far as can be determined, none of them has been questioned about their beliefs in the same fashion as Mr Rees-Mogg, especially about their views on Sharia law and how it should be applied. None has been interviewed about the cultural origins of the gang rapes in Rotherham and elsewhere. Perhaps in the interests of balance, Piers Morgan should have a go.

This country is a democracy. However, there is a trend to exclude Catholics from democratic politics in England in a way that is not applied to any other faith. Ruth Kelly, a former Labour government minister, was also the subject of attention over whether her Roman Catholic faith affected her ability to do her job. Ruth Kelly quit the front bench to ‘spend more time with her family’, and finally left Parliament in 2010. Tony Blair felt he could convert to his wife’s faith only after he left British political life.

The role of Catholics in politics has been controversial for centuries. It was only after a law was passed in 1829 that they were permitted to sit in Parliament. The rise of nationalism in 19th Century Europe inevitably conflicted with groups whose loyalty was to Rome. France and Germany had both secularised their states by the early 20th Century. A forgotten part of the Spanish Civil War was the Red Terror, when hard-Left groups murdered thousands of Catholic priests while Franco challenged the Republican government. The Spanish Holocaust is forgotten in Britain as it clashes with the narrative dominated by the supposedly heroic role of an International Brigade doing Stalin’s dirty work for him. The Left has form on ignoring certain crimes against humanity.

While Islamophobia is condemned, anti-Catholicism is mainstream. The editors of The Guardian see nothing wrong when Suzanne Moore writes the following:
‘As usual, Rees-Mogg’s religious faith is used to excuse his appalling bigotry. He is a Catholic and this kind of fundamentalism is always anti-women, but for some reason we are to respect it. I don’t. It has no place in public life.’

Moore would never consider writing about Islamic fundamentalism in the same way. She would not attack a person for being a Muslim as she did Mr Rees-Mogg for being a Catholic. It is likely that if she did, she would lose her job, and possibly her life. She does not realise that it is she who is the bigot here.

Unlike the numerous Islamic fundamentalists given public airtime, Mr Rees-Mogg does not seek to impose his views on the populace. He also has no intention of murdering anyone who contradicts or disagrees with them. He does not defend terrorists. He is not a bigot. His beliefs, compared to those of other faiths, are benign.

Is Roman Catholicism more dangerous to public life than Islamic fundamentalism in 21st Century Britain? The negative commentators seem to believe so. Picking on Catholics in this way resembles anti-Semitism, perhaps because attackers also hold those of the Jewish faith in low regard. It is easy to attack someone whose only response will be to turn the other cheek.

Since the early 19th Century, Catholics have been permitted by law to participate in public life and debate in this country. Were all those freedoms for nothing?


  1. We all know the answer to the question raised in the title of this article. Catholics and other Christians will not use violence against their critics.

    Piers Morgan is living proof of an iron law of nature; wherever you get political correctness you will find hypocrisy.

    • As a devout Darwinist, I know that violence is necessary to defeat violence
      Were it not the case Christendom would have fallen to Islam 1,000 years
      Also, following a non violent response to German National Socialism, we would
      have had a German dominated United Europe with muslims accorded special
      Wait a minute —

      • Ah, the man who recanted on his death bed – hedges his bets. And as the years roll on his theory of evolution looks more and more shaky. There is very little evidence.
        Christianity is not pacifism, evil must be defeated, but we don’t go around killing people because they disagree with us. Free speech has developed in Christian countries, unfortunately it is now under threat.

        • The theory of evolution looks stronger than ever and the evidence continues to grow.
          Shame to let that spoil your confirmation bias, but there you go.

          • Check out your own bias. Alexander Boot website, search Darwin. There is a whole list of the scientific community who have found fault with Darwin’s “theory” and why.

          • You well know he is a philosopher not a scientist. As he is pretty literate he has given reference to scientific sources.

          • The fact that you pay any heed to anything he says regarding science is proof positive of just how easily fooled and gullible you are. Instead of wasting your life on him, how about spending some quality time doing some independent research and thinking and getting to understand the principles of evolution instead.

          • There are 1000s of scientists who think Darwin was wrong.

            What is often confused is natural selection which is observable and a fact as opposed to evolution that is not.

            Evolution is a classic fitting facts to theory model

          • Why did god need to bother with billions of years of natural selection then, why did he not create everything exactly as it is today?

          • When I see him on will ask him for you!!!

            Asking questions that only God can answer is beyond both our remits and does not advance the discussion

          • While you’re up there asking him, can you ask him why he sits back and lets young children suffer in pain in cancer wards as well, thanks.

          • Evil and suffering was never God’s intention for mankind.

            Don’t forget we rejected God’s plan for us.

            We thought we knew more than God.

            We still do it seems

          • “we” rejected ? I don’t remember having any hand in such a decision and neither do the kids in the cancer ward. Why is he taking it out on them and at the same time letting convicted rapists and murders win millions of pounds in the national lottery.
            Now, which is more plausible : (a) some complicated “answer” that just fudges the question and doesn’t answer it at all or (b) It’s more likely that god doesn’t exist.

          • In what way is a little child suffering in pain in a cancer ward responsible for a made-up man eating an apple because a talking snake told him to?

            But you worship a god and therefore reject notions of responsibility because you don’t have to get off your own backside to invent a cure for cancer because “god’ll fix it”

        • Evolution & Darwinism have not been disproved, though as with all
          genuine science (i.e. not “climate change”), there will be modifications as
          we discover more.
          For example, Darwin was a timid Christian who was afraid of offending
          the Establishment. There were plenty of other exponents of Darwinism in
          his day, including his grandfather.
          Vitally, he did not know about genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel
          a Catholic monk.

  2. Very good point indeed. It is remarkable how pervasive this prejudice is. Perhaps coming from a time when the Catholic church was indeed a threat to the nascent protestant states. Yet it isn’t such a threat now and yet is treated as far more threatening than the many branches of Islam openly and currently dedicated to ending those self same protestant state’s existence. One presumes had J R-M been able to place Mr Morgan or Ms Moore under a credible “fatwah” they would have treated him with far greater respect. We live in an age where the bullies get respect and those with no power to bully are fair game. And then we wonder why the tactics of terror continue, when constantly in ways large and small we demonstrate that they work.

    • It’s been 412 years since the Gunpowder Plot– you’d think people would have forgiven RC’s by now…(yes, I know, the Stuart Pretenders– but even THAT’s 271 years ago!)

    • It’s not just Catholics, it is any Christian who will not bow the knee to the gods of progressivism who get attacked. The stink of hypocrisy and cowardice in the media is overwhelming as Islam gets a free pass. Je Suis Charlie doesn’t mean much when the pictures are no longer printed and the questions are never asked – not exactly journalism at its best.
      Well candles and teddy bears will not save them from Sharia law.

    • The Mogg is attacked by left and right because he DOES pose a threat.

      His clarity, his measured and sensible political views, his general likeability are creating fear.

      He is different to the run of very average brains in parliament, in all parties.

      Can you imagine Mogg against Corbyn at a PMQs.

      Tickets could be sold. Corbyn would look like the school dunce.

  3. Piers Morgan is a bully and a hypocrite. I have watched 2 videos this week. One where he was a rude bully to a representative of Core Issues Trust which seeks to help those who have unwanted same sex attraction. As he repeatedly pointed out to Piers Morgan, “there are those people who want to leave the gay lifestyle” – according to Piers Morgan they have no such choice. He called this man (who had experienced homosexuality), a bigot, homophobe etc. He even ended the so called interview by ordering him to get out of his studio because he was so abhorrent. I have made a complaint to Ofcom.
    I was cheering JRM when he took them on. They did not get to first base. He was truthful, clear and authoritative and they had no answer. I seem to recall that the bible says that people were amazed that Jesus preached with such authority. Good on you Jacob.

  4. Piers Morgan is a bully, and like all bullies, he is also a coward.

    Suzanne Moore, like most left wing thinkers, is so trapped within her own, warped ideology, that she can’t look outside of it to see the ridiculous contradiction and hypocrisy of her position.

    On the subject of gay marriage, at least, I’m willing to bet that JRM’s views reflect the majority – including a substantial number of gay people.

  5. I’d agree with many of the points in this article but neither has the Catholic Chuch anything to be proud of when one considers the many atrocities carried out in its name and the control the priests and bishops exert over their populace, especially in third world countries and the likes of Ireland with their dominance in the education sector.

  6. Simple fear. Morgan and Moore are frightened of Islamic reaction so they don’t take them on . As are all our so called politicians and most commentators and certainly all BBC apparatchniks.
    We need to take on this progressive blackmailing mafia in the arts and law and politics and most of all the media Good for Mogg. Never back down and never apologise.
    Refuse to discuss on their terms and be prepared to walk out if the occasion calls for it.
    WE can all learn a lot form the sheiks and the ayatollahs.

  7. There is too much prejudice and bigotry in western society today. There is appalling journalism that also covers up the real bigotry and prejudice because I suspect, a lack of understanding and willingness to investigate properly.

    Jacob Rees Mogg did not give a ‘car crash interview’ at all. He was obviously invited on to speak about Brexit but as always with left wing journalism, his beliefs were hijacked and used to smear him. It didn’t work. He looked slightly bemused on the first attack, however he recovered as he alone can. He was straightforward and honest. His integrity rose above Morgan and Reid with their miserable agenda. I am sure they thought they could do to Jacob what they cruelly did to Tim Farron. However, it has backfired. Only they look cheap and nasty. This coverage will do Jacob no harm whatsoever as it exposes him yet again as a sincere, honest politician who stands for his be.iefs and his country unashamedly. It is exactly what more and more people are looking for in their politicians.

    Mrs May and the government yet again made the silly mistake of letting it be known that Jacob’s views were not those of the Government. They should have kept quiet. Intelligent people heard very clearly what Jacob
    said. They were his personal views and the law of the land was completely different. Mrs May, again shows herself to be a weak and ineffectual leader, ready to put down good Conservatives members on the alter of political correctness

    • Instead of trying to distance herself and the government from Jacob Rees-Mogg, Theresa May should have talked about the report on the long running scandal of sex abuse in Rotherham which white-washed everyone involved and claimed that nobody was to blame for allowing the abuse to continue unchecked, it was merely the fault of the “system.” How a system can function by itself is a mystery.

      Theresa May was Home Secretary for part of the time that the abuse was going on. She should ensure that the worthless report is torn up, its author’s reprimanded, and that all the councillors, social workers, police officers who turned a blind eye to the problems are named, shamed, sacked and put on trial.

      • It just shows that despite their apparent public condemnation their actions speak louder.
        You will never have anyone sacked for following the politically correct dogma of the day.

    • I find it somewhat encouraging ( and not particularly surprising ) that many of the comments here are supportive of Rees-Moggs right to his views , even though not everyone agrees with all of them . If only our so-called leaders could be as tolerant and understanding , what a different world it would be !

  8. Mr Mogg’s views on gay marriage are much like mine, based on my atheism & using
    words with their correct meaning. Civil partnerships great.
    We have too many abortions in the UK, but JRM stated a truly evil belief when he stated that
    rape victims should not be given abortions.
    The old atheist maxim is that good people do good things & evil people do evil things.
    Only religion can make good people do evil things.
    I’m sorry that JRM’s candid confession of his irrational but traditional beliefs did not
    extend to condemning the abortion of female foetuses at the behest of savages who
    have colonised large parts of our land.
    The demographic time bomb is ticking & will have violent results, especially for
    indigenous girls & women.
    Think Rotherham on a national scale.

    • He condemned abortion on any grounds. He did not pick and choose. His answer that life begins at conception was the answer. You and I might take the view that a woman in distress, at an early stage of pregnancy, should be allowed a termination under compassionate grounds for her. But we are certainly not being compassionate to the child. Abortion on demand and late stage is abhorrent and Jacob is right about that.

      • A minute foetus is not a child.
        The most disgusting religiously driven immorality from Christians in recent years
        was committed when two bigots permitted a mother & wife to die in child
        birth, rather than abort the foetus that they knew would kill her.
        They robbed a loving husband of his wife & their children of their mother.
        They also robbed her parents of their daughter. All to satisfy their superstitious,
        blasphemous, arrogance.
        Such maniacs have no place in medicine.
        The traditional Catholic position for hundreds of years was that abortion
        was OK up to three months, or 14 weeks if a girl was expected.
        This is echoed, I’m told, in many traditionally Catholic countries
        where abortion on demand is OK up to three months – regardless of
        gender of the foetus.

        • The Roman Catholic church has never sanctioned birth control never mind abortion. Abortion was illegal in most of the developed world until the 1960s until when it was regarded as a serious crime because it involved the taking of life. A woman’s foetus is something live and therefore human from the moment of conception. The idea of the foetus as a mere pre-human clump of cells was invented by feminists as a means to justify abortion and to try to underwrite the notion that a woman had the sole right to dispose of her body even when it contained another human life in the form of a foetus. What is arrogant is the assumption that moral principles can be overturned from one day to the next merely by the existence of a majority in parliament and that people who disagree can be made the subject of the most vulgar vituperation for holding traditional beliefs.

        • The point is potential. A baby has the potential to be a fully grown adult and so has a foetus.

          Another key point is the slippery slope syndrome. The original abortion act was supposed to be limited in its application. We have now got to the point where abortion is a form of birth control.

          Attitudes are now moving on to the acceptability of the murder of little babies, as countenanced by such as the philosopher Peter Singer. The argument is that, just like a foetus, a new born baby is not a human being.

          When that position is accepted, the next step will be the disposal of others who are not thought human: the senile, the mentally subnormal……

          Atheistic liberalism leads almost inevitably to N*zi – like attitudes.

          • I agree with you totally on abortion as a form of birth control.
            The original David Steel act has been extended way beyond its original,
            humane, intentions.
            I would like to see Christians of all denominations make common
            cause with atheists, Jews etc to combat the naked evil of muslim
            abortion of female foetuses.
            Failure to do so ranks as politically correct cowardice, & in the long run,

        • “The most disgusting religiously driven immorality from Christians in recent years was committed when two bigots permitted a mother & wife to die in child birth, rather than abort the foetus that they knew would kill her.”

          Do you mean Savita Halappanavar in Ireland? Three independent investigations proved that Savita died from “medical mismanagement” and not from the lack of an abortion.

    • There is no difference between the moral value of a foetus conceived during rape and one which the mother aborts because it was an accident and unwanted? Rees-Mogg’s position is perfectly coherent if you oppose abortion in principle on either religious or secular grounds. The sympathy we feel for the rape victim is a separate issue from the sympathy we feel for the foetus and the sanctity of life. Naturally the thundering herd of Fleet Street viragos will not pause to consider that little distinction as they pile on to Rees-Mogg with handbags flailing but it is there, Wimmin will doubtless harrumph that since women are the ones who get pregnant, they get to make the rules and men have no say. But I’m afraid morality isn’t divisible by gender; what’s wrong is wrong for everyone.

      • I feel no sympathy for a foetus a few hours or weeks old.
        When it is nearer birth my natural Darwinian feelings for my own
        species click in.
        These are trumped by my concern for a 15year old child gang raped
        or a mother who will die if the birth goes to completion, leaving widower
        & orphans.
        If your position for such cruelty were logical, I respect it.
        As it is, your position represents Catholic dogma, ultimately
        the Holy Inquisition.
        It was so decent of the Pope to forgive Gallileo in the 70s.
        Apparently the Earth does go round the Sun & he need not have been
        imprisoned & threatened with torture.
        I wonder what Jesus would have felt about torture, or the various massacres
        of Christian heretics ?
        “Kill them all. God will know his own”
        Doesn’t relate to the biblical Jesus to me. More like pure evil.

    • Good and evil .As an atheist where do you get your standards from? There is no logic in condemning Rees Mogg’s stance on abortion for a rape victim as ‘evil’ .That is consistent with his view that an unborn child is innocent and must be always seen as such. and that there are no exceptions . Agree or disagree with that by all means but to call him evil is quite another matter and deplorable.

      • I rather admire JRM & I did not call him evil.
        I said he stated a truly evil belief, not that he practised it.
        As for standards & their derivation – not the space or time.
        Suffice it to say that standards should not derive from organised religion
        which is essentially politics masquerading as a truly blasphemous
        claim to be speaking for an entity beyond human comprehension.

          • I assume the hairs you allude to are the difference between thinking
            something & doing it.
            Fortunately for pregnant women, Mr Mogg is not a gynaecologist.
            Fortunately for Britain’s muslim immigrants I’m not Home Secretary.

  9. The blatant hypocrisy of Morgan and Moore shows that we should not take them seriously. There is something about an honest person of integrity that brings out the bile and bigotry of those who live a lie. The attacks on JRM, and his calm response, are a sign of his strength and not his weakness. Contrary to the hopes of the Lefty media, his beliefs will resonate with many. A man does not have to be perfect to lead a movement, he just has to articulate the issues that really matter instead of those that politicians think should matter.

  10. I don’t think there is a specific anti-Roman Catholic bias. There are many liberal Catholics in the media. But Jacob’s ultramontane beliefs puts him in the same reservation as the rather Protestant DUP, in the eyes of Piers Moron and his ilk.

    It’s not a bad place to be as you never need to conceal your beliefs and you can always give honest answers.

  11. This article misses the point. The bias of the interviewer was not specifically anti-catholic but against traditional Christianity, Catholic or Protestant. My views on those two subjects, abortion and marriage, are identical to Mr Rees-Mogg but I am a conservative Protestant, Jacob Rees – Mogg is a conservative Catholic. But liberal Christians of either the Catholic or Protestant persuasion would almost undoubtedly have agreed with the views of the interviewer. This is about liberalism as opposed to conservatism.

  12. Why was Mogg singled out in this way? Easy! He’s white, male, Christian, right-of-centre and a genuine conservative. It is always open season on this rare and endangered breed.

    • Exactly he is entitled to his opinion he said it is only his opinion into-days lies by the politicians the evasiveness and deceit it is refreshing for a politician to air his views so honestly if he becomes PM He will rank along the great statesmen of our times.

  13. I wonder how, when people who criticise JRM for his stance on abortion would like their babies killed, Gosnell used to cut the spinal cord on live babies.

    • I was in the Middle East when Morgan published those lies in the Daily Mirror. The pictures were on the front page of almost every Arab newspaper.

      An enormous amount of damage to Britain’s reputation was caused.

      The Mirror should have been boycotted by every squaddie in the British Army.

      • I was in Saudi when the Abu Ghraib stuff was released, my boss started getting death threats through his work email account, our cars were marked to show we were expats etc.

  14. The aborting of children in the womb is murder – let us be clear about that; and, as for homosexual activity, it is an abomination. At the current time it is the evil, rather than the good, which hath the chief power in this realm, and Church, of England. I was once interviewed by the media, on my views: it just went wrong for them from the start. If they live in manure, it is hardly surprising that they wreak of it. I am not ready to back down before these murderers.

    • Well perhaps if the CofE hadn’t basically dumped it’s core values to look hip and allowed the Cultural Marxists to infest your ranks, we may not be in as morally bankrupt situation as we are. However it is difficult for religion to exist in a free, high IQ society much like any other ideology, as too many people ask inconvenient questions.
      The purpose of cultural Marxism and its sibling post modernism is to debase and uglify society to such an extent that the people revolt and run to the Marxists, who although terrible, are now better than what they have.
      The problem is we are letting them do it and using the tactic of shaming us into not resisting.
      Without this cancerous ideology it may have been possible to move to a post religious society which still held on to all of its moral and social capital but all we now have is a void which we fill with nihilism and the cult of celebrity and the self.

  15. Here for the readers of this site is a little test you can perform on your friends and acquaintances to prove both to yourself and to them that the media – in particular the BBC are hugely manipulating them into believing things which are not true.

    Ask your friends this question:

    Based on what you have seen, what percentage of the British population do you believe to be Gay?

    The answer will invariably come back as something between 15 – 35% with the most common answer being 25% ! It’s astonishing that people honestly believe that a quarter of the British public are Gay.

    The real answer is in fact less than 2% and we really do need to question what the hell the media are up to in promoting homosexuality to an extent people believe it is actually 15 times more prevalent than it really is.

    (The source for this can be found on the Guardians web site – difficult for the left to argue with that source !)

  16. The form of the left in ignoring crimes against humanity is epic. The slobbering over the Soviet Union, the greatest European mass murderer of the 20th Century bar none, one which made the Regime in Germany look like amateurish when it came to murdering and terrorising its own citizens, was a classic of its kind.

    I have heard and seen apologists for this evil regime and admirers of its leading figures appear on the BBC as honoured guests. Jack Straw, for example, actually wrote to a national newspaper declaring his admiration for the methods of Stalin. Trotskyites and Cultural Marxists abound in it. This is an organisation which self- describes as ‘balanced and impartial’.

    As for opposition to gay ‘marriage’, Mr Rees- Mogg is not alone in regarding this arrangement as a travesty which weakens marriage as an institution. My own view of exclusive homosexuality is that it is a mental condition, regardless of its being declassified as such under political pressure.

    As a serious psychosexual malfunction, to treat it as ‘normal’ and of the same standing as heterosexuality, is perverse but quite in line with sentiment in the political class at least. It is symptomatic of the sickness of our times which Piers Morgan seems to think we should all be in tune with.

    It isnt those who oppose gay marriage and abortion as currently practiced who should be aggressively questioned but those in favour of these. I’ve never seen it done however and dont expect it to happen any time soon.

    It should be a badge of honour to oppose prevailing standards.

  17. “in the interests of balance” – when has the mainstream culture, in this country, felt a need to pretend to be interested in balance? Corbyn, and the other political leaders, know that Muslims/Islam is the future – why might they do/say anything that might jeopardise their garnering of the Muslim vote (like, question Islam/Muslim MPs?)

  18. ‘Catholics? Apparently there are 3 organisations in the US, 3, composed of atheists/agnostics/non-theists of one kind or another, who believe in, and struggle for, the value/valuing of human life against the abortionists. While a Christian myself I readily acknowledge that you don’t have to be Catholic, or Christian, or any kind of thest, to believe in life.

  19. He is entitled to his moral and philosophical opinion, I wasn’t aware that we already lived in an authoritarian state but it seems I was wrong.

  20. I am an atheist and a libertarian, and I’m fine with the concept of gay marriage. I’m also pro-choice. All people are entitled to their own opinions, beliefs and faiths; although my values vary wildly with JRM’s, I applaud his honesty and defend his right to voice them. Furthermore, I would rather have him in Number 10 than anyone else because above all he is a democrat. JRM accepts majority democratic rule and the tenet that the politicians are there to serve the people. Personal beliefs based on religious doctrine are not the same as government policy.

    • I think what you might have meant to say is that all people SHOULD be entitled to their own opinions, however in the UK this is manifestly no longer the case. Thought crime AKA as ‘hate crime’ is now just about the only crime our hopelessly PC law enforcement brigade (can’t bring myself to call them Police any more) are prepared to investigate.

  21. The case against Rees-Mogg is his voting record on the matters that have in fact come before the House of Commons during his time there, set in the context of his wider political associations and of how he makes his money. On those, not least from the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching, he is a moral disgrace. That is not ameliorated in any way by his hypothetical views on abortion or on same-sex marriage.

    Those screeching from America that he ought to do something about the lack of parliamentary time devoted to abortion are simply naive about this country’s parliamentary process. But then, they have precious little understanding of how their own country works, either. Theirs is a record of spectacular political failure. What, exactly, have they ever achieved? The foreign policy of those who at least shout the loudest, although to no identifiable effect, on these issues needs to be seen in that light. Do they propose to impose American abortion law, and the American legal definition of marriage, on countries with predominantly Muslim populations? Or on Venezuela, where abortion is illegal except to save the life of the mother, and where the Constitution promoted by the late President Hugo Chávez specifically defines marriage as only ever the union of one man and one woman?

    In Britain, legislation may have something of a role on abortion, and should certainly be supported if and when it were to be proposed, but the fact of the matter is that to try and use it as the principal instrument is, again, simply naive in a country where one in three women has had an abortion. That figure is not skewed by London or what have you. It is constant across and throughout England, Scotland and Wales. In Jacob Rees-Mogg’s constituency of North East Somerset, one in three women has had at least one abortion.

    Rather than an individual candidate about whom hardly anyone would ever ask, any party that had a formal policy of banning or greatly restricting abortion by legislation would lose every seat in Great Britain. Every single one. That is just a fact. In so doing, it would close the debate on abortion forever. The same is true of any party led by someone who was openly of that view. Although checking the parliamentary records would have set them right, most people had no idea what John Smith’s, or Charles Kennedy’s, or Iain Duncan Smith’s view on abortion was. But everyone now knows what Rees-Mogg’s is. Ho, hum. Jesus told us to expect a lot worse than merely not being allowed to become Prime Minister. At all realistically, legislative action against abortion itself needs to come at a later stage of a long process of mass education, and of legislative and other action on issues such as poverty and disability, so that far fewer women had any desire, or perceived any need, to have an abortion. By all means vote for such legislation if it happened to come up, but there would be just as many abortions, in hospitals or anywhere else, while the underlying problems remained in place. Rees-Mogg advocates, and he benefits financially from, those underlying problems.

    There is far greater scope for legislative action on marriage, and indeed such action is urgently necessary. We need to give couples the right to register their marriages as bound by the divorce law that obtained before 1969, to give religious bodies the right to specify that marriages solemnised by them were likewise so bound, to extend to opposite-sex couples the right to contract civil partnerships (so that everyone who wanted to get married really did want to get married), and to remove the restriction of civil partnerships, which have never needed to be consummated, to couples who were unrelated. But there are only more civil partnerships and same-sex marriages in the big cities because there are more people in the big cities. There is probably not a village in the country without at least one such arrangement. Any party with a policy of abolishing either, or with a Leader who was of that view, would lose every seat in Great Britain, and perhaps even in Northern Ireland, where the DUP gets away with it because it wants to keep things as they are rather than because it wants to revert to any status quo ante. Ho, hum. Jesus told us to expect a lot worse than merely not being allowed to become Prime Minister.

    It should be added that the legal definition of marriage in this country has not been the Catholic one for nearly 600 years. The likes of Rees-Mogg, in their grand country houses as the only Catholics for miles and miles around, are wildly untypical of the Church in England and Wales, which remains heavily concentrated in the former industrial North and Midlands, and in other pockets of Irish immigration in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, again industrial in their day and mostly urban. And that is before even mentioning Scotland. As to how that plays out politically, look at where there are lots of Catholic schools, and then look at the election results. The point is made. Rees-Mogg is still lucky to be allowed to be a Conservative MP at all. Well into the post-War period, numerous local parties flatly refused to consider Catholic candidates. By contrast, there were parts of Scotland and the North West, in particular, where you would at least have struggled to get on, and sometimes still would, if you were not a Catholic. The party in question there was not, and is not, the Conservative Party.

    Rees-Mogg has none of the old Recusant scepticism about the basically Whig Tory Party and its Hanoverian, soon to be Hanoverian-Spencer, monarchy. Not for him Auberon Waugh’s suggestion that the Royal Family’s wedding march be Deutschland, Deutschland über alles. Moreover, he calls to mind the New York Irish jibe against Boston’s John F. Kennedy: “He never did a day of Catholic school in his life.” That Rees-Mogg will never now be Leader of the Conservative Party or Prime Minister might at least mean the end of the generation-long campaign by the Daily Telegraph and the Catholic Herald, now broadly supported even by The Universe, to make the public face of Catholicism this affected, class-revanchist little subculture. A subculture that, one might add, seems to be increasingly mixed up with the Ordinariate. Of that, however, another time.

  22. There is very good reason for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the office of PM or the monarchy. A Roman Catholics first allegiance is to the pope of Rome – the head of that system of counterfeit Christianity which has flooded the soil of many nations with its persecution and inquisition of protestantism. Roman Catholicism is no different to Islam in its desire for world domination by force – except Islam openly proclaims it in the Koran, Rome conceals it behind Jesuit connivance.
    We had a Reformation – we appear to be deeply in need of another one.

    • Courageously said.
      I have plenty of Catholic/ex Catholic friends & some I dearly love.
      That being said, I suspect many Catholics, like many other Jews & Christians
      don’t take their religion too seriously. It is a source of comfort & aesthetic pleasure,
      which is very understandable.
      The hard politics to which you allude could become very relevant & dangerous
      when taken seriously by the hierarchy & although Rome is, presumably, not
      in the EU, religious differences are one of several deep reasons why the UK
      should not accept EU power in our land.

    • “Roman Catholicism is no different to Islam in its desire for world domination by force”

      Well as Stalin once said, how many divisions does the Pope have? How many Jesuits have killed their opponents or murdered innocent civilians to force their views on others?

    • Protestants though could make alliances with Roman Catholics on many issues by keeping doctrinal differences and seeing RCs as co-belligerents.

      • They are no mere ‘doctrinal differences’, but fundamental differences on the nature of salvation itself, and the issue of the secular ambitions of Rome.

      • Nothing would persuade a genuine Christian to share a platform on any issue with a Roman Catholic whose very essence is blasphemy against God and Jesus Christ His Son, the ONLY Saviour if he’ll deserving sinners.

    • Correct, and justified. Rome claims sovereignty over all nations in the world, including ours. Rees-Mogg is a good chap, but the danger you outline is genuine. However, having a Jesuit in the Papacy is undermining a lot of the RC anyway, for the same reason – he is answerable to the head of the Jesuit order, even though he is supposed to be Supreme pontiff of all RCism.

  23. I am looking forward to car crash interviews with molsems and their media fellow travellers who will be forced to defend themselves from the charge that if appointed to a snior Government position they will follow their faith and impose a universal ban on alcohol.

  24. a politician being an honest bigot should be applauded . except it didn’t work with Trump did it . he failed the honesty test from day one . Rees Mogg would be just the same. all the brexiters are , as they’re policy is to be fundamentally dishonest with the public

    • I seem to remember it was Cameron and Osborne and their EU friends who tried to scare the British public into remaining in the corrupt EU. Now the EU is trying to blackmail billions out of us. Good riddance to bad rubbish on all counts.

        • I did read about the EU and voted to Leave. The EU is a corrupt undemocratic ideology that we were fooled into joining. We were told it was a Common Market – a trading Union, not a political union that seeks the demise of the nation state so that we are ruled by 8 undemocratically elected people at the top. I want a sovereign parliament that I can vote on as we have had for hundreds of years. Can’t wait to get out.

          • we won’t be getting out . the whole brexit edifice will collapse like a souffle in the next 12 months. sorry to break it to you gently

          • The Euro is intrinsically flawed and that should be obvious to all. It has enabled Germany to dominate Europe economically by virtue of an artificial exchange rate. Like all artificial constructs it will have to face reality eventually. Greece should have been allowed to leave the euro and restore a floating currency but the primacy of the political over the economic forbade this . This also was an offence against reality. Sorry to break it to you gently but the EU is an artificial construct and like the old Holy Roman Empire cannot defy reality indefinitely.
            The Visegrad Four will have to choose soon. Leave or stay and as they are far more grounded in a reality based view of themselves and the world they will have to leave.

  25. Im a secular atheist/agnostic with conservative views. I see many Christians as my allies against Islamism. The vast majority of Christians do not seek to overthrow liberal democracy and replace it with theocratic rule yet social conservative Christians are hounded for their personal beliefs in a way that Sharia supporting Islamists are not. For pointing this out on a regular basis many fellow non-believers (most are on the left) denounce me as a racist & Islamophobe. I do not understand why they oppose a non theocratic form of religion but support a religion where many of its adherents espouse an extreme authoritarian & totalitarian form of government.

  26. “Piers Morgan received straight answers to his aggressive questioning ”
    Piers Morgan is a big mouthed bigot who would cheerfully kick someone who he is sure will not reply. When is he going to do the same to a Muslim? Tell us Morgan.

    • Piers Morgan is the kind of man SJWs have in mind when they start foaming at the mouth about white male privilege. Every stereotype type started somewhere and the sleazy ‘Moron’ who swishes easily between the left-wing Mirror and the right-wing Daily Mail, and across the Atlantic and back despite a series of disastrous career failures under his belt, epitomizes the kind of arrogant talent-free weather vane who always lands on his highly paid feet that left-wingers like to caricature.

  27. It has been my experience that when true bigotry exists within a society, it is so much a part of the mental furniture that people literally don’t see it. Rees-Mogg is a victim of two types of this, in that he is both an orthodox Christian believer in a secular society, and a devout Catholic in a country of Protestant heritage. Anti-Catholicism is part of the intellectual ‘package’ passed onto secular thinkers in this country, adjacent too, but separate from, the more modern anti-Christian feelings.

    I am now going to annoy a lot of people who have been reading those words up to now and nodding along in agreement. I am an atheist and a secularist; I don’t like the Catholic Church much (I could write a whole paragraph why, but you’ll have heard the same arguments elsewhere a million times before, and I am not here to rehash the Guardian editorial page) and I genuinely find the whole idea of Christianity hilarious, not to mention dangerous and responsible for a whole range of human suffering, now and in the past. So, I don’t regret living in a country that has deposed organised religion as its organizing principle, an opinion that is reinforced every time I read the news from South Asia or the Middle East.

    But simply because one has gotten rid of something old doesn’t mean that the new is a moral improvement. One thinks of Stalin’s bloody rule, or the way that Mao tried to destroy ancient Chinese culture and erect a personality cult to himself instead. I doubt anyone living in North Korea today would say that the Kim Dynasty is an improvement over the old Korea of the 19th century. Something similar is happening now in Britain, where those who demanded tolerance for their own lifestyles when these were not in the mainstream have now reached power and are starting to criminalise the former mainstream. That is unjust, hypocritical, and above all unwise; how can we say to conservatives that they will still be free to practice their way of life if they agree to the demands of group X, and then turn around and push them out of the mainstream itself, without laying the groundwork for a future backlash?

    Today’s left is arrogant and foolish, because it believes it does not have to accommodate those who have different views any more. It is an age for the ‘ultras’ among them, who brook no compromise or ‘safe spaces’ who disagree with them. We see this with the LGBT lobby, the race relations industry, the feminists and the fashionable left-wing nationalists. Mogg follows Catholic (and Christian) teachings on topics like abortion and gay marriage. Two of the most powerful groups in our society are feminists and gay rights campaigners, many of whom want to literally (not figuratively) define philosophical opposition to their ideology or its political positions as a hate crime. The fact that this tramples on the small, precious and hard-won space we have made for civil rights (i.e. freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion) matters not a jot to these fanatics. They believe they are doing this for our own good, and as a wise layman once said:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    Muslim MPs are spared this for now, tacitly, because of the coincidence that most Muslims in this country tend to have brown skin; that puts them under the protection of the race relations industry, still possible the most powerful SJW ‘lobby’ in the UK. Were the youth of today’s Asian Muslim communities to secularise however, then the future Muslim MP would probably quickly find him or herself on TV and sat opposite of a righteous non-Muslim, secular atheist British Asian type (can’t appear racist lol) ready to be told that his or her views are incompatible with life in a civilized country because they might hurt people’s feelings.

    Incidentally, SJW writers like Suzanne Moore should be careful about what they wish for, since political principles once applied somewhere tend to take on a life of their own. If bigotry becomes the standard for being expelled from polite society, she might be in trouble herself in a few years: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/09/suzanne-moore-why-i-was-wrong-about-men

    Thought for the Day: “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

    • I am anti-Catholic, and yet would not and do not criticise Rees-Mogg’s views, even though I think they should come from reliance on God and His Word, not the teaching of some men somewhere. Quite the contrary, I support them despite the fact that i disagree with much of what ‘his church’ teaches. The criticism of him is nothing to do with anti-catholicism at all, and everything to do with the culture of death that is prevalent in our nasty, twisted and vicious secular society today.

    • You find Christianity hilarious! Do you know what it is? Christianity is NOT religion. It might be the worlds way to lump it all together, but the enlightened world, so called, has got it wrong again. Christians are followers of Christ and seek to emulate His ways. We’ve seen it throughout history. If you go your own way and cut out God society heads downhill. Look at what’s happening in this country. Look what’s happening in the rest of the world. We don’t have a future if it doesn’t include God!

  28. The real question is not “Why should Rees-Mogg be attacked for his faith while Muslims go unchallenged?” It is ‘Why IS Rees-Mogg attacked for his faith while muslims go unchallenged?’ and the answer is simple, fear, combined with a total lack of understanding about the threat that Islam poses to the West.

    • Absolutely when asking the questions of a catholic, making jokes about the pope, etc you can besure that the pope, bishops or priests are not going to urge other catholics to kill the interviewer or riot in the streets.

  29. Your question is ‘Why’ and the answer is ‘Biased BBC’. STOPTVTAX.

    The same presenter and her colleagues make very sure not to ask exactly the same questions of Sadiq Khan and other prominent Muslims, because they know the answer and refuse to expos them to any scrutiny. The biased media, protecting some races and religions while attacking others.

  30. Not so long ago I saw Morgan shouting at Tommy Robinson, who had come on the programme with a reasoned and sourced critique of Islam, that he was a looney and he should “Respect their religion”.

Comments are closed.