Bd, "I don't know how we could ever be 'ONE faith'.... but you know what we can be ? We can be a country where we are always free to choose which faith we follow. "

Quite simply your claims about wanting a country to be free to choose which faith we follow (or don't follow) are not born out by your stance on other issues.

A classic was that often raised issue about gay's living next door. A example of where you want to impose your view of your gods obsessions on those who don't share your faith.

Your freedom to participate in the democratic process and lobby for for the values you hold should never be restricted because you happen to follow a particular faith. At the same time it is legitimate for others of us to fight against the types of things you push for when they go against our own value systems/beliefs.

From what I've seen of your posts over the years I don't think that you get the line between exercising freedom to practice your faith yourself and attempting to impose it on others nearly as clearly as you claim to have it.

R0bert

Boaz, you are no Churchill.

>>Was Churchill appealing to 'prejudice fear and national pride' ? or was he more perceptive than Chamberlain<<

Churchill was essentially a man of honour. He later wrote:

"For the French Government to leave her faithful ally Czechoslovakia to her fate was a melancholy lapse from which flowed terrible consequences. [I]t must be recorded with regret that the British Government not only acquiesced but encouraged the French Government in a fatal course."

We know from Hansard that he held this view in 1938.

Contemporary press reports also make interesting reading.

"People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war ... If we must have a victor, let us choose Chamberlain. For the Prime Minister's conquests are mighty and enduring - millions of happy homes and hearts relieved of their burden. To him the laurels." [Daily Express 30th September 1938]

While on the other hand:

"No-one in this country who examines carefully the terms under which Hitler's troops begin their march into Czechoslovakia to-day can feel other than unhappy. Certainly the Czechs will hardly appreciate Mr. Chamberlain's phrase that it is 'peace with honour.'" [Manchester Guardian 1st October 1938]

What you need to understand is that many people in Britain felt an affinity with Germany's aims and objectives. From the same Manchester Guardian piece:

"Mr. Chamberlain ... drove from Heston to Buckingham Palace, where the crowd clamoured for him, and within five minutes of his arrival he was standing on the balcony of the Palace with the King and Queen and Mrs. Chamberlain. The cries were all for 'Neville'"

History tells us that their faith was misplaced. Their leadership had sold out to the prejudice, fear and racism that was Nazi Germany, and was thereby tarred with the same brush.

My point is that it didn't seem so horrendous in 1938. It was quite in tune with the natural prejudices, fears and innate racism that characterized the British people of the time.

Hindsight is useful. The passage of time allows us to put such matters into context and focus.

Well said Pericles. I've not claimed to be a Churchill, bit I do claim a degree of insight which is of a comparable nature. i.e. I see a real threat, whereas others clearly do not.

I still am totally mystified by your comment connecting me to 'racial' hatred ?

On the banner, just out of curiosity, (aside from any misgivings about the value or lack, of public demonstrations in general)if our banner read "ALL ONE IN CHRIST" and was clearly Christian, would that seem in any way better to you ? The people under it would still have the same clear multi racial composition as before.

Bearing in mind of course, that this is the ultimate message which is to be on the handout. "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek" etc...for we are all one in Him"

Same goal, but less 'in your face' with the controversial reference to ONE this and that, which would be definitely misinterpreted by some. (show me any public event no matter what which impacts on all people the same way ?)

I will test drive the ONE NATION etc one by myself though, I'm interested in the reaction, and if it can be successfully guided into a meaningful dialog about faith and society with passers by.

I might even guage local opinion with a letter box drop and a public meeting in the community house, but that would be more a promotion of integration/assimilation event than Christian, though I can include it in passing for those interested.

I think you might have missed the point again Boaz.

It was Chamberlain who was pandering to the prejudice, fear and racism of 1938 England, just as you are with your mirror-image stance for ethnic cleansing - you wouldn't do it yourself, of course, but would be more than happy if you were able to incite others to perform the deed on your behalf.

Chamberlain was merely allowing the baser instincts of the populace - those who thought that Hitler might be a little too flashy, but his heart was in the right place - to encourage appeasement with one of the 20th Century's greatest villains. This is entirely consistent with your rabble-rousing activities.

Churchill, on the other hand, was a man whose innate sense of honour would not concede to a bully, however persuasive his argument and however attractive the idea of avoiding war might be.

Over the holiday, might I suggest that you do some research on the concept of honour versus popularism.

Have a great Christmas.