The Persecution of Alan Clifford: Preach the Gospel, Go to Jail?

Contact Details: Dr Sean Gabb
07956 472 199,
Tuesday the 20th August 2013
For immediate use

The Persecution of Alan Clifford:
Preach the Gospel, Go to Jail?

The Facts

On Saturday the 27th July 2013, the Norfolk LGBT Project held a Gay Pride demonstration in Norwich City Centre. This was visited by the Rev Dr Alan C. Clifford, Pastor of the Norwich Reformed Church and four members of his congregation. They handed out copies of two leaflets: Christ Can Cure – Good News for Gays and Jesus Christ – the Saviour we all need. On Monday the 29th July 2013, Dr Clifford sent out a report of his efforts to the local and national media and to various other persons who might be interested. To this he attached pdf copies of his two leaflets. One of the e-mail addresses on his list was the official contact address of the Norfolk LGBT Project. The leaders of this organisation contacted the police, saying that they had been offended by the contents of the leaflets.

On Saturday the 17th August 2013, Dr Clifford was visited at his home by PC Arnold (PC1396) of Norfolk Constabulary. He was told that he had been accused of committing a homophobic hate crime. PC Arnold defined this to him as “having communicated by electronic means something likely to annoy or cause offence.” He gave Dr Clifford two options. He could confess and pay an on the spot fine of £90, or he could produce a signed statement in defence of his actions. Dr Clifford chose the second of these options. He was then told that a senior police officer would look at his statement and decide whether it should be passed over to the Crown Prosecution Service for further action.

On Monday the 19th August 2013, Dr Clifford was told that his statement had been passed to the CPS, and that he might face a criminal prosecution under the Public Order Act 1986 for his alleged homophobic hate crime.

Dr Clifford’s own account of all this can be read here on the Libertarian Alliance Blog.

The Libertarian Alliance Comment

Speaking today in London, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, said the following:

These proceedings are a sinister attack on freedom of speech and freedom of worship.

We believe in the right to freedom of speech. This includes the right to say anything that is not a breach of some private right. It includes statements about public policy or alleged matters of fact. It certainly includes the right to give offence.

I have read Dr Clifford’s two leaflets. They are neither insulting nor threatening. No reasonable person could have found them offensive. They simply state the settled opinion of mainstream Christianity on the sinfulness of homosexual activity. Even if they had been threatening and insulting, however, it would be Dr Clifford’s right to publish them. If he causes offence, hard luck on those offended. They should have no right to legal protection against such views.

Our position on homosexuality is equally predicable. We believe that consenting adults should have the right to do as they please without intervention by the law. Speaking personally, I was an advocate at school in the 1970s of abolishing all the laws against homosexual activity. In 1991, I wrote the first account of the “Spanner” case – in which 15 men were prosecuted for consensual sado-masochism: one of them was convicted of “aiding and abetting an assault on himself”!. This has also been called the best account of the case. But freedom for homosexuals does not mean legal privilege against disapproval of what they do.”

As for ‘hate speech,’ this means any statement that gives offence to the Establishment – that is, to the network of politicians, bureaucrats, educators, together with their friends and clients in the media and big business, who gain wealth, power and status from an enlarged, activist state. The purpose of this complaint against Dr Clifford is to silence him and anyone else inclined to speak out of turn. I do not believe that he will be prosecuted in open court. The case will be dropped long before then, not least because judges and juries are usually less corrupt than the prosecuting authorities. But the process is the punishment. The intention is to turn Dr Clifford’s life upside down. This will warn him and others to be more careful in future.

The Libertarian Alliance calls on the authorities to drop these proceedings at once. We also call on the Peter Tatchell Foundation and other Establishment human rights groups to join in our condemnation of what has been done so far.


The Libertarian Alliance advocates the following with regard to freedom of speech:

  1. No controls of any kind on the expression of opinion on matters of public policy;
  2. The repeal of all laws that make it illegal to express opinions on matters of race, religion, sexuality, or any similar matter;
  3. The repeal of all laws against discrimination and incitement to discrimination on any grounds whatever;
  4. The abolition of the Human Rights Commission and all similar bodies;
  5. The cutting off of all tax-payer funding for any group that disagrees with the above.

We further note that the Norfolk LGBT Project is a registered charity (No.1129770). According to its 2012 accounts, its entire income was £41,021. Of this, £734, or 1.8 per cent, came from donations. £38,666, or 94.25 per cent, came via the National Health Service from the taxpayers.

How do you think the NHS should be spending our tax money? Should it be on providing medical treatment free at the point of use, or on paying for Establishment hate groups to go after dissenting ministers of religion? You may care to write to the relevant funding agencies:

Great Yarmouth PCT
Morton Peto Road
Harfeys Industrial Estate
Great Yarmouth
NR31 0LT

Waveney PCT
1 Common Lane North
NR34 9BN
T: 01502 719500

Southern Norfolk PCT
The Courtyard
Ketteringham Hall
NR18 9RS
T: 01603 813820
F: 01603 813865

North Norfolk PCT
Kelling Hospital
Cromer Road
NR25 6QA
T: 01263 710611
F: 01263 710645

West Norfolk PCT
St. James
Extons Road
King’s Lynn
PE30 5NU
T: 01553 816200
F: 01553 761104


20 responses to “The Persecution of Alan Clifford: Preach the Gospel, Go to Jail?

  1. It is an unjust and stupid law; we should all of us invoke it at every opportunity.

    The Marxists demonstrating every Thursday evening against Israel outside M&S Marble Arch offend me (though I haven’t seen them for a few weeks now).

    Next time I’ll call the cops because accusing Israel of practising apartheid is, by the Norfolk standards, a hate crime.

  2. Edward Spalton

    I am sure that “Gay Pride” events offend many people. As the law stands, should they complain to the police?
    Sauce for the goose and all that.

  3. Ah, but it’s Israel you see. And now that the Holocaust has been carefully forgotten and swept under the carpet, Europe can go back safely to its usual sport, for the last 1,500 years or so, of Jew-Killing.

    The (admittedly Jewish themselves!) High Priests, who demanded from Pontius Pilate that Jesus be killed rather than simply beat about a bit and sent on his way, “knew not what they did”.

  4. I had the grave misfortune to have a Catholic upbringing, which has blighted my life to a degree.
    We had an Irish headmaster when I was at primary school, and aside from teaching us how to spell and thoroughly drumming our multiplication tables into us (the most useful single thing I learned in my entire school career), one lesson that has stuck in my mind ever since is that apparently it is ok to hate Jews because they killed Christ. Indeed they deserve it, because they said at the time (and this phrase has remained with me for over fifty years) “Let His blood be upon us and upon our children”. At the tender age of seven I was far too immature to understand this metaphorical phrase, but thankfully our nice headmaster went to great lengths to explain it to us.
    The Catholic Church a
    is an Evil organisation – there is no other word to describe an outfit that goes around poisoning the minds of young children in this fashion.
    Incidentally, I have developed a fascination for Russian Jews. I know none personally, but it seems that almost everyone who is mentioned in the Telegraph obituaries is of Russian Jewish extraction. I find this remarkable in view of the relatively small percentage of the population they make up. I sometimes amuse myself by thinking of all the famous musicians, artists, scientists and writers who would disappear if there were no Russian Jews.
    My Irish headmaster would no doubt be most disappointed in me.

  5. I concur wholeheartedly with your position here. As an Austro-libertarian with a strong affinity to Rothbardian thinking, I believe Everyman has the right to own and express his own opinion, however offensive and wrong-headed others might find it to be.

    On the basis of the non-aggression principle, one’s opinions should only become a legal issue to wider society when they incite or threaten violence against the person or persons targeted. Simply to express a religious or philosophical position on a given subject should never been seen as cause for initiating legal proceedings. (It falls of course within the remit of the practitioners of jurisprudence to ascertain when some remark or comment oversteps the line between fair comment and incitement.)

    If people find Dr Alan Clifford’s position offensive, then they are free to either engage with it intellectually or ignore it. Alternatively they have as much right as he to publish their own opinion on the matter. Conversely though, the political activism of the Tatchells of this world, though understandable, does a great disservice to the cause of gay emancipation, especially in religious circles. It only polarizes the debate further and legitimizes the usurped authority of the violent criminal class operating from Westminster.

    As a man with a very strong and active biblical faith, I understand entirely the orthodox position put forward by Clifford – love the sinner, hate the sin, and all that. I believe in all sincerity in his God-given right to publicly express that position. However, the fact that I am also gay gives me a particularly keen insight into this matter.

    You see, for many people, this is an intellectual, theological or philosophical issue. A discussion point to be thrashed about so we can arrive a formulaic mantra for the benefit of herd cohesion. To those like Clifford who address this subject in public ways, however well-meaningly, I would say ‘you talk about it like you read it in a book’. For me it’s not intellectual fodder – it’s my life.

    It cuts me to the very core of my being when people for whom this is an intellectual exercise talk so glibly about ‘being gay’. When you have been the subject of so much ridicule and vitriol from all sides all your life, then your opinion might carry more weight with me. Until then, I just say ‘yea right, whatever’.

    For those of you out there whose curiosity is triggered by my position, check out a website I’ve found extremely helpful on this matter (

  6. God’s Law deals specifically with the harm caused to another human being. Offence is not therefore part of the Law, which comes from God, and is a higher law than the legislation and other rules and rulings of Babylon (see page 5 of Many are called. Few are chosen for references

    Although the Old Testament appears to condemn homosexuality, the actual line in Hebrew is more completely translated as a human being shall not lie with another human being in the marriage bed (literally ‘the wife’s bed’). It therefore refers to the marriage oath and the serious consequences arising the breaking of any oath made before God. This is why IHVH finds it ‘abhorrent’ (and does not comparatively find the idea of a human being having sex with an animal, the next line of the Bible, so terrible.

    In summary, God’s Law defends Mr Clifford’s right to criticise homosexuals or show them other ways of life without being persecuted for his opinions. However, he has no biblical authority to support his claims about homosexuality and is therefore guilty of misrepresenting the Law of God. The commandment to Love your neighbour as you love yourself — the whole of the Law under the Mosaic Covenant — in any case comes above any simple rule in the Bible as it is a commandment from God. Love of course knows no prejudice so Mr Clifford would fail the test of entry to the new world come Judgement Day, unless he repents, of course.

    Those who call on rights like free speech — which come from God — must also respect the rights of their fellow man. The true man of God concerns himself with that which harms God’s children, like usury, rather than what he finds distasteful.

    The Law and the principle of ‘Do as you would be done by’ — or you are in law free to do as you please so long as you do not harm the rights of other human beings — is of course the only truly libertarian creed.

    • “God’s Law deals specifically with the harm caused to another human being”

      You mean like: blasphemy; coveting; honouring parents; keeping the sabbath; not eating shellfish or pig; not wearing clothes of mixed fibres?

      Sure, you read what you want into the magic 8-ball book and think that your interpretation is right and anyone who disagrees is a heretic. Having said that, I do much prefer your interpretation to that of mainstream religions.

      • See my comment above which distinguishes between the Law and rules. The ‘Render unto Caesar Line…’ is followed by ‘…and render unto God what is God’s’. In this context the line is best interpreted as ‘Render unto Caesar only what is Caesar’s’.

        St Paul was not Christ. His teaching in places is therefore plain wrong. In our current society with its unlawful war and false-flag terrorism, It would be impossible to respect the ordinances of man and gain entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Bible is not there to be blindly followed. You must apply reason and compassion.

        And indeed a man must work: he has to collect his own wood, water and food. That is quite different from being signed up to the 40-hour week paying taxes to a government which supports usury.

        There is nothing welfarist about Love. No true man of god would accept benefits from the state as he makes himself a slave of that state. He would trust God to provide.

  7. Edward Spalton

    I think you are teasing us a bit. You will know of the decision of the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem circa AD 48 (Galatians 2) that the Church decided that Jewish ritual requirements did not apply to non Jewish Christian converts. The Church of England was only expressing the view of the universal Church when it wrote (Article VII of the Old Testament)”…Although the law given from God by Moses , as touching ceremonies and rites do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil Precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth: yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral”

    Of course, the dear old C of E has gone off the rails since those days and probably has something much more fluffy and PC with gays and climate change in it now.

    • The Law given to Moses from God is ‘Love your neighbour…’ and ‘Love God’. Moses takes down from Mount Sinai the two tablets which display ten ‘words’ in the original Hebrew, not ten commandments.

      The long list of instructions given in the Torah (literally ‘instructions’) should not be confused with the Law. Law is enforceable whereas rules — including any secular, bi9blical or religious — legislation are not.

      Under God’s Law, we have the authority to reject legislation, state and government and instead be judged solely on our duty of care to our fellow man.

  8. Edward Spalton

    Yet St. Paul said “Be subject unto every ordinance of man”, and Our Lord said “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”.
    i.e. Pay your taxes
    As one of my Christian teacher’s said long ago
    “The liberty of the Christian does not extend to breaking the speed limit” (something I must confess to having done often since)
    and the civil magistrates are ministers for the protection of the innocent and punishment of evil doers. That was the theory at any rate – even for the pagan Roman empire.
    We are of course to love our fellow man (hard as many make that for us) but that is by no means all the law – unqualified, It is the way to the soft-headed “welfarist” creed which animates the leaderships of many of the Churches today.
    The Gospel is a little more realistic and hard headed “He that will not work, neither shall he eat”.

  9. Indeed Mr Shayler. Just one point. If I feel threatened, though I am minding my own business in peaceful coexistence with my fellow human beings, do I or do I not have a right to seek assistance against the person or persons apparently threatening me? Or should I just wait until I or other gay men like me are assaulted – again? Feeling threatened is after all a very subjective matter. Gay men are often highly sensitive types and, owing to the way they have been treated, often from a very young age, have become hypersensitive to other people’s underlying prejudices. I for one have been beaten black and blue just for being a ‘mummy’s boy’ (code word for gay). I know what it feels like to be threatened and abused for no other reason than that I exist. Just consider the suicide statistics among gay teenagers…

    It’s no surprise then that we easily feel threatened even where others wonder what all the fuss is about. Do I or do I not have a right to act upon that perceived threat? Should I just keep my gob shut because others think there’s nothing to worry about? Am I to have no recourse other than my own intellect and physical strength against those who make me feel threatened? There is of course a big difference between being offended and feeling threatened. From a strictly libertarian perspective we apparently all have the right to offend and be offended. But does that include causing someone to feel threatened? Surely the very fact that I sense a threat to my well-being, however diluted and coded it might be, is enough to justify me taking what I consider to be appropriate and legally defensible action?

    Though as a hard-core libertarian I am certainly not pleading for special treatment under the law for the minority to which I belong, I am acutely and painfully aware that there are many people out there who feel very strongly about this issue and, given the right conditions, would be willing to stone me to death for loving another man in a way they see as unfit. That indisputable fact – Yes, Westboro Baptist, I’m looking at you! – means I am sensitive to any material that seeks to offer an intellectual justification for such deep-seated violent longings that zero in on me as a target.

    This is an important discussion. In an ideal situation – the genuinely free and fair society that Messiah shall ultimately ensure with His iron rule of law – I would have the right to defend myself against aggression and to fight threat with counter threat. What’s more, at that time the proper administration of Law will act as a powerful deterrent to latent criminal intent to enact aggression against others. But we do not yet enjoy such conditions and, despite protestations to the contrary, there is still a massive social, cultural and religious asymmetry in favour of hetero-hegemony.

    And yet I do not condone using the legal system to shut down debate, to silence someone who is simply regurgitating tired old formulas without a trace of original thinking in them. Let him have his say, but please allow me the right to protest that in any way I see fit as long as I do not threaten him or his followers with violence. Even by legal means where appropriate. Is that not ultimately the purpose of a properly functioning justice system, to prevent the use of aggression against others? When that system breaks down and fails to prevent by deterrence, then why are we surprised when persecuted groups seek to apply it in other preventative ways?

    Of course this all becomes somewhat moot if one assumes an attitude of forgiveness and loving one’s enemies. But that is a personal choice driven by proximity to and love of the Master. In the meantime, secular society still needs to function and using legal means to counter utterances that are perceived as threatening by the people who are their subject matter is in that context entirely justifiable and legitimate. I personally do not seek to use the stick of state aggression against others. I hate the state and want as little to do with it as possible. I didn’t make up those silly hate crime laws. But they are there and, perhaps for some, using them to shock religious bigots and bombasts into reviewing their prejudices might not be such a bad thing after all. Funny, I’d never thought I’d hear myself say that…

  10. @ Edward Spalton | 21 August, 2013 at 10:59 am

    Edward, thank you for your comment. Your reasoning cuts to the very heart of the matter: How do we distinguish between governance by mutual consent and government by force? Or how do we enforce the rule of law without creating a coercive collectivist entity? I agree entirely that we are encouraged to submit to governance. But Paul’s admonition implies consent, i.e. voluntary agreement. You are not submitting voluntarily when you are being forced to comply at the end of the barrel of a gun! Paul’s statements to this effect are a recognition of the rule of law. That a free and fair society only functions properly when predicated on the non-aggression principle. And that includes non-aggression by collectivist entities against those not aggressing against others.

    What we have now, however, is not the rule of law but the rule of a criminal elite that obtains its power immorally by force, abusing the very law we all recognize as being essential to our continued peaceful coexistence. It threatens us with violence for non-compliance to its petty rules and regulations that are in essence nothing more than money-grabs.

    Please explain one thing to me: What’s the difference morally between a thief breaking into your house and threatening you with violence if you do not hand over your property, and a man with a badge and a gun breaking your door down for not complying with the state’s arbitrary taxation rules? Correct, there is no difference. ‘Thou shall not steal’ applies to everyone without exception. That implies by definition that, when men organize themselves into a group, the collective, as an extension of their individual humanity, is also subject to God’s command to not steal. When it does steal it is no less a thief than if it were just one man acting alone.

    Indeed, why do you pay tax? And don’t give me that nonsense about paying for useful services or “rendering unto Caesar…”. The reason you pay your taxes is because you know, in your heart of hearts, that if you don’t you’ll be thrown into a cage by men with badges and guns. You’re in good company, though, as that’s the same reason we all pay our taxes – we’re all afraid of the consequences of non-compliance. We are all in that sense cowards, terrified of crossing the mafia bosses in Westminster, Whitehall and Washington, not to mention the Banksters, the Brussels Eurocrats and the system’s many Corporate Whores.

    As for non-observance of speed limits, there you’ve struck upon another rich vein of discussion that cuts right to the chase. This is a perfect illustration of the difference between a culture of compliance and a culture of conscience. On the odd occasion I actually give a toss about the arbitrary speed restrictions I only do so because I know at that moment (as I pass yet another Gatso that I paid for with money extorted from me under duress) that non-compliance will see my wallet further plundered by the fat, greasy little paws of some porcine official feeding from the trough – see ‘money-grab’ above.

    In a ‘driving’ culture of conscience, I may drive as fast as conditions allow and my abilities and tools (my car) permit. My judgement is guided by the non-aggression principle that I do no harm to any other road user. I recognize and take very seriously my duty of care to my fellow men and uphold therefore the essence of the law to love my neighbour. I know that, if I am reckless and do cause loss or damage to another, the law has a claim upon me, as does my victim’s insurer, as an aggressor against the person, property and liberty of the other and has the right to punish or charge me accordingly.

    In the culture of compliance I drive around constantly focusing on my speed, which let’s face it is also nothing more than an arbitrary function of units of distance covered over units of time. This distracts me from what should be the real focus of my full attention – the road and weather conditions and the conduct of other road users. This is dangerous and makes roads less safe.

    My apologies to you all for dominating this comments page. I never normally act like this and have no idea what it is that has suddenly triggered this input. Please forgive me for my waffling…

  11. Edward Spalton

    I think it is all a question of balance and things are very badly out of balance at the moment with an overweening, out of control political and official class.
    Mind you, St Paul was a subject of the Roman Empire and did not have much choice about that. He was also obviously rather proud of being a Roman citizen, so he could appeal his case to Caesar when he didn’t think the local governor was doing his job properly.

    Back in the Fifties I attended a meeting and discussion with an American evangelist. I was younger than most of the people there who were either at university or starting out on their careers. He was asking them how they intended to organise their Christian lives and most talked of doing the right sort of thing, being honest and kind in all their dealings etc. With regard to politics, they took Our Lord’s and St Paul’s line – “Render unto Caesar” etc.
    but nothing more.

    “But” he said “the world is different today. Haven’t you thought about your role in public life? Jesus and Paul lived in an empire where they had no say. You are in a democracy. Hasn’t it occurred to you that , with a voice and a vote, you are part of Caesar?”

    Those were more innocent times. We were conscious of being a democracy in comparison with what was happening in Eastern Europe (Hungary etc). I don’t know how true it really was even then, but people felt it to be so.
    Certainly, I was brought up to “Fear God, honour the King” in a very traditional Church of England way, a world view which started to fall to bits in the Sixties – mostly with encouragement from Anglican clerics!
    Not much of an answer – but the best I can do just now.

  12. @ Edward Spalton | 21 August, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    nothing wrong with your answer sir! You’re addressing one of life’s most important questions – How then shall we live? If you adhere to biblical principles and seek to live a God-honouring life, you will at the very least acknowledge your Creator’s primary claim on your words and deeds. Perhaps you also recognize His Son’s work and promises. If that is so, then you like me are a ‘son of liberty’. You are a citizen of a kingdom that is to come. Your citizenship papers are held in the presence of the Most High.

    Indeed, virtually the entire New Testament is addressing this very question. It’s all about the paradox of living in the present (criminal) secular world order while at the same time living in accordance with the (Austro-libertarian?) principles of the Messianic world order we so eagerly await. My contention is that we have conflated the two and are now left with a sort of bastard love child from the adulterous relationship between religious and secular authorities, giving us the worst of all worlds.

    This is perfectly encapsulated in the admonishment to “Fear God and honour the King”. But let’s just dissect that statement. In the first place, fear God. In other words, His laws and precepts take precedence over those of men. And if we take Him seriously – fear Him – we seek to abide by those commands. And yet He does not force us to love Him, to obey Him. A relationship with Him is not based on coercion, so we are free to love Him or not.

    To ‘honour the King’ is thus also to voluntary submit to our rulers’ authority as being granted from above insofar as they too obey God’s laws and precepts. Our allegiance is not to a ruling elite that exercises dominion over us by breaking the commandment not to steal. We owe nothing to a thief. We owe everything to the Giver of Life. But, when push comes to shove we are forced, under the threat of violence from the state’s hired thugs, to engage with the system. This we are clearly to do in good grace and with compassion for our fellow man. This does not however mean that we are obliged to call that thieving entity anything other than the criminal it is.

    As for ‘render unto Caesar’, you need to take a long hard look at the context. Nothing in His statement suggests that we should accept without complaint being right royally shafted under duress – being gang raped – by a criminal mob. His answer to His adversaries was pure genius. He told the Romans exactly what they wanted to hear (it’s Caesar’s head, so…) and the religious authorities exactly what they wanted to hear (all gold on earth belongs to the Most High, so…). In this illustration too we see the essence of being in this secular system but not of it – not unlike Neo in The Matrix.

    Your talk of balance is very seductive, but I fear you’re looking for some kind of compromise in which your favoured (religious) moral code is enforced using the stick of state violence as long as that same stick is not used to enforce an (atheistic) moral code that you oppose. That’s a very understandable position, into which many good, honest, God-fearing folk fall. It comes from a lack of understanding of the fundamental difference between the rule of law and rule by force.

    The problem is not a lack of balance, but the very existence of a coercive state. Look at the time of the judges (!) in Israel’s early history. That was clearly God’s favoured set-up and should be considered very seriously as the blueprint for the coming kingdom. But the people wanted a King like the nations around them. What was God’s reply? Okay, if you cannot cope with the freedom and liberty I have endowed you with my rule of law, you will have your king. But beware, he’ll tax your socks off and steal your sons to fight foreign wars of aggression (sound familiar?). Truly nothing has changed.

    But what are we to do with this knowledge? Well first and foremost we must give things their proper name, to see them for what they really are. That means an acknowledgement that the ‘government’ as we know it is nothing more than a criminal gang that is pathologically incapable of behaving in any other way than what we witness every day of our lives. It will only expand and become more vicious as it sees more people recognizing it for the foul, putrescent beast that it is. It’s like behavioural software – a mathematical formula, 2+2=4.

    Another thing we can do is look forward to the coming kingdom of righteousness and try to implement the lessons we learn in the process to life here and now. But that’s material for another time…

  13. See my comment above which distinguishes between the Law and rules. The ‘Render unto Caesar Line…’ is followed by ‘…and render unto God what is God’s’. In this context the line is best interpreted as ‘Render unto Caesar only what is Caesar’s’.

    St Paul was not Christ. His teaching in places is therefore plain wrong. In our current society with its unlawful war and false-flag terrorism, It would be impossible to respect the ordinances of man and gain entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Bible is not there to be blindly followed. You must apply reason and compassion.

    And indeed a man must work: he has to collect his own wood, water and food. That is quite different from being signed up to the 40-hour week paying taxes to a government which supports usury.

    There is nothing welfarist about Love. No true man of god would accept benefits from the state as he makes himself a slave of that state. He would trust God to provide.

  14. There are a whole load of other reasons why we do not have to obey legislation etc, not least because legislation belongs to the world of legal fiction and the ‘person’.

    The following is from the Third and Final Testament, part 1

    Parliamentary legislation also refers to a ‘person’ rather than a‘man’.
    Since the word ‘person’ comes from the Latin and Old English for ‘mask’, it is clear that our person is something we can choose to
    cast off whereas our status as a man or woman is not. Legalese, a perverted form of English designed to rob law of its clarity an dpromoted by the Law Society, has over the years tried to confuse this issue.

    Readers may find the Maxims of Law of interest in this context, particularly:

    1. If ever the law of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the later.
    2. That which is against Divine Law is repugnant to society and is void.
    3. He who becomes a soldier of Christ has ceased to be a soldier of the world

    Why should we obey legislation passed under the duress of the whip system by multi-millionaire MPs, whose parties are backed by billionaires in the City?

  15. Pingback: The UK Hates Freedom of Speech | Aliens in This World