Rising Christian nationalism: a threat to us all

The Augustinian prayer
“Lord, Give me chastity and continency... But not yet"

They could see the goo though. (Ewwww)
The term "seed" was because it sort of seemed to work the same way seeds do. All the plant is in the seed but you put the seed in the soil to make it grow. Which sparks a philosophical question: is a sunflower seed already a sunflower plant? And if it isn't, at what point does it become a proper sunflower plant - when it sprouts roots, when the first green shoot appears etc. Same philosophical argument for humans in the ancient world.

@TempestTost I think there was like one weird cult type thing who did take the line that because sperm is the essence of life, masturbation is murder. Most of the people in ancient times who assumed it was the essential living part, didn't extrapolate from that to it being therefore murder. It is interesting the different spins people put on it.

Augustine's objection to sex without the purpose of procreation went a bit further than it just being like gluttony/lack of self control. It's probably linked to his early Manichean influences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism or he just had issues. But either way, even within a marriage concupiscence was a problem and a potential barrier between the soul and god.

I think Aquinus built on this with his idea of unnatural sin. Which was much worse than gluttony, eating too much. There has been, and still is, a tension within the Christian religion where on the one hand motherhood, marriage are good ("go forth and multiply"). But on the other hand celibacy is sometimes seen as purer. Basically under that logic even sex within marriage for the purpose of making babies is a necessary evil but sex for anything else was just evil. (Usually religious movements that took this logic too far died out fairly quickly for obvious reasons). I blame the Manicheans.

But the idea that early abortions are bad because they were murder just wasn't a thing for a very long time in the early Christian church. We know Augustine was explicitly concerned with the killing of babies because he wrote about it - but this was always in the context of poorer parents abandoning their newborns when they couldn't afford them. He never connected this to early abortion because it just wasn't seen like that at the time.

Even today, a lot of the language around abortion is connected to promiscuity etc. I don't think feminists are wrong for suspecting that at least some (not all) of the "abortion is murder" people are motivated more by a dislike of women not facing the "consequences" of sex than a genuinely held belief that Zygotes are equal to human life.

But basically knowing when life begins is always a thorny problem. It's never been settled. It probs never will be.

Orgasm not organise!

Galen theory involved a two-seed system, where both male and female contributed semen, which then mixed in the uterus to form the embryo.
Ithink it also needed both partners to organise (which is a plus)

The point stands though. Sperm were observed a long time before eggs, because you can stick them under a microscope without any kind of invasive procedure, and there is something obvious to think, let's look at that under the microscope!

Although it's interesting that people didn't seem to make the leap from animals like frogs or fish where you can see the eggs? But maybe they were still interpreting it as a form/matter thing which would make sense if your instincts were Aristotelian. I am sure some science historian would know about how this developed.

Yeah, I'd agree. I also think TR is in no way a systematic thinker. So you can't really extrapolate a coherent set of ideas from the things he says. That's a real limit to his thinking, but it also means that while logically, some of the things he says or does might seem to indicate some larger belief set, in reality it may well be that it doesn't indicate anything much beyond the stated idea. He doesn't much seem to mind holding together some ideas that don't seem compatible.

And some stuff he does and says seems to be to make a fuss.

They didn't know about eggs until somewhat later.

Even before sperm were discovered, some thought that semen was essentially full of little people, while the mother supplied the physical matter to make the bodies grow, menstrual period were interpreted as the blood that would feed the tiny people. So in that sense, the child was "of" the mother, just not in the same way.

It was all very speculative though, people were largely making what seemed like reasonable guesses.

I once read about a tribe of people, in the Amazon if I recall correctly, who believed that semen was what fed the growing baby. So couples were expected to have sex several times a night while pregnant.

As far as your starting point, that seems fairly arbitrary, why would taking a breath of air make someone a person? I'm not suggesting it's an indefensible position, but it doesn't seem in any way obvious. It would mean that being a human being is not, in itself, enough to make someone a person. It could suggest that people no longer able able to breath or care for themselves might be less human - after all, if being independent is the key, do we remain persons after we aren't? There are cultures who believe that. Or would it mean that it could be ok to kill a newborn if you did so before it took a breath - there have been people that believed that as well.

Actually you can't see sperm without a microscope.
AI Overview

The First Person To See Sperm Wished He Could Unsee It ...
Sperm, or spermatozoa, were first discovered and observed in 1677 by the Dutch scientist and microscopist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek using his self-made microscopes. He documented observing "animalcules" in semen and, through his and his assistant's work, made significant observations about these structures, 0although the role of sperm in fertilization was not fully understood until much later.

I would suggest the meaningless drivel 'Humanist UK' is made up of is more of a threat to civilised society. I'd choose Christianity any day over that nonsensical guff.

Because you can see sperm without dissecting someone? Human ovum, according to Dr Google, were first observed in 1928. Human sperm was probably first observed when Adam hit puberty.

How many TRAs refuse to stand besides Baker or those making death threats?

I agree broadly with your post. From what I know most people could not see or hear the speeches, and weren't bothered. I suspect a lot of people there think Musk is an utter knob with some really bad aspects to his personality. IMHO his only redeeming features is making twitter free speech(ish).

Robinson I think is much more complex. Some see him as a hero, targeted by the state. Others see him as a flawed hero. I think the key thing to remember about him is that he doesn;t seem to seek power - he's more of your KJK type, happy to be seen as controversial, happy to be hated by people he would say are fools, just wants to get his message across and have conversations (I actually think he probably wants conversations more than KJK does... KJK is more focussed on her clear simple and undoubtedly correct message, whereas I think the issues Robison talks about are more complex and more in need of conversation to find the right path through the minefield).

"For theologians who thought sperm were essentially tiny people..."

Why on earth did theologians think it was sperm who were tiny people? Why did they not instead think eggs were tiny people?

"if a fetus which is a human being but not a person, what other kinds of human beings might not be persons"

My starting point would be to see which other "humans", not including foetuses, have never lived outside the body of a woman who they rely on for absolutely everything and have thus never taken a single breath of air.

I think the thing is, and I have said this before, most of the people who go to marches don't really pay much attention to the details of who organised them. In this case, I don't think many cared much about TR, or Musk, and it wasn't really on their radar.

This seems totally unbelievable to the sort of people who get their knickers in a twist about political purity, but I suspect it really represents the vast majority of people.

How many people on the left did we see complaining about those who went on BLM protests because of the ideas and behaviour of the leaders of the BLM organisation?

I think your first comment here though is really the reason for the historic differernces in how abortion and contraception were understood. The principles were fairly clear, being:

Sex outside the controlling purpose of reproduction is off limits, in much the same way eating without the controlling purpose of nutrition is. (So, to eat or have sex for fun is fine, but if you do that outside the bounds of the biological end of the activity you are a kind of glutton and the activity will likely have negative results.) From this perspective contraception or masturbation are problematic in the same way that using diet pills to allow you to over-eat would be. Spiritually it would be seen as unhealthy, and represent a loss of important self-disapline, but are also likely to result in poor health and social outcomes.

For theologians who thought sperm were essentially tiny people, they also saw contraception and masturbation the same as abortion. That's a scientific error though, not a theological one.

Abortion was simply disallowed because it was seen as killing a person, which is to say, a separate human being. They question of when there was a separate person was quite mysterious however, again, a scientific question. Quickening was a common belief for I think obvious reasons. Today it's conception because that is when, scientifically, you have a human being.

The theological side which says that any human being is a person is a pretty well established Christian principle which gives rise to Christian views on slavery, abortion, treatment of infants and children, the ill, the deformed or medically fragile, and euthanasia, among other things.

It's not the only defensible principle, but I think it's actually a lot more difficult to put limits around it in one area, without compromising another, than a lot of people think. i.e, if a fetus which is a human being but not a person, what other kinds of human beings might not be persons?

Until science can pinpoint when death is (and it can't - yet) we don't all have to agree that life ends at it.

Apologies for the sarcasm; I just don't think that we have to know exactly at what point we decide that life starts and ends in order to have opinions on difficult ethical issues. I'm wary of expressing an opinion on this in a feminist space, but for the little it's worth, my current view is that the foetus gains human value continuously from conception to birth, or perhaps from conception to viability (as a premature birth results in a baby just as valuable as a full term one). I therefore have very little problem with the "morning after pill" and considerable problem with a late-term abortion (though it may be justifiable under some circumstances). Though I would much prefer there to be fewer abortions through avoiding unwanted pregnancies, I accept that the law is the law. If an abortion is to occur, the earlier the better.

Thank you, that sounds very useful to know about. Terrifying.

As to actors getting involved in politics, I don't think it's always bad, though too often it devolves into uninformed radical chic. I think it's better though if they get involved in more charity-based work, some actors who do that seem to actually know something about the issue and do genuine work for it. Normally these are ones who aren't A-List and keep a more down-to-earth lifestyle.

I know Vanessa Redgrave was absolutely horrible in her defence of Gerry Healy, and I sadly suspect she wasn't alone...

Can I ask if you could name some of the people involved in these scandals? I'm not likely to vote for YP, heaven knows, but I think it's important to be aware. I'm at uni & some people I know seem a bit bedazzled by Corbyn. I think it's important to be aware of dangerous individuals involved in cover ups & sex offences .

Definitely cults of personality can be very hard to understand...

I recommend Aidan Beatty's book The Party is Always Right, about Gerry Healy and the Workers Revolutionary Party. It's wild to think how much of the UK acting profession was in or around the WRP in the 1970s. This probably influences my opinion on how seriously to take actors when they speak out on politics.

When it comes to the SWP scandals, you probably don't want to get me started because I personally know a lot of the people involved. Some of whom are popping up in connection with the new Jeremy Corbyn/Zarah Sultana vehicle. I have strong opinions about these people.

Trust me though, a cult of personality can be formed around the most unlikely individuals.

I think I saw a post from you before about the SWP rape cases. Vile. I suppose any organisation with such rigid views and worship of certain people will end up offering safe harbour to predators...

I apologise, I didn't express myself very clearly. What I meant was that I didn't think people with immigration concerns should have gone marching with Tommy. Why can't someone reasonable organise a March?

I know most people probably weren't especially keen on him, and I understand that you aren't. I didn't want to suggest that you support TR. I myself wish large scale immigration had ended back in 2000, I understand the negative effects. It's awful for people with those concerns to be lumped in with neo-Nazis etc (who ofc a tiny group anway, thankfully)

I try not to get into discussions about Tommy, although his prominence is interesting, because I don't support him, and I keep saying I don't support him, but that never discourages posters from insinuating that I support him.

Which, as we know from the "antifa" crowd, is painting a target on a person's back.

If it matters, if you pay attention to the minuscule UK far right - and they're so irrelevant it's hardly worth it - they are almost unanimously convinced that Tommy is some kind of MI5 plant. There have been too many incidents where his supporters all get arrested and he turns up a week later in Ayia Napa.

But, as I say, it's a discussion I prefer not to get into, because it usually results in me being lambasted by the kind of "feminists" who are perfectly fine with the unions funnelling money to Martin James Smith and his friends. Look them up.

Until science can pinpoint when conception is (and it can't -yet) we don't all have to agree that life begins at it.

I hope you're right. I agree a lot of people on the March had legitimate concerns but I will always disagree with people who by choice went marching after a man who did this.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/20/family-in-fear-after-tommy-robinson-shares-video-of-black-man-with-white-granddaughters&ved=2ahUKEwj9iaTqlf6PAxXOU0EAHdUMOzsQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2J_14hm9agVSqhNlL4rgxC

Or these crimes for that matter : I don't believe they can all be trumped-up charges

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson
The libel against the Syrian refugee boy was particularly bad.

I'm pretty sure the egg and the sperm are alive before conception.

Conception is the point at which conception happens. The point at which there is a living human being is much more debatable, but I can see a strong argument to be "when they take their first breath outside of the body" (which, of course, does not mean I support abortion at 8.5 months).

The levels of disgust I feel for your post are truly off the scale... you are effectively saying any woman who has an abortion is as bad as Hitler or any mass murderer (IMHO).

I wouldn't look to Tommy for a coherent worldview. Apart from anything else, most of his fanbase is online and American, so he pivots to whatever he thinks is going to get him onto the big American podcasts.

Having said that, and bearing in mind Tommy is very unpopular but his last rally was five times bigger than what he normally gets, I think there are lots of people with lots of grievances who, whatever their reservations about Tommy latched onto the opportunity to show their displeasure with the way society is going. Some of that is anxiety over culture/immigration, where religion can be a synonym.

Some of it might even be directly religion related. But I love how real life throws up curveballs.

Large parts of the American left have spent ten years hallucinating that the thoroughly irreligious Donald Trump is going to impose theocracy. He hasn't done it yet, but they get more and more fearful that he's really going to do it this time. Those parts of the British cultural left who take their cues from America - looking at you, Humanist Association - are now hallucinating that Nigel Farage (!) is poised to introduce theocracy in the UK. I don't think this is very serious analysis.

The nearest thing we've had to theocrats in mainland UK politics (Northern Ireland is its own thing of course) is the Christian Peoples Alliance, who have faded from view in recent years but once managed to, er, elect councillors in Newham. Which is not exactly a stronghold of MAGA politics but has quite a lot of African Christians.

Meanwhile the new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is a Muslim woman who wants to restrict immigration, castrate nonces and end two tier justice. We're in the interesting position where the left is denouncing Mahmood as a racist (!!!) while right wing pundits like Trevor Kavanagh are bigging her up as the leader Labour needs.

Real life confounds Tommy and it also confounds Tommy's critics.