Quite right too. That William Wilberforce should never have been allowed in parliament.

Interesting combination of "the norm is to accept unfamiliar differences and unconventional backgrounds as part of the cosmopolitan flurry of modern life" with a demand that Christians be thrown out of the conservative party, and prevented from participating in politics. (And you do mean the Christians here, despite the guff about people who pretend to be Christians but live like pagans!)

The same logic had a street-preacher arrested by the police this weekend, in the name of tolerance. Do you endorse that too?

We mustn't go along with the idea that the values imbibed from those who set the agenda in our society are in any way liberal or open or tolerant. No-one was locked up for their political or religious opinions in this country in the 70's or 80's. They certainly are now!

Christians are a harmless lot, with no political power whatever. It is more or less a litmus test of how oppressive a state is, whether it passes laws against them. Indeed the charge against that preacher was "hooliganism"; the same fake charge used by the KGB in locking up priests in the Soviet Union in the old days.

All this is fairly obvious, and should be to everyone. But there is more. A state that will lock up people for expressing Christianity is one that will lock them up for expressing Tory values too. Why encourage the liberal bigotry, when we will certainly be a victim of it in due course?

By the way, in the wake of the expenses scandal, are you quite sure that the conservative party needs fewer of those whose religion says "Thou shalt not steal"?!

An interesting take on the implications of this for the right. It's worth noting that Stroud has not, in fact, directly addressed or denied the allegations against her, as I note here - her 'denial' is in fact an evasive non-denial. Moreover, I think you overstate things somewhat in claiming that the Observer allegations are 'unverifiable'. Presumably, with enough corroborating accounts we could be as convinced about the truth of these allegations as we are about, for instance, allegations of child abuse in the Catholic Church that went unreported until years later.

You are right, the problem is not christianity itself. Where you are wrong is in your assertion that christianity has any role in any national institutions. The problem lies squarely with adherents of any religion which seeks to impose its moral standards believing that their delusional beliefs have any place in the modern world. Whether your christianity is the temperate kind that bows to whims of monarchs and rulers of old or the fanatical rantings of the mentally unstable right wing fundamentalist evangelicals/jihadists/zionists or any other fictional cult you wish to name. You are all welcome to your beliefs. You just need to learn that they are yours personally and in the personal realm must they stay.

Roger, I don't think there's any argument for a purge of christianity being made here. Its just simply being pointed out that (if these allegations are true) the Conservatives may risk a core vote backlash after the election. The Christian Right in the Tories don't really defect to UKIP like the Eurosceptic Right do, nor do they defect to anyone else (in the interests of sanity, the various Christian Parties/coalitions are not considered) so they're more likely to stick it and fight their corner, especially if the Big Society goes tits up.

What (and correct me if I'm wrong) is being advised here is that the Tories should make some attempt to pacify this wing before it becomes widely believed to be at the heart of the Conservative party, one Observer article is not going to affect that, but give it time.

Whats the difference between fundamentalist christians and evangalical muslims?

Nothing!

Both have extreme views and want to impose it on everyone else and think that everyone else is evil and destined for hell.

'Conservatives, particularly young Tories, need to be clear and unequivocal in distancing themselves from evangelism.'

Evangelism or evangelicalism?

Amen Brotha!!!

Hi roger, it seems you're unused to reading opinions you even slightly disagree with. Try going back and rereading the post carefully.

In reply to most others, I just don't buy the argument for rabid secularism. It seems like an urge to sterilise and rationalise everything that's peculiar about this country, in which case you might as well go and live in Belgium. I'm not Christian, but I do call myself British and so elements of the country's religious history and traditions do form part of my identity. Even small things - I like hearing bells on Sunday in the countryside; I like Christmas and Easter being our national holidays; I can understand why some otherwise arreligious people want to get married in a Church, etc. I'm sure this is not the way someone like you, Roger, experiences Christianity, but each to their own. Bloody Mary and her horrible little brother died a long time ago.

@sohopolitics - yes, she didn't quite deny it, and I'd agree with you if the article had ten named sources. But we're at the end of a vicious election campaign and the article has two or three semi-anonymous sources. Caution is merited.

To the first anonymous person, yes this is exactly what I'm saying. There has been a drip-drip of these stories and I don't think the Tory leadership really understands how damaging it is to the whole right's reputation. They don't understand because in many cases, like Dale and Montgomerie, they're best mates with the people involved and they can't separate their personal feelings from the actual facts or public perception.

I think I'd also tack onto this point that we're in full election mode at the moment and there's a reluctance amongst the party affiliated bloggers to say anything that might damage their own party. I hate to sound sycophantic but your blog, guido's and political betting (and a few others) have become a safe haven in a sea of partisan spinning. Even the usually balanced Dan Han is tagging "Nick Clegg <3s the EU, Dave is our saviour" onto the end of every post.

On the main point of it, I'd agree with you. I feel that in the efforts to enforce some kind of laicite in England we'll end up with a rather bland culture. We've no need for a radical separation of church and state because its not an issue. Its one of the issues I get a bit patriotic and conservative about, along with the monarchy, I don't really buy the belief that stripping away a country's culture is necessary to achieve an enlightened nirvana.

(P.S: Glad I got the meaning right on the original post)

Yes it's an interesting dichotomy, yet it is being rapidly superseded by events. The law on the street is ALREADY being decided by vigilantes:

http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2010/05/heroes-of-balsall-heath.html

Labour, Lib-Dems and Cameron absolutely worship those guys of course. Where is our defender of secular freedoms now, when this revolution has given him his fastest route to real power?

It's a race to the bottom: will the Church be extinguished by the metropolitans before the viligantes have knifed every gay in sight? And yet, gays clearly can make peace with the cranky old Church before their dying breath:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn#Assassination

@Emily

I'm certainly not claiming that we ought, at this stage, to conclude that the allegations hold water - to the contrary, there are serious limitations to the evidence so far adduced, as you point out.

However: you rather underplay the extent of her evasiveness is saying 'she didn't *quite* deny it'. The fact is, she nowhere near denied it. Moreover, she has refused numerous requests for clarification/elaboration from the media, saying only that the statement as already issued stands, and will be her only word on the matter. So whatever the truth, Stroud is doing herself absolutely no favours here.

Did she say what she is said to have said or was it "Lost In Translation"?

Did she say what she said or did she say what she said in a Frank Bruno/Phil Collins type way?