In the past, I’ve written about how the UK is a dangerous secular left fascist country that suppresses the basic human rights of its citizens. In the UK, free speech that disagrees with government policies is illegal. You can’t defend yourself from the criminals that the government imports from third-world countries. And they have two-tier policing – one justice system for allies, and one for enemies.

So, here is how I formed my opinion of the UK. According to Douglas Murray’s “The Strange Death of Europe”, the UK let in unskilled immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. Some of those went on to run child sex-trafficking rings. This has happened in many cities in the UK. And when the parents of the sex-trafficked girls complained to the police, the police refused to do anything, because they said that it’s “racist” to investigate those crimes. This is secular left woke police in action. And then if UK taxpayers say something about the failures of the taxpayer-funded politicians and police to protect their kids, then the police will charge them with hate crimes and hate speech. That’s what’s going on in the UK right now, and has been for some time.

So, let’s see some news stories to learn how things are going.

Here’s the UK Daily Mail, explaining what you have to do in order to be flagged by the UK government as a threat to their policies.

It says:

Record numbers of over-60s are being referred to the Government’s troubled anti-terrorism scheme, the Daily Mail can reveal today. Home Office figures show 127 adults in their 60s or beyond were put on Prevent’s radar in 2023/24 – the most since records began in 2016. Of them, 43 had sparked alarm for expressing ‘extreme right wing’ views.

“Extreme right wing” views are basically things like disagreeing with the child sex-trafficking rings. If you disagree with child sex-trafficking, then the UK government thinks that you are “extreme right wing” and a potential terrorist.

I’m not kidding:

Last month, it was revealed how Prevent training documents listed sharing the view that Western culture was ‘under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration’ was a ‘terrorist ideology’.

Are you wondering how they determine who is a potential terrorist? Well, if you watch certain comedy shows like “Yes, Minister” and “The Thick of It”, then you might be a terrorist. Or if you like old war movies. Or if you own any Shakespeare plays.

Look:

Even the 1955 epic war film The Dam Busters and The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare were flagged as possible red flags of extremism by Prevent’s Research Information and Communications Unit.

Just FYI, I am probably on their list. I just recently read a book about the Dam Busters mission (“Operation Chastise”) called “Enemy Coast Ahead (Uncensored)” by the lead pilot of that mission, Guy Gibson. And I even want to buy a boardgame version of it, if GMT ever gets around to printing it with a mounted map board.

And of course I own two Complete Shakespeares – The Illustrated Globe edition from my high school days, and an audio book version. Not only that, but I was recently bugging Grok to tell me the best classical commentaries on Shakespeare, because that’s what I want to read when I’m retired (at 50, not 60). I never wanted to be a software engineer – I wanted to teach people the wisdom that you can get out of the British classics and Shakespeare.

And the UK goverment is finding a lot of people who are potential terrorists:

Across all age groups, more than 1,300 people were referred to Prevent last year for ‘extreme right wing’ behaviour, including 27 kids under the age of ten.

But Islam is no big deal:

Over the same period, the overall number of referrals under the Islamist umbrella has plunged by 75 per cent, from 3,706 to 913 – or 13 per cent of the total.

Now, you might think that a failed nation like the UK would be more concerned about their failing healthcare system. Or their violent crime epidemic. Or their third-world economy. Or their diminished role in keeping peace in the world. Or their criminalization of free speech. Or… their child sex-trafficking rings. But no.

Now, let’s look at a different article, one that shows what happens to Christians who try to speak about what the Bible says in the UK.

Here is a recent article from the UK Telegraph:

A school chaplain who was sacked after telling children they were free to question LGBT policies has told how he is still living in “shame and spiritual exile” six years later.

The Rev Bernard Randall, 52, lost his job at Trent College in Derbyshire and was referred to the Government’s Prevent counter-terrorism programme after delivering a sermon to pupils.

During the 2019 sermon, Dr Randall discussed identity politics and said pupils did not have to agree with LGBT teaching.

This obviously affected his finances:

Dr Randall, who is married and has a daughter, said: “I got part-time work with an adult education provider. So we’re OK, but we’ve definitely had to tighten our belts.”

Let me quickly say that many narcissistic people these days are asking “why don’t men lead?” and “why don’t men protect?” and “why don’t men provide?”. And the answer is because it has become costly – finances and freedom – to do so. People find male leadership offensive, and men lose their jobs for leading.

The article also notes that his punishment is ongoing, because of the first female Bishop in the Church of England:

Despite being cleared of wrongdoing over the 2019 sermon, Dr Randall was barred from preaching after a decision by the Rt Rev Libby Lane, the Bishop of Derby, over concerns that he could pose a risk of harm to children.

It’s a common view among feminists that men’s moral and spiritual leadership is “harmful to children”, because feminists interpret their own sad feelings about demonstrated male competence at decision-making as evidence that demonstrated male competence at decision-making will be harmful to children. Single mothers are doing so well raising kids, they think.

Here are more recent stories about life in the UK:

• UK Police Arrest Gardener in His Own Garden For Carrying Trowel, Sickle
• Record Numbers of Foreign Sex Offenders Being Held in English Prisons
• Doctors in England start a 5-day strike over pay
• Muhammad Remains Top UK Baby Name
• Channel Migrant Crisis Arrivals For 2025 Soar Past 25,000 in Record Year
• UK 1984: Hundreds Charged in Britain for Speech Crimes Under Orwellian Online Safety Act
• Serving Police Officer Charged With 11 Counts of Sexual Activity With a Child

It’s very, very important to get a conversation about spiritual things started off on the right foot. My favorite place to start is with the origin of the universe. I always use the same 3 evidences, but I found an article that has even MORE. First, let me talk about the ones I like, then I’ll send you the link to the article with the bigger list. Once you get the beginning proved, the next question is: who caused it?

Here’s the article from J. Warner Wallace.

He writes this:

My career as a Cold Case Detective was built on being evidentially certain about the suspects I brought to trial. There are times when my certainty was established and confirmed by the cumulative and diverse nature of the evidence. Let me give you an example. It’s great when a witness sees the crime and identifies the suspect, but it’s even better if we have DNA evidence placing the suspect at the scene. If the behavior of the suspect (before and after the time of the crime) also betrays his involvement, and if his statements when interviewed are equally incriminating, the case is even better. Cases such as these become more and more reasonable as they grow both in depth and diversity. It’s not just that we now have four different evidences pointing to the same conclusion, it’s that these evidences are from four different categories. Eyewitness testimony, forensic DNA, behaviors and admissions all point to the same reasonable inference. When we have a cumulative, diverse case such as this, our inferences become more reasonable and harder to deny. Why did I take the time to describe this evidential approach to reasonable conclusions? Because a similar methodology can be used to determine whether everything in the universe (all space, time and matter) came from nothing. We have good reason to believe our universe had a beginning, and this inference is established by a cumulative, diverse evidential case.

Here is his list of evidences:

1. Philosophical Evidence
2. Theoretical Evidence
3. Observational Evidence
4. Thermal Evidence
5. Quantitative Evidence
6. Residual Evidence

Now, if you listened to our podcast with astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, I mentioned the ones that I like, which are #3, #5 and #6. And I like these, because they are scientific, and because I have clever ways of explaining them using simple terms.

Here’s what he says:

3. Observational Evidence (from Astronomical Data)

Vesto Slipher, an American astronomer working at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, spent nearly ten years perfecting his understanding of spectrograph readings. His observations revealed something remarkable. If a distant object was moving toward Earth, its observable spectrograph colors shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum. If a distant object was moving away from Earth, its colors shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Slipher identified several “nebulae” and observed a “redshift” in their spectrographic colors. If these “nebulae” were moving away from our galaxy (and one another) as Slipher observed, they must have once been tightly clustered together. By 1929, Astronomer Edwin Hubble published findings of his own, verifying Slipher’s observations and demonstrating the speed at which a star or galaxy moves away from us increases with its distance from the earth. This once again confirmed the expansion of the universe.

5. Quantitative Evidence (from the Abundance of Helium)

As Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle studied the way elements are created within stars, he was able to calculate the amount of helium created if the universe came into being from nothing. Helium is the second most abundant element in the universe (Hydrogen is the first), but in order to form helium by nuclear fusion, temperatures must be incredibly high and conditions must be exceedingly dense. These would have been the conditions if the universe came into being from nothing. Hoyle’s calculations related to the formation of helium happen to coincide with our measurements of helium in the universe today. This, of course, is consistent with the universe having a moment of beginning.

6. Residual Evidence (from the Cosmic Background Radiation)

In 1964, two American physicists and radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected what is now referred to as “echo radiation”, winning a Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1978. Numerous additional experiments and observations have since established the existence of cosmic background radiation, including data from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite launched in 1989, and the Planck space observatory launched in 2009. For many scientists, this discovery alone solidified their belief the universe had a beginning. If the universe leapt into existence, expanding from a state of tremendous heat, density and expansion, we should expect find this kind of cosmic background radiation.

So, I’ve made simple analogies for these, so that I can explain them to people from every background.

For #5, for example, I use the story of leaving you in a room with beads and strings and then watching you make one necklace of beads, and timing you, and then leaving you for an hour, and coming back and estimating how many necklaces you will have made, and how many beads you have left. With respect to the beginning of the universe, at the very beginning, it’s all hydrogen (beads). But there is nuclear fusion going on, and the beads are being fused into heavier elements like helium and carbon and oxygen (necklaces). Well, astronomers made predictions about HOW MUCH helium you could fuse during the very hot period, according to the standard cosmology, and the prediction was for 75% hydrogen (beads) and 24% helium (necklaces), and that’s exactly what we see today.

And for #6, I talk about baking a cake. Suppose you heated up your oven and put a ban full of cake batter in there for an hour. You notice that the room is 68 Fahrenheit (20 Celsius) when the cake went in. Then you take the cake out to cool, but you leave the oven open. An hour later, you notice that the oven is cool, but the temperature of the room has gone up to 72 Fahrenheit (22 Celsius). When you have a source of heat in a small area, then you open it up in a bigger area, the smaller area cools down, and the bigger area warms up a bit. Astronomers made a prediction that the very hot creation event would leave a small 3 degrees Kelvin “cosmic microwave background radiation” everywhere in space, and when they were finally able to measure it, they found that the predicted 3 Kelvin temperature was found exactly as predicted.

So, if you don’t know all of these evidences for a beginning, read the article, pick your favorites, and be ready to explain them.