𝙹𝚘𝚜𝚎𝚙𝚑 𝙻. 𝙱𝚊𝚔𝚎𝚛 ✝️🇬🇧🧩

I will concede one point at the outset. Political disagreement can be sharp, and not every difference can be reconciled. Democracies contain real conflicts about priorities, policy, and the direction of a country. But I refuse to treat people who disagree with me politically as enemies. In my experience most disagreements can be talked through if adults are willing to engage honestly. That is the whole point of a functioning democracy. We argue because we share a country. If you support the Greens or Labour, we will likely disagree about the assumptions behind certain solutions. But we can still agree that problems exist and that they should be approached rationally. As long as we share some basic civic and cultural norms, you will find no enemy in me. Only someone with a different perspective and different concerns for a country we both care about. If you are further to the right than I am, the same principle applies. We may agree or disagree in degrees. That is simply normal political life. Where that changes is when politics becomes purely identitarian. On the left that often appears as grievance politics, where society is reduced to hierarchies of victimhood and moral authority is assigned by identity. On the right it appears as ethnonationalism, where belonging is reduced to blood, ancestry, or ethnic purity. The important thing is that identitarian politics does not really belong to either side. It attaches itself parasitically to whatever political camp it can exploit, because its organising principle is power rather than conviction. It will speak the language of justice, heritage, equality, or nation depending on the audience, but the underlying method is always the same: divide society into tribes and mobilise grievance. That is where my tolerance ends. People who insist on reducing politics to racial, ethnic, or identity blocs are not engaging in democratic disagreement anymore. They are attacking the civic fabric that allows a plural society to function. In that sense they are not merely political opponents of mine. They are enemies of society itself.

Why the humble griddle still defeats the iron press open.substack.com/pub/josephlbak…

@McBrideLawNYC @RyanGirdusky

These converts??? You're talking about new Catholics as if they are a problem, they are not. I have been Catholic for almost 50 years. I been actively involved in the Church since my youth. I have studied theology and philosophy, ardently, for 25 years straight. Political Zionism is incompatible with the Faith. Biblical Israel is continued, fulfilled, and found in the Church. These are fundamental bedrock principles. Do you deny this?

This is not true at all. This is all coming from converts who use the cloak of Catholicism to attack Israel or promote antisemitism. I have been to church nearly every Sunday of my life and this never what’s being discussed. These converts using the Catholic identity is not reflective of the church.

@ZoeJardiniere @TiceRichard Whataboutism doesn’t provide a response to the issue at hand.

@TiceRichard Didn’t your party’s leader tell his Jewish classmates “hitler was right” & refuse to apologise when a dozen of them asked him to?

Antisemitism is rife in Greens They are voting whether to allow continuation of antisemitic behaviour by some NHS staff digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/2376/read…

@DahliaKurtz @delieberman Homeschool your kids. 😂 Lord have mercy!

@delieberman She's a teacher. Unpack that first.

A "Palestinian" from Rraza gets genetic testing and is upset. She's part Ashkenazi Jewish! What? Doesn't that mean she's from...Europe? Should she go back to Poland? The best part: She casually says her parents are 1st cousins. But of course health issues are 'cuz of Israel.

@emzanotti What he’s doing on there is earning money.

There’s absolutely no question now that “Catholics for Catholics” is an intentionally subversive organization looking to damage the church and discourage good people from pursuing the faith. What Matt Walsh is still doing on this roster is beyond me.

@owenjonesjourno x.com/jlbakerauthor/…

What is this man talking about? What does this have to do with him spreading INSANE false claims that the US massacre of Iranian schoolgirls was staged by the Iranian regime, using bodies they'd kept in cold storage?

I will concede the obvious: in war, terrible mistakes can happen. Precision weapons are not divine instruments, and when 15,000 strikes are conducted the risk of civilian casualties cannot be reduced to zero. A single wrong strike that kills civilians is a tragedy. Anyone with a conscience can acknowledge that. But I will not accept the moral inversion that follows. If one tragic error in 15,000 strikes is instantly branded an “atrocity,” then the same language must apply to regimes that deliberately kill civilians as policy. The Iranian regime has killed its own people in the thousands. In the 2019 protests alone around 1,500 civilians were shot dead by security forces. During the 2022 uprising after Mahsa Amini’s death hundreds more protesters were killed, including dozens of children, many of them gunned down in the streets. Some were teenagers. Some were shot while fleeing. Others died later from wounds after security forces fired live ammunition into crowds. These were not accidents of war. These were civilians deliberately targeted by their own government. And the story does not end inside Iran. That same regime funds and arms militant groups across the region whose strategy explicitly targets civilians (suicide bombings, rocket attacks on towns, kidnappings, massacres). Tens of thousands of civilians across the Middle East have died in conflicts fuelled by that system. So forgive me if I find the moral theatre difficult to take seriously. If one mistaken strike in thousands is enough for people to declare everlasting guilt, but a regime that shoots protesters, kills children in the streets, and bankrolls terrorism against civilians is treated as somehow legitimate or “defensive,” then this is not moral outrage. It is selective outrage. And yes, we will remember. We will remember who saved their fury for accidental civilian deaths in war while excusing regimes that deliberately kill civilians as policy. That is not justice. That is propaganda.

You post continuously trying to “expose” me as an Iranian man about a scenario Iranians warned us about from inside the country. So I’ll tell you what this man taking about. Since the #WomanLifeFreedom movement in 2022 when the regime also shut down the internet cutting off voices of protest, Iranians inside Iran asked for us on the outside to “refuse silence and be our voice”. Rather than be curious about what you quote below and seek further information about who is saying this and why, you tweet that I am somehow insane and spread misinformation. My dear Owen, it is not your country. Be a journalist by all means but it is overstepping a boundary when speaking over Iranians when it doesn’t suit your narrative. It is the epitome of western privilege and supremacy. I don’t need you to believe those few voices coming out of Iran under a digital black out. Simply asking you to stop speaking over them.

There is a legitimate point buried in the Church’s position: Catholic theology does not bind the faithful to any modern nation-state as the direct fulfilment of biblical promise. The New Testament relocates the people of God from territory to Christ Himself. On that point, Rome is correct. But the argument being advanced trades on a quiet sleight of hand. It moves from a theological clarification to a political implication, as though denying a prophetic mandate somehow dissolves the legitimacy of Israel as a state. It does not. Modern Israel stands or falls on historical, legal, and political grounds, not on eschatological speculation. To confuse the two is not theology but category error. The historical context is not ambiguous. In 1948, partition was proposed. Israel accepted it. The surrounding Arab states rejected it and chose war. That pattern did not end in 1948. Repeated offers of negotiated settlement have been met, not with stable acceptance, but with rejection, delay, or maximalist demands that deny Israel’s continued existence. Opinion polling and political rhetoric across Palestinian factions have consistently included the claim that Israel itself is illegitimate. This is not symmetrical disagreement. It is a refusal of final settlement. The ideological failure here is the modern instinct to flatten conflict into moral equivalence. It prefers the language of “both sides” because it avoids the burden of judgement. But when one side repeatedly signals willingness to accept a two-state settlement, and the other repeatedly conditions peace on the eradication of the first, neutrality becomes a form of intellectual evasion. From a civilisational standpoint, the principle is straightforward. States derive legitimacy from their capacity to exist, govern, and enter into recognisable agreements within the order of nations. The refusal to recognise a neighbour’s right to exist is not a negotiating position. It is a rejection of the moral grammar that makes peace possible at all. The Church is correct to deny prophetic absolutism in modern politics. It is not correct, nor is it intellectually serious, to imply that this settles the political question. It does not. The enduring obstacle to peace is not theology. It is the persistent refusal, in large parts of Palestinian political life, to accept that Israel will remain.

The Catholic Church does not permit Catholics to believe that the State of Israel fulfills any Biblical promise or mandate. Furthermore, Rome actively endorses and supports the two-state solution in the Holy Land, and has already officially recognized the State of Palestine.

It is only unfair, not oppressive, if there is no real choice involved. Some women will choose not to pursue this path. That is entirely legitimate. The point is that the choice itself should remain open. Equally, women who do choose it should be regarded with the same respect. Different paths do not require a hierarchy of approval. In time, most will find partners who support the life they have chosen.

LOL 😭😭 If this was true, why wouldn’t they be campaigning for men’s turn to be confined to the home & women to take on the noble sacrifice of the right to a career & financial autonomy at last?

That is not relevant to the argument at hand. Even if it were true, which it is not, the doctrine of the Trinity was not casually invented. It stands at the centre of Christian orthodoxy and has been affirmed across the entire historical tradition of the Church. If you depart from that tradition to the point that you are no longer recognisably part of it, you cannot reasonably expect to be treated as one of its branches. At some point you are no longer pruning the tree, but planting a different one altogether.

@LeesRetard The Bible denies the trinity. The trinity is not Christian. John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Mormons deny the Trinity. They are not Christian.

@AllisonPearson She was suspended from practicing last year, September. And I pray it stays that way.

THIS is what we are dealing with, folks. An NHS GP who says Israel has “no right to exist”. No wonder there is so much horrifying antisemitism

What exactly has he written in this exact post, that you would object to?

@JohnCleese I know your Twitter must be making you a killing, and that makes it hard to stop, but I think for your own good someone who cares about you should step in & change your passwords.

The UK has always been based at the deepest level on Christian values, regardless of dogma Despite the many mistakes made by churches, for centuries British people have been influenced by Christ's teaching If these values are replaced by Islamic ones, this will not be Britain any more

Yes, I use AI, and I do so deliberately. It assists me in structuring and refining my thoughts, particularly as someone with ASD who benefits from disciplined frameworks. The arguments are mine. The judgements are mine. The responsibility is mine. AI assistance is not automation. A bot operates without human judgement or accountability. I do not. A tool that clarifies expression does not replace authorship any more than a typewriter replaced the writer. It sharpens form; it does not supply conviction. If the ideas are unsound, criticise them. If they stand, then the method of drafting is beside the point. Dismissing someone’s disclosed use of a writing aid, especially when it compensates for recognised cognitive limitations, is not a rebuttal. It is a refusal to engage.

@JLBakerAuthor @ZoeJardiniere You and ChatGpt can run a country one day. Until that day sit this round out. The obligation and old model is the one ripping people off.

It is really very simple: If you have moved to Dubai to avoid tax, you have chosen an economy based on slavery over one based on taxation. You have chosen slaves over tax. You should be ostracised forever from society.

It is true that Romans 16:7 deserves to be taken seriously. Paul writes that Junia was “outstanding among the apostles.” That is a genuine commendation, and no honest reading of the text should pretend otherwise. But the conclusion you draw from it simply does not follow. The New Testament uses the word apostolos in a broader sense than the later, defined pastoral office. When Paul actually describes the governing teaching office of the Church, he does so explicitly. In that context he writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” and he grounds that instruction not in local custom but in creation: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12–13). He also writes, “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task,” and proceeds to list the qualifications for that office (1 Timothy 3:1). The pastoral office is not inferred from greetings in a letter; it is defined directly. What you are doing is therefore not careful interpretation but selective reading. You elevate a single phrase from a commendation list and treat it as though it overturns the clearer passages where the apostle actually sets out the Church’s order. That is not exegesis. It is ideological selection. None of this diminishes the honour Scripture gives to women. The New Testament is full of it. Mary receives the word of God and answers, “Let it be to me according to your word.” Women stand at the cross when the male disciples scatter. Women are the first witnesses to the Resurrection. Junia herself is publicly honoured by Paul. The dignity and importance of women in the life of the Church is not in dispute. But the attempt to turn Romans 16:7 into a decisive proof of women holding the pastoral office collapses immediately under the wider witness of Scripture. Junia’s honour is real. The conclusion you are trying to force from it is not. One line of praise in Romans does not erase the apostolic teaching on the Church’s ordered ministry.

@JLBakerAuthor @JustinBerkobien Guess you just ignore text you disagree with, like the fact there was a female apostle... Romans 16:7

“There were no female pastors in the Bible.” There were also no megachurch pastors or podcast pastors or chicken al pastors. Stop using trash logic to silence our sisters in Christ.

I will concede the obvious: in war, terrible mistakes can happen. Precision weapons are not divine instruments, and when 15,000 strikes are conducted the risk of civilian casualties cannot be reduced to zero. A single wrong strike that kills civilians is a tragedy. Anyone with a conscience can acknowledge that. But I will not accept the moral inversion that follows. If one tragic error in 15,000 strikes is instantly branded an “atrocity,” then the same language must apply to regimes that deliberately kill civilians as policy. The Iranian regime has killed its own people in the thousands. In the 2019 protests alone around 1,500 civilians were shot dead by security forces. During the 2022 uprising after Mahsa Amini’s death hundreds more protesters were killed, including dozens of children, many of them gunned down in the streets. Some were teenagers. Some were shot while fleeing. Others died later from wounds after security forces fired live ammunition into crowds. These were not accidents of war. These were civilians deliberately targeted by their own government. And the story does not end inside Iran. That same regime funds and arms militant groups across the region whose strategy explicitly targets civilians (suicide bombings, rocket attacks on towns, kidnappings, massacres). Tens of thousands of civilians across the Middle East have died in conflicts fuelled by that system. So forgive me if I find the moral theatre difficult to take seriously. If one mistaken strike in thousands is enough for people to declare everlasting guilt, but a regime that shoots protesters, kills children in the streets, and bankrolls terrorism against civilians is treated as somehow legitimate or “defensive,” then this is not moral outrage. It is selective outrage. And yes, we will remember. But not in the way you seem to think. We will remember who saved their fury for accidental civilian deaths in war while excusing regimes that deliberately kill civilians as policy. That is not justice. That is propaganda.

Trump - "I don't want the UK after we win the war, I want them before" "I can say this, and I said it to Keir Starmer" "We will remember" And we will remember how you killed 165 girls and thank god we didn't have blood on our hands.

@Mericamemed I mean… he’s right

He ain’t lying. I can’t imagine a straight dude being disappointed in that gift.

@hesamorouji @ashoswai They are likely going to make an example of them in any case, and kill the families as well for good measure. I pray I’m wrong.

As an activist, I have been involved in this issue from the very beginning. I have personally met all of these girls and I am fully aware of the circumstances and pressures behind their decision to return. They all decided to go back because of threats from the terrorist Islamic regime and out of concern for the safety of their families. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly shown that it is capable of committing any crime to maintain its power.

@JustinBerkobien For those who may not realise: If you reply to someone while having them blocked, they will still see that a reply exists. They simply will not be able to see what the reply says.

Your argument evades the real question. No one objects to women pastors because “there were no megachurches or podcasts in the Bible.” The question is whether Scripture authorises women to hold the pastoral office. On that point the apostolic texts speak directly, which is why the debate always returns to them. Galatians 3:28 does not settle the matter. The verse teaches equal standing in Christ with respect to salvation and inheritance. It does not erase every distinction of vocation or office. The same Paul who wrote Galatians also gives ordered instruction for bishops and elders and grounds those instructions in creation itself (1 Tim 2:13). If Galatians 3:28 abolished all role distinctions, Paul would immediately contradict himself. He plainly does not. The Fuller argument follows a familiar pattern: gather examples of women who served faithfully in the early church and then quietly redefine those examples as proof of female pastors. But the texts do not say that. Women prophesied, laboured in ministry, hosted churches, and were honoured co-workers in the gospel. None of that is disputed. What it does not establish is that women held the pastoral office described in the Pastoral Epistles. Prophecy is not the same as governing the church. Hospitality is not ordination. Being a co-worker is not being an overseer. Attempts to neutralise the difficult passages are equally strained. The claim that 1 Corinthians 14 concerns only disruptive wives does not erase Paul’s insistence on ordered speech in the assembly. The claim that authentein in 1 Timothy 2 merely means abusive domination does not remove the restriction itself. Most importantly, Paul grounds the instruction not in local Ephesian heresy but in creation: “for Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Once the argument appeals to creation order, the claim that the passage is purely temporary becomes extremely difficult to sustain. What makes the progressive argument especially ironic is that Christianity itself is the historical foundation for the equal dignity of the sexes in Western civilisation. The faith did not honour women by pretending the sexes are interchangeable, but by placing them at the centre of the redemptive story. A Jewish woman stands at the threshold of the Incarnation. Mary is not merely a biological vessel but the one whose faithful assent (“let it be to me according to your word”) becomes the human doorway through which the Word takes flesh. In Christian memory she stands as the first believer of the New Covenant and the most honoured human disciple of Christ. The Gospels go further still. It is women whom God chooses as the first witnesses of the Resurrection. Mary Magdalene and the other women are the first to see the risen Christ and the first commissioned to proclaim that he lives. That is not incidental. It is theologically deliberate. Even the royal pattern is not accidental. In the Davidic kingdom the king’s mother (the gebirah, or queen mother) held a recognised position of honour beside the throne. When Jesus is proclaimed the Davidic Messiah, the confession “and Mary is his mother” carries that royal resonance. The Christian tradition did not stumble into Marian honour; it recognised the biblical pattern. So the irony is stark. The same tradition now accused of “silencing women” is the one that elevated womanhood to a dignity no pagan system ever imagined: a woman at the threshold of the Incarnation, women as the first heralds of the Resurrection, and the mother of the Messiah honoured in the royal pattern of Israel. The question of the pastoral office therefore cannot be reduced to modern egalitarian slogans. Christianity affirms the equal dignity of men and women with unusual force. But equality of dignity has never meant the erasure of every distinction of office. Fuller works only by collapsing those categories and then declaring any disagreement oppressive. That is not careful exegesis, but modern ideology placed over the text.

@ConceptualJames @CarriePrejean1 @DanPatrick @Paula_White @tedcruz I haven’t seen that chart in a good while 😂

@CarriePrejean1 @DanPatrick @Paula_White @tedcruz You're in the no-go zone.

Megyn, I have been removed from a religious liberty commission because of my religious beliefs. I won’t bend the knee to a foreign nation, or forsake my Catholic Church teaching to heretics like @DanPatrick @Paula_White and @tedcruz This is a fake religious liberty commission.