Equality, Diversity, Tolerance
inanely 'Diversity is our strength'. Diversity is a cosmetic
irrelevance. What matters is not the skin colour on the outside of
an individual but what is inside that individual ... For
progressives, diversity is a political tool. Diversity divides
people into victim and interest groups and enables the Left to play
the role of understanding saviour whilst garnering votes and staying
in power" [source].
"No matter what their
motives are, the internationalists who push for global governance
and a borderless world are expending vast amounts of money to fool
the European public and move millions of Muslim immigrants into
Western Europe. Europe will become more diverse whether it likes it
or not. And if, as a consequence, terror attacks have to kill
hundreds or thousands of people, and women have to be gang-raped,
why, those are just unfortunate side-effects. You cant make an
omelette without breaking eggs, you know. Especially white European
"As I suspected they
would, the Christian hotel owners, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, came
off worse in their courtroom struggle against Politically Correct
Britain. The law believes such people have no right to follow their
own morals, except in private. The law also now states that
homosexual partnerships are equal to heterosexual marriage, which
New Labour tried to pretend was not the case. Perhaps most
importantly, the homosexual couple had their action paid for by us.
Britain's embryonic Thought Police, the Equality and Human Rights
Commission, provided the money on your behalf and mine, whether we
like it or not. This is not the end of the revolution we are passing
through. By the time it is finished, I will not be allowed to write
or say this. Don't believe me? Wait and see"
Mail on Sunday, 23
"It is time we were told
the rules of the new game called 'Equality and Diversity', under
which some thought crimes are treated more harshly than others. We
know that homosexuals trump Christians. We know (at least I think we
do) that animal rights campaigners, pagans and believers in man-made
global warming are the equals of Christians. Thanks to the case of
Emdadur Choudhury, whose Islamist grouplet deliberately set out to
enrage any patriotic British person by burning replica poppies and
chanting 'British soldiers burn in Hell', during a two minute
silence, we know something else: the judiciary and the police are
scared out of their socks by Islam. Even under the USA's very open
free speech laws, this nasty piece of publicity-seeking bad manners
would have been classified as 'fighting words' and denied
protection. Yet here the consequence was a £50 fine, so small as to
be barely worth the bother of collecting it from a culprit who is in
any case living off the state he claims to despise. What I am
waiting for is a test case in which (and how I long for this) two
elderly Muslims, running a B&B, are sued by a funky homosexual
couple for refusing to accommodate them. Both parties would have
their costs paid by the Equality and Human Rights Commissions. Then
at last we shall find out whether the law of England thinks Islam or
the Sexual revolution should dominate our future. We can have one or
the other (and we will). But not both"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on
Sunday, 13 March 2011].
"Truth is the new hate
speech" [comment at:
"What a waste of public
money the Twitter joke trial was. A huge amount was spent on
prosecuting Paul Chambers, who ended up losing jobs and income. All
because he made a joke about blowing up an airport because his
flight was cancelled. His tweet never resembled a terrorist threat
and no one complained. It was clear the judiciary were not willing
to understand the nature of social media - which is full of quips,
ill-judged comments and daft observations. Rather like life. That is
how we speak. And if you don't like it, you don't go to the police,
you answer back. This is called free speech"
[Suzanne Moore, Mail
on Sunday, 29 July 2012].
sanctimonious moral superiority that sustains the beliefs of the
politically correct means that they are easily offended by the views
of others. There are few as intolerant as those who preach
tolerance" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 26].
"The vocabulary of the
enemy has become the banality of polite society: those who recite
words like 'diversity' do not have to justify or reinforce their
viewpoint, whereas to break from convention and dispute these
precepts risks societal excoriation"
is key to the paradigm shift from biblical to earth-centered beliefs
and values. The 1995 UNESCO Declaration on Tolerance, signed by
member states, defines tolerance as 'respect, acceptance and
appreciation' of the world's diverse cultures and lifestyles - an
attitude that 'involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism'.
It is 'not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal
requirement'. Since 'intolerance is a global threat', UNESCO demands
an international 'response to this global challenge, including
effective countermeasures'. ... Intolerance implies resistance to
the new global values and solidarity, it is a threat to the
implementation of the whole UN plan. Therefore intolerance must be
quenched, while 'tolerance promotion and the shaping of attitudes
should take place in schools and universities... at home and in the
workplace. The solution ... is the consensus process, also called
conflict resolution, Hegelian dialectics, and the Delphi Technique.
To unify people who embrace opposing values, the public must be
engaged in 'participatory' dialogues. Led by trained facilitators,
these dialogues produce the collective thinking which prods
participants beyond the old truths into the ambiguous realm of
imagination and evolving truths. The ground rules demand that
everyone participate and find 'common ground'. They forbid dissent
and argument, no matter how unsound the 'scientific' evidence used
to back the preplanned consensus. 'Adversarial processes' must be
replaced with 'collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts'
through education, information and communications' until people,
bonded by a shared purpose' learn to comply. ... It's already
happening ... Young and old are being trained to blend their values,
adapt their beliefs, think as a group, and conform to the new
standards. ... following the Pied Piper into a new world order whose
architects may sound wise and compassionate, but are neither
rational, factual, honest or tolerant"
"What Christians in
Britain have to understand is that this is not a Christian country
any more. It's no good going to the Court of Human Rights. Harriet
Harman's Equalities Act 2010 (backed, as I ceaselessly remind you,
by the Useless Tories ... ) made all religions equal. That means
Christianity in this country has no greater legal status than
Mormonism, Buddhism, Jainism or Scientology - and rather lower
status than Islam, because our Government and Establishment are
scared stiff of Islam. Precisely because Christianity used to be
dominant, that means that the authorities will seize every chance
they can to take it down a peg or two. This process is only just
beginning. You'll be amazed by how much more there is yet to come,
in schools, laws, broadcasting, policing and - I hesitate to mention
it, but it will come - the Coronation of our next Monarch"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 09 September 2012].
"The European Convention
on Human Rights was developed in 1949 to stop a repeat of the
atrocities of World War II, notably Hitler's persecution of the
Jews. This week, it was invoked - unsuccessfully - in a bid to
convince a judge that the unpaid work a 24-year-old woman, Cait
Reilly, did in Poundland as part of a back-to-work programme was
'forced labour'. It is grotesque to compare stocking shelves in a
supermarket with being pressed into the most brutal slave labour at
a concentration camp before being murdered. Can we get on and reform
the human rights law, please?"
[Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 16
"As a former Trotskyist,
I'm always amused to see Tory politicians actively pursuing the
revolutionary policies I and my comrades used to campaign for.
Having no ideas of their own, these vacuous careerists have no idea
that they are in the grip of Marxoid beliefs. At least the
Labour politicians, many of them unrepentant if coy ex-Trots and
ex-communists, understand that they're wrecking the country and why.
But Maria Miller, Commissar for Culture and Equalities, plainly
hasn't a clue. When she wrote to the BBC demanding further
persecution of a sports presenter for uttering an unfashionable
thought, she didn't even know that she was committing a
constitutional outrage. How can anyone not know that
governments in free countries don't try to tell journalists and
broadcasters what they can or cannot say? Still, the fault is
also partly ours for submitting to having a 'Minister of Culture' in
the first place [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 21 July
"The fact that most
Social Justice Warriors would genuinely deny that they are
socialists or that they seek to destroy Western civilisation means
that sooner or later, they will be forced to confront the fact that
the goals the seek, Equality, Diversity, and Inclusiveness, are
utterly incompatible with personal freedom, societal wealth, and
advanced technological civilisation"
[Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie:
Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), p.182].
"Consider the four
primary ideals of social justice: Equality, Diversity, Tolerance,
and Progress. They are not even remotely complementary, as Equality
and Diversity are mutually exclusive as well as standing directly in
the way of Progress" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the
Thought Police, (2015), p.186].
The Tolerance Brigade
Tolerance = Embracing everyone's views except
Free Speech = The expression of any opinion as long as
it is not Christian;
Bigot = A Christian;
Bigotry = Any belief from
Homophobe = Anyone who champions traditional marriage. Especially a Christian;
Hate = Opposing non-biblical opinions and
actions. Even when done in love is still hate. Apparently;
rights = Getting whatever feels good legalised despite moral
Diversity, Tolerance, Progress:
"The truth is that
there is no such thing as Equality. It does not exist in
any physical, material, legal, philosophical, or spiritual
As for Diversity,
it is an intrinsic force for societal upheaval and collapse:
Diversity + Proximity = War;
If the Social
Justice Warriors truly believed in Tolerance as the ideal
they profess, then surely they would practice it themselves.
They don't even pretend to;
Progress, you must ask yourself the question: Progress
towards what? Since the true SJW answer is towards more
socialism, more speech policing, more thought control, and more
SJW control of society, and its institutions, then the rational
response must always be no" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie:
Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), pp.186-187].
"Our ideals of Truth,
Liberty, and Justice are not only sufficient, but they are
considerably superior to the nonsensical ideals of social justice.
The ideals of social justice are not virtues; they are evils in
disguise. Reject them without hesitation, reject them without
apology, and reject them in their entirety"
[Vox Day, SJWs Always
Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), p.187].
Re-Education Camps (aka: 'Equality
Courses' and 'Diversity Training')
"The Utopian quest to
perfect human nature drives the promotion of re-education, from the
classroom to the workplace. it occurs in PC children's books, ... It
occurs in the school curricula, ... In workplaces across the
country, from companies to army bases, from hospitals to TV
stations, people are being subjected to 'diversity training' to
re-educate them and make them more politically correct. ... Like the
belief in the perfectibility of human nature, the passion for
propaganda and re-education has powerful similarities to the
practices of communist societies. While Soviet Socialist Realism
promoted the virtue of the proletariat, the BBC promotes the virtue
of the multi-cultural society"
[Anthony Browne, The Retreat of
Reason, p. 17].
"[Mr. Page's decision]
was taken for objective reasons in the interests of the child and
for the common good. The highest law officers of the land have not
only issued a reprimand to Mr. Page but require him to receive
remedial training. This smacks to me of the 're-education' camps so
beloved of totalitarian Marxist states. Is this the way to promote
liberty or is freedom of speech and belief only for a liberal elite
with politically correct views?"
Freedom of Speech and Religion
"In the universities, in
the churches, in the corporations, in the professional associations,
in the editorial offices, in the game studios, and just about
everywhere else you can imagine, free speech and free thought are
under siege by a group of fanatics as self-righteous as Savonarola,
as ruthless as Stalin, as ambitious as Napoleon, and as crazy as
Caligula. They are the Social Justice Warriors, the SJWs, the
self-appointed thought police who have been running amok throughout
the West since the dawn of the politically correct era in the 1990s"
[Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police,
"These days, it is
almost de rigeur to refer to any SJW target as racist,
sexist, and homophobic in addition to any specific qualities that
may be relevant to the matter at hand; some adventurous SJWs are
already adding 'transphobic' to the standard list. In fact, this set
of accusations is so common now that if you merely type 'racist se'
into Google, Google will offer to autocomplete the phrase as
'racist, sexist, homophobic'. Indeed, the mere act of belonging to a
seemingly innocuous group is now sufficient to render one a hateful
hate-filled hater" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the
Thought Police, (2015), p.64].
"It's like the Boy Who
Cried Wolf; they can only call you racist, or sexist, or homophobic,
or ... bigoted ... so many times before neutral observers who don't
see anything out of the ordinary in your behavior begin to wonder if
perhaps it isn't the accusing SJWs who have something wrong with
them" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police,
"When people are forced
to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or
even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they
lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious
lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become
evil oneself. One's standing is to resist anything is thus eroded,
and even destroyed" [Theodore Dalrymple].
"Curious how slow the
judiciary are to understand what the Great Gay Cake issue is about.
It has nothing to do with who asked for the cake, or even why. It
has very little to do with cakes. It is about whether anyone can be
compelled to say something he disagrees with. The bakers who refused
to make the cake did so because they did not agree with the wording
they were being asked to put on it. If someone can be forced by law
to say something he disagrees with, we are not a free country. The
nearest parallel I can think of is the way in which people in
communist countries were forced to display red flags from their
flats, or to carry placards bearing Marxist slogans they secretly
hated" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 24 May 2015].
"Elements of hate speech
distinction between one's own identity group and those outside
based on this distinction;
dehumanization of other groups and the personal superiority of
The advocating of
different standards of treatment based on identity group
A call to violence
against members of other groups.
"The Koran qualifies as
hate speech on each count. Why are imams and those who preach from
the Koran not prosecuted for hate crimes?"
[comment at source].
"There is no 'Hate
Speech'. There are just immoral laws introduced recently,
designed to restrict our rights to freely express ourselves.
Euripides was right: - 'It is slavery not to speak one's thoughts'.
Truth from more than a millennium before the barbaric pederast and
thieving murder Mohammed invented his cursed cult. All honourable
men and women should reject the concept of 'hate speech' and act -
speak - as though it is lawful to say whatever it is one wishes to
say (but don't advocate violence). It is our duty to future
generations. Free speech - use it or lose it"
[comment at source].
Perspectives, Objectivity, Subjectivity
Opinion: "a belief or assessment based on grounds short of
proof", "a view held as probable", "what one thinks about a
particular topic or question" [OED].
Perspective: "a mental view of the relative importance of
things", "regarded in terms of relative importance" [OED].
View: "an opinion", "a mental attitude" [OED].
Objectivism: "the belief that certain things (esp. moral truths)
exist apart from human knowledge or perception of them" [OED].
Subjectivism: "the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective
and that there is no external or objective truth" [OED].
issue is not that someone has an opinion, or a view, or a
perspective on a subject - everyone does. Or that they are
entitled to it - everyone is; all that goes without saying. The issue is what that
opinion/view/perspective is based upon. The issue is
whether whether it is based upon facts or upon ideology; upon truth
or upon falsehood; whether it is evidence driven or emotionally driven; is
objective or subjective; is
informed or uninformed.
"Any system of morality which is
based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly
vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true"
"Orwell said that
freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. It is that
most vital of freedoms we have now lost. How does one crush truth?
By pretending there is no such thing - this is done through the
transformation of objectivity into subjectivity. The objective truth
replaced by perception or opinion. Everyone's opinion being equally
valid of course. This piece of paper is white. That's an objective
truth. But if I say that in my opinion this piece of paper is blue,
that opinion is apparently valid. There is no truth... War on
truth has been declared. Our language has been neutralized so
objective understanding is under threat. Objective reality itself is
under threat because reality is problematic in the pursuance of
"When one contradicts
someone these days, one often hears: 'I'm entitled to my opinion.'
To which I sometimes unkindly reply: 'Yes, but you aren't entitled
to an audience. I don't care about your opinion. I would be
interested to hear your judgement presented in the form of an
argument.' An opinion, which any person is indeed entitled to
have on any subject, doesn't require any support. It is what it is.
Thus in my opinion, all those parallel universes are tosh.
However, I can't turn this opinion into a judgement because I don't
know enough astrophysics. Such knowledge would be required because,
unlike an opinion, a judgement requires solid support that
can only come from ratiocination based on extensive knowledge of the
relevant facts. Should I take the trouble of acquiring such
knowledge and thinking it through, I could conceivably be ready to
make an argument, which is a logical, coherent and persuasive
presentation of a judgement. This basic rhetorical path has now been
overgrown with the weeds planted by the Age of Reason. Most people
are now unaware of its existence, which is why they feel that any
opinion, no matter how unenlightened and rash, must enjoy equal
rights with judgement and argument. In fact, they feel that all
three are the same. But they aren't"
"I've always found it a
strange thing when the response to someone's view is that it's the
holder's opinion and/or that the holder of that opinion is entitled
to it. Strange, because it is stating the obvious and gets us no
further on in the discussion; of course it is my opinion otherwise I
wouldn't be espousing it, just as the responder has his opinion
which he espouses. And strange because the assumption underlying it
is that opinions aren't formed from and grounded in truth or fact or
evidence or experience or morality or a higher authority, but are
merely matters of personal taste, chosen in the same way as one
might choose running over swimming to keep fit ... The reality of
course - notwithstanding the prevailing 'opinion' that all views are
'relative' and that every man may do (or opine) what is right in his
own eyes - is that some opinions are right or true or moral
and effect great real good, while some views are wrong or
false or immoral and cause much tangible harm. To put it another
way, there is a difference between objective and
subjective opinion. For some issues an opinion can be easily
shown to be true or false when measured against the facts, and it is
of no real consequence. For example, if I was of the opinion that
2+2=5, I would be entitled to hold such an opinion but it would be
factually, or objectively, wrong, so no need for further debate
(except perhaps for a few basic maths lessons). But in other matters
where the consequences of holding to a wrong opinion are much more
serious, such as when it will affect the intricacies of real
people's lives for their good or harm, then it's not enough just to
shrug off a differing opinion with a meaningless phrase used purely
as a device to close down further debate on the issue; it is
incumbent upon us to be absolutely sure that our opinion is not
merely 'politically correct', but is right - and demonstrably
so" [Elizabeth McDonald,
The Camel's Nose: Daybreak Family Group Conference [date],
Matters Arising, Observations, and Questions, 'Section H:
Concerning Opinions', (2015/2016), pp.23-24].
extended extract is from the
The Origin of 'Identity Politics' & 'Political Correctness'
(sometimes dubbed 'political correctness') is the result of a
political-Left major backlash against the mass of ordinary people
(in Europe and 'the West'), beginning in the 1920s/30s, in the wake
of the persistent failure of Marxist theory to be realised in
European 'revolution' or any real change through democracy. In
shifting the blame away from Marxist theory and those gullible
enough to adhere to it, and on to those the theory had prescribed
and predicted would have been the beneficiaries, if only they had
responded accordingly ('the [white, male] workers'); then the
cognitive-dissonance within the political-left mindset caused by
this crisis to an extent was salved"
"As with any fervent ideology, a
hallmark of the political-Left is interpreting anything and
everything in its own ideological terms to claim as a manifestation
of the ideology and its prophecy - jumping on a bandwagon, so to
speak; though here only to hijack it. The bandwagon here was, of
course, the American civil rights movement, which though enjoying
ubiquitous support within black communities - to the point often of
various forms of extremism - featured virtually nil endorsement of
socialism ... It is from the time of this co-option that 'identity
politics' dates; many considering that the movement was incorporated
into the Left in the wake of King's assassination in 1968 - the
major turning-point year in political-Left politics generally"
"'Civil rights', as the first great
'single-issue' campaign, served not least to provide an acceptable
cloak for the Left to avoid provoking a resurgence of McCarthysim.
The major social upheaval of 'civil rights' with its large-scale and
widespread rioting was easily the nearest thing in then recent US
history to look like the promised Marxist 'revolution', and
obviously was just the practical application the 'theory' was
seeking. Moreover, the protagonists (black Americans) were eminently
separable form the now despised 'workers' per se, in being
presentable as a new 'group; from outside of the former fray of
'boss' versus 'worker'.
"This accident of history served to
add 'black' to 'woman' as 'the new oppressed' ... 'The worker' in
effect was retrospectively stereotyped as both 'man' and 'white'.
With the inverse of this stereotype of 'white' being not just 'black
American' but 'black' - that is, ethnic-minority generically ... so
it was that the new 'agents of social change' / 'disadvantaged' /
'oppressed' were extended from women to also include all ethnic
"It is only with the knowledge of how
this developed that sense can be made of why ethnicity is held above
the myriad other possible differences that could be utilised as
in-group markers, when in fact there is nothing inherent in
ethnicity as an in-group marker to produce inter-group prejudice
that is particularly more pernicious"
"Indeed, the worst inter-communal
conflicts nominally between different ethnicities usually are
between different cultural heritages with no discernible 'racial'
differences of any kind - and what (non-ethnic) differences there
are can be minimal; the lack of contrast actually fuelling the
intensity of conflict, such is the need for groups to feel
distinguished from each other"
"Furthermore, ethnic prejudice is
anything but restricted to or even predominantly 'white' on 'black':
inter-ethnic (eg, 'black' on Asian) and ethnic-on-'white' 'racism'
can be, often is and may usually be the greater problem; and a
negative attitude to a certain ethnicity does not imply a similar
attitude to other ethnicities"
"The specific US experience, given
the highly divisive politics in the wake of the American Civil War
over the basis of the Southern US economy in African slavery, does
not translate to elsewhere; notably not to Europe - as was starkly
evidenced in the experience of World War II 'black' American GIs
stationed in England in how they were favourably received by locals,
who sided with them when discriminated against"
"'Racial divides' in European 'white'
host countries are the result not of mutual antipathy but
affiliative forces, principally within migrant enclaves and
secondarily within the 'host' community; in both cases being through
in-group 'love', not out-group 'hate'"
[EMcD: though the latter
part of this observation is indeed true in normal circumstances,
this does not, of course, take account of the Islamic/Koranic
doctrines of Al-Hijra (Immigration), Taqiyya (Lying and Deceit), and Razzia/Ghazwa
(Rape and Slavery), Dawa (Cultural and Stealth Jihad), and Terrorist
and Violent Jihad, carried out by fundamentalist Muslims as
they settle in increasing numbers in Western countries with the sole
purpose of making every remaining Dar al-Harb ('House of War': i.e.
any non-Muslim country) into a Dar al-Islam ('House of Submission': i.e all Muslim countries) until Islam finally achieves its
longed-for global Caliphate.]
[End of Extract]
"The Frankfurt School
believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the
hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the
problems facing society, then that society would never reach the
state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary
to provoke socialist revolution.
Their task, therefore, was as
swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do
this they called for the most negative destructive criticism
possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to
de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the
'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a
virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as
one of their members noted.
To further the advance
of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School
recommended (among other things):
(1) the creation of racism
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching
of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of
schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of
One of the main ideas
of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism'
- the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences
between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships
between men and women. To further their aims they would:
the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and
mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary
educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the
education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance
- hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women
to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."
eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to
create a social state:
Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the
Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as
possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight
back if you are providing everything for them to live;
- Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That wa6y you are
able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty;
Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from
the Government. That way you are able to create a police state;
Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives
(Food, Housing, and Income);
Education - Take control of that people read and listen
to - take control of what children learn in school;
Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government
Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and
the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier
to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor" [source].
"Woe unto them that call evil
good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
note that the inclusion of any quotation or item on this page does not
imply we would necessarily endorse the source from which the extract is
taken; neither can we necessarily vouch for any other materials by the
or any groups or
ministries or websites with which they may be associated, or any
periodicals to which they may contribute, or the
beliefs of whatever kind they may hold, or any other aspect of their
work or ministry or position.