Not to put too fine a point on it, people like Graham Capill give Christians a bad name.

Capill’s parents were Christian missionaries. He was born in western Africa, but grew up in Christchurch. Capill worked in the aviation industry, but later decided to become a minister. He gained a Bachelor of Divinity degree and became a minister of the Reformed Church of Dunedin in 1988. He also gained a law degree in 1997.

The Christian Heritage Party, founded in 1989, held its first convention in 1990. Capill was officially appointed the new party’s leader in June of that year. In 1996, Capill came close to becoming an MP. The Christian Coalition (being the Christian Heritage Party and the Christian Democrat Party) gained 4.4 % of the party votge in New Zealand’s first MMP election, tantalising close to the 5% threshold. He remained leader of the party through five elections, but stepped down in 2003. Capill resigned from the Christian Heritage Party in November 2004.

OK, here’s Wikipedia to tell the rest of the story.

On 23 March 2005 Capill appeared in the Christchurch District Court charged with indecently assaulting a girl aged under 12. On leaving the court he was assaulted (“punched and left whimpering on the ground”) by local sickness beneficiary Daniel McNally, a former boxer. The media referred to Capill, who was then under a name-suppression order, as “a prominent New Zealander”. McNally, who had no previous connection to the case, received a two-year prison sentence for the assault. On 1 April 2005 name suppression was lifted and Capill pleaded guilty to a charge of indecently assaulting an eight-year old girl on four occasions. These events took place between the years of 2001 and 2002, while Capill was still leader of Christian Heritage. His activities were brought to an end by the Rev Wally Behan, vicar of St John’s Anglican Church, Latimer Square, Christchurch, the church which the Capill family attended. Rev Behan was acting on information received from some of the victims. Further charges of rape and indecent assault against girls aged under 12 (committed during the 1990s) followed. As Capill had strongly condemned “sexual perversion” throughout his political career, the revelations had particular impact. Capill’s conduct was swiftly condemned by Christian Heritage.

On 28 June 2005 Capill entered guilty pleas on a further three charges of indecent assault, one of rape, and one of unlawful sexual connection, all committed against girls under the age of 12. Newspaper reports now describe him as “a sexual predator”, and he was remanded in custody while awaiting sentencing. On 14 July 2005 Capill was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years. Prior to his sentencing, he sent an e-mail to supporters, asking for forgiveness and that they pray for a light sentence, also claiming that the sex with one of the young girls was “consensual”. His lawyer said that the e-mail, intended to gain sympathy and support, backfired and was ill-advised. Judge Kerr said the email sent by Capill to supporters demonstrated he had yet to fully appreciate the enormity of his offending.

On 16 August he appealed the sentence to the dismay of his critics. The appeal was abandoned on 31 January 2006.

Not once has anyone ever seen such a rise of pure hypocrisy! Talk about Capill syndrome. The Sensible Sentencing Trust has a great collection of Capill quotes, including, e.g.,

“The association of the innocence of an infant with the filthy lifestyle of homosexuals is offensive in the extreme.” Protesting pro-homosexual billboards promoting the Hero Parade – 1998.

“Other parties may pay lip service to family values – we have a manifesto built on them.” Launches the Christian Heritage manifesto. – 1998.

“I am concerned for young people. They may be driven along by the heavy beat, but fail to discern the destructive message of hate, violence and death.” Calls on the Government to keep hard rock band Marilyn Manson out of New Zealand. – 1998.

“It is distressing in the extreme to find the gallery advertises this objectionable material as part of a Family Fun Day, which ‘celebrates Keith Haring’s love of children, child-like spirit and extensive work with school and youth groups’.” Objects to a pop art exhibition by legendary New York pop artist Keith Haring, which features cartoon-like graphic homo-erotic images. – 1999

“I don’t see anything funny in seeing pictures of Saddam Hussein in bed with Satan having it off. If this is Bill Hastings’ image of New Zealand the way he wants it, he can get himself another job.” Demands the chief censor resign over designating South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut R16. – 1999.

YouTube hosts a brief news clip of what took place outside the Christchurch District Court on 23 March 2005. It’s titled Graham Capill on Wholesome Christian Values.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Christianity does not need Graham Capill.

Capill’s actions are anathema to anyone inculcated with the values of modern Western civilisation. In Pariahdom, the paedophile is King. Whereas, homosexual acts between consenting adults—of the kind that Capill railed against—are unremarkable. It’s true, of course, that the Bible does indicate that homosexuality is a sinful perversion. Certainly, man-on-man action is not what God intended. But, for the life of me, I struggle to see what’s wrong with it. Thankfully, gay sex doesn’t appeal to me. Thankfully, too, sex with minors doesn’t appeal to me, either—I find the idea utterly abhorrent, as do most. In this respect, Graham Capill is not one of us.

Capill, who turns 53 this year, is now out on parole, the Parole Board having been satisfied that he was unlikely to re-offend within the remaining three years of his sentence. May God help him and bless him.

Now, let’s put Capill’s offending into perspective. According to traditional sources, the Prophet Muhammad was 53 years old when he consummated his marriage with his wife Aishi who was 9 years old at the time. (One source records that she was 10 years old.) These sources are not disputed.

Like Capill, the Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile. He committed rape and indecent assault against a girl aged under 12. In saying this, I am not insulting the Prophet and I am not insulting Islam. I am simply stating the facts. And the facts are that Muhammad was not one of us.

How anyone can follow a religion founded by an acknowledged and unrepentant paedophile is beyond me. And yet Islam is the second-largest and one of the fastest-growing religions in the world. There are 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide.

Islam is a false religion. It is anathema to Christianity. Whereas Christianity gives repentant paedophiles a free pass to the next world, Islam gives unrepentant paedophilia a free pass in this world. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Islam is an alien ideology. It is inimical to Western civilisation. This has only truly dawned on me in the wake of the wave of global violence sweeping the world as Muslims protest that someone made a movie somewhat uncharitably, but more-or-less accurately, portraying their beloved Prophet as a violent, child-molesting fraud. It’s not just over the issue of the sexual violation of minors that Islam and Western civilisation part company. It’s over issues even more fundamental than that.

To illustrate, I’m going to conclude this post with a handful of excerpts from a recent blog post by Liberty Scott. (It’s one of his very excellent posts. You can and should read the whole thing here.)

[I]t is abundantly clear that the values of individual freedom, free speech and freedom of religion, are not embraced by the majority of the world’s population.

Whilst those of us in the “Western” world see differences between the US and Europe, these differences are insignificant between those of other civilisations on the planet. It is taken for granted in the “West” (by which I mean the EEA countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), that women should be equal under the law to men, that racism is unacceptable and barbaric, that free speech including the right to criticise all political views, and to both criticise and mock public figures, is inviolable, and that freedom of religion and from religion are part of a modern society.

However, whilst many share some of these values, many not only disagree but cannot even comprehend a viewpoint that holds them.

[T]he big conflict is with the Islamic world, which itself has many diverse strands, but which by and large, with the exception of the likes of Bosnia, Albania and Turkey, is hostile to individualism, secularism and freedoms of speech and religion.

The reaction seen across the Muslim world, and in many Western countries, is a throwback of some centuries, indeed it is a difference that is more profound that than between Marxism-Leninism and Western liberal democracy/mixed capitalist countries during the Cold War.

The flames being fanned by Islamists are ones of values that are completely contrary not only to the post-enlightenment settlement between Christianity, the state and society, but also international law on human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The protestors are predominantly men, promulgating a misogynistic world view, which not only treats women and girls as possessions, but has no tolerance for even engaging in debate or challenge of their religious view. Freedom of speech is to be burnt at the stake along with all those who they feel have hurt their point of view. It is as dangerous as it is infantile, as fanatically anti-reason as the anti-semitism of the Nazis, the anti-classism of the Khmer Rouge and every sectarian conflict you can remember.

They are as incredulous about the relaxed Western view over a film produced privately in the US, as Westerners are over their violence and (literal) sabre rattling. They live in societies where drawing an image of their prophet can get you executed, and indeed even deciding that you no longer believe in Islam can mean death. This is accepted as being integral to their entire social system and set of beliefs. Religion is not an adjunct to life that provides meaning for certain ethical questions or advice on living under difficult circumstances, for reflection at least once a week. It is central, fundamental and provides a source of guidance on a daily basis. The closest parallel outside it in modern history is seen in the personality cult laden totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany, the Stalinist world, Maoist China and today in North Korea. In all of them, the thoughts and words of the personality cults meant everything, their lives, their deeds took up so much time in education and daily life. For many Muslims, Islam is that special. The idea anyone would choose to abandon such believes is not only foolish, but dangerous and any such element is likely to bring down their proud culture.

Given they live in states which enforce this society, they find it remarkable that other states do not also reflect their national religions. The idea that private American citizens can produce a film, without any official endorsement or state oversight, seems improbable and impossible to them. After all, surely all governments everywhere enforce the religious values of their societies?

Not to put too fine a point on it, Western civilisation does not need Islam.