Week ending 30 August
The news of 1400 underage girls being subject to rapes and gross sexual abuse in Rotherham has shocked and disgusted almost everybody who has heard or read about it, not only in this country but around the world. We are told the authorities knew, indeed some of the girls complained and were chased away, and the reason was the perpetrators were all men of Pakistani origin and therefore Muslims, so staff were frightened of being called racist. If only we Christians could receive such consideration.
The Bible Society wished to portray the story of Jonah and the whale by having an inflated rubber model of the fish to tell children the story, and hoped to hold it in London’s Royal Park. They were of course banned from doing so. It seems anything remotely Christian is banned in London under the present regime. What a contrast to Rotherham.
We had the commendable and evangelical Bishop Nazir Ali writing for the ‘Telegraph’ newspaper stressing the need for parents to care for their children and calling for sex education to be based on the context of sex in marriage. (proper marriage that is)
Against that we had David Laws, a schools Minister in this unfortunate coalition government calling for sex education to be given to all children from the age of seven, and stopping the rights of parents to withdraw their child from such education. This is to be in the Liberal Democrat election manifesto, so we need not worry too much. He is upset that it cannot be forced upon free schools and academies. You can bet such education will not talk about sex in the context of marriage between a man and a woman.
Christians need to demonstrate that we are a factor in any future election. Traditionally the Conservative Party was seen as the one most sympathetic to Christians until David Cameron was made Prime Minister.
Since the legalising of same sex marriage, many Conservatives abandoned their allegiance, and most of us will still hold to our principles and vote elsewhere.
Christians can therefore influence prospective politicians by promising to support the United Kingdom Independence Party, which whilst not likely to gain many seats can stop Conservatives. The defection of Douglas Carswell to UKIP has sent shock waves through the Conservative Party and if Christians threatened to withhold their support to the Conservatives, Cameron may realise it is not UKIP that is loony, but rather himself if he does not seek a liaison with them.
Friday, 29 August 2014
Wednesday, 27 August 2014
Hypocrisy v Discrimination
Writing in the Telegraph, the former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, stated he thought it extraordinary that people were disciplined and even sacked from work for expressing their Christian faith. He thought Christianity was a powerful force for good and it was more important than ever to express that faith. He worried over attempts to push Christianity out of public life.
All that sounds fine, but he was in a very powerful position as the senior lawyer in the country to do something about it when he was in office. I wonder why he didn’t.
We are always being told how dedicated to the Christian faith our Prime Minister is, and some people actually believe him. Recently thousands and thousands of Christians were stranded on a mountain and other isolated places, petrified from fear of attacking Islamic hordes, yet little was heard in a positive way from the Prime Minister, yet when Yazidis attracted world wide attention because of their plight, he suddenly found voice. Far better headlines, opportunity to call meetings and speak out forcefully.
Consider how puerile the words of these two men sound when you think of a lady reported about in the Daily Mail recently, who suffered disciplinary action for the precise reason she spoke about her faith.
A lady names Victoria was approached by a Muslim colleague who asked about Victoria’s Church, so was invited to attend. When the Muslim woman was in a state of distress on another occasion, Victoria prayed for her with the consent of the woman, and when the woman was unwell gave her a book about another Muslim woman, which I read some years ago, and which is quite innocuous.
Victoria did not in any way force her faith on the Muslim, who in fact had showed her own interest, yet was severely disciplined when after all the kindness the woman complained to the NHS managers. Now if she had joined the Islamic terrorist supporters in London handing out leaflets calling for people to go and fight with the jihadists, she would not have had any action taken against her.
A Muslim man heard the Christian message and became a Christian. His family have suffered attack, his car was set on fire, and police ignored him when told of the danger he was in. This was in the city of Bradford, England, the place where the Member of Parliament recently screamed abuse at Israel and called for a ban on Jewish goods, and said Israelis were not welcome in that town.
It may give politicians personal satisfaction to their consciences to utter fine sentiments, we will be more impressed when they do things positive. Remember, it was only a few weeks ago that we read of Boris Johnson being let off the hook by the Courts for favouring the homosexual lobby over a Christian organisation. And other Courts have discriminated against Christians, denying them the right to their beliefs.
Christians are indeed the most persecuted groups and seemingly the only ones denied (human) rights
Writing in the Telegraph, the former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, stated he thought it extraordinary that people were disciplined and even sacked from work for expressing their Christian faith. He thought Christianity was a powerful force for good and it was more important than ever to express that faith. He worried over attempts to push Christianity out of public life.
All that sounds fine, but he was in a very powerful position as the senior lawyer in the country to do something about it when he was in office. I wonder why he didn’t.
We are always being told how dedicated to the Christian faith our Prime Minister is, and some people actually believe him. Recently thousands and thousands of Christians were stranded on a mountain and other isolated places, petrified from fear of attacking Islamic hordes, yet little was heard in a positive way from the Prime Minister, yet when Yazidis attracted world wide attention because of their plight, he suddenly found voice. Far better headlines, opportunity to call meetings and speak out forcefully.
Consider how puerile the words of these two men sound when you think of a lady reported about in the Daily Mail recently, who suffered disciplinary action for the precise reason she spoke about her faith.
A lady names Victoria was approached by a Muslim colleague who asked about Victoria’s Church, so was invited to attend. When the Muslim woman was in a state of distress on another occasion, Victoria prayed for her with the consent of the woman, and when the woman was unwell gave her a book about another Muslim woman, which I read some years ago, and which is quite innocuous.
Victoria did not in any way force her faith on the Muslim, who in fact had showed her own interest, yet was severely disciplined when after all the kindness the woman complained to the NHS managers. Now if she had joined the Islamic terrorist supporters in London handing out leaflets calling for people to go and fight with the jihadists, she would not have had any action taken against her.
A Muslim man heard the Christian message and became a Christian. His family have suffered attack, his car was set on fire, and police ignored him when told of the danger he was in. This was in the city of Bradford, England, the place where the Member of Parliament recently screamed abuse at Israel and called for a ban on Jewish goods, and said Israelis were not welcome in that town.
It may give politicians personal satisfaction to their consciences to utter fine sentiments, we will be more impressed when they do things positive. Remember, it was only a few weeks ago that we read of Boris Johnson being let off the hook by the Courts for favouring the homosexual lobby over a Christian organisation. And other Courts have discriminated against Christians, denying them the right to their beliefs.
Christians are indeed the most persecuted groups and seemingly the only ones denied (human) rights
Friday, 22 August 2014
2 Timothy 2 and Matthew 16.v.13/20
In our Gospel passage Jesus is with His Apostles at Caesara Phillippi a place where worship was regularly carried out, on the North of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus asked them who did people think He was, and they told him the names of John the Baptist, and the Old Testament prophets Elijah and Jeremiah, which were the most popular expectations of who would be the Messiah.
Jesus then asked them who they said He was, and Peter gave the answer which pleased Jesus when he said, ‘you are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. Jesus blessed Peter and said, ‘you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church’. The Roman Catholic Church claims this mean that Peter became the first Pope, whilst Protestants claim Jesus meant the Church would be built on the confession that Jesus was the Messiah. I think it futile to engage in prolonged theological debate on the matter, suffice it to say Peter played an important role in the early Church, seeming to have taken the lead after Jesus ascension, but we find in the Acts of Apostles, James later became the head of the Church.
Jesus stated that the gates of hell would not destroy the Church, an encouragement to His followers in all ages. He was teaching the permanency of the Church; all other institutions and empires have come and gone, only the Church has prevailed down the years. Whilst the Church in the Western nations has not lived up to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, and is suffering in consequence, in Africa, especially China and the Far East, the Church is growing massively as they are faithful to Scripture.
When Jesus used the word ‘Church’, He was referring to an assembly of believers meeting together in worship. The Church has a special place in the plan of God, and we have to know how we are to live and function within that plan. There is a need for a firm spiritual and moral foundation in every person’s life. There is more to life than material works and wealth, it needs a spiritual dimension.
The Bible uses several terms to describe the Church, the most powerful being a family, consisting of people of different backgrounds, experiences, class, ages and gender. This family extends right across the world, so that wherever you go you can have fellowship with other believers.
There is uniqueness about the Church, as we are separated from the world’s standards and from the others of society. At one time the Church stood above society, it was seen as some place special which set standards and values, and gave firm moral guidance and principles. The clergy were particularly respected, and generally were men who commanded respect by the way they conducted themselves.
In today’s Church we have joined society’s values, even to the extent of contravening Scripture. We have seen Christians at all levels adopting the morals of society as opposed to those of the Bible, and by therefore of God. In attempts to influence people we have lowered our standing, when we have Vicars leading dancing to wild pop music at weddings and dressing up in fancy costumes, and even if within one denomination, all Churches are tarred with the one brush. The term ‘solemnization of marriage’ is apparently forgotten.
Jesus went on to say Peter would have authority to admit people into the Kingdom of God through the preaching of the gospel, and to exercise discipline within the Church, an authority extended to all who are ordained to govern the Lord’s Church on earth.
Our final gospel verse is an instruction to the Apostles not to tell people who He was because of their inability to accept Him as the Messiah.
Having delegated first to Peter and the Apostles to continue the work He had begun, Jesus now passes the responsibility down to us in our age to continue to preach the gospel, and every Christian has the duty to play their part in the spread of the gospel and build up His Church.
Each year about this time we come to the start of a new year in the Church’s calendar. Each year we begin with fewer members than the year before as our people move to another place or to be with their Lord.
I know of several Ministers/Vicars who are very concerned for the future of their Churches. I can understand their concerns for I have over the past five years taken services at 31 Churches in/around Bedford, and apart from 5, the congregations have not been above 25, and in 2 not even reached double figures. I am sure such a situation is not confined to this area.
I read an article recently in which the writer suggested we should not get too concerned over numbers, and whilst I agree we should not become obsessed by them, we do have to accept that they are a fact to be considered, for without sufficient people Churches will close. There is a responsibility for us to pass on to future generations what we have, and bear in mind the fact that the gospel is widely rejected and the Church is to most people an irrelevance. We become reduced to survival thinking.
In the Epistle, Paul is writing to Timothy, who is to take on the leadership of the church after the death of Paul. Like Timothy, we see ourselves as a tiny minority amidst an overwhelming, mounting majority, committed to evil and unbelief. We face hostility on every side. The government creates legislation which is contrary to Christian teaching and tradition, and force people under threat of penalties if they voice disagreement. The judiciary act against Christians in legal challenges.
Paul is giving his final instructions here to Timothy whose responsibility will be to see that the gospel remains pure. He is acutely conscious of his imminent death, he's enormously concerned that the gospel shouldn't be watered down - that the gospel shouldn't be lost, that it shouldn't be twisted. So he writes to Timothy to encourage him to stand firm, to encourage him not to be deviated from the truths that Paul taught him. He writes to encourage him to pass the same gospel that he heard from Paul onto other reliable men.
There had been an explosion of false teaching inside the church so Paul expressed concern that there were those within the Church, preachers who deviated from the gospel, threatening the purity and the life of the church. He speaks of teachers who no longer put up with sound doctrine, and that is very much what we find in the church today.
If you have been a Christian for some time you will know that wasn't only a problem in the early church. You will know that's exactly what we find in the church today. Amazing as it may sound, we have bishops and clergy inside the church who challenge the Bible. They say we live in the 21st century; we live in a modern, scientific age, as if God only intended to give His Word for the early age.
They say, we need no longer accept Paul's teaching on morals, and rather than God's word standing in judgement of us as it should, we stand in judgement of the Bible. Our final source of truth is no longer the Word of God.
Builders of a house will often place a covenant on what they have built, laying down what can, and how be used. God placed a covenant on the Bible directing that nothing should be taken away or added.
Having accepted that numbers are not the be all and end all of Church worship, or a verdict on any particular Church, there must always be a need for every Church to consider whether the worship offered is as worthy as it ought to be. Is it truly doing what God intended and which Jesus commissioned it to do, bringing people to know the saving grace of Christ’s death on the Cross.
The primary reason we gather at church on Sunday is to learn about God and to grow closer to Him. Everything else is secondary. Knowing Christ, becoming like Christ, is what we are here for. This is achieved through the Word Of God
The bible should be the supreme court of the church, the final authority in deciding all controversies. Alas in the modern church that is not so. A church which rejects the teaching of the bible loses its authority.
People have a right to expect men speaking as Ministers of the Church to do so, based on the word of God and not expressing personal opinions or preferences. When Ministers substitute personal views for political rhetoric they are exceeding their remit. If we expect God to bless and build the Church, we must follow His guidelines.
Whilst Paul’s Letters to Timothy are an excellent guide for pastors, he was including advice for all Christians. He realised it takes courage to be a Christian in the world. You may be the only Christian in your family, amongst your friends or where you work, and things can become difficult for you. Some people find it difficult to be faithful to their faith, but Jesus always warned there was a cost in being a Christian.
Paul uses three examples as to how a Christian is to compare him/herself. They are a soldier, an athlete and a farmer. Each of those occupations requires sacrifice in terms of what one gets engaged in. Some actions in life will harm their fitness to carry out their tasks and a firm discipline is needed to devote oneself to the task set before them, with a determination to get things done well.
Similarly a Christian may have to give up some pursuits which compromise his/her faith, and have determination to see things through to the end.
Come to church then, prepared to feast on sound doctrine. This combined with the work of God's Spirit, will not only transform you, but it will transform others as you seek to become one who faithfully accepts and practices the Word of God. Amen
In our Gospel passage Jesus is with His Apostles at Caesara Phillippi a place where worship was regularly carried out, on the North of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus asked them who did people think He was, and they told him the names of John the Baptist, and the Old Testament prophets Elijah and Jeremiah, which were the most popular expectations of who would be the Messiah.
Jesus then asked them who they said He was, and Peter gave the answer which pleased Jesus when he said, ‘you are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. Jesus blessed Peter and said, ‘you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church’. The Roman Catholic Church claims this mean that Peter became the first Pope, whilst Protestants claim Jesus meant the Church would be built on the confession that Jesus was the Messiah. I think it futile to engage in prolonged theological debate on the matter, suffice it to say Peter played an important role in the early Church, seeming to have taken the lead after Jesus ascension, but we find in the Acts of Apostles, James later became the head of the Church.
Jesus stated that the gates of hell would not destroy the Church, an encouragement to His followers in all ages. He was teaching the permanency of the Church; all other institutions and empires have come and gone, only the Church has prevailed down the years. Whilst the Church in the Western nations has not lived up to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, and is suffering in consequence, in Africa, especially China and the Far East, the Church is growing massively as they are faithful to Scripture.
When Jesus used the word ‘Church’, He was referring to an assembly of believers meeting together in worship. The Church has a special place in the plan of God, and we have to know how we are to live and function within that plan. There is a need for a firm spiritual and moral foundation in every person’s life. There is more to life than material works and wealth, it needs a spiritual dimension.
The Bible uses several terms to describe the Church, the most powerful being a family, consisting of people of different backgrounds, experiences, class, ages and gender. This family extends right across the world, so that wherever you go you can have fellowship with other believers.
There is uniqueness about the Church, as we are separated from the world’s standards and from the others of society. At one time the Church stood above society, it was seen as some place special which set standards and values, and gave firm moral guidance and principles. The clergy were particularly respected, and generally were men who commanded respect by the way they conducted themselves.
In today’s Church we have joined society’s values, even to the extent of contravening Scripture. We have seen Christians at all levels adopting the morals of society as opposed to those of the Bible, and by therefore of God. In attempts to influence people we have lowered our standing, when we have Vicars leading dancing to wild pop music at weddings and dressing up in fancy costumes, and even if within one denomination, all Churches are tarred with the one brush. The term ‘solemnization of marriage’ is apparently forgotten.
Jesus went on to say Peter would have authority to admit people into the Kingdom of God through the preaching of the gospel, and to exercise discipline within the Church, an authority extended to all who are ordained to govern the Lord’s Church on earth.
Our final gospel verse is an instruction to the Apostles not to tell people who He was because of their inability to accept Him as the Messiah.
Having delegated first to Peter and the Apostles to continue the work He had begun, Jesus now passes the responsibility down to us in our age to continue to preach the gospel, and every Christian has the duty to play their part in the spread of the gospel and build up His Church.
Each year about this time we come to the start of a new year in the Church’s calendar. Each year we begin with fewer members than the year before as our people move to another place or to be with their Lord.
I know of several Ministers/Vicars who are very concerned for the future of their Churches. I can understand their concerns for I have over the past five years taken services at 31 Churches in/around Bedford, and apart from 5, the congregations have not been above 25, and in 2 not even reached double figures. I am sure such a situation is not confined to this area.
I read an article recently in which the writer suggested we should not get too concerned over numbers, and whilst I agree we should not become obsessed by them, we do have to accept that they are a fact to be considered, for without sufficient people Churches will close. There is a responsibility for us to pass on to future generations what we have, and bear in mind the fact that the gospel is widely rejected and the Church is to most people an irrelevance. We become reduced to survival thinking.
In the Epistle, Paul is writing to Timothy, who is to take on the leadership of the church after the death of Paul. Like Timothy, we see ourselves as a tiny minority amidst an overwhelming, mounting majority, committed to evil and unbelief. We face hostility on every side. The government creates legislation which is contrary to Christian teaching and tradition, and force people under threat of penalties if they voice disagreement. The judiciary act against Christians in legal challenges.
Paul is giving his final instructions here to Timothy whose responsibility will be to see that the gospel remains pure. He is acutely conscious of his imminent death, he's enormously concerned that the gospel shouldn't be watered down - that the gospel shouldn't be lost, that it shouldn't be twisted. So he writes to Timothy to encourage him to stand firm, to encourage him not to be deviated from the truths that Paul taught him. He writes to encourage him to pass the same gospel that he heard from Paul onto other reliable men.
There had been an explosion of false teaching inside the church so Paul expressed concern that there were those within the Church, preachers who deviated from the gospel, threatening the purity and the life of the church. He speaks of teachers who no longer put up with sound doctrine, and that is very much what we find in the church today.
If you have been a Christian for some time you will know that wasn't only a problem in the early church. You will know that's exactly what we find in the church today. Amazing as it may sound, we have bishops and clergy inside the church who challenge the Bible. They say we live in the 21st century; we live in a modern, scientific age, as if God only intended to give His Word for the early age.
They say, we need no longer accept Paul's teaching on morals, and rather than God's word standing in judgement of us as it should, we stand in judgement of the Bible. Our final source of truth is no longer the Word of God.
Builders of a house will often place a covenant on what they have built, laying down what can, and how be used. God placed a covenant on the Bible directing that nothing should be taken away or added.
Having accepted that numbers are not the be all and end all of Church worship, or a verdict on any particular Church, there must always be a need for every Church to consider whether the worship offered is as worthy as it ought to be. Is it truly doing what God intended and which Jesus commissioned it to do, bringing people to know the saving grace of Christ’s death on the Cross.
The primary reason we gather at church on Sunday is to learn about God and to grow closer to Him. Everything else is secondary. Knowing Christ, becoming like Christ, is what we are here for. This is achieved through the Word Of God
The bible should be the supreme court of the church, the final authority in deciding all controversies. Alas in the modern church that is not so. A church which rejects the teaching of the bible loses its authority.
People have a right to expect men speaking as Ministers of the Church to do so, based on the word of God and not expressing personal opinions or preferences. When Ministers substitute personal views for political rhetoric they are exceeding their remit. If we expect God to bless and build the Church, we must follow His guidelines.
Whilst Paul’s Letters to Timothy are an excellent guide for pastors, he was including advice for all Christians. He realised it takes courage to be a Christian in the world. You may be the only Christian in your family, amongst your friends or where you work, and things can become difficult for you. Some people find it difficult to be faithful to their faith, but Jesus always warned there was a cost in being a Christian.
Paul uses three examples as to how a Christian is to compare him/herself. They are a soldier, an athlete and a farmer. Each of those occupations requires sacrifice in terms of what one gets engaged in. Some actions in life will harm their fitness to carry out their tasks and a firm discipline is needed to devote oneself to the task set before them, with a determination to get things done well.
Similarly a Christian may have to give up some pursuits which compromise his/her faith, and have determination to see things through to the end.
Come to church then, prepared to feast on sound doctrine. This combined with the work of God's Spirit, will not only transform you, but it will transform others as you seek to become one who faithfully accepts and practices the Word of God. Amen
Friday, 15 August 2014
Britain 2014 (Part 2)
As an ex Police Officer, I am ashamed and horrified at the actions of the Police in the manner in which they act on (spurious?)complaints. Yesterday the South Yorkshire Police pounced on the home of Cliff Richards when it must have been known he was not even in the country. In addition, the BBC were warned in advance so that they were able to arrange full coverage of the visit. The Police have denied informing the BBC, which is surely disingenuous considering only they would know when they were going to call.
The principal question must be why they even contemplated visiting with a warrant. An unknown man of 44 years now claims he was improperly assaulted by Cliff Richards in 1985 at a Billy Graham Crusade. Those Crusades had counsellors all over the stadium, surely it would be obvious to him he could have resolved the matter then by telling one of them. Instead he has brought discredit on the Crusade as well as Richards, and we will now no doubt hear how traumatised he has been by this alleged act. I wonder what could possibly have inspired him to speak out now?
However, great criticism can be made against the Police, using now familiar tactics worth of any totalitarian State. When someone makes a complaint the Police could be expected to ask for evidence to substantiate it. The next move would be to interview the suspect and decide the merit of the complaint. If it is a case of one word against another without any further evidence, no further action would normally have been taken in the days when Police acted within the bounds of integrity and the law. When the Police were expert in arresting criminals, rather than street preachers.
We have seen a collection of well known men in the entertainment world arrested and had their names published in the press, only to subsequently told there would no action taken. In other words there were really no grounds for arresting them in the first place.
As in those cases as well as this, there could be no justification for rushing to search a person’s home without some evidence, especially when the person was not present and had to learn of the search from the press. The police are just trawling for evidence and hope to find something they can use to create a suspicion.
The sight of police men And women rifling through a man’s possession and being filmed by a BBC photographer on a roving helicopter was revolting and only brings shame on all Police. If Theresa May really wants to improve the Police she should take action to halt such practices as we have witnessed.
As an ex Police Officer, I am ashamed and horrified at the actions of the Police in the manner in which they act on (spurious?)complaints. Yesterday the South Yorkshire Police pounced on the home of Cliff Richards when it must have been known he was not even in the country. In addition, the BBC were warned in advance so that they were able to arrange full coverage of the visit. The Police have denied informing the BBC, which is surely disingenuous considering only they would know when they were going to call.
The principal question must be why they even contemplated visiting with a warrant. An unknown man of 44 years now claims he was improperly assaulted by Cliff Richards in 1985 at a Billy Graham Crusade. Those Crusades had counsellors all over the stadium, surely it would be obvious to him he could have resolved the matter then by telling one of them. Instead he has brought discredit on the Crusade as well as Richards, and we will now no doubt hear how traumatised he has been by this alleged act. I wonder what could possibly have inspired him to speak out now?
However, great criticism can be made against the Police, using now familiar tactics worth of any totalitarian State. When someone makes a complaint the Police could be expected to ask for evidence to substantiate it. The next move would be to interview the suspect and decide the merit of the complaint. If it is a case of one word against another without any further evidence, no further action would normally have been taken in the days when Police acted within the bounds of integrity and the law. When the Police were expert in arresting criminals, rather than street preachers.
We have seen a collection of well known men in the entertainment world arrested and had their names published in the press, only to subsequently told there would no action taken. In other words there were really no grounds for arresting them in the first place.
As in those cases as well as this, there could be no justification for rushing to search a person’s home without some evidence, especially when the person was not present and had to learn of the search from the press. The police are just trawling for evidence and hope to find something they can use to create a suspicion.
The sight of police men And women rifling through a man’s possession and being filmed by a BBC photographer on a roving helicopter was revolting and only brings shame on all Police. If Theresa May really wants to improve the Police she should take action to halt such practices as we have witnessed.
Thursday, 14 August 2014
Britain 2014 style
In London England yesterday a group of Islamists were in Oxford Street, the main thoroughfare, handing out leaflets inviting people to join the Islamist Jihadists in the Middle East who are in the process of killing Christians and destroying Churches. Complaints were made to the Police who are reported to have said they would examine them to see if any law had been broken.
Now compare this incident. Earlier this year an American evangelist was preaching in a lesser populated road from the Bible when some woman made a complaint about him doing so. Police turned up promptly and arrested him, took him to a Police station and detained him in a cell for seven hours and aggressively questioned him for a public order offence. The crime was quoting verses from Holy Scripture. Eventually an Inspector used some intelligence and released him because there was in fact no offence committed. (other than speaking up as a Christian in modern Britain which has not YET been made illegal)
Similar action has been taken in Dundee and Perth in Scotland where a street preacher was held for 24 hours and in one case in Perth, video footage was available to prove nothing offensive was said.
But America seems just as bad in their attitude to Christians. A judge in New Mexico has on the complaint of just two people ordered the 10 Commandments on public display to be removed. The U.S.Navy has ordered bibles to be removed from naval stations.
I was listening to a broadcast on American television in which a researcher told of actions against Christians which were quite startling. A teacher in Florida told a girl who was reading a Bible during a free reading period, when students were reading their own books, to stop doing so. The same teacher made a vitriolic phone call to her parents.
In another case a child who drew a picture of Jesus on the Cross was recommended for psychological assessment. During Ramadan non Islamic soldiers were told to dress soberly and respect Muslims.
Members of the First Baptist Church were described as extremists and religious extremism was attributed to evangelical Christians.
A student who ignored a direction at a graduation ceremony not to mention anything Christian, but who persisted in reciting the Lord’s Prayer, was charged with civil disobedience in South Carolina of all places Similarly a Pentagon statement listed carols which were permissible for soldiers to sing.
All in the land of the brave and home of the free!!
In London England yesterday a group of Islamists were in Oxford Street, the main thoroughfare, handing out leaflets inviting people to join the Islamist Jihadists in the Middle East who are in the process of killing Christians and destroying Churches. Complaints were made to the Police who are reported to have said they would examine them to see if any law had been broken.
Now compare this incident. Earlier this year an American evangelist was preaching in a lesser populated road from the Bible when some woman made a complaint about him doing so. Police turned up promptly and arrested him, took him to a Police station and detained him in a cell for seven hours and aggressively questioned him for a public order offence. The crime was quoting verses from Holy Scripture. Eventually an Inspector used some intelligence and released him because there was in fact no offence committed. (other than speaking up as a Christian in modern Britain which has not YET been made illegal)
Similar action has been taken in Dundee and Perth in Scotland where a street preacher was held for 24 hours and in one case in Perth, video footage was available to prove nothing offensive was said.
But America seems just as bad in their attitude to Christians. A judge in New Mexico has on the complaint of just two people ordered the 10 Commandments on public display to be removed. The U.S.Navy has ordered bibles to be removed from naval stations.
I was listening to a broadcast on American television in which a researcher told of actions against Christians which were quite startling. A teacher in Florida told a girl who was reading a Bible during a free reading period, when students were reading their own books, to stop doing so. The same teacher made a vitriolic phone call to her parents.
In another case a child who drew a picture of Jesus on the Cross was recommended for psychological assessment. During Ramadan non Islamic soldiers were told to dress soberly and respect Muslims.
Members of the First Baptist Church were described as extremists and religious extremism was attributed to evangelical Christians.
A student who ignored a direction at a graduation ceremony not to mention anything Christian, but who persisted in reciting the Lord’s Prayer, was charged with civil disobedience in South Carolina of all places Similarly a Pentagon statement listed carols which were permissible for soldiers to sing.
All in the land of the brave and home of the free!!
Saturday, 9 August 2014
The week of 9th August
I am surprised at the number of what are usually seen as normal intelligent people who are criticising Israel and every Jew in creation. We expect the usual left wing rent a quotes to be chirping away, but they are joined by people you would expect to understand things better.
Israel was first attacked, and like every nation and person who is attacked, they felt the need to respond. They have not however placed rocket launchers in heavily populated civilian areas, used women and children as shields, and stored weapons in schools and hospitals. It is completely ignored that Hamas is lobbing rockets by the hundreds over Israel civilian areas, and dug tunnels under Israeli buildings in order to place explosives.
We have hundreds of thousands of Christians and other religious groups being butchered in Iraq, just for being non Muslims, but not a word from the anti-Israeli mob, nor from Baroness Warsi. Only America has shown any real concern for those oppressed people. How can any human being claim that chopping another person’s head off is justified by religious belief?
The new Education Secretary (Nicky Morgan) is said to be a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship and an opponent of same sex marriage, which is a welcome announcement, but what a disappointment that she has appointed a Stonewall member as an adviser. That same organisation has suggested teaching under age 5 years olds about homosexuality. This surely suggests they are incapable of giving sensible advice. And why is teaching creationism seen as unworthy of state funding when sex education is acceptable?
I read that Sporting Index issued an advertisement showing the Brazilian statue of Jesus holding a bikini clad girl and a bottle of champagne with an inappropriate comment. When the ad was banned after complaints were made, the firm is said to have been incredulous. This shows the extremely bad taste of the firm and its insulting attitude with complete disregard for religious feelings. Just imagine the outcry (and consequences)if Jesus had been replaced by a picture of Mohammed.
Hundreds of men and women are being denied pain relieving drugs by the NHS but now lesbian couples are being offered the creation of sperm banks to enable them to have children without going through the normal procedure. How far we have moved from the Christian heritage in this country.
The Land of the Free is not doing much better. A College in New England is losing its accreditation because it believes in the traditional belief of marriage as man/woman and not subscribing to the doctrine of special legal rights for homosexuals demanded by their present President. How they must wish for 2016 to come
I am surprised at the number of what are usually seen as normal intelligent people who are criticising Israel and every Jew in creation. We expect the usual left wing rent a quotes to be chirping away, but they are joined by people you would expect to understand things better.
Israel was first attacked, and like every nation and person who is attacked, they felt the need to respond. They have not however placed rocket launchers in heavily populated civilian areas, used women and children as shields, and stored weapons in schools and hospitals. It is completely ignored that Hamas is lobbing rockets by the hundreds over Israel civilian areas, and dug tunnels under Israeli buildings in order to place explosives.
We have hundreds of thousands of Christians and other religious groups being butchered in Iraq, just for being non Muslims, but not a word from the anti-Israeli mob, nor from Baroness Warsi. Only America has shown any real concern for those oppressed people. How can any human being claim that chopping another person’s head off is justified by religious belief?
The new Education Secretary (Nicky Morgan) is said to be a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship and an opponent of same sex marriage, which is a welcome announcement, but what a disappointment that she has appointed a Stonewall member as an adviser. That same organisation has suggested teaching under age 5 years olds about homosexuality. This surely suggests they are incapable of giving sensible advice. And why is teaching creationism seen as unworthy of state funding when sex education is acceptable?
I read that Sporting Index issued an advertisement showing the Brazilian statue of Jesus holding a bikini clad girl and a bottle of champagne with an inappropriate comment. When the ad was banned after complaints were made, the firm is said to have been incredulous. This shows the extremely bad taste of the firm and its insulting attitude with complete disregard for religious feelings. Just imagine the outcry (and consequences)if Jesus had been replaced by a picture of Mohammed.
Hundreds of men and women are being denied pain relieving drugs by the NHS but now lesbian couples are being offered the creation of sperm banks to enable them to have children without going through the normal procedure. How far we have moved from the Christian heritage in this country.
The Land of the Free is not doing much better. A College in New England is losing its accreditation because it believes in the traditional belief of marriage as man/woman and not subscribing to the doctrine of special legal rights for homosexuals demanded by their present President. How they must wish for 2016 to come
Tuesday, 5 August 2014
High Court’s Semantics
This is a statement made following a recent High Court case; ‘In disallowing witnesses to be cross-examined and by ignoring inconsistencies in Boris Johnson’s witness statements, Justice Lang has confirmed today that the British establishment is no longer a guardian of freedom of speech nor of conscience.
Read on to find out why.
There was a time when this country was renowned for its legal system. We accepted the pomposity of the judiciary and the lawyers, for we respected the commitment to maintaining fair and impartial justice, irrespective of the status of personalities involved.
In recent time more and more people are losing respect in consideration of some sentencing, and the political correctness which is infecting our Courts, which with such rigidity, refuses to recognise the beliefs and consciences of people. There even appears to be an unwritten code of practice that demands the rights of the so-called ‘gay lobby’ must take precedence of any rights of Christians.
There was even a time when the Christian standards and value, which form the basis of our legal system, were accepted and practised by lawyers. A recent case, and a statement from the President of the Family Courts, reveals how far we have travelled from our Christian heritage.
Justice Mumby is reported to have stated, ‘happily judges no longer promote virtue morality or discourage vice immorality.’ He particularly repudiated Christianity and Christian morality and welcomed legislation of gay sex. In a recent High Court case Mrs Justice Lang seems to have adopted such advice.
In April 2012 whilst an election for Mayor of London was being held, Stonewall the homosexual campaign group, paid for a series of advertisements to be placed on London buses stating ‘some people are gay get over it’. A Christian Group, Core Issues, responded by seeking to have an alternative advertisement reading ‘not gay, post gay, ex gay, and proud.’ This was banned by the Mayor Boris Johnson, who was seeking re-election. Significantly he was due to address a Stonewall meeting soon afterwards.
Johnson at the tine claimed credit for the ban and even wrote to a Labour M.P to state he had.
A challenge was made to the High Court before Mrs Justice Lang who considered the ban lawful, but she criticised the way in which it was taken.
An appeal was made by Core to the Supreme Court which directed the judge to reconsider the case, in which emails not previously disclosed had been obtained, and it now appeared contradictory statements had been made by witnesses.
The rehearing took place this year and it is reported that after Core responded to Stonewall’s advertisement, the Guardian newspaper ever the supporter of liberal intolerance, became aware of Core’s action, which provoked angry protests from gay rights supporters. This obviously created panic at London Transport at the prospect of a Guardian article, and resulted in Boris Johnson angrily stopping Core from advertising, although it was established that no advertising rights were infringed.
Johnson alleged the advertisements were suggesting gay people were sick and could be cured. There was never any suggestion in the advertisements that this was so, and there were no grounds for so alleging.
Johnson was to state that whilst he agreed with the banning of Core’s advertisement because he felt it was offensive to gay people and their families, he had not initially seen the advertisement and did not give any instruction to ban it; he was merely giving a personal opinion.
Lawyers for Johnson argued that when he used the word’ instruct’ he was only expressing a point of view. Justice Lang did not allow him to be cross-examined on his evidence for some unreported reason, concluding there was a dispute about the meaning of the word ‘instruction’. Most people may think this episode too incredulous to believe.
Boris Johnson has not come out of this very honourably even though he won the legal battle. There was ample evidence from Johnson’s own side to prove he banned Core’s advertisement. Like his old Eton school mate Cameron, he was pandering to small but powerful lobby to attract their votes.
Remember this is a man renowned for his academic abilities, a master of the classics and Greek language, who seems to have got mixed up with the simple word instruction. Why not let Johnson be tested in Court?
The judge is reported to have said she thought the advertisement was offensive, which suggests bias. This is a country where people are allowed to have free speech. Obviously the High Court, Boris Johnson and David Cameron don’t think so. If it is lawful and acceptable to allow one organisation to put forward their controversial view it should be for the other side.
It would be hard to disagree with Core’s assessment of the trial,
‘In disallowing witnesses to be cross-examined and by ignoring inconsistencies in Boris Johnson’s witness statements, Justice Lang has confirmed today that the British establishment is no longer a guardian of freedom of speech nor of conscience.
In what is believed to be a contrived and punitive judgement handed down in the High Court, Justice Lang reduces to differences in “semantics” Mayor Boris Johnson’s intervention to halt the 2012 London Bus Campaign that Core Issues Trust, together with Anglican Mainstream mounted to counter an ongoing Stonewall campaign, and which he now both denies, but at the time was willing to be credited for as a Stonewall “hero”.
“
This is a clear example of the UK judiciary aligning itself with powerful political forces and personalities that will brook no opposition to the view that children are born gay and have any choice in sexual preference, expression or identity” said Dr Mike Davidson, Director of Core Issues Trust.
“At no point in the extensive Mayoral pre-election media coverage capturing the bus campaign –except when a legal challenge was launched more recently - did Mr Johnson disavow the impression that the decision to pull our advertisement was his own rather than that of Transport for London, which he now insists.
This is a statement made following a recent High Court case; ‘In disallowing witnesses to be cross-examined and by ignoring inconsistencies in Boris Johnson’s witness statements, Justice Lang has confirmed today that the British establishment is no longer a guardian of freedom of speech nor of conscience.
Read on to find out why.
There was a time when this country was renowned for its legal system. We accepted the pomposity of the judiciary and the lawyers, for we respected the commitment to maintaining fair and impartial justice, irrespective of the status of personalities involved.
In recent time more and more people are losing respect in consideration of some sentencing, and the political correctness which is infecting our Courts, which with such rigidity, refuses to recognise the beliefs and consciences of people. There even appears to be an unwritten code of practice that demands the rights of the so-called ‘gay lobby’ must take precedence of any rights of Christians.
There was even a time when the Christian standards and value, which form the basis of our legal system, were accepted and practised by lawyers. A recent case, and a statement from the President of the Family Courts, reveals how far we have travelled from our Christian heritage.
Justice Mumby is reported to have stated, ‘happily judges no longer promote virtue morality or discourage vice immorality.’ He particularly repudiated Christianity and Christian morality and welcomed legislation of gay sex. In a recent High Court case Mrs Justice Lang seems to have adopted such advice.
In April 2012 whilst an election for Mayor of London was being held, Stonewall the homosexual campaign group, paid for a series of advertisements to be placed on London buses stating ‘some people are gay get over it’. A Christian Group, Core Issues, responded by seeking to have an alternative advertisement reading ‘not gay, post gay, ex gay, and proud.’ This was banned by the Mayor Boris Johnson, who was seeking re-election. Significantly he was due to address a Stonewall meeting soon afterwards.
Johnson at the tine claimed credit for the ban and even wrote to a Labour M.P to state he had.
A challenge was made to the High Court before Mrs Justice Lang who considered the ban lawful, but she criticised the way in which it was taken.
An appeal was made by Core to the Supreme Court which directed the judge to reconsider the case, in which emails not previously disclosed had been obtained, and it now appeared contradictory statements had been made by witnesses.
The rehearing took place this year and it is reported that after Core responded to Stonewall’s advertisement, the Guardian newspaper ever the supporter of liberal intolerance, became aware of Core’s action, which provoked angry protests from gay rights supporters. This obviously created panic at London Transport at the prospect of a Guardian article, and resulted in Boris Johnson angrily stopping Core from advertising, although it was established that no advertising rights were infringed.
Johnson alleged the advertisements were suggesting gay people were sick and could be cured. There was never any suggestion in the advertisements that this was so, and there were no grounds for so alleging.
Johnson was to state that whilst he agreed with the banning of Core’s advertisement because he felt it was offensive to gay people and their families, he had not initially seen the advertisement and did not give any instruction to ban it; he was merely giving a personal opinion.
Lawyers for Johnson argued that when he used the word’ instruct’ he was only expressing a point of view. Justice Lang did not allow him to be cross-examined on his evidence for some unreported reason, concluding there was a dispute about the meaning of the word ‘instruction’. Most people may think this episode too incredulous to believe.
Boris Johnson has not come out of this very honourably even though he won the legal battle. There was ample evidence from Johnson’s own side to prove he banned Core’s advertisement. Like his old Eton school mate Cameron, he was pandering to small but powerful lobby to attract their votes.
Remember this is a man renowned for his academic abilities, a master of the classics and Greek language, who seems to have got mixed up with the simple word instruction. Why not let Johnson be tested in Court?
The judge is reported to have said she thought the advertisement was offensive, which suggests bias. This is a country where people are allowed to have free speech. Obviously the High Court, Boris Johnson and David Cameron don’t think so. If it is lawful and acceptable to allow one organisation to put forward their controversial view it should be for the other side.
It would be hard to disagree with Core’s assessment of the trial,
‘In disallowing witnesses to be cross-examined and by ignoring inconsistencies in Boris Johnson’s witness statements, Justice Lang has confirmed today that the British establishment is no longer a guardian of freedom of speech nor of conscience.
In what is believed to be a contrived and punitive judgement handed down in the High Court, Justice Lang reduces to differences in “semantics” Mayor Boris Johnson’s intervention to halt the 2012 London Bus Campaign that Core Issues Trust, together with Anglican Mainstream mounted to counter an ongoing Stonewall campaign, and which he now both denies, but at the time was willing to be credited for as a Stonewall “hero”.
“
This is a clear example of the UK judiciary aligning itself with powerful political forces and personalities that will brook no opposition to the view that children are born gay and have any choice in sexual preference, expression or identity” said Dr Mike Davidson, Director of Core Issues Trust.
“At no point in the extensive Mayoral pre-election media coverage capturing the bus campaign –except when a legal challenge was launched more recently - did Mr Johnson disavow the impression that the decision to pull our advertisement was his own rather than that of Transport for London, which he now insists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)