Oct 23

UK Government still obdurate over Syria

Tobias Ellwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

Tobias Ellwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

Her Majesty’s Government is stubbornly blaming President Assad for the rise of Islamic State despite the funding and encouragement it sent to Islamist opposition groups in Syria.

In an obdurate letter sent out to Members of Parliament and forwarded to constituents, Foreign Office Minister Tobias Ellwood MP says ‘Assad has been one of the leading causes for the rise of ISIL (Islamic State – SG) and other extremist groups in Syria.  He has created the conditions that have allowed terrorism to flourish – by destroying the social and physical fabric of the country, fuelling sectarianism, and leaving a trail of insecurity and ungoverned space across Syria’.

Mr Ellwood conveniently ignores:

1 The view of two retired generals and Sir Malcolm Rifkind who have all called for collaboration with President Assad of Syria in order to defeat Islamic State,

2 The fact that President Assad is all that stands between both the Syrian Christians and the Alawite commmunity and a bloodbath,

3 The inability and unwillingness of any Syrian opposition group to guarantee the safety of the Syrian Christians and Shi-ite Muslims, including the Alawites,

President Assad inspects damage left by Islamist rebels in the Christian town of Maaloula

President Assad inspects damage left by Islamist rebels in the Christian town of Maaloula

4 What happened to the Christians in the Syrian town of Maaloula as US-armed rebels took the town and is happening now in Mhardeh,

5 The reality, as President Obama confirmed in a meeting with Eastern Patriarchs last month, that President Assad protected the Christians (Mr Obama even referred to ‘the Syrian government; rather than ‘the Regime’),

6 That it is the UK which has fuelled the rise of Islamic State by the support it gave when the uprising started to anyone opposing Assad, including Al-Qaeda and its offshoots Al-Nusra and Islamic State,

7 That the destruction of Syria is not the responsibility of President Assad but of the UK and US Governments and NGOs encouraging a destructive uprising against a man who just fell out of favour with them,

The US funded Al-Qaeda-affiliate Al-Nusra Front

The US funded Al-Qaeda-affiliate Al-Nusra Front

8 That the closure of the Syrian Embassy in London and the British Embassy in Damascus has made any possible defeat of Islamic State more difficult,

9 That the ‘Houla Massacre’, quickly used by William Hague to expel the Syrian Ambassador and his mission, was actually perpetrated by the Free Syrian Army and used to blame the Syrian government.  (Der Spiegel & GlobalResearch)

Mr Ellwood concludes his letter by arguing that ‘Most of the opposition are ordinary people, fighting to protect their homes and their loved ones, fighting in the hope of a better future for their country.  They deserve our support.’

No, Mr Ellwood, the ‘opposition’ is a fractured basket-case of rival groups, with the ‘ordinary people’ of IS and Al-Nusra competing with the ‘ordinary people’ of Islamic Front, the Free Syrian Army and the well-connected Syrian National Council (see this amazing article by Charlie Skelton for the low-down on SNC), with every armed faction fighting in the hope of an Islamic future for their country.  All the militias will increase the possibility of terrorism on our streets and they all need to be opposed.


Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.


Oct 21

Open Society behind Hong Kong protests?

Leung Chung-Ying, Chief Executive of Hong Kong, has spoken of outside interefrence in the democracy protests.

Leung Chung-Ying, Chief Executive of Hong Kong, has claimed ‘external forces’ are behind democracy protests.

What could lie behind the comments made by Hong Kong leader Leung Chun-Ying that “external forces” are involved in the territory’s pro-democracy protests?  Is he referring to George Soros and his Open Society Foundations?

The protesters want fully democratic elections, and oppose the Chinese government’s decision to vet candidates for the 2017 polls.  Police and protesters have scuffled amid tense stand-offs in recent days.  Talks between them are expected today (Tuesday 21st October 2014).

Speaking on local television, Mr Leung said that Occupy Central, one of the main groups involved in the protests, was “not entirely a domestic movement, as external forces are involved”,

Leung went on, “There is obviously participation by people, organizations from outside of Hong Kong.” The Chief Executive added that the foreign actors came from “different countries in different parts of the world,”  He declined to give details or name the countries or organisations he had in mind.

Mainland Chinese officials have frequently warned against “foreign interference” in Hong Kong, while Chinese state media have accused the West of “instigating” the protests.

Protesters and student leaders have denied any outside involvement, as one would expect.  But could ‘Open Society’ be operating in Hong Kong in its customary clandestine way?

We are already aware that the Open Society Foundations, created by billionaire financier George Soros, funded the so-called ‘Arab Srping’ in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and, most devastatingly, in Syria.  (His Open Society Institute is more active in the USA).

According to its own website, ‘The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant societies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people’.  Such an apparently worthy aim would spur an interest, at the very least, in the Hong Kong electoral process.

We also know that the Maidan Square movement in Ukraine was a creature of Soros and his Open Society Foundations.  Soros is responsible for huge loss of life and liberty around the globe, all, he would say, in the vaunted cause of ‘Democracy’.

Open Society has funded a photographic project in Hong Kong entitled ‘Hong Kong under China‘.  They have paid for a project called ‘Life on the margins of China’s economic boom”.  Another grantee produced ‘A Photographer’s Journey Through a Changing Hong Kong‘.

Yet another Open Society photographic project argues that ‘In Hong Kong, another attack on freedom is concealed by the explosion of neon lights and consumerism. Mark Leong, who has traveled regularly Hong Kong since 1989, fears that it’s becoming, “just another freedom-deficient Chinese city.” With the support of National Geographic, he has developed a series of garish compositions, cataloguing the glaring signs of growing inequality.’  Leong has produced an explanatory video, with Open Society funding, which is carried on the Open Society Youtube channel.

George Soros has said: “My foundations have long supported arts and culture–especially film–as a means to build and strengthen open societies around the world”.

Media is a big thing for Open Society and is, as we have seen, being used extensively to further the Open Society Foundation’s aims in Hong Kong.  There are also links with Academia.  Ying Chan, Director of the Journalism and Media Studies Centre at the University of Hong Kong, sits on the Board of Directors of the Media Development Investment Fund with Aryeh Neier, President Emeritus of the Open Society Foundations.  The Fund invests ‘in media that provide the news, information and debate that people need to build free, thriving societies’.

The academic links go further. Open Society Foundations have been funding what they term ‘Civil Society Leadership Awards‘ which ‘offer master’s level support to individuals who demonstrate academic and professional excellence as well as a deep commitment to building open society in their home communities’.  One of the participating universities was the University of Hong Kong.

The Centre for Comparative and Public Law at the Faculty of Law in the University of Hong Kong has accepted grants from the Open Society to provide financial support for students in human rights.  The European Union has also provided funding.  Human rights, if they derive from an understanding that Almighty God is the author of them, are a good thing, and they do appear to be less than fully developed in China as a whole and in Hong Kong in particular.  The point here is that foreign money, particularly from George Soros, is enabling opposition to the Hong Kong authorities in this field.

Similarly, UNESCO is calling for a revision to  textbooks in China which portray homosexuality in a less than positive light.  That may or may not be a good thing, depending on one’s point of view, but it is undeniably Western interference in Chinese society.

So it would be entirely within the remit which Soros has assumed to be agitating in Hong Kong. Given his record in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine, fostering unrest and funding dissenters in Hong Kong would be entirely plausible.  But is George Soros really tainting the calls for democracy in Hong Kong with OSF involvement?

An Open Society Foundations webpage listing its offices omits any mention of an office in Hong Kong.

And yet a young Chinese lady claims on LinkedIn to be working for Open Society Foundations in Hong Kong.

As with all things to do with George Soros and Open Society Foundations, it is hard to find actual fingerprints on particular events.  Even when the fingerprints are there, Western media are reluctant to report on them.

The Hong Kong and Chinese authorities are already exploiting alleged foreign interference in the protests. They should make public what they know.

If it should come out that Open Society has been providing funding and other support to the protestors in Hong Kong, legitimate protests will be devalued by having been high-jacked by Soros and his agitators.


Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Oct 17

Asia Bibi death sentence upheld

Asia Bibi

Asia Bibi

Asia Bibi, the Pakistani Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy, has had her conviction and sentence upheld by Pakistan’s high court.

There will be a witness outside the Pakistan High Commission in London on Friday 31st October 2014 from 2pm – 4pm.  See directions below.

Asia Bibi, also known as Aasiya Noreen, was found guilty in 2010 of making derogatory comments about the Prophet Muhammad during an argument with a Muslim woman.

The BBC reports that the Lahore High Court rejected her appeal against the sentence passed by a lower court. Her lawyers have vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court.

The appeal was rejected despite fatal flaws in the trial which are summarised in this excellent report from Asif Aqeel.

One problem with the entire process is that any judge allowing Asia Bibi to walk free will endanger his own life. Justice Arif Bhatti, who acquitted two Christians in a 1995 blasphemy case, was killed in his office in 1997.

Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer who intended to present a petition for mercy on Asia’s behalf, was killed by his own police guard on 4th January 2011. Two months later, the only Christian member of the cabinet, Shahbaz Bhatti, was killed for supporting Asia and seeking to reform Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which often are used to settle personal scores and put pressure on religious minorities.

Wikipedia has summed up the altercation which led to her arrest like this:

‘In June 2009, Asia Bibi was harvesting falsa berries with a group of other farmhands in a field in Sheikhupura. She was asked at one point to fetch water from a nearby well; she complied but stopped to take a drink with an old metal cup she had found lying next to the well. A neighbor, who had been involved in a running feud with her family about alleged property damage, saw her and angrily told her that it was forbidden for a Christian to drink the same water as a Muslim, and some of the other workers considered her to be unclean because she was a Christian. Some arguments ensued. Asia Bibi recounts that when they made derogatory statements about her religion, she responded, “I believe in my religion and in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your Prophet Mohammed ever do to save mankind?”

‘Later, some of the workers complained to a cleric that she had insulted Muhammad. A mob came to her house, beating her and members of her family before she was rescued by the police. The police initiated an investigation about her remarks, resulting in her arrest under Section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code. She was imprisoned for over a year before being formally charged.’

Asia Bibi’s sentence in 2010 sparked global condemnation – but she is still in jail.

1John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

WITNESS Friday 31st October 2014

On Friday 31st October 2014, there will be a witness from 2pm to 4pm again outside the Pakistan High Commission, 34-36 Lowndes Square, London SW1X 9JN (nearest tube, Knightsbridge). Please pray for a good attendance.

Sep 27

Human Rights Lawyer Murdered by Isis For Facebook Comments


Sameera Salih Ali al-Nuaimy was murdered by her fellow Muslims for criticizing ISIS.

A prominent human rights lawyer has been tortured and murdered for criticizing ISIS on Facebook.

Sameera Salih Ali al-Nuaimy was seized by ISIS forces in Iraq after she wrote on Facebook that the bombing of Islamic mosques and shrines in Mosul, a northern Iraqi city, was “barbaric.”

Her death was announced yesterday by the head of the United Nations human rights office, who said that al-Nuaimy was tortured for several days before a public execution in front of a firing squad.

Her family was barred from giving her a funeral by the same kangeroo court that found her guilty of apostasy.

The fact that al-Nuaimy was a fellow Muslim made no difference to ISIS forces, who are quick to turn on members of their own religion in order to stamp out criticism of their atrocities.

al-Nuaimy murder continues a pattern of vicious ISIS assaults against educated professional women.

ISIS terrorists could also begin targeting people in the West who criticize their barbaric practices. ISIS spokesman Syrian-born Sheik Abu Mohammed al-Adnani has told his followers to kill civilians in Australia, the United States and Canada who are “disbelieving.” al-Adnani commented that

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be.”

“Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling.

“Both of them are disbelievers. Both of them are considered to be waging war.

Earlier this month Fox News reported that they had obtained a law enforcement bulletin warning that Islamic State fighters have increased calls for “lone wolf” attacks on U.S. soil against former American soldiers. One tweet obtained by the authorities urged jihadist fighters to find the address of service members online and then “show up and slaughter them.”

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Sep 24

Shocking Documentary about UK Forced Adoption Practices

This June, ITV ran a shocking documentary on the UK’s forced adoption practices. Titled ‘Exposure – ‘Please Don’t Take My Child’, the film chronicled the ongoing scandal of social workers abducting children from loving parents. Read more about the documentary on the ITV news website or watch the full video below.

The video should impress upon all of us who have ‘child protection’ policies in place that great damage can be done to a child and indeed a whole family by involving Social Services – which can be seen as a betrayal.

It may be far better for a church to help a struggling family to get on its feet financially and socially.

After all, the families we are talking about are often those on the margins of society – the very people our gracious Lord would have us help and stand up for.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Sep 23

The Folly of Obama’s ISIS Policiy

Obama supports ISIS

Why would the U.S. rearm the Free Syrian Army, which sold the beheaded American journalists to ISIS?

In an article published in World Net Daily, Joseph Farah has shown the folly of Obama’s policy regarding ISIS.

In deciding to arm “moderate Muslims”, Obama is ignoring the reality that most of the deaths perpetrated by ISIS have been leveled against Christian populations.

Farah’s article, titled “Why arm Mideast Muslims, not Christians?“, points out that while details are hard to verify, “we do know for certain is that Mosul, Iraq’s largest Christian town of about 300,000, has been virtually emptied of its population. That alone suggests a Christian holocaust is well under way.” Farah continued:


The Christian population of Iraq had already been largely driven out by years of war, persecution and infighting as they were treated as an afterthought even by U.S. occupation forces. Most of them fled to Syria, and have since faced death, persecution and refugee status yet again at the hands of ISIS.

In Mosul, ISIS advertised its barbarity and ruthlessness by photographing their executions of Christian children. They herded the kids into parks, beheaded them and placed their heads on sticks. ISIS has made music videos of themselves murdering Christian civilians and captured Iraqi soldiers, mostly Shiites.


ISIS targets Christian children.

“They are literally enjoying the act of killing and the fear and suffering experienced by others,” reports Catholic Online. “This sadism may be the purest manifestation of evil witnessed since the Rape of Nankin during World War II.”

Yet there was no mention of Christians in Obama’s “strategy” talk last week. Instead, Obama suggested the real victims of ISIS, which he insists is not Islamic, are mostly Muslims. This is an outrageous distortion of reality as the Christian community of the Middle East continues to face genocide at the hands of ISIS and al-Qaida.

Since the 1990s in Bosnia, the U.S. has systematically interceded to stop what it characterizes as ethnic and religious cleansing – only when the victims are Muslim. Not once has the U.S. lifted a hand to protect Christians. Muslim groups have been armed to defend themselves in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, often resulting in more bloodshed, not less. Not once has the U.S. even debated the idea of arming or rescuing Christians from the onslaught of fratricidal jihadists.

Once again, no one is rushing to aid Christians caught in the crossfire.

Why not?

Why does the U.S. continue to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

Why would the U.S. rearm the Free Syrian Army, which sold the beheaded American journalists to ISIS?

Why does the U.S. provide military and other aid to Islamic communities and armies all over the world but never to Christians who face far more gruesome persecution?

Why is there no effort even to rescue the Christians or provide them with a homeland of their own?
Obama cannot be trusted to bomb Syrian targets, either. Just a year ago, he was demanding Congress give him authority to bomb the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who has been fighting ISIS and offering more protection to Christians than the U.S. has throughout its Iraq occupation. Now Obama says he wants to bomb the other side in this conflict. With such a history poor judgment, should he really be trusted to pick the right targets?

Christians have been the forgotten victims in this war for too long.

It’s time to give peace a chance by arming them to defend themselves or evacuating them on a massive scale and providing a safe haven for them in the U.S.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Sep 23

Gay Marriage is Massive Intrusion Into Family Life

Next week a Kansas City judge will begin hearing oral arguments in a case challenging laws in the state of Missouri limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.

The case comes on the heals of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals having upheld same-sex “marriage” in the state of Oregon by denying the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) the right to defend Oregon’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

These local battles could culminate in a national show-down this fall when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected in disputes involving a number of different states. Christian Voice will aim to keep our readers informed of these upcoming Supreme Court battles, which build on the ambiguity of last January’s ruling.

Much of the rationale behind same-sex marriage in Oregon and other American states has been the notion that opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’ represents a massive intrusion into family life. As Scott Shackford recently claimed: “Laws forbidding recognition of gay marriage are a government intrusion…”

Earlier in the year I had a chance to engage in a public debate about same-sex ‘marriage’, and I argued that the shoe is actually on the other foot: it is gay marriage that threatens to bring unprecedented government intrusion into family life. Since my opponent quit in the middle of cross-examining me, I never had a chance to publish my statements. In preparation for the Supreme Court battles this fall, I thought it was a fitting time to share some of the arguments I made in that debate.

Gay Marriage Will Affect EVERY Marriage

One of the things I like to do with my children is to throw pebbles into a pond and watch the ripples. When you first throw a pebble into the water the ripples are rather small, but soon they widen and disturb the surface of the entire body of water. Legalizing gay marriage is like dropping a small pebble into a pond because it has ramifications that keep widening and widening. In fact, when a nation legalizes same-sex ‘marriage’, the ramifications are so broad that they affect every marriage in the land, not simply the, so called, ‘marriages’ among those of the same sex.


As marriage and family lose their objective fixity, all of us become de facto wards of the state.

Most people are not aware of how gay marriage will undermine the traditional family because it does so in ways that are subtle and ubiquitous. However, once gay marriage is introduced into a nation, it undermines the integrity of every family and every marriage in the land. It does this by rearranging the family’s relationship to the state. A government that recognizes such a thing as gay marriage is a one that has assumed the god-like power to declare which collections of individuals constitute a ‘family.’ But by this assumption government declares that both marriage and family are little more than legal constructs at best, and gifts from the state at worst. In the former case, marriage and family lose their objective fixity; in the latter case, all of us become wards of the state.

Consider: without the intervention of government, there are no pre-political, existential state of affairs that mark certain types of same-sex relationships out as being marriage within a state of nature. Unlike heterosexual marriage, which exists in nature and is then recognized by the state on the basis of intrinsic goods attached to it (including, but not limited to, the assurance of patrimony), homosexual marriage is an abstract legal entity with no natural or existential existence. Since neither consummation nor biologically-derived intrinsic goods are viable concepts among same-sex couples (a point the UK Parliament had to concede when introducing their same-sex marriage laws), it follows that the only way a consensual relationship between two people of the same sex can be upgraded into marriage is if the state steps in and declares that relationship to be a marriage, in much the same way as the state might declare something to be a corporation or some other legal entity. It is here that we see just how radical gay marriage really is.

The architects of same-sex marriage like to see themselves as being revolutionary, but even they usually fail to appreciate just how revolutionary their proposals actually are. Their project goes beyond the merely petty concerns for “equality” and “marriage freedom” that have become campaigning slogans in this debate. On the contrary, the truly revolutionary aspects of their agenda is that by substituting empirical goods with legal goods, the family’s role in society is not simply undermined, it is completely redrawn. Up to now, human societies have always been able to point to empirical acts that are a necessary condition for a viable marriage, such as consummation. Similarly, human societies have also been able to point to empirical acts which can invalidate a marriage, such as adultery. Human societies have also been able to point to intrinsic goods which marriages normally yield, including but not limited to the assurance of patrimony, the integrity of inheritance, the preservation of extended relationships of kinship and the role that such relationships play as the primary social structure against the aspirations of kings, ambitious overlords and the state. The web of marriage laws that tribes and societies have produced throughout the centuries have always been posterior to these empirical realities, so that what constitutes a viable marriage and family has never been purely a matter of jurisprudence. That is why we can speak meaningfully of a “common law marriage” even in the absence of explicit legal recognition. All of these empirical markers come crashing down under the legal positivism of same-sex marriage.

The architects of “marriage equality” are rearranging the relationship between family and state by making our most vital connections merely the result of positive law. For without the mechanisms of the state to confer the status of marriage upon two members of the same sex, there are no acts that organically mark their union out as being a specifically marital one. One can point neither to empirical acts nor to intrinsic goods that mark a same-sex relationship out as being “marriage” in a state of nature, and that is why the concept of a “common law marriage” can have no meaning when it comes to same-sex marriages. There are simply no non-legal state of affairs that allow us to distinguish a gay marriage from other types of same-sex relationships. The existential reality of the same-sex “marriage” relationship, which is usually explained in terms of a commitment of love between two consenting adults in which the physical elements are downplayed (don’t believe me, see here and here and here and here), does not itself distinguish that relationship from numerous other sorts of loving relationships that exist in this world. So what is it that sets this type of relationship apart to make it ‘marital’? Again, the answer is that it can only be the state.

Redefining the Ontology of the Family

Here’s the rub: once we concede that same-sex ‘marriage’ is purely the creation of positive law, then for these ‘marriages’ to be truly equal to heterosexual ones, we would have to acknowledge that EVERY marriage and family is a post-political institution instead of being pre-political. This concedes to the state the power to determine what collections of individuals constitute a marriage or a family, rather than acknowledging that the state merely recognizes a reality that precedes itself and exists within a state of nature on the basis of empirically recognizable markers. This is nothing short of a revolution in the ontology of the family, a challenge to what a family fundamentally is, and an unprecedented rearrangement of the relationship between state and family. eatingThe ubiquitous effects of this rearrangement are felt at every level of family life. When a family sits down at the table to eat together, there is a huge practical difference if they think they are only a family because of bonds created by the state, as opposed to thinking they are a family because of bonds that are natural and pre-political. When a son says, “that’s my Dad” or a man says “that’s my wife”, the meaning is completely different if you think these relationships are purely legal constructs instead of natural, pre-political realities. This difference is not always something we can explicitly quantify or even something that we are conscious of, as our deepest convictions are part of the taken-for-granted background by which we map our way in the world. The laws in our society play a formative role in this orienting process, as Aristotle understood. Laws are educational in so far as they train us (on a subliminal level that we are often unaware) in how we see ourselves, our relationships to others, and our relationship to the state.

Marriage As A Legal Fiction

If we attend to the experience of those nations that have legalized same-sex marriage, we see that these seismic shifts I’m concerned about have already begun to take place with a frightening consistency. In short, marriage has been reduced to little more than a legal fiction. In his article ‘Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?’ Canadian Douglas Farrow gave examples of the ubiquitous effects that arose in Canada following the introduction of same-sex ‘marriage.’

“Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this [that family is nothing more than a legal construct]. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of ‘natural parent,’ ‘blood relationship,’ etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with ‘legal parent,’ ‘legal relationship,’ and so forth. That was strictly necessary. ‘Marriage’ was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state.”

That is ultimately why we should oppose gay marriage, even though almost everyone is ignoring these concerns. In short, the concern is that a nation that legalizes gay marriage is a nation that has intruded itself into the life of every family in the land; it does this by granting itself the god-like power to determine which collections of individuals constitute a family.

John Milbank

John Milbank

As the nations of the world rush to redefine marriage in order to accommodate the shrill demands of homosexuals (and yes, despite much sophistry to the contrary, the gay community does want us to redefine marriage), it might be nice to think that heterosexual marriage can preserve its ontological legitimacy without collapsing into purely a legal fiction in the eyes of the state (let alone in the eyes of ourselves). However, there is no reason to suppose that the push for equality will stop at the inclusion of homosexuals in the category of marriage; the logic of equality, once unloosed, may eventually entail that we conceive heterosexual marriages according to the same terms as homosexuals necessarily understand marriage. John Milbank has warned of this last year, noting that

During the course of recent debates in the British Parliament over the proposed legalisation of gay marriage, it has gradually become apparent that the proposal itself is impossible. For legislators have recognised that it would be intolerable to define gay marriage in terms equivalent to “consummation,” or to permit “adultery” as legitimate ground for gay divorce…. Why, then, should Christians worry, if this is all just a matter of terminology? Can we not live with differing definitions of marriage? … …the graver fear surrounding the new legislation is that secular thought will not so readily let go of the demand for absolutely equal rights based on identical definitions. In that case, we face an altogether more drastic prospect. Not only would “marriage” have been redefined so as to include gay marriage, it would inevitably be redefined even for heterosexual people in homosexual terms. Thus “consummation” and “adultery” would cease to be seen as having any relevance to the binding and loosing of straight unions.

Milbank went on to warn that in severing the natural link between sex and procreation, the natural children of heterosexual couples would belong to them on the same terms as the children of homosexual couples belong to them; that is, they would only legally be their children if the state decided that they might be legally “adopted” by them. Milbank ended on this sobering note, which is also a fitting summary of the concerns I have tried to articulate:

This is not about natural justice, but the desire on the part of biopolitical tyranny to destroy marriage and the family as the most fundamental mediating social institution. Heterosexual exchange and reproduction has always been the very “grammar” of social relating as such. The abandonment of this grammar would thus imply a society no longer primarily constituted by extended kinship, but rather by state control and merely monetary exchange and reproduction. For the individual, the experience of a natural-cultural unity is most fundamentally felt in the sense that her natural birth is from an interpersonal (and so “cultural”) act of loving encounter – even if this be but a one-night stand. This provides a sense that one’s very biological roots are suffused with an interpersonal narrative. Again, to lose this “grammar” would be to compromise our deepest sense of humanity, and risk a further handing over of power to market and state tyrannies supported by myths both of pure human nature and technocratic artifice.

Further Reading

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Sep 16

Salmond’s Independent Scotland to promote gay rights

'Equality Network' at Glasgow Gay Pride 2013

‘Equality Network’ at Glasgow Gay Pride 2013

Homosexuals in Scotland may only number around 1% of its population, but Alex Salmond is courting their votes in a final push for the ‘Yes campaign’, according to Pink News.

The First Minister told the ‘Equality Network’, a group of homosexual activists, that an independent Scotland would cement perversion in a new constitution.

Mr Salmond said: “Independence is a once in a lifetime opportunity to embed and enhance LGBTI rights. With Independence we will be able to enshrine LGBTI equality in a written constitution – ensuring our rights cannot be easily reversed by any government”.  (‘Our rights’? What can that mean?)

“With a No vote we face the prospect of another Tory government committed to scrapping the Human Rights Act…It’s only with the full powers of an independent country that we can finally secure true equality for LGBTI people and a fairer society for all.”

The First Minister said the equality protections of a Scottish constitution would include: age, disability, gender identity, gender reassignment, intersex status, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

In reality, the gay-friendly Conservatives are not going to repeal ‘gay marriage’ or the Equality Act whether the UK remains signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights or not.  Mr Salmond is erecting an Aunt Sally.  But it gets worse.

Alex Salmond at 'Pride House'. The homosexual 'Rainbow' flag flew over St Andrew's House during the Commonwealth Games 2014.

Alex Salmond being ‘gay-friendly’ at ‘Pride House’. The homosexual ‘Rainbow’ flag flew over St Andrew’s House during the Commonwealth Games 2014.

Mr Salmond went on: “With complete control over foreign policy and international development we will be able to make full use of diplomatic relations and actively promote LGBTI equality and human rights around the world.”

So Indy-Scotland will not lift a finger to help Christians in Iraq but will promote sodomy across the globe.  The UK has been been bad enough at forcing its view through its aid budget down the throats of Africans, but under Mr Salmond, whips seem about to be replaced by scorpions.

Scotland will also give foreign homosexuals priority in asylum applications: “With independence we can have a new humane approach to asylum seekers and refugees in line with our values and commitment to upholding internationally recognised human rights. Our approach stands in stark contrast to Westminster’s aggressive approach that is best exemplified by their offensive ‘go home’ advertising campaign.

“Scotland has a very clear position on promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and intersex rights both at home and abroad,” Mr Salmond concluded.

Christian Voice has remained neutral during the Scottish Independence debate, but Mr Salmond’s declaration now means that no Bible-believing Christian can vote for him or for independence, if it entails what its chief protagonist says it does.


Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Sep 11

Independent Scotland won’t join anti-IS coalition

Alex Salmond - fiddling while Iraq burns.

Alex Salmond – fiddling while Iraq burns.

An independent Scotland won’t join an American/RUK coalition to defeat Islamic State, the Scottish First Minister has just said.

Responding to a question from Laurence Lee of Al Jazeera, Mr Salmond said in a press conference today that Scotland would only support military action against Islamic State if it were sanctioned by the United Nations.  Presenting this as a ‘lawful’ way of going about things, it rules out action specifically requested by Iraq and puts an impossible obstacle in the way of intervention.

‘We will only participate in military action which has been sanctioned by the United Nations in accordance with international law,’ the First Minister said.

Mr Salmond added: ‘It is a vital matter and one in which we are being successful that we hold our own communities together in a difficult international circumstance’.  He went on to say that the Muslim community of Scotland are ‘a vital part of our community and are not in any way responsible for the atrocities of the Islamic State and indeed have roundly condemned such atrocities in forthright terms.’

Community cohesion was an interesting context into which to place his opposition to action against Islamic State.


Mr Salmond raised the matter of the illegal invasion of Iraq, saying quite rightly that there was no United Nations sanction for it.

The need for a United Nations resolution would be perfectly valid in the context of the invasion of a sovereign state by another sovereign state, as was the case with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.  The UN was founded to prevent war in the wake of the destruction of World War II.  The UN Charter prohibits member states of the UN attacking other UN member states.  That is central to its purpose.  The United Nations deals, well or badly according to one’s perspective, with affairs between nations, or criticises or supports the actions of nations.

Iraqi Ambassador Faik Nerweyi has been asking the UK for military assistance to defeat Islamic State.

Iraqi Ambassador His Excellency Faik Nerweyi has asked the UK for military assistance to defeat Islamic State.

It can also call for peace between rival factions in a sovereign state or call for stability, as it did in Resolution 2103 over instability in Guinea-Bissau.  In Resolution 1701, it called for the withdrawal by Israel from Lebanon.  Calls in the Resolution for the cessation of hostilities by Hezbollah against Israel and the territorial integrity of Lebanon were inserted at the request of those country’s allies balanced the resolution.But the rise of Islamic State, a rogue army arising and invading sovereign states, is quite different.  There seems to be little precedent for a United Nations resolution for military action against some rag-bag international movement, however powerful or well-funded it is.  (Check out this list of recent UN resolutions)

If a sovereign state requests the help of another state in an internal emergency such as the one faced by Iraq, and is not doing anything remotely hostile against its own citizens, that state does not appear, under international law, to require the permission of the United Nations to come to its aid.  That is why people who were completely opposed to the invasion of Iraq, such as ourselves, are strongly calling for the UK and the US to help Iraq with military intervention against Islamic State now.

There is a big difference between the two and it is strange that Mr Salmond cannot see that.


Given that Iraq has actually asked the United States and the United Kingdom for military assistance against Islamic State, Mr Salmond is saying that Scotland will not help the Iraqi government to recover land lost to the Christians around Mosul, ancient Nineveh, even though the Iraqi government has requested it.  Scotland will insist on a United Nations resolution.  Of course Scotland would not immediately be a member of the UN in any case, and would need to apply, as Israel did in 1948, and a resolution on defeating Islamic State in Iraq will not be forthcoming.

So an independent Scotland under Salmond will fiddle while Iraq burns.  That is very sad if it is indicative of future foreign policy of an independent Scotland under Mr Alex Salmond.


Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Sep 03

Britain Becomes Breeding Ground of Islamic Terrorism

Islamic Terrorism In Britain(3)Britain is fast becoming a breeding ground of Islamic radicalism as British-born Muslims flock to the Middle East to join the growing jihad.

An average of seven Britons a week are travelling to Syria and Iraq along a wide stretch on the Turkish border which has come to be known as the ‘Gateway to Jihad.’ In total, 2,000 British Muslims have travelled this route to fight in the jihad, Khalid Mahmood, MP for Perry Barr, has warned.

Concern is increasing that when these British citizens return home they could unleash terror on UK streets.

Once in the Middle East, these British citizens have been joining the brutal terrorist group ISIS (also known as IS and ISIL), a successor group to Al-Qaeda with strong roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaeda has recently distanced itself from ISIS because of its unimaginable brutality, which the BBC reported includes atrocities such as “targeted killings, forced conversions, slavery, sexual abuse, and the besieging of entire communities.”

Below are only some of the high profile cases of jihadists with links to Britain:

  • A British student who decided to join the Jihad in Iraq has been calling on Muslims to join the Golden Era of Jihad.
  • Terrorists with British accents have been sending recorded threats to the West.
  • Khadijah Dare, a British girl from Lewisham, south London, has vowed to be the first woman to kill Westerners. The twenty-two year old was born a non-Muslim but was radicalised online before moving to Syria. Hours after the brutal beheading of American journalist James Foley, Dare gloated about the murder online. She has also posted pictures of her four-year-old son with an AK-47 rifle and has threatened to cut off heads.
  • One former Morrisons security guard travelled to Syria where he gave an interview with the BBC, boasting about fighting with ISIS. He has threatened to “bomb the UK” and laughed about the beheading of soldier during his interview.
  • It was reported that Sally Jones, a former female rock band member from Chatham, decided to join the Jihad. She has threatened to behead Christians by herself with a blunt knife. (“You Christians all need beheading with a nice blunt knife and stuck on the railings at raqqa … Come here I’ll do it for you!”)
  • British women who joined ISIS have been operating a Sharia police force to punish those deemed to be “unIslamic.”
  • Citizens of Britain have also been involved in funding the would-be Islamic state in Iraq and Syria.
  • Britain has offered as safe haven to Libya’s highest spiritual leader, the grand mufti Sheikh Sadik Al-Ghariani, who helped to orchestrate the Islamist takeover of Tripoli from his home in the UK.



ISIS troops advance through the Middle East

ISIS troops advance through the Middle East

Once in Iraq and Syria, these British-born jihadists are trying to help ISIS achieve its goal, which is to eliminate all borders in the Middle East and establish a Caliphate under the monarchy of the terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a man wanted for $10 million by the Americans.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his thugs have exploited grievances felt by the Sunni community following their marginalization in the government America helped to establish under the Shia triumphalism of Nouri al-Maliki. After breaking off of Al-Qaeda, the group has gone on to control much of eastern and northern Syria and western and northern Iraq.

It is not simply the lawful governments of Iraq and Syria that have become the target of ISIS; they have also been exterminating the civilian populations on an unimaginable scale. Their regime of ethnic cleansing is slowly and systematically exterminating some of the world’s oldest Christian communities. ISIS has also been targeting Shia Muslims and all Middle East populations not associated with their particularly fanatical version of Islam.

When ISIS forces conquer an area they immediately impose Sharia law, including a ban on smoking, football and music. Women are forced to be completely veiled in black from head to toe and forbidden from leaving their house without a male guardian. ISIS thugs even routinely raid schools to punish girls who are not fully veiled in black. The less fortunate women are sold into sexual slavery.

ISIS terror

ISIS troops are raging through the Middle East terrorizing local populations as well as pillaging, torturing and raping all who do not subscribe to their fanatical version of Islam.

ISIS has issued ultimatums demanding that all Christians convert to Islam, pay the jizya tax required of non-Muslims, or die. Last month we reported on a typical case of what happened when a Christian father could not afford this tax: three ISIS soldiers barged into his house and proceeded to rape his wife and daughter in front of him. The husband and father was so distraught that he later killed himself.

More recently, there have been reports that the holocaust against Christians has included youths being crucified and beheaded and buried alive and numerous other atrocities for no reason other than the fact that these children are Christians.

ABC news reported that in towns controlled by the group, “Friday is the day for public beheadings and amputations for people who violate its strict Islamic rule, and whippings for women if their clothing offends ISIS’ sense of propriety.”

The UN reported that “Civilians, including children, are urged to watch. Bodies of those killed are placed on display for several days, terrorizing the local population”


It is hard to imagine why so many hundreds of British men and women are eager to travel to the Middle East to join in the barbarism and carnage perpetuated by ISIS. While the motivations behind the British wing of jihad are complex and multifaceted, there are a number of contributing factors we have identified over the years which helped to contextualize the growth of radical Islam in the UK.

One factor is that Britain’s native Muslim population has recently seen huge expansion due to high birth rate and conversions to Islam. While the growing population of British Muslims are mostly peace-loving, nevertheless this growth does increase the pool of people that can be potentially radicalized. We saw this with startling clarity in 2013 when radical Islam made huge inroads into all aspects of British life.

Another factor contributing to home-grown terrorism is that the British government and media have long been involved in a jihad against free speech, as they seek to suppress all discussion of the link between Islam and terrorism. This has included banning talk show host Michael Savage from entering the UK because of his anti-Muslim views, and more recently the Government’s decision to prohibit Robert Spencer from entering the UK (Robert Spencer is the author of Stealth Jihad.)

By denying any link between terrorism and the teachings found in Islamic texts, and then using strong-arm tactics to suppress scholars who might suggest otherwise, the authorities in Britain have left themselves unable to adequately address the challenges posed by home-grown radicalism.

“Why does it make any difference whether or not what the Islamic State is doing is in accord with Islamic texts and teachings?” Robert Spencer asked. “Among other reasons, because it will help determine how much support the new caliphate will ultimately get from Muslims worldwide, and will serve as an indicator of how much we can expect to see the actions of the Islamic State replicated by other Muslims elsewhere.” Such questions are being ignored by our officials, who have become convinced that the basic problem is that the terrorists are mistaken about their own religion. Accordingly, our incredibly naive officials believe that the solution is to simply better educate the terrorists so they will realize that their terrorism was actually based on ignorance concerning the real teaching of their religion.

This atmosphere of denial has been fueled by Britain’s multiculturalism, and the strange alliance multiculturalism has wrought between modern liberalism and Islamic fascism. This is not purely academic: earlier this year we reported on how multiculturalism caused the British Government to hide the truth about Muslim grooming gangs and perpetuate a “conspiracy of silence” that left countless girls abused and damaged for life. (See the report from yesterday “UK: Prosecutor ‘branded a racist’ for prosecuting Muslim rape gang”). The same conspiracy of silence has left the UK Government unable to fully address the jihad springing up in our midst.


Further Reading

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Older posts «