A blog on the Daily Telegraph has shown how the bus advert storm has highlighted a homosexual activist U-Turn.
Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked, says it used to be ‘the gays’ who emphasised their choice of sexuality and said they had a right to whatever orientation and lifestyle they wanted.
Now, he says, organisations like Stonewall have switched their position. Now it is all: ‘Be nice to poor us; we cannot change who we are; we are stuck like it; get over it!’
He also says that nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century Christians held to the determinist position, but that they have switched around as well. He is on less sure ground there, although it depends on which theology a certain Christian holds. The evangelicals, such as the prison psychiatrist of Liverpool nick in the 1950s, Dr F H Brisby, who wrote an article for the BMA cataloguing homosexuals who had changed which was submitted to the Wolfenden Committee, have always maintained that Christ can heal and transform our pathological nature.
But as for ‘the gays’, he is bang on target. When I researched my book ‘The Sexual Dead End’, I found a strong emphasis amongst homosexual writers of the 1970s and 1980s on sexual freedom and the right to choose our ‘orientation’. Agreed, it was strongest amongst the lesbians, where ‘going gay’ is seen as a logical feminist rejection of what they see as a male-dominated society.
Books like ‘Pink Triangles’ and ‘With downcast gays’ had a theme of sexual freedom, but it was at its strongest in the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto. In other words it was the radical end of homosexual activism which emphasised freedom of choice, while the political savvies saw that determinism was a better way to achieve their aims.
All the same, Leo Abse, when bringing in the Sexual Offences Bill 1967, which started the whole gay machine rolling, attributed the curse, as he put it, of homosexuality to a lad growing up without a father figure with whom to identify. The lack of a proper identification as a member of one’s one sex is still seen as one of the routes into homosexuality by conservative psychiatric professionals – and Christians in healing ministries, today.
Homosexual behaviour was looked upon as just a matter of sin until people like Carl Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfield came along in the l880s and proposed the ‘third sex’ idea. Sigmund Freud opposed their determinism and rejected a genetic or hormonal predisposition in a move which was catastrophic to homosexual political aspirations.
It was when Simon Le Vay found differences in the brains of homosexual men as against a heterosexual control group that the determinists got really exited, despite LeVay himself admitting:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001).”
Hard on Le Vay’s heels came Bailey and Pillard’s ‘gay twins’ in 1992/1993 and Dean Hamer’s ‘gay gene’ in 1993. Now the determinists and the homosexual politicos were cooking. Hamer’s results have not been replicated, and he didn’t claim to have found a ‘gay gene’ responsible for all homosexuality either.
So to come right up to the present, the Christians behind the proposed bus ads are emphasising what gay activists were in the 1980s, that a homosexual lifestyle is chosen, learnt behaviour. Where they differ is in mainataining that such a lifestyle is not a good thing and that the underlying pathologies can be dealt with and a person restored to how God intended him or her to be through the healing power of Jesus Christ.
And it works; men and women have walked away from the homosexual lifestyle and had their orientation changed by Jesus Christ. Their stories are the ones which cannot be allowed to be heard in today’s politically correct climate, but they will not go away.
And it is because Christian healing is such a political time-bomb that Stonewall have to reject it, with all the determist fervour they can muster.
Followingthe 2003 publication of Dan Brown’s publishing phenomenon, The Da Vinci Code, there has been a renaissance of interest in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. This ancient heresy has exerted its tentacles deep into the fabric of contemporary life, even influencing the church in many unhelpful ways. (To read about some of the ways that Gnostic ideas have infiltrated the church, see my article, ‘Eight Gnostic Myths You May Have Imbibed’.)
At the heart of the Gnostic heresy was the notion that the material world is bad. If the fundamental antithesis for Christianity was between good and evil, for the Gnostics the fundamental antithesis was between the physical and the spiritual. The material world is bad, they argued, precisely because it is physical. True spirituality involves escape from this world. Whereas the Christian tradition taught that redemption history culminates in the resurrection of the body, Gnostics believed that the goal of salvation was eternal disembodiment.
The Gospel of Thomas… gives esoteric insight into the spiritual realm, but fails to offer either vision or hope for the present world. Whereas the canonical gospels carefully chart Jesus’ ministry within the context of Israel’s story line, showing how Christ brings the narrative of Israel to its climactic fulfillment, Thomas completely neglects this larger narrative of redemption history.
The absence of a redemptive-historical narrative in Thomas is not surprising. For the Gnostics, there is no redemption history of the world because salvation is not about what happens in this world. Rather, redemption is about escaping from the world.
Because of their anti-creational orientation, many Gnostics them taught that sexuality is at the heart of our fallen condition. Being immersed in the material world has given rise to the unfortunate reality of sexual differentiation, and the existence of beings that are capable of uniting sexually. In the Gnostic utopia, however, the gender polarity will be obliterated, as women migrate into a condition of masculinity. Thus in verse 114 of The Gospel of Thomas, we read,
Simon Peter said to Him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life.”
Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
There is more than mere misogyny going on in the idea that “Every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” For the world-hating Gnostics, the very idea of there being two sexes was anathema. Many Gnostics attempted to achieve a unisex society this side of paradise, teaching an ideal of asceticism that saw celibacy as the only truly spiritual option.
Unfortunately, Gnostic pessimism about sex influenced many of the church fathers, who imported into the Christian faith Platonic and Stoic notions concerning the body. The first-century Stoic Seneca expressed the mood well when he declared,
“All love of another’s wife is shameful; so too, too much love of your own. A wise man ought to love his wife with judgment, not affection. Let him control his impulses and not be borne headlong into copulation. Nothing is fouler to love a wife like an adulteress. . . . Let them show themselves to their wives not as lovers, but as husbands.”
This devaluing of conjugal love within the Gnostic and Stoic traditions was reinforced by the influence of Platonism within Mediterranean society. Though not all scholars agree that Plato took a pejorative view of the body, in Plato’s Phaedo Socrates talks about the body in ways that deeply resonated with the later Gnostic movement:
Plato
“We are convinced that if we are ever to have pure knowledge of anything, we must get rid of the body and contemplate things in isolation with the soul in isolation…. If no pure knowledge is possible in the company of the body, then either it is totally impossible to acquire knowledge, or it is only possible after death, because it is only then that the soul will be isolated and independent of the body. It seems that so long as we are alive, we shall keep as close as possible to knowledge if we avoid as much as we can all contact and association with the body…”
The idea here seems to be that the body holds the soul back from perfect knowledge, so that the philosophers’ task is to disengage himself as much as possible from the trappings of the physical body.
Given the fact that many of the church fathers were deeply influenced by Platonism, it is not surprising to find early Christian teachers imbibing a Platonic and Gnostic view of the body. Saint Jerome (c. 347 –420) reflected Gnostic assumptions when he taught that the more we love God, the less we will have leftover for human affection.
“It is hard for the human soul to avoid loving something, and our mind must of necessity give way to affection of one kind or another. The love of the flesh is overcome by the love of the spirit. Desire is quenched by desire. What is taken from the one increases the other….In paradise Eve was a virgin… virginity is natural while wedlock only follows guilt…”
For Jerome, Marriage was a necessary evil in order that virgins could be produced:
“I praise wedlock, I praise marriage, but it is because they give me virgins. I gather the rose from the thorns, the gold from the earth, the pearl from the shell.” The thirteenth-century French Dominican Vincent of Beauvais put the matter rather brusquely: “a man who loves his wife very much is an adulterer. Any love for someone else’s wife or too much love for one’s own is shameful.”
Jerome was not alone. Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430) also reflected gnostic and neo-Platonic ideas about the body, arguing that sexuality only came about after, and because of, Adam’s fall.
St. Jerome
Despite the legacy of the church fathers, as well as the fact that a Gnostic devaluing of human sexuality continued to crop up throughout the history of the medieval church, on the whole the Christian tradition has done a good job in proclaiming the goodness of the world and our experiences in it, including the experience of marriage. The Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church have even gone so far as to consider marriage a sacrament.
The Bible itself puts an especially high valuation on marriage. The material world was proclaimed good by God (Gen 1:31), and the marriage bed is particularly honourable (Heb 13:4). We glorify God not by denying our God-given sexual desires, like some in Paul’s day were teaching (1 Timothy 4:3), but by fulfilling those desires in honourable marriage. Marriage is thus the ultimate anti-Gnostic statement, in so far as it proclaims that the material world is good, and that we can glorify God by enjoying the good things in the world that He has given us, such as sex. Thus, the Bible puts a premium on the importance of frequent sex in marriage (1 Cor. 7:5; Proverbs 5:19), and even uses the one-flesh relationship between husband and wife as a type of the love between Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22-33).
What is interesting about the movement to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’ is that in many respects it is a return to Gnostic ideas about the body. Advocates of gay ‘marriage’ will frequently downplay the physical aspects of marriage, urging instead that marriage is not primarily about becoming one-flesh physically, but a spiritual and emotional connection for which our physical experiences are extrinsic rather than intrinsic.
In downplaying the importance of consummation in marriage, advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ have tried to reduce the meaning of marriage to merely a loving and committed relationship between two adults. It’s an emotional and relational union that creates the necessary conditions for marriage, they argue, not what you do with your bodies. In fact, the physical anatomy of the adults in question is irrelevant. Marriage is first about the communion of souls in a committed and affectionate relationship and only secondarily about physical union.
By contrast, in traditional marriage one cannot disengage the relational and the physical aspects of union. As Robert George wrote back in 2009 in an article for First Things,
“A human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Far from being a mere instrument of the person, the body is intrinsically part of the personal reality of the human being. Bodily union is thus personal union, and comprehensive personal union—marital union—is founded on bodily union.”…
“Arguments that true marriage is something other than or broader than the union of two sexually complementary spouses necessarily suppose that the value of sex must be instrumental either to procreation or to pleasure, considered as an end in itself or as a means of expressing affection, tender feelings, etc. Thus, critics of traditional norms of marriage and sexuality say that homosexual sex acts, for example, are indistinguishable from heterosexual acts whenever the motivation for such acts is something other than procreation. That is to say, the sexual acts of same-sex partners are indistinguishable in motivation, meaning, value, and significance from the marital acts of spouses who know that at least one spouse is temporarily or permanently infertile. Thus, the argument goes, the traditional understanding of marriage is guilty of unfairness in treating sterile persons of opposite sexes as capable of marrying while treating same-sex partners as ineligible to marry.”
For the homosexual community, what we do with our bodies is irrelevant because what really matters is the motivation behind it; therefore, if the motivation behind the sex acts of homosexual partners is the same as the motivation behind the sex acts of heterosexual married couples, then the former should be able to qualify as an instance of marriage. The fact that homosexual sex acts are completely different to full sexual intercourse in marriage is irrelevant within the neo-Gnostic paradigm of the gay community: for them what really matters is what happens in the mind, emotion and soul and not the body. In fact, if their mantra that “marriage is a relationship between two committed individuals” were taken at face value, the body has little or nothing to do with marriage at all. As Adam G. Mersereau pointed out,
Some gay activists try to meet that burden by claiming that marriage is, at its core, the legal recognition of a committed, loving relationship between adults. But that is incorrect. Marriage is not, and has never been, the mere recognition of committed and loving relationships between adults. Lots of adults love one another and are committed to one another (a grandmother and her adult grandchild, or war buddies, or close sisters, and the like), but these commitments have never been considered marriage. No one would argue that these relationships are essentially the same as a heterosexual marital relationship. So it remains an open question why two homosexuals should qualify for marriage merely because they claim to love one another dearly.
Within the Christian tradition, bodies are important and help to define who we are. Our bodies are not, as homosexuals claim, an irrelevancy like race.
Within the Christian understanding, on the other hand, our bodies are important and help to define who we are. I relate to the world as a man, and this is rooted in my biological experience as a male. Similarly, my wife relates to the world as a woman, and this is grounded in her experience being biologically female. The different perspectives we bring to the world as men and women is something to be embraced, relished and enjoyed, not trivialized. By contrast, many within the homosexual community argue that our experience as members of one particular gender is really irrelevant to our functioning in the world.
The biological sex that one happens to be is like one’s race, they argue. Indeed, one of the most frequent arguments for same-sex ‘marriage’ is that opposition to it is akin to opposition to interracial marriage. Just as race is, or ought to be, irrelevant to marriage, so they argue that one’s gender is similarly irrelevant, that my actual physical anatomy is as irrelevant to my experiences in the world as the colour of my skin.
This Gnostic-like trivializing of the body has led homosexual activists to claim that one’s biology as either male or female makes absolutely no difference to a person’s experience as a parent. A dad is just the same as a mom because our biological differences are irrelevant to our lived experiences in the world. Listen to what Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse said in an article reflecting on her debate with Judith Stacey:
I crossed swords with Judith Stacey…at a debate at Bowling Green State a few years ago. I asked her point blank if she believed men and women were completely interchangeable as parents. In front of that very friendly audience, she said absolutely: the gender of parents doesn’t matter….
Treating same sex unions like marriage amounts to saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. It is a coin toss from a child’s point of view, whether they have two moms, two dads, or one of each.
This trivialising of our identity as men and women is something that is completely alien to the earthiness of the Christian worldview. It is a throw-back to the Gnostic movement, and to the idea in The Gospel of Thomas that in paradise there will be no sex differences. The only difference is that while the Gnostics expected that to occur in the life to come, the homosexual community is attempting to bring it into the present age. It is an attempt to achieve the sexless utopia described by feminist writer Susan Moller Okin near the end of her book Justice, Gender and the Family: “A just future would be one without gender. In its social structures and practices, one’s sex would have no more relevance than one’s eye color or the length of one’s toes.”
By reducing our physical experiences as men and women to irrelevancy like this, the feminist and homosexual communities have colluded with the Gnostic lie that our bodies do not ultimately matter.
Join Christian Voice by clicking the Join button or send a donation via the Donate button below:
The Conservative Mayor of London has banned London buses from carrying adverts promoting an ex-gay ministry.
Boris Johnson, who is running for re-election next month, told Transport for London to pull the adverts booked by two conservative Anglican groups within two hours of the story about the adverts appearing in the Guardian.
The ads were due to run on 24 buses on five routes and were booked on behalf of the Core Issues Trust whose leader, Mike Davidson, believes “homoerotic behaviour is sinful”.
Core Issues Trust funds “reparative therapy” for gay Christians, which it claims can “develop their heterosexual potential”. The campaign was also backed by Anglican Mainstream.
The advert was due to say: “Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!”
It was an obvious and timely send-up of the Stonewall homosexual lobby group’s bus adverts which say “Some people are gay – get over it!”
The Christian groups used the same black, red and white colour scheme as Stonewall and in a statement announcing the campaign accused it of promoting the “false idea that there is indisputable scientific evidence that people are born gay”.
Johnson, who contacted the Guardian to announce he was stopping the adverts within two hours of their contents becoming public, said: “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.”
The Christian groups insisted the advert had been cleared with Transport for London (TfL), which is chaired by the mayor. Davidson said: “I didn’t realise censorship was in place. We went through the correct channels and we were encouraged by the bus company to go through their procedures. They okayed it and now it has been pulled.”
CBS Outdoor, the media company that sells the bus advertising sites, said the ad had been passed for display by the Committee of Advertising Practice. It is understood TfL was due to make around £10,000 for allowing the adverts to run on about two dozen buses across five routes.
Mayor Johnson’s decision will fuel concerns over religious discrimination by showing that there is one rule for homosexual activists and another for Christians.
The move by Boris is also certain to be seen as anti-Christian by an electorate which includes a large number of evangelical Christians. Half of all Christians in London are black African or Caribbean and other fast-growing churches are heavily evangelical or pentecostal.
David Cameron has quoted from the Gospel of Luke and spoken of ‘we’ Christians at a pre-Easter reception at Downing Street.
Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell famously didn’t ‘Do God’, but Mr Cameron is making rather a habit of it. As Easter Sunday approaches, Mr Cameron has decided to “do God” in public, as Alastair Campbell might say.
He said there were three reasons why the King James Bible was as relevant today as any point in its history.
“First, the King James Bible has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage. Second, just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics.
“Third, we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so. Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong.”
“This is the time when, as Christians, we remember the life, sacrifice and living legacy of Christ. The New Testament tells us so much about the character of Jesus; a man of incomparable compassion, generosity, grace, humility and love. These are the values that Jesus embraced, and I believe these are values people of any faith, or no faith, can also share in, and admire.
“It is values like these that make our country what it is – a place which is tolerant, generous and caring. A nation which has an established faith, that together is most content when we are defined by what we are for, rather than defined by what we are against. In the book of Luke, we are told that Jesus said, ‘Do to others as you would have them do to you’ – advice that when followed makes for a happier, and better society for everyone.”
He told the assembled guests that he welcomed a Christian “fightback”. He said: “I think there’s something of a fightback going on, and we should welcome that. The values of the Bible, the values of Christianity, are the values that we need.”
Interestingly, this is what Jesus said about marriage, which Mr Cameron wants to change into a ‘gay’ version:
Mar 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:
“The last verse, Mark 10:9, is normally taken to refer to individual marriages, which people in Britain today set aside as a routine. I’ve been on the receiving end of divorce on demand. Some fifty percent of marriages are now being put asunder because one party simply decides to walk out.
“But David Cameron wants to put asunder the whole institution of marriage as ordained in the beginning by God Almighty. In 2007 he voted for the Sexual Orientation Goods and Services Regulations which have been used against Christian hoteliers operating the values of the Bible, yet now he urges a ‘fightback’ against secularism.
“David Cameron voted to abolish the blasphemy laws in May 2008, which provided a foundation for a culture of respect for both God and man. In the same month he voted to allow animal/human hybrid embryos. A day later he voted to allow abortion – or the murder of children in the womb – at 16 weeks gestation, a time when every organ and every brain function is in place and operating. It was good that he quoted Christ’s ‘golden rule’ from Luke 6:13 (and Matthew 7:12) but he would not allow to be done to him what he allows to be done to children in the womb.
“It is a good beginning to call for Christian values and to urge a Christian fight-back, but Mr Cameron’s thinking needs to be joined up. He needs to be transformed by the renewing of his mind. How can he in all seriousness urge a ‘fight-back’ against the marginalisation of Christianity and against attempts to ban the wearing of crosses and crucifixes when the Home Office is fighting in the European Court to uphold exactly such a ban?
“David Cameron is right that the values of Christianity are the values that we need’ but he needs our prayers to realise that he cannot pick and choose from the Bible or from the teachings of the Lord. Yes, respect for property helps stop youth looting from shops. Yes, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you helps maintain order in society.
“But keeping a few of Christ’s commandments while breaking a raft of others is to break them all, as the Apostle James points out.
“A little like some of the church today, Mr Cameron overdoes the love and compassion of Christ, but shies away from his laws and judgments. But even then he is selective. He likes being compassionate to homosexuals to the extent of overturning God’s holy institution of marriage, but he doesn’t want a lot of compassion to be shown to last summer’s rioters, or for that matter to the disabled people being made redundant by Remploy.
“Napoleon liked religion when it maintained peace and order, and not when it challenged his assumed right to autocratic rule. Such a convenient approach seems to be catching to leaders.
“I repeat, David Cameron needs our prayers; and a few letters might not go amiss either.”
It doesn’t get any better for Tesco, who have seen their ‘big price drop’ flop, sales and profits drop, the worst perfomance of the ‘big four’ over Christmas, their share price plummet, their UK operations CEO sacked, their local management in a spin, all since announcing a £30,000 gift to London Gay Pride in November 2011. And only days ago we reported on a Tesco manageress in Gravesend calling the police because one of our members was giving out our ‘Boycott Tesco’ leaflets outside her store.
This is not the first time mice have been found in Tesco. Just over a year ago, in December 2010, a shopper in Birmingham was horrified to see baby mice fall out of crisp packet she picked off the shelves in Tesco’s Aston store.
Customer Liz Wray told the Daily Mirror: “There were half a dozen of them crawling out of different holes in the crisps and we couldn’t believe our eyes. All staff did was put a cardboard box over them and close aisle six.
“I’m not sure if they were inside the multipack or if they were just in amongst the packets.
“But there were a lot of holes in the bag, they’d obviously been at them.”
She was astounded that staff did not close the store. To let mice feed in the store would be bad enough. For mice to be allowed to build a nest in the stock betrays a lack of seriousness over hygiene and general cleanliness.
And the same inability to distinguish between right and wrong is behind their decision to support ‘gay pride’. Philip Clarke was elevated to CEO and the recently-departed Philip Brasher to UK Chief in March 2011. It has all goine wrong since then. Tesco’s only hope is to put their trust in God. Repenting of the ‘Gay Pride’ decision will be part of that.
The ability for same-sex couples to ‘marry’ is not a human right European judges have ruled.
The landmark decision comes only days after the UK Government opened a consultation on the implementation of gay ‘marriage’, based on their belief that same-sex couples in the UK are being deprived of a human right.
The case went before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg after the French lesbian couple, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, complained that they were being discriminating against by not being able to adopt an 11 year-old as a couple.
The judges declared that those in a same-sex partnership cannot be expected to have the same rights and privileges as married couples, adding, “With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.”
Although defenders of traditional marriage heralded the ruling as a victory, it was actually a mixed blessing. The ruling also said that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then any church that refuses to offer wedding services to them will be guilty of discrimination.
“Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex,” the judges said, “member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation.”
This announcement contradicts Coalition promises that churches will not be compelled to conduct homosexual weddings under Government’s gay ‘marriage’ plans. It confirms what Church of England lawyers have already understood from analyzing equality legislation, namely that if same-sex ‘marriages’ are legalized, then equality law is likely to force churches to fall into line and perform the wedding ceremonies.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:
‘This ruling has massive implications for theUK. Peter and Hazlemary Bull were held to have discriminated against a homosexual couple to whom they would not let a double bed, even though they had the same policy for unmarried heterosexual couples, on the grounds that civil partnership was equivalent to marriage. TheEuropean Courthas ruled that it isn’t.
‘In addition, David Cameron has promoted his plans for ‘gay marriage’ on human rights grounds. That argument can no longer stand.’
Discrimination law specialist Neil Addison commented on the implications of the ruling:
‘Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage. This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in theUKit will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises.’
This Sunday, 18th March 2012, is Mothers’ Day (or Mothering Sunday for the more old-fashioned among us). But if the Government get their way and enact ‘Gay Marriage’, mother and father could be renamed ‘Parent A’ and ‘Parent B’ on birth certificates.
According to Labour peer Lord Brennan QC, the Stonewall homosexual lobby group have said the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ should be replaced by ‘parties to a marriage’, even while saying homosexuals want to call each other ‘husbands’ and ‘wives’. And we know that what Stonewall wants from the Con-Lib Coalition, Stonewall gets.
Lord Brennan says that in Spain, where ‘gay marriage’ was introduced in 2005, ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ were replaced on birth certificates by ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’ the following year. We must not believe the Government is they say a similar thing (probably ‘Parent A’ and ‘Parent B’) cannot happen here.
Never forget, in October 2000, Home Secretary Jack Straw said: “Marriage is about a union for the procreation of children, which by definition can only happen between a heterosexual couple. So I see no circumstances in which we would ever bring forward proposals for so-called gay marriages.” But that was when he was laying the ground for the Civil Partnership Bill and trying not to frighten the conservative horses.
Lynne Featherstone, the Governments’ Equalities Minister, will publish her consultation today on how the Government wants to enact ‘Gay Marriage’. Ms Featherstone has said in her heart ‘there is no God’ (Psalm 14:1)
They are only consulting on how to do it, not whether to do it. Many people would say that smacks of arrogance. Here are some reasons why Her Majesty’s Government should keep their hands off marriage:
1. Marriage was ordained by God as the first social institution. All earthly government is subject to the power and empire of Christ our Redeemer (as Her Majesty the Queen was told at her coronation when being given the Orb set under the Cross). Therefore Her Majesty’s Government has no power to change the definition of marriage. No Church can change what God has ordained. And no State can change what God has ordained.
It does not matter whether it is church marriage, or civil marriage, it is between a man and a woman as explained in the opening chapters of the first book of the Bible:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
At a time and in a society in which polygamy was not unknown, the Lord Jesus went right back to the creation ordinance to define marriage as it has been understood in those societies based on Christian laws right up to today:
Matt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
2. A marriage must be consummated. In consummation, the couple become physically, emotionally and spiritually ‘one flesh’. It does not matter if theirs was a registry office wedding, they still become physically, emotionally and spiritually ‘one flesh’. Becoming one flesh is what the Lord Jesus said is the foundation of marriage, and it is something a pair of homosexuals can never do. In the immortal words of Dr David Reuben (author of ‘Everything you always wanted to know about sex’), they are trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces.
Under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 a marriage is voidable if it has not been consummated due to the incapacity of either party to consummate it. Consummation requires sexual intercourse which is ordinary and complete. How will a pair of lesbians or two men achieve consummation with only half the necessary equipment?
3. Marriage at all times and in all countries has been the union of a man and a woman. Even where polygamy was practised, it was exclusively heterosexual. Even in societies, such as Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was regarded as acceptable, there was never a thought that two people of the same sex could be married. Nowhere in the world, until the last few years, has homosexual marriage even been considered.
Some people believe that human beings are evolving and that this generation is simply the smartest, wisest, most compassionate, most enlightened, cleverest bunch of people who ever walked the earth. We look around, and we see the violence, the sacrilege, the thieving, the contempt for civilised standards, the crassness, the sexualisation, the disregard for God and man, and we beg to disagree.
But we repeat, marriage is not ‘tradition’, it is divine ordinance.
Stephen Green congratulates Raj Bhachoo after his case was dismissed
Christian Voice Press Release – 19.00 hrs Wednesday 7th March 2012
Christian ‘Not Guilty’ in Stonewall email case
Stonewall witness fails to show
A Christian had a malicious communication case against him for sending a strongly-worded email to the Stonewall lobby group dismissed this afternoon when the only prosecution witness failed to turn up.
Raj Bhachoo was prosecuted after sending an email not just warning Stonewall of the fires of hell but linking homosexuality to child sexual abuse. But Stonewall’s Information Officer, Louise Kelly, did not appear and the prosecution case – they could not even produce evidence of the email in question – collapsed in her absence.
Stephen Green congratulates Raj Bhachoo after his case was dismissed this afternoon
The case was heard at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court this afternoon, and Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green had agreed to attend as an expert witness.
Stephen Green said after the case:
‘Raj Bhachoo certainly expressed himself in a robust way, but Stonewall will be the first to champion freedom of expression for their own side. They called me a ‘bigot’ and shortlisted me for a mock award last year, but I am grown-up enough not to go flying down to the police station.
‘I agreed to appear as an expert witness on Raj’s behalf, to show (a) that the word ‘queer’ is no longer a pejorative term amongst homosexuals, (b) that homosexual men have a greater tendency to commit sexual offences against children than heterosexual men and (c) that Stonewall are themselves fond of abusing their opponents. But with no case to answer, my evidence was not needed.’
The verdict marks the end of a nine-month ordeal for Raj, who was refused a not guilty plea last year in the same court and had to apply to the Crown Court for a retrial. By the grace of God his application was successful. Raj came to the attention of Christian Voice late last year when he telephoned for some leaflets against Tesco’s £30,000 support of Gay Pride to give out at his local store.
Born into a Sikh family, Raj became a Christian 8 years ago and is a staunch supporter of the Authorised Version of the Bible, which fed his early walk to faith.
Raj joined Christian Voice then told us about the Stonewall case. No other Christian group would support him, but National Director Stephen Green was appalled by the miscarriage of justice and found a criminal lawyer to represent him. Stonewall thought they could bully our brother, but when it came to it, they lacked the courage even to press their case.
Stephen Green concluded: ‘Thank God that justice has at last been done for our brother in Christ.’
For further information, phone Stephen Green on 07931 490050.
Land Address for Stephen Green and the Christian Voice office:
Wernlwyd, Pen-y-bont, CARMARTHEN, SA33 6QN
01994 484544 / 07931 490050 https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/
A preacher has been found not guilty of a public order offence after a complaint from two homosexuals.
Michael Overd, from Taunton, was part of a street witness and was preaching from 1Cor 6:9-11 in October 2010 when two homosexual men, Craig Nicholl and Craig Manning, passed him holding hands. Hearing the word ‘homosexual’ in the passage, they turned round, went up to Mr Overd and began shouting at him, using despicable foul language. The Court was told Mr Nicholl spat at the preacher.
On a second occasion, 16th July 2011, Michael Overd was preaching alone when the two approached him. In full flow, he said, ‘Even these two dear men, whom I’ve met before, caught in the sin of homosexuality, can have forgiveness of their sin.’
The two Craigs, who recently entered into a ‘civil partnership’, again began screaming at the preacher and making, he told Taunton Deane Magistrates Court, all kinds of homosexually-charged comments and allegations at him. Not satisfied with that, they called the police, but so aggressive did they become, it was Mr Overd who was glad to see the boys in blue.
Michael Overd was prosecuted under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986:
Section 4A – Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress:
‘A person is guilty if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he
‘a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
‘b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
‘thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.’.
But the Court found that Michael Overd did not have any such intent and found him not guilty.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, heard the evidence in court and said after the verdict:
‘Coming on a day when both the Bulls and Bideford Council lost their cases in the High Court, this verdict is welcome news. Christians find themselves today in an environment where they can be insulted, sworn at, threatened with violence, even spat at, and then themselves charged with a public order offence. Clearer instructions and better training need to filter down to police officers so that cases like this do not waste the time of the court. This case should never have been brought and the verdict is a victory for Christian liberty and for freedom of speech.’
Messrs Nicholl and Manning, who described each other in court as ‘my husband’ , alleged that Michael Overd told them they would ‘burn in hell’ but this turned out to be as much a figment of their imagination as the idea that they are in any way ‘married’ to each other. Four witnesses told the court that they had never heard Mr Overd use such language.
An amusing moment happened when the prosecutor tried to explore the defendant’s view on certain subjects as heaven and hell, abortion, fornication and homosexuality. Time after time, Mr Overd referred the lawyer to the Bible, saying that he believed what was in it. In the end, the chairman of the magistrates lost patience, and said to the prosecutor, ‘I think we have established that his beliefs are based on what he reads in the Bible.’
By the end of the evidence, the Court was left in no doubt as to who would not inherit the kingdom of God. In the King James Version: 1Cor 6:9 ‘Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.’
Michael Overd was represented in court by Paul Diamond of counsel instructed by Michael Phillips, solicitor.
JOIN Christian Voice or donate by clicking on one of the buttons below:
But there is another issue, and one which we should all be able to agree on regardless of our views on homosexuality. I refer to the way homosexual curriculum, not least the resources UK schools use during LGBT month, overload young children with adult issues that are beyond their cognitive and psychological capacity to process.
To expect a child who has not even reached puberty to understand about transgenderism, cross dressing, gender reassignment surgery, etc., is to introduce categories into their thinking that are well beyond their ability to adequately process and can be deeply confusing. These concepts are confusing for adults, let alone 6-year olds!
That is exactly what Dr. Grossman argued in the following video when testifying last year to the State of California legislature about homosexual curriculum. Her expertise in the field of child psychology and pediatrics gives her a valuable perspective on this debate that the propagators of LGBT History Month would do well to heed.
Join Christian Voice by clicking the Join button or send a donation via the Donate button below:
Douglas Wilson has some good things to say here about some of the issues upstream of the modesty debate, which echoes some of the concerns we raised in the July 2011 Christian Voice newsletter when we covered the ‘slutwalks.’
Wilson also helpfully reminds us that when a woman reveals too much flesh, it is often not because she has too much sexual security but too less. Wilson writes,
One of the most striking things about these flesh parades is how unattractive it all is. As in, gekkk. … There are clearly numerous young ladies who have no one in their lives willing to speak to them truthfully. And when women don’t have someone who loves them like they ought to, they become susceptible to any number of fads, so long as someone — most likely a peer with the same emotional problems — is willing to tell them it is “cute.” Well, it isn’t. Sorry to break it to you. There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the class of the person and how many square feet are covered by the tattoo.
The problem here, at least within the church, is that hints don’t get you anywhere, no effect at all, and if you state the problem plainly, it flattens the poor girl for months, like somebody took a pastoral mallet to her. By “hints,” I mean general references in sermons to modesty and decorum, and by “stating plainly” I mean suggesting that she come to church next week with the mammalian pride dialed back just a skosh. The problem is not that she is secure in her sexuality — it is just the reverse. You can tell this because women who want to be “secure” in their sexuality in this way at the same time do not want men around them who are secure in their sexuality in a comparable way.
When Wilson suggests that the problem with women who parade their flesh is not that they are too secure in their sexuality but that they are too insecure in it, I thought of the recent controversy over Lara Pulver’s nude scene in the pre-watershed BBC1 Sherlock Holmes.
Actress Lara Pulver commented that it was "really empowering" to go completely naked in the new Sherlock Holmes series
Significantly, after appearing completely nude in front of Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock) and Martin Freeman (Dr Watson) for eight hours during the shooting (to say nothing of the more than 10 million viewers who were able to see sustained footage of Pulver in her birthday suit), Mrs. Pulver commented that “something really empowering takes over.”
This echoes many of the comments made by those women who participated in the slutwalks, who said that they felt “empowered” when they paraded down the streets of London in various stages of nudity.
If Douglas Wilson is right, a woman who is secure in herself and in her sexuality does not need to take off all her clothes to feel empowered. Indeed, when women think it is empowering to undress in front of men, that is often evidence that our society in general, and fathers in particular, are not giving them the respect and dignity they deserve. Lacking an inherent sense of their own worth, they feel compelled to prove themselves by parading their flesh. Sadly, this often gives women a false empowering that acts as a substitute to genuine female dignity.
(To read more about nudity in films and the implications this has for how we view the body, see the article recently published by the Chuck Colson Center titled ‘Nudity and the Christian worldview.’)
Join Christian Voice by clicking the Join button or send a donation via the Donate button below:
Homosexual groups throughout the UK are getting ready for next month, which has been designated ‘LGBT History Month.’
In preparation for the event, organizations like Stonewall are providing a plethora of resources to children as young as four, who will be learning details of everything from lesbian love to cross dressing. (See some of Stonewall’s Secondary resources here and some of their primary resources here.)
Sign our Petition ‘Leave our children alone’ by clicking HERE. (Opens in a new tab/window)
Significantly, February was chosen for the occasion since it coincides with celebrations of the abolition of Section 28 in February 2005, an event which made it possible for teachers to begin exposing students to homosexual propaganda.
One of Stonewall's many resources for schools
The enthusiasm for February 2012 is not limited to homosexual activists interested in children. Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a letter of support for the month, saying “I am pleased to be supporting this year’s LGBT History Month…. Events like this enrich our society and challenge us to think more about the world around us.”
Mr. Cameron was joined in his sentiments by Labour Party leader Ed Milliband, who wrote in a public letter that “The principles behind LGBT History Month reflect the kind of society we would all like to see…”
So what are “the principles behind LGBT History Month”? What types of things will British school children will be doing throughout February 2012?
Part of the answer to these questions can be found in the 18 pages of school activities that Amnesty International produced in 2005 and which is still being given to schools by the promoters of LGBT History Month. The human rights organization encourages students to do role playing activities in which some of them are supposed to play the part of people who are ‘homophobic.’ Another activity among Amnesty International’s resources involves school children being asked to look up the following terms in dictionaries and encyclopedias:
What promoters of LGBT History Month will not be telling teachers and students next month is that Kinsey was a sexual masochist who supported using children for sexual experimentation and whose pseudo-scientific ‘research’ has been discredited when it emerged that he did not take representative samples
Gay
Homophobic
Lesbian
Sexual orientation
Transvestite
Prejudice
Queer
Bisexual
Gender identity
Biological sex
Transgender
Heterosexist
Amnesty International justifies one of the classroom activities based on data collected by Alfred Kinsey which, according to the organization, showed that “13 per cent of the men interviewed and 6 per cent of the women identified themselves as predominantly homosexual, and a third of men and half as many women said that they had been involved in same-sex activity at some stage in their lives.” What promoters of LGBT History Month will not be telling teachers and students next month is that Kinsey was a sexual masochist who supported using children for sexual experimentation and whose pseudo-scientific ‘research’ has been discredited when it was discovered that he did not take representative samples. (For a more accurate account of Kinsey’s legacy than will be publicized during LGBT History Month, see the articles from Salvo magazine, Rape Rates: Kinsey’s Junk Science & Other Unreported Sex Crimes and Rotten Apple Awards: Sex Ed Based on Lies Is Child Abuse.)
Amnesty International is not the only organization providing resources for teachers next month. One Stonewall resource for use in schools during LGBT History Month says:
“Talk about the special friendships we have when we are older. Reference mums and dads, boyfriend and girlfriend. Also reference, two men who love each other (gay) and two women who love each other (lesbian). Challenge any negativity the children may have around the use or understanding of these words.”
Stonewall also provides resources for school children such as the the book And Tango Makes Threeabout two male penguins who fall in love and start a family, King and King about a fairytale prince who kisses and marries another prince, and Daddy’s Roommate which introduces children to the idea of two men sleeping together through the character of a boy who forms an affectionate bond with his father’s partner.
The official website for LGBT History Month gives various lesson suggestions, which include everything from guided discussions of pro-homosexual story books to an “intersex presentation” involving a pornographic “trans poem” (scroll a quarter of the way down on this page to view the poem).
The website also offers a free resource encouraging school children to read the story of Jakey and Claire, two lesbian schoolgirls who are forced to be separated from each other when their parents and classmates turn against the relationship.
Not to be outdone, the organization Schools Out is advertising training courses so that schools throughout Britain can have the opportunity of replicating the ‘gay friendly’ model of Stoke Newington School in Hackney. (Click here to see their advertizing poster.)
Last year for LBGT month, the state school at Hackney put on what they called a ‘Creative Day.’ In a video about the event, Elly Barnes, who helped organize the day, shared how students went to their usual lessons while issues of LGBT rights were integrated into every subject, including English, Life Skills, French, Humanities, Music and Drama. Students also made signs for the school’s gay rights parade, with messages such as, “If your [sic] gay, say yay’ and ‘Don’t run away – be gay!’ and ‘Nothing Wrong With LGBT.’ The day was punctuated with the school’s ‘LGBT Spring Concert’ in the evening, featuring students from the school and the London Gay Men’s Chorus.
LGBT history month is not just a chance to try to normalize homosexual relationships in the minds of children. The LBGT History Month website also offers lesson plans on gender variance aimed at helping students think “outside of a simple ‘Male-Female’ model”.
In the section on ‘Teaching Goals’ (see page 1 here) we read that “Students are expected to discover and learn that…[p]eople are not always simply male or female.” Teachers are encouraged to discuss questions such as “Was Joan of Arc a transgendered man or a historical feminist heroine?” One class exercise is centred around the question “How does society accommodate or reject gender crossing?”
LGBT month is also a time for homosexuals to ‘out’ historical figures who cannot speak in their own defence. For example, the LGBT website gives this resource for learning about Shakespeare’s love sonnets, claiming “it seems likely that some of the greatest love poems in the English language were written by one man to another.” Because we know very little about Shakespeare’s personal life, and because he wrote one poem that appears to be about the love of one man for another (there is nothing in the poem to suggest the love was physical), the gay lobby have unhesitatingly claimed Shakespeare as one of their partners in perversion.
ACP Warns Against Homosexual Education
The American College of Pediatricians has published research showing that over 85% of school students with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. Den Trumbull, MD, FCP, Vice President of the ACP has written a letter to school educators urging that “schools should not seek to develop policy which ‘affirms’ or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion. Such premature labeling can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.” (For more information on this to share with your MP, see the resources the ACP has made available on their ‘Facts about Youth‘ website.)
Stonewall Aims to Make Children ‘Resilient’ Against the Values of Their Parents
As already mentioned, the gay rights pressure group Stonewall is heavily involved in LGBT History month, providing resources and teacher training packs to primary schools who wish to become gay friendly. By using these materials, schools can prove that they are complying with the Equality Act 2010.
As part of a teacher’s training pack, the homosexual group has included a 29-minute DVD in which activists state that their goal is to make children ‘resilient’ against the values of their parents and grandparents.
Garry Ratcliffe, head teacher at Oakfield Cimmunity Primary School in Kent who was interviewed for the DVD, said
“Our school is a safe environment and it’s a secure environment for the children that we teach and we nurture” “But we can’t guarantee that when they leave that nurturing environment, that their parents, their grandparents and their neighbours are going to hold the same values as we do. And that’s why we need to make sure our children are resilient and proud and assertive so that their generation will actually change.”
Another teacher commented,
“We’ve got boys with the pompoms doing the dance, you know, and I think that is absolutely wonderful because not only are they there saying ‘actually, this is fine, I can be who I am and do this without anybody laughing and teasing me’, but that is a wonderful role model.”
Bill's New Frock was made into a children's movie in 1998. It tells the story of a boy who wakes up one morning to discover that he is a girl.
Stonewall is also working to make children resilient against a binary man-woman view of gender and offers resources designed to broaden children’s understanding of gender. Their recommended resources include the bookBill’s New Frock, which Stonewall explains is the story about a boy who “wakes up one day as a girl and is horrified to be sent to school in a frilly pink frock with fiddly shell buttons.” It doesn’t take Bill long for his gender stereotypes to be undermined, not least because boys begin flirting with him (who is now called ‘her’) instead of bullying him. As the day progresses he finds that being a girl isn’t so bad after all.
It would be nice to say that cross-dressing is limited to fictional school children like Bill. However, in the Stonewall training DVD, teachers have shared their experiences encouraging boys to dress up as girls. A class teacher for St. Matthew’s Primary School in Cambridgeshire boasted that “I had a group of boys last year and every day they came into school they wanted to wear the dressing up dresses. And they really loved wearing dressing up dresses and it went on for several weeks, and within the culture of the classroom I wanted to say that that was ok.” The teacher went on to explain how she reprimanded other boys who criticized the cross-dressers. Tony Davies, the head teacher of the same school, explained how the school had a cheer-leading club in which boys dressed themselves in pom-poms and put in “I think that is absolutely wonderful.”
Daniel Villarreal, a contributor at the prominent gay news source Queerty, has been remarkably candid that their goal is to indoctrinate kids. In an article titled, ‘Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?’ Daniel Villarreal wrote, “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”
If organizations like 'Schools Out' get their way, all school children throughout Britain will march behind the homosexual rainbow flag
Mr Villarreal pleads with his colleagues in the gay lobby to come right out and admit that their agenda does involve “indoctrinating.”
Reacting to gay lobbyists who say “It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything” Mr. Villarreal said, “let’s face it—that’s a lie…. Recruiting children? You bet we are.”
He continued: “I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that…people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other…”
“I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.” (Capitals his)
What is interesting about Mr. Villarreal’s remarks is that he acknowledges the homosexual lobby has been trying to recruit children all along but that they haven’t had the guts to admit it. “And because we hide from this very basic fact and treat it like something to be ashamed of, we end up with watered-down unemotional pleas for equality…”
Mr. Villarreal is part of a growing number of virulent North American homosexualists who are coming out of the closet to reveal their militant aims. For example, writing in the online edition of Xtra Vancouver in October last year, Robin Perelle said about parents who object to homosexual propaganda in schools, “You’re clinging to an outdated moral code, flailing against a tide of change that’s leaving you and your few remaining followers behind. Speaking to parents with traditional beliefs Mrs. Perelle, who is the managing editor of Xtra, commented, “…the gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won’t evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norms.”
WRITE: to your MP and protest against the Prime Minister’s support of LGBT History month. Ask your MP to forward your concerns onto the Prime Minister’s office.
READ: Deut 6:5-7; Psalm 111:10; Pro 1:8, 22:6; Luke 2:51; Eph 6:1-6
If you are a parent, PRAY: That the Lord would safeguard your children from all danger. Pray also for wisdom to exercise your duty as your child’s God-ordained principal teacher.
If you are a parent of a child in a school, ask your child’s teacher if anything of a sex and relationships nature is planned for next month. (Don’t specifically mention LGBT History Month). And while you are there, ask to see the sex education materials for your child’s class. If you find anything untoward, ask to see the head, and let us know so we can help you motivate other parents.
NOTE: Many parents are taking their children out of school and educating them at home. Contact us if you want to know the available options for going about that.
Written by the managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, the book takes a look behind the scenes at the powerful forces that have sold evil to the West throughout the past four or five decades. He shows how the architects of various anti-Christian movements employed well planned out methods for inculcating their ideas into the culture.
These methods were rooted in the most sophisticated advertising techniques available and had the effect of desensitizing our society to many things it previously found objectionable. Things that we take for granted now – like associating the negative idea of abortion with the positive idea of ‘choice’– were the results of deliberate strategizing on the part of elitists.
Kupelian quotes architects of the homosexual movement who, in the late 1980’s, had a ‘War Conference’ to discuss their strategy for the 90s. The conference employed a Harvard researcher in neuropsychiatry to come up with effective tactics for mass persuasion and social marketing. Among the conclusions of the conference was the need to desensitize America culture to otherwise offensive homosexual material through an extensive three-stage strategy of Desensitize, Jam and Convert. By inundated the public with a flood of offensive material presented in the least offensive fashion possible, they hoped that it would eventually seem almost laughable to make a problem out of it. The strategy, summarized by Rondeau in an article from the Regent University Law Review and cited by Kupelian, described desensitization
as inundating the public in a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.” But, the activists did not mean advertising in the usual marketing context but, rather, quite a different approach: “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” They add, “[S]eek desensitization and nothing more. . . . If you can get [straights] to think [homosexuality] is just another thing—meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders—then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.” This planned hegemony is a variant of the type that Michael Warren describes in “Seeing Through the Media” where it “is not raw overt coercion; it is one group’s covert orchestration of compliance by another group through structuring the consciousness of the second group.”
The Marketing of Evilshows how similar processes of mass manipulation have been operative in other arenas, with the effect that sin has begun to look normal and righteousness strange. Kupelian presents evidence to show how this is going on, even at the moment, to subtly orient the West to accept paedophilia as a normal and legitimate expression of sexuality.
Although The Marketing of Evil is written for an American audience, the issues he raises are relevant throughout the contemporary West. The book is a must-read for all parents with teenagers, as it will help them to understand the powerful forces at work to corrupt the minds of the next generation.
By contrast, Sainsbury overtook Asda with like-for-like sales in the Christmas period up 2.1%. Morrisons were up 0.7%. Tesco was the only one of the ‘big four’ to see sales and profits drop.
The news follows a Christian Voice campaign of prayer, backed up by emails to directors complaining at the ‘Gay Pride’ decision and leafleting at Tesco stores. Just before Christmas a panic-stricken Tesco announced that the 2012 ‘Gay Pride’ donation would be its last. Hours later, in the face of a homosexual backlash, it had to clarify that gays and lesbians were really important and promise that it would support its homosexual contact group ‘Out at Tesco’ in other ways in 2013, which only made matters worse.
Stung by revelations that it dumped Cancer Research Race for Life days before its Gay Pride announcement, Tesco has now made Cancer Research its 2012 ‘Charity of the Year’, although it seems to expect its staff, customers and suppliers to do all the work.
Analysts are blaming Tesco’s ‘Big Price Drop’ idea for the store’s failure, which has led to them issuing a profit’s warning. Natalie Berg, of consultant Planet Retail, said: “Tesco has taken its eye off the ball. It has focused too much just on the price of food. We now all expect high-quality food and everyone is claiming to be the cheapest – consumers are much more wary.”
‘Our prayer – which we said ‘will humble proud Tesco’ – centred on a desire that the Tesco board would rescind the decision, which has not happened yet. Indeed their announcement on 23rd December made matters worse.
‘However, bad, confused, initiatives have beset the Tesco boardroom. Tesco’s ‘Big Price Drop’, launched in September, was destined to fail. I believe God was anticipating our prayers, knowing from the action we were to take that our prayers would be serious, and that the Almighty was behind that disastrous decision.
‘On top of that, Tesco’s ‘Gay Pride’ announcement, made six weeks before Christmas, could not have come at a worse time for them. It was madness to think that such brazen support for the tiny 1% of the population who are homosexual could have a positive effect. As a result, thousands of Christians and other decent people boycotted the store at what should have been its busiest time of the year.
‘I now call on Tesco to repent of their arrogance before matters get worse and people lose their jobs. Withdraw the grant to Gay Pride. Apologise to the decent families upon whose patronage their business depends. Deal better with your suppliers. And label halal ritually-slaughtered meat so people can see what they are buying.’
Exod 10:7 And Pharaoh’s servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1 Pray that God will send repentance into the Tesco boardroom, and that they will reverse their grant to gay pride.
2 Boycott Tesco and encourage others to do the same (see (3) below.
3 Mount a witness with banners and/or give leaflets out to shoppers outside Tesco’s high street stores ‘Tesco Direct’ (they can throw you out of their car park, but you have every right to witness on the street). Contact us for leaflets. The text of the LEAFLET is HERE
4 Email/write to the Tesco Group Chief Executive, Philip Clark, philip.clarke@tesco.com and their Marketing Director, Richard Brasher: richard.brasher@tesco.com. You can also write to their new Chairman, Sir Richard Broadbent, at New Tesco House, Delamare Rd, Cheshunt, Herts, EN8 9SL. His email seems to be: richard.broadbent@tesco.com (HERE is what one ex-Tesco-customer wrote.)
6 There are a couple of other really effective things to do as well, but we shall let Christian Voice members exclusively know about them at the proper time through our newsletter which never goes up on the web! For that – and/or to support us in this spiritual battle – you will need to Join Christian Voice:
You can send a donation if you do not wish to join:
Now that the story about Tesco giving £30,000 to the debauched and aggressive 2012 London Gay Pride Parade (called ‘World Pride’ this year) is almost two months old, some of us have forgotten that (or even whether) they stopped supporting the ‘Race for Life’ organised by Cancer Research just days before announcing their cash for the gays.
Here is a bit of the confusion reaching us: Fred says: ‘Tesco has not stopped supporting Cancer Research UK, indeed 2012 is likely to produce the biggest sponsorship ever after £7 million in 2011’. Another correspondent takes a sideways line: ‘£30,000 is not much out of Tesco’s total charitable giving budget.’
Last point first. It does not matter how much Tesco are giving to ‘Gay Pride’. If they made a charitable donation of £500 to the National Secular Society or gave £750 to the Euthanasia fanatics, or £1,000 to the abortionists at Marie Stopes, Christians and other decent people would be outraged, even if Tesco said ‘But we are giving £64million to other good causes’ (which is what they do say).
So what is the truth about ‘Race for Life’? The Daily Mail stated on 11th November: ‘Tesco has triggered outrage by ending its support for the Cancer Research ‘Race for Life’ while deciding to sponsor Britain’s largest gay festival.
‘Tesco has worked with Cancer Research for more than ten years, raising hundreds of millions of pounds to help combat an illness that will affect one in three of the population.
‘The chain’s main contribution was support for the annual fundraising Race for Life, the UK’s largest women-only charity event, which has raised more than £400million for the fight against cancer since it began in 1994.
‘But shortly after Tesco announced the partnership would end, the firm said it would be a headline sponsor of Pride London.’
The Mail continued by quoting both Cancer Research and Tesco to back up their story: ‘Cancer Research UK, which gave no sign of disappointment about losing Tesco’s support, is looking for a new partner for the Race for Life.
‘Emma Gilbert, who organises the event, said the partnership ‘came to a natural end’ for both parties.
‘But she added: ‘Tesco employees have taken part in events across the UK, raising over £7million for our life-saving research, and we hope they will continue to take part in the events.’
‘Tesco said it was in talks with the charity to support its work in other ways and would encourage staff to continue taking part in the Race for Life.
‘A spokesman said the decision to drop its support ‘is not connected to our £30,000 sponsorship for Pride, which is one of hundreds of community and charitable events that we will be supporting next year’.
So Tesco could not and did not deny that they had ended their support for Race for Life and days later announced the sponsorship for ‘Gay Pride’ (note how their spokesman leaves out the ‘gay’ bit).
We understand very well that one cannot take what this newspaper says at face value, and we uncovered some Daily Mail spin in their story about atheism at the BBC. But letters and emails from Tesco have confirmed the Daily Mail’s take on the giant superstore. An email dated 22nd November 2011 from Matthew Maycock, Customer Service Executive on behalf of the Chief Executive, Philip Clarke, said:
‘We remain very proud of the work we have done with Cancer Research UK and Race for Life. Since 2002 nearly two-thirds of our staff have taken part in or supported races, raising over £7 million. Though the nature of our relationship has changed, we will continue to support Race for Life in the years to come through the thousands of our staff that enter the event each year – paid for by Tesco.
‘We took a decision to support Pride London with a donation of £30,000 because our Out at Tesco network asked us to help.’
So there we have it. The Mail’s story, and our story is true. Tesco themselves have confirmed that they have indeed ended their formal support for Race for Life (‘nature of our relationship has changed’) and are now relying on their staff to take up the slack. As to the London (Gay) Pride donation, they admit this was lobbied for by the demanding, anti-Christian Tesco homosexual contact group ‘Out at Tesco’. It was rolling over when ‘Out at Tesco’ asked for a few pounds for their gay jamboree that has landed Tesco in this mess. Tesco should have been strong enough and smart enough to have said, ‘Sorry, guys, we just don’t sponsor divisive political statements’.
We are distributing these LEAFLETS at Tesco stores and you can click HERE for other prayer and action, including the email addresses of Tesco executives.
Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green said today,
‘Tesco haven’t actually budged an inch. They are still determined to give £30,000 to London Gay Pride 2012 as they said originally. And by announcing that they will continue to support their in-store homosexual contact group ‘Out at Tesco’ in new ways after 2012 they have made matters worse not better.
‘But Tesco are clearly worried. Christian Voice led the campaign against Tesco on 18th November by providing our members and friends with target addresses and emails for Tesco executives, including CEO Philip Clarke and Chairman Sir Richard Broadbent.
‘We have printed thousands of leaflets pointing out the evils of homosexual practice and calling for shoppers to boycott the supermarket giant. Dozens of our members have been handing these out in the last couple of weeks.
‘I was pleased to see the Christian Institute pick up on our boycott idea a week before Christmas, but what is really important is spreading the message among those who do not visit Christian campaign websites.
‘That is why I and other Christian Voice members spent some time on the day before Christmas Eve leafleting shoppers outside the Tesco Express stores in Baker Street and Melcombe Street.
‘In 2012 we need to step up our campaign. Firms sponsor events, individuals or sporting teams to associate themselves with that product’s ‘brand’. Stars lose sponsorship if their behaviour drops below a certain standard. The ‘gay pride’ brand suggests not wholesomeness but depravity, immorality, drug use, aggression, division and religious hatred. If the Lord blesses our campaign with more prayer and more willing hands, Tesco will be increasingly identified with the negative ‘gay pride brand’ throughout 2012.
‘We have also launched a petition and above all, last month we called for prayer for confusion in the Tesco Boardroom, for sales and profits to fall and for God to have the victory.
‘Confusion is now certainly reigning in the Tesco HQ in Cheshunt, with one inept decision after another, firstly dithering while Tesco’s Head of Research and Development, Nick Lansley, calls Christians ‘evil’ then annoying the gays with an unnecessary announcement while failing to placate decent people, and then trying to pacify the gays hours later. Christmas sales must have taken a knock to cause such panic.’
Tesco’s initial decision to give £30,000 toLondon’s aggressive, divisive display of political muscle and depravity was the result of intense lobbying inside Tesco from Lansley, a militant anti-Christian homosexual who filmed himself reciting the blasphemous Gay News poem and used his blog, on which he gave his full Tesco job description, to describe Christians opposing gay marriage as ‘evil.’
Stephen Green continued: ‘What made Tesco’s decision to bankroll Gay Pride all the worse was that they ended support for Cancer Research days before. They stopped saving precious lives in favour of propping up a deviant lifestyle.
‘It was good to find out last night that Tesco are rattled by our protest and were wobbling even as we were leafleting their stores.
‘It isn’t a victory in any sense yet, but it is an encouragement to press in harder with getting the leaflets into the hands of more shoppers in the New Year. Above all it just shows what power Christians can harness when they pray and act wholeheartedly in unity in a righteous cause.
‘The Governments’ decision to press ahead with so-called ‘gay marriage’ is suddenly looking rather vulnerable.
PLEASE CONTINUE TO PRAY that Tesco will back down, and that many more Christians will join our campaign to leaflet Tesco customers and spread word of the boycott and the reasons behind it.
Nick Lansley, Head of Research and Development at Tesco.com, videoed himself reading James Kirkup’s blasphemous poem ‘The Love That Dares to Speak its Name’ and posted it on Youtube earlier this year. He has also described Christians opposed to ‘gay marriage’ as ‘evil’.
The poem is a sickening account of a Roman soldier taking a prurient interest in the crucified body of Christ before gratifying himself in His wounds.
Nick Lansley is part of ‘Out at Tesco’, the homosexual contact group of the retail giant. He successfully lobbied for Tesco to give £30,000 to London Gay Pride days after the firm dropped support for Cancer Research. Out at Tesco were honoured by the previous Tesco boss Terry Leahy.
Tesco said: ‘Mr Lansley’s comments and postings, made in a personal capacity, in no way reflect the views of Tesco. Our values as a company are such that we abhor criticism of any religion, and we knew nothing about Mr Lansley’s comments and postings until they were brought to our attention. It is not for us to dictate or limit those private views but we do not tolerate statements that insult others or their beliefs. For that reason, when Mr Lansley was found to have posted material on his blog which insulted the religious beliefs of others, he was reminded of Tesco’s policy and the material was removed forthwith.’
Lansley exploits his Tesco connections in all he does (see the above photo and comments on his blog), forcing Tesco to say to another correspondent: ‘We are very sorry that anyone might have thought that there was any blurring of the boundary between his personal comments and his work for Tesco. We have therefore asked him to remove the comments, and he has done so.’
Lansley also recorded an event in June 2008 when the National Secular Society huddled in a London restaurant to celebrate the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws. During the secretive event Sir Ian McKellen read Kirkup’s blasphemous poem and boasted about ripping pages which speak against sodomy out of the Bible whenever he finds one in a hotel room. (We aren’t linking to the McKellen video recorded by Lansley because we will not republish a blasphemy.)
Lansley’s own video was mysteriously pulled after it was linked with Tesco’s decision to splash £30,000 on the London Gay Pride next year. If the Head of Research and Development at Tesco.com videoed himself or Sir Ian McKellen reading a poem about desecrating the dead body of Mohammed, would Tesco still say that was a ‘private matter’?
Lansley also embarrassed bosses at Tesco by an anti-Christian outburst on his profile page on the photo-sharing website, Flickr.com, where he lists his employment as “Head of R&D at Tesco.com”. He wrote: “I’m also campaigning against evil Christians (that’s not all Christians, just bad ones) who think that gay people should not lead happy lives and get married to their same-sex partners.” Following complaints to Tesco the remarks were removed.
Tesco employees, especially Christians, cannot make a critical remark of the LGBT for fear of being sacked. One of our members recently received this from a Tesco employee:
“Let me open by apologizing for my going through the absurd necessity of using a fake email address – my employer (Tesco) has been known to take action against members of staff who are identified as making any remarks online which could be considered derogatory. (This is advice handed out by our union, USDAW – never, ever mention Tesco on Facebook, Twitter, etc). I simply cannot run the risk that my real name would be associated with the comments I am about to make. (which is not meant to question your personal integrity, it is simply a risk I cannot take).”
Post Script: The Lansley left Tesco and is now an ‘Independent consultant’
READ: Prov 8:13; 11:2; 13:10; 14:3; 16:5; 16:18; 29:23; Luke 1:49; James 4:6.
ACTION: including where to write and how to get hold of our anti-Tesco leaflet click HEREfor our previous post on Tesco.
What Tesco is actually supporting, in all its anti-Christian amoral depravity (don’t view these videos if you do not have a strong stomach and pray for spiritual protection (get your Ephesians 6 Gospel armour on):
London Gay Pride March 2011: Public services, all three Armed Services, police, trades unions, American Airlines, prostitutes, Amnesty International join the aggressive gay lobby in this year’s show of strength: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5aohq3jms8
Participants, including para-medics, in Manchester Gay Pride 2009, miming to singer Lily Allen’s song displaying contempt for anyone who holds a Christian view of marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sWaTGLmppg
Homosexuality continues to impact on public health. Since Highly-Active Anti-Retroviral Treatment (HAART) became available for those with HIV in the UK, ‘gay’ men have thrown responsible behaviour, caution (and their condoms) to the wind and the number of people living with HIV will top 100,000 by the time you read this. Each one costs the Health Service £18,000 per year, according to AVERT. The total cost of HAART treatment is therefore £1,800,000,000 (£1.8 billion) per year and rising.
Many Christians are only now awakening to the seriousness of the threat to our society posed by the homosexual movement. But, unfortunately for us all, it is only the sounding of the victory trumpets by “gay” activists that has stirred Christians from their slumber. The watchman’s walls have been broken and breached, the village is in flames, and triumphal “gay” culture warriors are leading a long string of young prisoners by their necks into the woods. Most disturbingly, many of the captives, including some of the children of these still sleepy-eyed Christian parents, seem happy to go.
I have long warned that the homosexuals agenda is not about tolerance but control. It started, of course, with a plea for tolerance, but then immediately shifted to a demand for acceptance and in due time to celebration of all things “gay.”
It wasn’t enough, however, for prominent public officials in every major city to lead the “Gay Pride” parades. No, the agenda continued to unfold to another level, requiring forced participation in “gay” culture. Much of the country is on that cusp of celebration/coercion today, led by California with it’s new aggressive K-12 homosexual advocacy curriculum, mandated by law.
Even conservative Texas is not immune. Just this week Fox News covered the story of a ninth grader suspended from school for telling a classmate he believes homosexuality is wrong. The outraged teacher who demanded punishment for the boy reportedly keeps a picture on the classroom wall of two men kissing and frequently steers classroom discussions to the homosexual issue.
It took the intervention of a Christian public-interest law firm to get the school to rescind the suspension. But how many students of this same teacher have over the years simply assimilated his values as normal, their parents none the wiser?
Were the Nazis anti-homosexual? Far from it! Find out the truth in Scott Lively’s jaw-dropping book “The Pink Swastika”
More importantly, how many other classrooms across America are headed by such men and women? Their activist network, the Gay Lesbian Straight Teachers Network (GLSTN – later changed to “education network” GLSEN to hide the teacher/activist association) was powerful enough to launch its founder Kevin Jennings to the position of Obama White House “safe schools” czar for a time. I’d guess their agenda is an influence in just about every classroom by now.
I’m old enough to remember the debate about whether homosexuals should be allowed to be teachers at all, let alone allowed to punish students for disagreeing with the class-time advocacy of their sexual lifestyle. I remember the protestations from the pro-homosexual side, that “gays and lesbians just want the right to be left alone. They would NEVER interject their private lives into the classroom.” They all lied, and we believed them, and now our children and grandchildren are being forced to celebrate “gay” culture under penalty of law.
That is the end game for the “gays.” The final stage of their agenda, which has always been about taking control of things, is the power to punish dissent: to silence or crush their detractors. They only have this level of control in a few places yet, but they are moving fast to achieve it everywhere, and the momentum is on their side. And wherever they have it, they use it.
This brings me, in conclusion, to the subject of “gay marriage.” Huh? How does “gay marriage” in any way relate to homosexual propaganda in schools? Or to Christian parents awakening late to the indoctrination of their children?
It is the same issue, my friends. “Gay marriage,” “gay” curriculum, “gay” parades, “gay” TV shows, “gay” soldiers, “gay” adoption, “gay” diseases, “gay” recruitment and on and on. So many seemingly separate issues that are really just one issue: the unnatural, dysfunctional, personally and socially destructive phenomenon of homosexual sin. We are warned clearly and emphatically about it in the Bible. We have seen its corrupting effect in history. And we are literally watching its ethic of sexual anarchy supplant the biblical model of family as the guiding value system of our society.
I’m not going to add here how much I really love homosexuals and just hate their sin. As a question of public policy it really shouldn’t matter what I think about the perpetrators, just whether I am telling the truth about their agenda. I don’t want to reinforce the ridiculous assumption that Christians need to offer a disclaimer to prove they aren’t haters. It wouldn’t mitigate their hostility toward me for saying it anyhow. Trust me.
I’m not saying here that Christians are without hope of overcoming the challenge before us. Nothing, after all, is impossible with God. What I am saying is that we cannot possibly win, especially at this late stage of the game, if our “heroes” continue to fiddle about with the “definition of marriage” and fall all over themselves trying to prove they’re not haters by endorsing other, non-marriage-related bits of the “gay” agenda.
We need to stand firmly and unapologetically on the hard truth that homosexuality is not a benign, morally neutral social phenomenon. It is an insidious and contagious form of sexual perversion condemned by God as an abomination. I cringe even writing these words because I know the wrath I am inviting on myself. Still, someone needs to say this boldly and publicly because it is the truth, and only the truth can set us free of the political correctness that has imprisoned us until now.
The homosexual agenda represents an existential threat to Christian civilization and we’re in the final phase of the war, losing badly. It all hinges upon you, Christian reader. Either get into the “game” in earnest, immediately, or wave goodbye to everything good and holy in public life.
The Daily Mail has run a story about the BBC employing more atheists and non-believers than Christians after submitting a Freedom of Information request.
An internal BBC survey indeed found that just 22.5 per cent of all staff professed to be Christians, but 43% of staff did not respond to the survey. The Daily Mail said the Christians were outnumbered by atheists and those of no faith, at 23.5 per cent, but that figure was arrived at by adding the professing atheists (8.9%) to those of no faith (14.6%). Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs totalled 3.2% while ‘others’ were 2.6%, and 5.2% preferred not to say.
The Daily Mail’s Jonathan Petrie said ‘the new research has been seized on by critics who accuse the Corporation of bias against Christianity and marginalising the faith in its output’. He quoted BBC veteran Roger Bolton, who until recently presented BBC Radio 4’s religious current affairs programme, ‘Sunday’, as saying: ‘There is an inbuilt but unconscious bias against religion, fuelled by the fact staff are not representative of the public. It is not a conspiracy but it needs a correction.’
Amanda Rice, BBC Head of Diversity, protested that the figures had been ‘wilfully misunderstood by the paper’ and that ‘Of those who were asked about their religion, Christianity was by far the largest category, with 4,619 people.’
To put it all into context, the BBC employs 20,536 staff and they have so far researched 57% of them. Sheryl Holland in the BBC’s Press Office told us: “Nearly 60% of BBC staff have been asked about their religion or belief and, of those, Christianity was by far the largest faith. That said when it comes to recruitment the BBC hires staff based on skills and experience alone. To recruit based on faith or religious belief would be unlawful. As the majority faith of the UK, Christian programming is, and will remain, the cornerstone of the BBC’s religious output.”
The BBC is also frequently acccused of being staffed by 20-somethings but while the age-range is younger than the popualtion it may be argued not to be ridiculously so. 15% of staff are 20-29, 35.8% are 30 – 39, 31.4% are in the 40-49 bracket, 15.2% are aged 50-59 and 60+ accounts for 2.4%.
The Mail has certainly sensationalised the story, but it remains that BBC staff as a whole are unrepresentative of the population at large, where, according to the last census, around 72% claimed to be Christian, with just 15.5% saying they had no religion. At the BBC, out of those who have volunteered information, 39.5% claim to be Christian, 15.6% atheist and 25.6% of no religion. Other religions are similar to the proportions in the population.
Before the Conservatives won the election, their spokesman for culture said the BBC should actively seek to redress its “innate liberal bias”, quoting the phrase applied to the BBC by its former political editor Andrew Marr in 2007.
Mr Marr also described the BBC as “a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people compared with the population at large”.
Now that he has been HM Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for over a year, the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP has done very little to sort out the ‘innate liberal bias’ at the BBC.
It is not only Andrew Marr who has raised his head above the parapet. In October 2008, the conductor of the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra spoke of an ‘ignorant’ secular liberal minority in the media seeking to drive religion from the public sphere.
In January 2009, the Christian BBC presenter Jeremy Vine told Reform Magazine that it has become “almost socially unacceptable to say you believe in God” on the BBC. He did not think he would be allowed to say that Christ is who he said he was on air.
In July 2006, a veteran BBC executive told a meeting called to address the problem of anti-Christian bias: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. ‘Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, responded:
‘It would be good to know the religious break-down of people in BBC top jobs, because it rather seems as if the Christians at the BBC have either a secularist world-view or little vision of how to turn the place upside down, as the early Apostles were accused of doing. Putting the comments from Andrew Marr and Jeremy Vine together, it just seems far easier to be atheistic and gay than to be normal and Christian at the BBC.
‘The BBC’s atheistic staff bias becomes amplified in its programming. For example, the Radio 4 programme ‘The Moral Maze’ regularly has atheists as 3 out of 4 of its panel. Only Melanie Phillips is allowed to articulate the views of the majority of the audience, who of course, are almost exactly as Judeo-Christian as the Moral Maze panel is atheist.
‘It is good that there is some religious programming on the BBC, and that Christianity is the cornerstone of it, but it is kept safely in its God-slot ghetto, from where a flagship religious programme like Songs of Praise is kept as bland as possible and is allowed to irritate but not seriously challenge the atheist status quo.
‘The real problem is not the lack of Christian programming, but the fact that no world-view other than a tedious atheist outlook informs normal programming content. The BBC really should have the decency to acknowledge there are valid points of view other than the grindingly politically-correct anti-Christ atheism held by the majority of its staff.
‘Christians in soaps are always portrayed as weak, or stupid, or bigoted. Meanwhile, story-lines are concocted to introduce homosexuals whenever possible and to show favoured religious minorities in a good light. We have had pro-lifers as terrorists.
‘While the BBC’s natural history programming is often inspiring, it is impossible for a wildlife programme to look objectively at the wonder of nature. The audience are treated like small children in a school-room, always having to be reminded that the animals ‘developed’, ‘evolved’, or ‘appeared’.
‘When the BBC decided to make a programme about language, they had to get the anti-Christian atheist homosexual Stephen Fry to present it.
‘When they wanted to look at anthropology, it was only natural to them to seek out the fanatical evolutionist Dr Alice Roberts. In ‘The Origins of Us‘ we had vacuous subjective claims that our ape-like ancestors apparently miraculously (something in which perhaps only a minority at the BBC would believe) decided to walk upright in search of food as they surveyed the African savannah, and that our tools moulded the shape of our hands, rather than the other way around. The lack of objectivity and the amount of unfounded speculation makes such programmes rather silly but the BBC’s atheist oligarchy press on regardless.
‘The vision of Lord Reith was of a BBC which would elevate viewers with whatever things were pure, lovely and of good report and to promote virtue. He set this vision in stone.
‘As they shuffle past the declaration in the entrance to Broadcasting House, the atheists in charge at the BBC seem intent on promoting the very opposite. An opportunity to sneer at Christianity or Christians is rarely allowed to pass.
‘Obviously the BBC will have no overt recruiting policy that puts Christians at a disadvantage. It is more subtle than that. The BBC simply appears to be a self-perpetuating atheist oligarchy, and it will take a miracle akin to that of those fabled ancestors walking upright before there is any change.’
PRAY: For the BBC’s Christians to be given faith in the conquering King of kings and courage to stand up for all they believe. Pray for a miracle in the management, that God would be honoured once again so that the words inscribed in the Broadcasting House entrance hall would become an inspiration.
The Broadcasting House Inscription, set in Latin for all to see, above a statue of ‘The Sower’:
DEI OMNIPOTENTI TEMPLUM HOC ARTIUM ET MUSARUM ANNO DOMINI MCMXXXI RECTORE JOHANNI REITH PRIMI DEDICANT GUBERNATORES PRECANTES UT MESSEM BONAM BONA PROFERAT SEMENTIS UT IMMUNDA OMNIA ET INIMICA PACI EXPELLANTUR UT QUAECUNQUE PULCHRA SUNT ET SINCERA QUACUNQUE BONAE FAMAE AD HAEC AVREM INCLINANS POPULUS VIRTUTIS ET SAPIENTIAE SEMITAM INSISTAT.
Translation:
‘To Almighty God this shrine of the arts, music and literature is dedicated by the first Governors in the year of our Lord 1931, John Reith being Director General. It is their prayer that good seed sown will produce a good harvest, that everything offensive to decency and hostile to peace will be expelled, and that the nation will incline its ear to those things which are lovely, pure and of good report and thus pursue the path of wisdom and virtue’.
