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.
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.”
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.
David Pollock is President of the European Humanist Federation
In a speech praising the march of the secular state, European Humanist Federation president David Pollock pointed to the murderous French Revolution as a glowing example of secularism in action.
A report on the speech was published by the European Humanist Federation on the first of this month, in an article titled, ‘All states in Europe are moving towards secularism.’ The article indeed the whole website has now gone but it cited their President saying that all the states of Europe are slowly making progress towards becoming truly ‘secular.’
Unlike many who brandish around the label ‘secular’ as a panacea of all ills, expecting the rest of us to grasp what they mean by such an ambiguous term, President Pollock has done us the courtesy of defining exactly what he means (oh, and he does think it’s a panacea of all ills).
In his speech (which could at one time be read in its entirety here) but now has to be gleaned from his other Guardian offerings HERE and HERE, the late Mr Pollock said that a secular state is a state that is “neutral as between different religions and beliefs…not taking sides for or against religion or atheism, for or against one belief or another.” Secularism as such “is the best guarantor we have of freedom of religion or belief.”
While we must appreciate the clear definition, there are two immediate problems that come to mind. The first is a problem of basic logic, the second is a problem of history.
The logical problem is that it is incoherent to speak of government being neutral towards religion and non-religion, or towards belief and non-belief. Frederick Mark Gedicks explained why this was in an article for the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, titled, ‘Religions, Fragmentations, and Doctrinal Limits.’ In the article Mr Gedicks explored the logical impossibility in the very concept of a government adopting a neutral posture towards religion and non-religion. While he was writing in the context of American government, his observations are equally pertinent to the question of secularism in Europe:
I mean, really, what sense can one possibly make of a rule that requires the government to remain neutral between a proposition and its negation? One may agree or disagree about what it could mean to be ‘neutral’ between various religions, but it is at least possible to have a sensible conversation about this. By contrast, there has always been something decidedly weird about the requirement that the government be neutral between religion and nonreligion, or belief and unbelief. Indeed, the requirement seems to constitute empirical proof that even the dumbest things can start to make sense if they’re repeated often enough.
Consider then what government neutrality might mean in the context of professional baseball. It is, of course, completely sensible to require that Congress be neutral between the Red Sox and the Yankees, or that the California Legislature be neutral between the A’s, the Angels, the Dodgers, the Giants, and the Padres, or, indeed, that Congress and all of the state legislatures be neutral with respect to all thirty major league baseball teams. But what could it possibly mean for Congress and the states to be neutral as between baseball and ‘not-baseball’?
For starters, I suppose, this would mean that baseball could not be treated any differently than not-baseball. So, Congress could not grant an exemption from the antitrust laws to baseball unless not-baseball got one, too. It would, therefore, be crucial to ascertain the referent of not-baseball. Would it be the National Basketball Association? Well, it is clearly not-baseball. The American Ballet Theatre? Also not-baseball. Fly-fishing? Watching public television? Cutting my lawn? All not-baseball. The Southern Cal defensive team against Vince Young in the 2006 Rose Bowl? Still not-baseball (and also not-defense).
Logically, ‘not-baseball’ encompasses everything except ‘baseball.’ Accordingly, neutrality between baseball and not-baseball requires that every activity in the United States be exempted, like baseball, from the anti-trust laws and more generally, that every activity in the United States be treated the same as baseball. Not only is this nonsensical from a policy standpoint, it is nonsensical from any standpoint.
Get the picture? If we are really serious about government being ‘neutral’ with respect to religion and non-religion, then our laws would have to interact with the entire portion of reality that comes under the “not religion” category (from the colour of my shoes down to the screw that popped out of my computer earlier today) in the exact same way that government acts towards religion, even as neutrality with respect to baseball would require that the state interacts with the Dodgers in the exact same way that it interacts with the Yankees (American teams, but I trust you get the picture). Even putting aside the problem that to decide what goes in the non-religion category is first to presuppose certain tacit religious presuppositions, we might ask whether our secularist policy-makers have really given adequate thought to what a consistent application of such neutrality would look like in practice. I think it’s safe to say that they haven’t.
But there is another problem with Pollock’s position, and it revolves around his claim that by (supposedly) not taking sides for or against religion or atheism, one belief or another, a secular state is the best guarantor we have of individual liberty and religious freedom. Putting aside the problem that belief in the fact that the state should not take sides about beliefs is itself a belief and therefore fails to conform to its own criteria (a point that Greg Koukl helpfully reminds us about in his work on The Myth of Moral Neutrality), Pollock’s assertion fails on a purely historical level.
Though there are exceptions we could point to, broadly speaking it has been those nations which vigorously affirmed their Christian heritage that have most successfully safe-guarded personal liberties, including the freedom of other religions to practice their faiths. This is a point that even David Cameron was bound to acknowledge in the remarks he made in a speech on the King James’ Bible:
The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option. You can’t fight something with nothing. Because if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything…. The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country…. Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand up and defend them. Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths. And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgement on their behaviour. I think these arguments are profoundly wrong…. those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths simply don’t understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity. Many people tell me it is much easier to be Jewish or Muslim here in Britain than it is in a secular country like France. Why? Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too.
The key point here is that “it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity.” This point was developed in scholarly depth by historian John Coffey for his 2003 Jubilee Centre report ‘The myth of secular tolerance.’
Coffey showed convincingly that modern notions like tolerance and liberty are not modern notions at all, but arise directly out of the Christian roots of our society. By contrast, he shows that those nations which have attempted to be completely secular (for example, revolutionary France) have usually come down as the enemies of freedom. Coffey concluded his excellent article with the following remark:
The myth of secular tolerance is seriously flawed. There is no good reason to suppose that secular people are immune from the temptation to suppress or silence ‘the other’. Indeed, in practice secularists have often been highly intolerant. Moreover, although the church has sometimes turned aside from the way of Christ by resorting to persecution, the Christian Gospel was one of the principal sources of the rise of religious toleration. The myth of secular tolerance offers a convenient excuse for ignoring the truth claims of Jesus, and it provides a useful propaganda tool for those who wish to discredit the church and marginalise the Christian voice in contemporary debate.
This important historical point is being completely overlooked by David Pollock and his fellow secularists at the European Humanist Federation. One of the most revealing aspects of Mr Pollock’s speech was actually his appeal to history. Consider the following statement from near the beginning of his talk:
From the time of the Westphalian settlement, when states stopped trying to impose their religion on other states in the wars of religion and decided instead that cuius regio, eius religio, governments have taken sides on what religion their citizens should follow and have only slowly come to concede individual liberty.
I don’t dispute Mr Pollock’s claim that government should not take sides on what religion their citizens should follow. Nor do I know any Christian thinker who seriously believes that the government should coerce people to follow the Christian faith. However, the subtext to Pollock’s argument is interesting because it reinforces the standard redemption narrative of the modern state. It is a redemption narrative which goes something like this: throughout the history of the world, the alliance of religion and politics has been the cause of numerous wars and acts of violence. Following the close of the 30 Years War in the 17th century and then the Enlightenment in the 18th century, the Modern West has been struggling to build a foundation of peace based on the separation of religion and politics. This struggle has culminated in the salvation wrought by the modern state.
We find this myth all over the place. Charles Kimball’s reflected it in his book When Religion Becomes Evil when he wrote, “It is somewhat trite, but nevertheless sadly true, to say that more wars have been waged, more people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history.”
Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee echoed this myth when she wrote in the Guardian that “The horrible history of Christianity shows that whenever religion grabs temporal power it turns lethal. Those who believe theirs is the only way, truth and light will kill to create their heavens on earth if they get the chance.”
The reality is that this common idea that religion causes violence (an idea on which the redemptive motifs of the modern state presuppose) hinges on a basic category confusion. In an article for the ‘Harvard Divinity School titled ‘Does Religion Cause Violence?‘, William Cavanaugh showed convincingly that in order for the notion that religion is a chief cause of violence to carry any weight, we would first need to coherently distinguish religion from other possible causes of violence. But can we even do this without serious anachronism? “The problem” Cavanaugh writes, “is that religion was not considered something separable from such political institutions until the modern era, and then primarily in the West. What sense could be made of separating out Egyptian or Roman “religion” from the Egyptian or Roman “state”? Is Aztec “politics” to blame for their bloody human sacrifices, or is Aztec “religion” to blame?” Cavanaugh continues, drawing on the work of Canadian scholar of comparative religions, Wilfred Cantwell Smith:
As Wilfred Cantwell Smith showed in his landmark 1962 book, The Meaning and End of Religion, “religion” as a discrete category of human activity separable from “culture,” “politics,” and other areas of life is an invention of the modern West. In the course of a detailed historical study of the concept “religion,” Smith was compelled to conclude that in premodern Europe there was no significant concept equivalent to what we think of as “religion,” and furthermore there is no “closely equivalent concept in any culture that has not been influenced by the modern West.”
If it is true that our contemporary notion of ‘religion’ is a comparatively recent phenomenon, then we should be cautious about imposing it retroactively onto the past when claiming that throughout history ‘religion’ functioned as a chief cause of violence.
But let’s continue unpacking Mr. Pollock’s speech:
That slow progress, marked by significant events such as the English civil war, the American declaration of independence and the French revolution, led by stages, via finally the collective determination to allow no repeat of Nazism, to the European Convention on Human Rights and religious freedom.
But no state has fully followed through the implications of individual freedom of religion or belief.
It is especially curious to see Pollock invoking the example of the French Revolution as being among the seminal developments leading up to the freedom that modern Europeans supposedly enjoy today. (One might also want to quibble with his inclusion of the English civil war, which resulted in a theocracy of radical Puritans that hardly led to more religious freedom for the people of Britain but less. Heck, they couldn’t even cook plumb puddings on Christmas day without getting into trouble with the police!) Let’s do a reality check about the French revolution. This was a time when there was a deliberate de-Christianization policy that included
The implementation of a new calendar to replace the Christian one. The calendar, which was adopted in 1793 and used for the next 12 years, employed a ten day week (in a 10 day week, no one could ever know which day was Sunday) and had 1792 (the year Louis XVI was taken into custody) as year 1. This was known as ‘the year of liberty.’
The dispossession, deportation and brutal martyrdom of thousands of clergy
Christians being denied freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of thought if it contravened the secular humanist ideology of the revolution.
The criminalization of all religious education
The elimination of all Christian symbols from the public sphere, including removing the word ‘saint’ from street names and destroying or defacing churches and religious monuments
The replacing of Christian holidays and symbols with civic and revolutionary cults like the ‘Cult of Reason’ and ‘Cult of the Supreme Being.’ A statue to the goddess Reason was even erected and worshiped in Notre Dame Cathedral on 10 November 1793.
This does not even include the more ubiquitous effects of the French Revolution. Indeed, as I point out in my forthcoming book Saints and Scoundrels, “The French Revolution left a legacy of civil war and international conflict in its wake that would last for the next twenty-five years,”
Given the legacy of totalitarianism, intolerance and thought control associated with the French Revolution, we might well ask why the president of the European Humanist Federation is appealing to revolutionary France as being seminal to the European Convention on Human Rights and religious freedom. At first I thought maybe he meant that the “slow progress” he is after occurred as a result of Europeans trying to avoid the errors of the French Revolution. Alas, no, that is not what he means. Just to be clear, let’s carefully review his words:
That slow progress, marked by significant events such as the English civil war, the American declaration of independence and the French revolution, led by stages, via finally the collective determination to allow no repeat of Nazism, to the European Convention on Human Rights and religious freedom.
But no state has fully followed through the implications of individual freedom of religion or belief.
Maybe Mr Pollock’s appeal to the French revolution wasn’t a mistake. Maybe that’s precisely the point. Perhaps Pollock would like to see some measure of de-Christianization policies occurring within contemporary Europe. Reading a bit further in his speech it seems that this is exactly what he wants. For example, he pointed out that a particular threat to European secularism was the fact that the Roman Catholic church enjoys a 88% hold in Croatia or the Eastern Orthodox church to which 76% of Bulgarians belong. The thrust of his argument was breathtakingly simple: secularism is good, but if churches are too strong then this represents a threat to secularism; therefore, it is bad for churches to be too strong.
Er…ok.
Despite setbacks such as European churches being too strong, Pollock takes heart from the fact that Europe is becoming more secular. But what does this secularity look like in practice? Here’s a few examples for starters, taken from an article we ran in the Christian Voice newsletter back in December of last year:
Bishop of Chester: questioned over his views on homosexuality by Cheshire police in November 2003 after he said that psychiatrists could help homosexuals to re-orientate themselves. The Crown Prosecution Service eventually dropped the case saying the Bishop had committed no crime.
Lynette Burrows: author who was interviewed by the police in December 2005 after she expressed disapproval of homosexual adoption on a talk show. The policewoman who talked to Mrs Burrows said that a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her and that it would be kept on record by the police.
Joe and Heather Roberts: a couple who were interrogated by Lancashire police in December 2005 after complaining to their local council in Fleetwood (Wyre Borough Council) about council tax money being spent on promoting gay rights. Both the Police and the council at the time refused to admit they were wrong. After the threat of legal action, the Council and the Police apologised to the Roberts and settled out of court.
John Mitchell: Scottish fireman who refused to march at a gay pride (Pride Scotia) event along with several other firemen in 2006. He won a legal battle with his employer, the Strathclyde Fire And Rescue Service, for unfair punishment. The case against him and the other fireman involved was overturned at an industrial tribunal. The fire service admitted not taking into account his religious beliefs. Mr Mitchell received damages and an apology from the fire service.
Stephen Green: Arrested and detained in police station for handing out evangelistic tracts at a gay pride festival in Cardiff. Police said the arrest, which occurred in September 2006, was because the tracts Mr Green was distributing contained Bible verses about homosexuality.
Samantha Devine: Catholic schoolgirl banned from wearing a crucifix to school on health and safety grounds. On 12 January 2007 she vowed to defy the cross ban that had been issued by the Robert Napier School in Gillingham, Kent, even if it meant that she would be expelled from school. Students from other religions were allowed to wear symbols of their faith.
Gary McFarlane: Christian counsellor sacked from his job with Relate in 2008 because he confided that he would not be comfortable counselling homosexual couples about sexual problems. Relate conceded that they were wrong to sack Mr McFarlane without giving him notice, but he still didn‘t get his job back and the Tribunal ruling did not go in his favour.
Iris Robinson: Wife of Irish First Minister Peter Robinson investigated by the Serious Crimes Branch of the PSNI (Northern Ireland Police Force) for speaking out against homosexuality in June 2008.
Caroline Petrie: Nurse from Weston Super Mare suspended in December 2008 after offering to pray for the person she was caring for. The suspension was removed after a storm of protest.
Pilgrim Homes: had £13,000 of funding removed by Brighton Council in December 2008 because the home refused to ask its elderly Christian residents every three months if they were homosexual. Funding was only restored when Pilgrim Homes promised to ask the residents about their sexual orientation on admission.
The Earl of Devon (Hugh Courtenay): Had his licence to hold wedding ceremonies at Powderham Castle near Exeter revoked by Devon County Council in January 2009. The justification for removing his licence was that the Earl’s Christian beliefs prevented him from allowing civil partnership ceremonies to be held on his property.
Julia Robinson: Head of Meersbrook Bank Community Primary School in Sheffield was accused of being a racist by some of the parents of the school, because she objected to Muslim-only assemblies. As a result she was forced to resign from her job at the school in February 2009
Jasmine and Jennie Cain: Jasmine, 5, was reprimanded in February 2009 for explaining to a classmate that Jesus saves people from hell. Her mother, Jennie, was then suspended from her job at the school and threatened with the sack after the school discovered she had emailed a prayer request about the matter to friends.
Lilian Ladele: Christian Registrar who faced the sack because she asked if she could be exempt from registering civil partnership. Even though she won the case against Islington Council, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the case and ruled against her.
Unnamed Foster Mother: struck off the foster care register when a 16-year-old Muslim girl she was caring for converted of her own free will to Christianity. This foster mother had successfully fostered 80 children during her career.
Adrian Smith: housing manager who was demoted for not backing same-sex marriage. Smith, a practising Christian, has had his pay slashed in 2011 because he said on his private Facebook page that allowing gay weddings in churches was ‘an equality too far’.
British Catholic adoption agencies: closed down by the ‘sexual orientation regulations’ for refusing to place children with homosexual couples.
Peter and Hazelmary Bull: hoteliars who were sued using Government money after refusing to offer a double bed to a homosexual couple in 2011.
So much for the liberating influence of secularism!
If David Pollock wishes to stand by his words, let him do so in public, as I now officially challenge him to a written debate to be published on our respective websites. The debate will address the following proposition: Nations flourish better when they are governed secularism rather than religion. Pollock can defend the affirmative and I will argue for the negative.
Join Christian Voice by clicking the Join button or send a donation via the Donate button below:
Andrew Lloyd Webber is to launch a new musical reality show on on ITV to find someone to play Jesus in a new production of Jesus Christ Superstar.
The multimillionaire composer and life peer has already put on four similar shows on the BBC to find Maria for the Sound of Music and cast members for Oliver.
As well as looking for Jesus, Lloyd Webber is also expected to seek someone to play the part of Judas in the 1971 rock opera, for which he wrote the music to Tim Rice’s lyrics.
The BBC’s fear of offending Christians by telling members of the public ‘You could be Jesus’ is said to explain Lloyd Webber’s move to ITV.
According to Yahoo.co.uk an insider told The Sun that ‘he has been wanting to get this off the ground for some time but the BBC just didn’t want it. They had issues about auditioning for Jesus. They feared Christians would get hot under the collar’.
The Life Peer will be head judge on a panel including Steve Balsamo, who played Jesus in an earlier production.
The winner will perform in a planned arena tour of the production rather like the loss-making tour of Jerry Springer the Opera, which saw every performance lobbied and audiences leafleted in a campaign led by Christian Voice. Every theatre lost money on the tour.
Jesus Christ Superstar was labelled blasphemous when it came out for the extra-biblical tensions between Jesus and Judas, the disrespect shown to the Saviour, the very depiction of ‘images’ of the Lord on stage and the abrupt Crucifixion ending with no Resurrection. It was defended as a ‘Passion Play’ but these were always staged as a precursor to the glories and celbrations of Easter Day. Lyricist Tim Rice decided the Gospels were inadequate portrayals of the passion week, that Jesus had no idea of his deity and that he was just a man with no supernatural powers and certainly not the Son of God.
Like Jerry Springer the Opera, this is a perfect opportunity to reach the unsaved queuing to audition with the Gospel and witness against the reality show and the intended production at the same time.
Stewart Lee, the author of Jerry Springer the Opera, famously said that Christian Voice killed his musical. We give God the glory, but the disaster of the tour, with audiences staying away in droves, shows what miracles God can do when Christian people do the simple things he calls them to.
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.
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’.
A Constitutional challenge has been mounted in Belize to the laws which currently make unnatural acts a criminal offence. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for early in December (2011). We are calling for a mobilization of the church in prayer across the world for our brethren in Belize. If Belize is rolled over by the homosexual juggernaut, the rest of the Caribbean could easily follow.
The Constitution of Belize (formerly British Honduras) was settled in 1981. It acknowledges the supremacy of God, stresses human rights, freedom and the family. No-one has claimed before now that men suddenly have an inalienable right to commit acts of sodomy and gross indecency under it, especially as it says: ‘freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and upon the rule of law’.
The law suit has been filed by an organisation called UNIBAM. UNIBAM is short for United Belize Advocacy Movement, which hides behind concern about HIV/AIDS but is nothing more than a shameless homosexual rights group. UNIBAM’s court case is fronted by the former UK Labour Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, and has drawn condemnation from churches in Belize.
The US Embassy website admits that its grant to UNIBAM is for pro-gay propaganda. In their own words, the project: ‘will increase public awareness about homophobia while creating a safe space for HIV prevention work. The organization will organize a national debate on homophobia and human rights. Other initiatives will include the distribution of wrist bands to raise awareness of the issue, prevention education sessions among LGBT population, and the airing of public service announcements.’ View HERE.
Both UNIBAM and another pro-gay group, the Alliance Against Aids (AAA) are totally funded from abroad. The people of Belize themselves are overwhelmingly opposed to homosexuality. In the case of AAA, their money comes mainly from HIVOS, the wealthy Dutch Humanist body. Caleb Orozco, the founder and head of UNICAM, claims to have “‘friends in high places’ politically and in the media.” Homosexual View HERE.
UNIBAM has also received money from the United Nations Population Fund UNFPA (see page 7 of this link):
Dean Barrow, the Prime Minister of Belize, has come out against the move, according to a report from the ‘gay travelers network’, who are very interested in having a new exotic location in which to corrupt local youth for a dollar or two. The same website reveals that, astonishingly, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association is backing UNICAM:
Even this pro-gay BMJ article reveals that homosexual practices are dangerous and unsanitary. For a more detailed look, supported by research done by homosexual doctors, this scholarly article shows the implications for health and morals in Belize from decriminalising these acts of perversion.
African nations have reacted with fury and defiance to pressure from David Cameron and other leaders of decadent Western nations to decriminalise sodomy. Nigeria is poised to outlaw gay marriage, according to The Guardian (UK). A more balanced and informative article was in the Nigeria Sun newspaper. The British High Commissioner in Lagos, Andrew Lloyd, is furious. ‘Britain and other western countries would not tolerate any law that prescribes punishment for gays’, said Mr Lloyd.
Despite what the Guardian says about other African countries scrapping anti-gay laws, it’s all the other way. Zambia and Zimbabwe have said they will not enact gay rights, according to a UK homosexual paper. (Although we cannot imagine what possessed Morgan Tsvangirai to say he now believes ‘gay rights are human rights’.)
Ghana’s President John Atta Mills said he will never enact laws which will ‘destroy the moral fibre of society’, while John Nagenda of the Ugandan Presidential Office said “Uganda is, if you remember, a sovereign state and we are tired of being given these lectures … “If they must take their money, so be it,” he concluded.
Malawi’s governmental spokesperson Patricia Kaliati said that it was “unfortunate” that Britain was considering “pro-gay strings” to aid, adding that homosexual acts are illegal in Malawi. She noted that such laws are a legacy of British rule, reported Nyasa Times, but the laws were and are entirely consistent with African moral values, even though Britian is now sinking into a swamp of immorality and perversion, where homosexuals are now persecuting Christians.
Tanzania’s foreign affairs minister Bernard Membe said: “Tanzania will never accept Cameron’s proposal because we have our own moral values. Homosexuality is not part of our culture and we will never legalize it. Tanzania is ready to end diplomatic ties with Britain if it imposes conditions on the assistance it provides to pressurize for adoption of laws that recognize homosexuality. We are guided by our tradition. We have families of a mother, a father and children. What Cameron is doing might lead to the collapse of the Commonwealth.”
The President of Zanzibar, Ali Mohamed Shein, said that Islamic and Zanzibari culture abhors gay and lesbian activities. “We cannot compromise our deeply rooted culture or [allow] something which [is] completely against our religion. Let them cut off aid,” he said.
The fact is, the UK has to get rid of its aid budget, which is not so much about helping poorer nations as making our politicians look good. If mothers die in childbirth in an African nation because the UK denied that country aid on a gay whim, it will not look good on David Cameron’s CV. So their ‘lectures’, as Uganda described them, are mere posturing.
But back to the subject. The threat to Belize is real. Please pray for the Church in Belize to be granted wisdom, resources and favour with the judges, pray for confusion in the homosexual camp, and please sign our Save Africa from Sodomy Petition (if you have not already done so).
The Queen held a state banquet of halal food for the President of Turkey on 22nd November at which she assured him that HM Government would help Turkey join the European Union.
(1) Where and how and by whom were the animals slaughtered and cooked and which Muslim certifying authority approved it?
(2) Since when did it become HM Gvt policy to campaign for Turkey to join the EU? Actually, the answer to this is since at least 2007, when David Milliband visited Turkey. But it does not hurt to ask.
(3) Did no Christian on the guest list object to eating food sacrificed to an idol?
WRITE to Her Majesty at the following address:
Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
Or telephone during working hours: (+44) (0)20 7930 4832.
Letters begin ‘May it please Your Majesty.’
They end ‘I have the honour to be Your Majesty’s obedient servant,’ followed by your name.
So who ate the Queen’s Halal nosh? Unless he went for the vegetarian option, the Archbishop of Canterbury was among those who feasted on food sacrificed to the idol ‘Allah’ at the Queen’s table. When the Queen or the Archbishop are guests of the President of Turkey (as HM was in 2008 on her state visit) do their hosts serve up and sit down to meat slaughtered in the British way, ie stunned and with no incantations to their god, in deference to the sensibilities of their honoured guests? No, because the Turks take their religion seriously.
From the Court Circular:
‘The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh gave a State Banquet in honour of The President of the Republic of Turkey and Mrs. Gül at which The Prince of Wales, The Earl of Wessex, The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent, and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were present.
‘The following had the honour of being invited:
‘Suite of The President of the Republic of Turkey and Mrs. Gül:
‘Mr. Ali Babacan (Deputy Prime Minister) and Mrs. Babacan, Mr. Ahmet Davutoglu (Minister of Foreign Affairs) and Mrs. Davutoglu, General Hulusi Akar (Deputy Chief of the General Staff) and Mrs. Akar, His Excellency Mr. Ünal Çeviköz (Ambassador from the Republic of Turkey) and Mrs. Çeviköz, Ambassador Naci Koru (Deputy Under-Secretary for Administrative and Financial Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Ambassador Koray Ertas (Chief of Cabinet to The President), and Ambassador M. Ferden Çarikçi (Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to The President).
‘Turkish Presidency Invitations:
‘Ms. Nursuna Memecan MP, Ms Ç. Münevver Ökten MP, Mr. Seyit Sertçelík MP, Mr. Aytug Atici MP, Mr. Tugrul Türkes MP, Mr. Mehmet Emre Gül, Mr. Murat Belge (Author and Academic), Dr. Nazan Ölçer (Art Historian, General Manager Sakip Sabanci Museum), Mr. Sedat Ergin (Columnist, Hürriyet Daily Newspaper), Mr. Erdal Safak (Editor in Chief, Sabah Daily Newspaper), Mr. Derya Sazak (Columnist, Millyet Daily Newspaper), Mr. Hakan Çelik (Editor in Chief, Posta Daily Newspaper), Mr. Rifat Hisarciklioglu (Chairman, Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey), Mr. Remzi Gür (Chairman, Gurmen Group), Mr. Ferit Sahenk (Chairman of the Board of Directors, Dogus Holding Company), Mr. Mehmet Ali Yalçindag (President of the Executive Board of Directors, Dogan Media Holding Company), Mr. Hamdi Akin (Chairman of the Executive Board, Akfen Holding Company), Mr. Mustafa Çikrikçioglu (Deputy Chairman, Turkish Union of Exporters), and Mr. Ali Kibar (Chief Executive Officer, Kibar Holding Company).
‘Specially attached to The President of the Republic of Turkey and Mrs. Gül:
‘The Hon. Mrs. Whitehead (Lady in Waiting), the Viscount Hood (Lord in Waiting) and the Viscountess Hood, Mr. David Reddaway (Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey) and Mrs. Reddaway, and Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rex (Equerry in Waiting).
‘Diplomatic Corps:
‘His Excellency the Ambassador of the State of Kuwait and Mrs. Al-Duwaisan, Her Excellency the Ambassador of the Republic of Poland (Ms. Barbara Tuge-Erecinska), Her Excellency the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Mrs. Jadranka Negodic), His Excellency the Ambassador of the Hellenic Republic and Mrs. Ekaterini Simopoulou.
‘The Cabinet and Government:
‘The Prime Minister and Mrs. Cameron, the Leader of the House of Lords and the Lady Strathclyde, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Mrs. Hague, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Mr. Philip May, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Mrs. Cable, the Secretary of State for Defence and Mrs. Hammond, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Hon. Mrs. Osborne.
‘Special Invitations:
‘The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Speaker (the Baroness D’Souza), the Earl Marshal (the Duke of Norfolk), the Lord and Lady Sharman, the Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lady Judge, the Baroness Hussein-Ece, the Rt. Hon. the Lord Mayor of London and the Lady Mayoress, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP and Ms. Alice Perkins, the Rt. Hon. Harriet Harman MP, Sir Augustine and Lady O’Donnell, General Sir Nicholas and Lady Houghton, Sir Mervyn and Lady King, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen and Lady Dalton, Sir Peter and Lady Westmacott, Sir Julian and Lady Horn-Smith, Sir Jonathan and Lady Cunliffe, Sir Vernon Ellis, the Lord Mayor of Westminster (Councillor Susie Burbridge) and Mr. James Burbridge, Mr. and Mrs. Simon Fraser, Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Baird, Major General and Mrs. George Norton, Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Flint, Mr. Rahmi Koç, Mr. and Mrs. Ragip Balcioglu, Mr. and Mrs. Philip Dilley, Professor and Mrs. Mustafa Djamgoz, Dr. Kate Fleet, Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan Grun, Dr. and Mrs Franz Humer, Mr. and Mrs. Gerard Kleisterlee, Dr. Andrew Mango and Mrs. Benedict Mango, Mr. and Mrs. John Nelson, Mr. and Mrs. Dick Olver, Mr. Richard Ottaway MP and Mrs. Ottaway, Mr. and Mrs. Hüseyin Ozer, Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Popham, Ms. Suzan Sabanci Dinçer, Ms Elif Shafak and Mr. Eyup Can Saglik, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Swannell.’
Boycott Tesco and email their Chief Executive. Remember: Every Little Helps!
Or to put it more accurately, God will humble proud Tesco, in answer to prayer.
As the Daily Mail has reported, retail giant Tesco have stopped sponsoring Cancer Research UK and switched their support to that annual display of aggression and depravity, London Gay Pride. But the Bible says: When pride cometh, then cometh shame (Prov 11:2).
Tesco’s idea of family – sad body-building homosexuals obessessed by looks and the male anatomy
Mr Richard Littlejohnsaid: ‘If gays want to dress up as Carmen Miranda or mince up and down The Mall in nothing but their knickers, that’s fine by me. But why would Britain’s biggest supermarket want to be associated with such an event, at the expense of cancer victims?’
There are five important and effective things Christians 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.
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.)
5 Sign our petition ‘Boycott Tesco’. Make sure you right-click and then open it in a new tab or window to keep this page on-screen.
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!
Aggressive and depraved - London Gay Pride
Tesco’s spin centres on ‘diversity’ as an ‘inclusive store’ – they even have an ‘Out at Tesco’ webpage promoting sodomy amongst their employees and a page commending staff for taking part in the 2010 parade – and ignores the fact that Gay Pride is a provocative and aggressive display of indecency and perversion. For all their posturing, would Tesco actually like a gay pride march through one of their stores? And if they are really interested in diversity, will they be sponsoring the ex-gay movement? Don’t hold your breath.
If you can bear it, here is a video link of Soho Pride, part of the London set-up in 2008. And it that was not enough, here is a video link showing just what the gentle, tolerant gays and their supporters think of those who disagree with them with music from someone called Lily Allen. Thanks, Anglican Mainstream.
Tesco have denied that sponsoring gay pride was at the expense of Cancer Research, but the facts are that Tesco’s support for the annual fundraising Race for Life, the UK’s largest women-only charity event, helped Cancer Research raise more than £400million for the fight against cancer since it began in 1994.
Tesco announced it would be a headline sponsor of Pride London just days after ending their partnership with Cancer Research. Tesco’s Head of Research and Development, a militant anti-Christian homosexual called Nick Lansley, lobbied hard for that decision.
Here at Christian Voice we have a soft spot for cancer charities ever since Maggies Centres courageously turned down tainted money from the blasphemous Jerry Springer the Opera in 2006 and were rewarded by making far more from the publicity around that decision than what they would have received from the show. Why on earth should Tesco think that dumping a cancer charity to take up with Gay Pride is a clever (even a good commercial) decision?
The militant atheist magazine Freethinker helpfully points out that the Co-op sponsor Manchester Gay Pride (as well as throwing Christian Voice out of their bank) and that ASDA’s parent Wal-Mart give benefits to gay partners of employees in the USA. Unless ‘Christian fundies want to starve themselves’, they chuckle, ‘they better (sic) start thinking fast of joining the grow-your-own movement’.
Well that’s a good idea in itself, but have they forgotten Sainsbury, not to mention your local shops? In addition, as we pointed out in our video on the supermarkets and halal, if you want to be sure of avoiding halal-slaughtered fresh meat, just shop at M&S or Morrisons.
Some words from Proverbs and from Mary on the subject of pride to inform your prayer. Remind the Lord of his word as you pray:
Prov 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Prov 11:2 When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.
Prov 13:10 Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.
Prov 14:3 In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them.
Prov 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.
Prov 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Prov 29:23 A man’s pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.
Luke 1:49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
James 4:6 Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
On this very day (4 November) in 1789, the Frenchman Charles-Jean-François Depont wrote to Edmund Burke MP, requesting that he endorse the Revolution that had just broken out in France.
Burke’s response to Charles-Jean turned into one of the most celebrated political tracts in history, and for good reason. Not only did Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in Francebecome a pillar of conservative political thought, but it stands alongside the works of Shakespeare and the King James Bible as being the greatest literary achievement in the English language.
Christian Voice did a biography of Edmund Burke in our January 2010 newsletter as part of our ongoing series of Christian heroes. (To join Christian Voice and receive our monthly newsletter, click HERE.) We explored Burke’s idea that true freedom can only be preserved by reverencing our ancestors. This is because liberty is not, according to Burke, a natural right of man but the product of tradition, family, and faith. As such, liberty is passed on in much the same way that property is transmitted, from one generation to another through inheritance.
To support this notion of liberty as an inheritance, Burke pointed to the great freedoms of the British tradition, showing that they had accumulated over a period stretching back to the Declaration of Rights, the Magna Charta and the entire network of common law freedoms preserved by the hereditary monarchy. He warned that the legacy of these liberties would not long abide a generation that was willing to cast off the heritage of their ancestors. At the same time, however, Burke did not advocate a static traditionalism; rather, whenever he wished to reform, it was in order to conserve. He understood the wisdom of Proverbs when it says, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28) and “My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change: For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?” (Prov. 24:21-22)
If Burke had lived long enough to see our own age, I do not think he would be pleased. We live at a time when the common law foundations that have been transmitted to us by our ancestors are under constant attack. Consider that
The previous Government discussed a blueprint for “sweep[ing] away centuries of tradition” by turning the House of Lords into an elected chamber.
In the last part of the 20th century and early 21st century, Government pared down our Common Law freedoms at an astonishing rate, including the right not to be punished until a court has decided that the law has been broken, the right to private communication, the right to trial by jury, the right to silence, the right to demonstrate and protest, the right to travel without surveillance and the presumption of innocence. (See Robin Phillips’ article, ‘The Orwellian Legacy of Tony Blair‘)
In 2008, the BBC reported that the Justice Secretary was considering replacing the British constitution with a written document like that possessed by the United States.
In April 2007, Parliament functionally nullified key aspects of the Magna Carta in order to meet the demands of homosexual activists. (See Scott Lively’s article ‘Requiem for the Magna Carta.‘)
Edmund Bruke would not be pleased by these developments. In fact, in his critique of the revolutionary mentality, he warned against this very thing. He cautioned against overturning years of established precedent to meet the demands of the latest fad.
Burke would also not be pleased by the way the present Government has taken it upon itself to challenge centuries of Common Law by suggesting that the rules regulating the succession of the British throne should be changed. (See our earlier article ‘Christian Voice Takes Stand For Male Primogeniture‘.) The campaign against male primogeniture is only one example of our leaders pandering to those who are “given to change” or attempting to remove “the ancient landmark” that Proverbs 22:28 enjoins us not to remove. Some translations refer to this as a ‘boundary stone’, bringing to mind the image of a person trying to increase his property through dishonest manipulation. However, more is at stake in this verse than mere property rights, a point made by Duane Garrett in his commentary on Proverbs:
“To move a boundary stone was to attempt to seize land furtively. More is involved here, however, than real property. The boundary stone represented the ancient constitution of Israel, and to violate that heritage was to undermine the distinctive character of the land in Israelite society.
In our day, no less than in ancient Israel, there are those who are attempting attempted to tamper with our Christian Constitution, and undermining the distinctive character of our land in the process. Let us join our voices with those of Burke in opposing such innovations.
Join Christian Voice
Christian Voice is a prophetic ministry in the ‘forthtelling’ sense for those Christians who are fed up with the way things are, have had enough of secularist politicians imposing wickedness on the rest of us and who are not satisfied with trying to get ‘Christian influence in a secular world’ because they know ‘The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein’ (Psalm 24:1). If you want instead to lift high the Crown Rights of the King of kings, you have found the right place!
Membership Application
Yes, I/we wish to join Christian Voice. (Husband and wife may join as one)
I/we unreservedly support the aims of Christian Voice and agree with the Statement of Faith.
Please send me my free copy of Britain in Sin, which lifts the lid on the unrighteous legislation of the past fifity years and its devastating social consequences, my free copy of Understanding Islam, which will tell me all I need to know about Islam, my free copy of Labelling Halal, which exposes the secret sale of Islamic meat, and the latest Christian Voice newsletter, full of confidential prayer targets, which never goes up on the web.
I/we agree to computer storage of all information provided, solely for the use of Christian Voice.
Aims of Christian Voice
To uphold Christianity as the Faith of the United Kingdom.
To be a voice for Biblical values in law and public policy.
To defend and support traditional family life.
At all times to rely humbly on the blessing of Almighty God.
Statement of Faith
We believe in one creator God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as stated in the historic creeds of the Christian church.
We acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord over all creation.
We believe the Holy Bible to be the inspired, infallible, written Word of God to whose precepts, given for the good of nations and individuals, all man’s laws must submit.
We believe all government to be under the authority of God and that its purpose is the maintenance of freedom and justice solely in accordance with Biblical principles.
Cost of annual membership is £20.00
If you agree with the Aims & Statement of Faith then click the button below.
If you wish to renew your membership please click the button below. We will match your details to our records.
Calls from Australia and Canada at the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Western Australia, echoing William Hague’s earlier speech to the Commonwealth People’s Forum, were opposed by African, Asian and Caribbean nations. Only Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have enacted full gay rights. India’s High Court legalised sodomy and gross indecency in 2009, and South Africa has legalised homosexual activity in line with their pro-gay constitution, but both have stopped way short of the kind of measures which have seen Christians targeted by homosexual activists in the United Kingdom.
This positive outcome is a victory for righteousness and comes after Christian Voice organised a campaign of prayer throughout the Commonwealth. Christian Voice also exposed Michael Kirby, the Australian delegate who put down the motion to legalise unnatural acts, as an obsessive homosexual.
We give God the glory that David Cameron was left blustering on BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that he would use foreign aid to enforce his view, but admitting that any country’s position on gay rights was just ‘one of the things that will determine our aid policy’ and recognising that ‘they are in a different place to us on this issue’, suggested by Andrew Marr as ‘some sort of bizarre Western fetish’. You can watch the interview until 5th November 2011.
The reality is that Britain must get rid of its overseas aid budget somewhere. If it refuses to give aid to those African and Caribbean nations which view sodomy with disgust, it is a bit stuck. However, in the past it has used aid ‘creatively’ to support projects aimed at softening up populations to accept immorality and feminism.
The Department for International Development is targeting its aid to fewer countries. Its website says: ‘Our resources and impact will be concentrated on 27 countries which account for three quarters of global maternal mortality and nearly three quarters of global malaria deaths: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tajikistan,Tanzania, Uganda,Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.’
If International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell takes out all the countries which criminalise sodomy, he will be left with Burma, the Congo, India, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, South Africa and Tajikistan. But even then, public displays of homosexuality are a cultural taboo in pretty well all of them. Those committing homosexual acts in Congo, for example, are prosecuted under public decency laws. So are the children of current British aid recipients going to be denied secure schooling, vaccination, safe drinking water and improved sanitation? Does Cameron want women to die in pregnancy and childbirth and newborn babies to die needlessly without British aid?
Actually, African voices are beginning to voice the idea that foreign aid does more harm than good and if it is going to be attached to pro-gay strings the argument is made all the stronger. A good argument is made that foreign aid is there to make our politicians look caring for their own political advantage.
By a picture of a smirking Mitchell, the DfID website also says it wants to ‘help 10 million more women get access to modern family planning’. Mitchell is one of the House of Commons’ most pro-gay and pro-abortion MPs. As ‘modern family planning ‘ means abortion, and as the British Government is going to use foreign aid to campaign for that as well as for gay rights, these aid recipients are better off without it.
It will be increasingly difficult for Cameron to continue to present himself as a Eurosceptic
The motion to give the people of Britain a referendum on the EU was defeated in a vote of 483 to 111 after David Cameron ordered his MPs to vote against the proposal.
(How did your MP vote? Click HERE for surname order, or click HERE for constituency order. Both pages have links to the debate itself and for your MP’s email address.)
But while the coalition Government was successful in blocking the referendum (to read the text of the motion, see our earlier report), they have been significantly weakened after the largest backbench rebellion since they took power.
The outcome of yesterday’s vote was practically guaranteed after the Prime Minister invoked a mechanism known as the ‘three-line whip’, requiring MPs in Government jobs to follow the Prime Minister’s lead or lose their positions.
Despite the pressure from Downing Street, Tory MPs Stewart Jackson and Adam Holloway defied the Prime Minister’s whips and will consequently be resigning from their posts. They were joined by numerous backbenchers (see list below) in their insistence that the people of Britain have a right to a referendum.
‘Humiliation to the Government’
Referring to the 81 Tories who defied the Prime Minister, Labour leader Ed Miliband said the backbench rebellion was a “humiliation” to the Government. “If he can’t win the argument with his own backbenchers,” Miliband commented, “how can the country have confidence that he can win the arguments that matter for Britain?”
A Spokesman from Number 10 Downing Street defended the Prime Minister, saying, “It was important to take a strong lead – because Britain’s best interests are served by being in the EU.”
‘U-Turn’
Christian Voice accused David Cameron of making a ‘U-Turn’ after years of promoting himself as a Eurosceptic. Robin Phillips, press secretary for Christian Voice, commented, “He continually promises to change Britain’s relationship with Europe and even gave a ‘cast iron guarantee’ that his Government would support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. After yesterday’s events, the image of Cameron as a Eurosceptic will be increasingly difficult to sustain.”
“But it is not just David Cameron that is guilty of making a U-turn” Phillips continued. “In the run-up to the last general election the Liberal Democrats campaigned for a referendum [see photo below from their campaign flier]. However, when faced with a choice of keeping to their promise, they have capitulated to David Cameron’s europhilia.
What You Can Do
WRITE: to your MP. Check the Roll of Honour below and if your MP is not in the list, ask him or her why! Point out that it has been 36 years since the people of Britain were consulted. Back then the people of Britain were told that they were merely entering a Common Market.
Roll of Honour: MPs Who Voted ‘Yes’ to a Referendum
Mr Stuart Andrew (Con) (Pudsey)
Mr Steve Baker (Con) (Wycombe)
Mr John Baron (Con) (Basildon & Billericay)
Mr Andrew Bingham (Con) (High Peak)
Mr Brian Binley (Con) (Northampton South)
Mr Bob Blackman (Con) (Harrow East)
Mr. Peter Bone (Con) (Wellingborough)
Mr Graham Brady (Con) (Altrincham & Sale West)
Mr Andrew Bridgen (Con) (North West Leicestershire)
Mr Steve Brine (Con) (Winchester)
Ms Fiona Bruce (Con) (Congleton)
Mr Dan Byles (Con) (North Warwickshire)
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Lab) (Blyth Valley)
Mr Gregory Campbell (DUP) (East Londonderry)
Mr Douglas Carswell (Con) (Clacton)
Mr William Cash (Con) (Stone)
Mr Christopher Chope (Con) (Christchurch)
Mr James Clappison (Con) (Hertsmere)
Ms Rosie Cooper (Lab) (West Lancashire)
Mr Jeremy Corbyn (Lab) (Islington North)
Ms Tracey Crouch (Con) (Chatham & Aylesford)
Mr Jon Cruddas (Lab) (Dagenham & Rainham)
Mr John Cryer (Lab) (Leyton & Wanstead)
Mr Ian Davidson (Lab) (Glasgow South West)
Mr Philip Davies (Con) (Shipley)
Mr David T.C. Davies (Con) (Monmouth)
RH Mr David Davis (Con) (Haltemprice & Howden)
Mr Nick de Bois (Con) (Enfield North)
Ms Caroline Dinenage (Con) (Gosport)
RH Mr Nigel Dodds (DUP) (Belfast North)
RH Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (DUP) (Lagan Valley)
Mrs. Nadine Dorries (Con) (Mid Bedfordshire)
Mr Richard Drax (Con) (South Dorset)
Ms Natascha Engel (Lab) (North East Derbyshire)
RH Mr Frank Field (Lab) (Birkenhead)
Mr Mark Field (Con) (Cities of London & Westminster)
Ms Lorraine Fullbrook (Con) (South Ribble)
Mr Roger Godsiff (Lab) (Birmingham Hall Green)
Mr Zac Goldsmith (Con) (Richmond Park)
Mr James Gray (Con) (North Wiltshire)
Mr Chris Heaton-Harris (Con) (Daventry)
Mr Gordon Henderson (Con) (Sittingbourne & Sheppey)
Lady Hermon (UU) (North Down)
Ms Kate Hoey (Lab) (Vauxhall)
Mr George Hollingbery (Con) (Meon Valley)
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Con) (Kettering)
Mr Adam Holloway (Con) (Gravesham)
Mr Kelvin Hopkins (Lab) (Luton North)
Mr Stewart Jackson (Con) (Peterborough)
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Con) (Harwich & North Essex)
Mr Marcus Jones (Con) (Nuneaton)
Mr Chris Kelly (Con) (Dudley South)
Ms Andrea Leadsom (Con) (South Northamptonshire)
Mr Jeremy Lefroy (Con) (Stafford)
Mr Edward Leigh (Con) (Gainsborough)
Dr Julian Lewis (Con) (New Forest East)
Ms Caroline Lucas (Gre) (Brighton Pavilion)
Ms Karen Lumley (Con) (Redditch)
Mrs Anne Main (Con) (St Albans)
Mr. Steve McCabe (Lab) (Birmingham Selly Oak)
Mr Karl McCartney (Con) (Lincoln)
Mr Jason McCartney (Con) (Colne Valley)
Dr William McCrea (DUP) (South Antrim)
Mr John McDonnell (Lab) (Hayes & Harlington)
Mr Stephen McPartland (Con) (Stevenage)
Mr Patrick Mercer (Con) (Newark)
Mr Nigel Mills (Con) (Amber Valley)
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Lab) (Great Grimsby)
Mr James Morris (Con) (Halesowen & Rowley Regis)
Ms Anne Marie Morris (Con) (Newton Abbot)
Mr Stephen Mosley (Con) (City of Chester)
Ms Sheryll Murray (Con) (South East Cornwall)
Ms Caroline Nokes (Con) (Romsey & Southampton North)
Mr David Nuttall (Con) (Bury North)
Mr Matthew Offord (Con) (Hendon)
Mr Ian Paisley (DUP) (North Antrim)
Mr Neil Parish (Con) (Tiverton & Honiton)
Ms Priti Patel (Con) (Witham)
Mr Andrew Percy (Con) (Brigg & Goole)
Mr Mark Pritchard (Con) (The Wrekin)
Mr Mark Reckless (Con) (Rochester & Strood)
RH Mr John Redwood (Con) (Wokingham)
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con) (North East Somerset)
Mr Simon Reevell (Con) (Dewsbury)
Mr Laurence Robertson (Con) (Tewkesbury)
Mr Andrew Rosindell (Con) (Romford)
Mr Adrian Sanders (LD) (Torbay)
Mr Jim Shannon (DUP) (Strangford)
Mr Richard Shepherd (Con) (Aldridge-Brownhills)
Mr David Simpson (DUP) (Upper Bann)
Mr Dennis Skinner (Lab) (Bolsover)
Mr Henry Smith (Con) (Crawley)
RH Mr Andrew Smith (Lab) (Oxford East)
Mr John Stevenson (Con) (Carlisle)
Mr Bob Stewart (Con) (Beckenham)
Mr Gary Streeter (Con) (South West Devon)
Mr. Graham Stringer (Lab) (Blackley & Broughton)
Ms Gisela Stuart (Lab) (Birmingham Edgbaston)
Mr Julian Sturdy (Con) (York Outer)
RH Sir Peter Tapsell (Con) (Louth & Horncastle)
Mr Justin Tomlinson (Con) (North Swindon)
Mr Andrew Turner (Con) (Isle of Wight)
Mr Martin Vickers (Con) (Cleethorpes)
Mr Robin Walker (Con) (Worcester)
Mr Charles Walker (Con) (Broxbourne)
Ms Heather Wheeler (Con) (South Derbyshire)
Mr Craig Whittaker (Con) (Calder Valley)
Mr John Whittingdale (Con) (Maldon)
Mr Sammy Wilson (DUP) (East Antrim)
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Con) (Totnes)
Mr Mike Wood (Lab) (Batley & Spen)
Australians in Brisbane should have the fear of God after the floods which devastated it earlier this year, but here are gays flaunting their sin as Sodom and assaulting Christians preaching the Gospel. Ironically, the homosexual rally against which the Christians were witnessing called for tolerance and was promoted by ‘Equal Love’.
In the United Kingdom, we have had similar homosexual violence against Christians and we are now seeing persecution of Christians at work and in business in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’.
The latest case in Britain involves housing manager Adrian Smith, demoted for not backing gay marriage. Smith, a practising Christian, has had his pay slashed because he said on his private Facebook page that that allowing gay weddings in churches was ‘an equality too far’.
British Catholic adoption agencies have been closed down by our ‘sexual orientation regulations’ and Christian public sector workers are now afraid to express any view against homosexuality. The aggressive ‘gay lobby’ rules in Parliament, the Courts and Town Halls up and down the land, imposing its immorality on the rest of society.
We call for compassion for all those caught in sexual sin. The Church should be ministering the saving and healing grace of Jesus Christ to these unfortunate individuls. Equally, human rights include no right to commit acts against nature. The experience of the United Kingdom and Australia, to say nothing of the USA, shows what inevitably happens to those nations which legalise unnatural acts.
Michael Kirby, part of the Australian delegation and a retired Australian High Court judge, has been promoting homosexuality since he named one Johan van Vloten, a non-believer, as his ‘long-term partner’ in 1999. Despite claiming to be an Anglican, he has publicly attacked his own Archbishop of Sydney, called fellow Christians ‘God-botherers’ in a video on the TEDxSydney Youtube Channel, and denounced believers at the so-called ‘Parliament of the World’s Religions‘ in December 2009.
He is an advocate of sex education based on promiscuity with condoms, thinks prostitutes are merely ‘sex workers’ and would force the legalisation of both prostitution and homosexuality world-wide.
He has called for the State to apologise to homosexuals and for the Church to apologise for its ‘non-acceptance’ of homosexuality (but not, oddly enough, for its ‘non-acceptance’ of adultery, thieving and perjury). For Kirby, mere tolerance for sodomy and its practitioners is not enough. He demands acceptance, claiming, against the growing evidence of those released from homosexuality, that the science is ‘settled’ and that homosexuality is ‘genetic’, a position he must know that no geneticist actually accepts.
As a practising homosexual, Kirby has made no end of speeches promoting the homosexual cause. Some are listed on the SaltShakers webiste HERE. He promotes homosexuality fanatically, in the UN and other world bodies like UNAIDS.
In any other walk of life, someone who could not stop banging on about some aspect of his life would be regarded as a crushing bore. But Kirby has been garlanded with awards and honorary degrees around the world.
Now just because you are paranoid it does not mean they are not out to get you. But for Kirby, anyone who disagrees with him in any way – is motivated by ‘hate’. The reality is, he has no moral high ground from which to make such a charge.
Alfred Kinsey - exposed as a pervert, eulogised by Kirby
Michael Kirby is astonishingly on the board of the Kinsey Institute and constantly eulogises Alfred Kinsey, a pervert who included prison inmates and paedophiles in his research, as well as sexual experiments done on children, to ‘prove’ his contention that 10% of the population were homosexual (the true figure, even in the decadent West, is around 1%) and that children could – and should – experience sexual pleasure.
Nor does the fact that Kirby has a long-term partner mean that they have necessarliy been sexually faithful to each other. We just don’t know. But in the majority of homosexual couples, one or the other or both have sexual contacts outside their relationship. Fidelity is not a concept which has any relevance in homosexual life.
in the many years that he lived the gay lifestyle, truly monogamous gay relationships are all but impossible, and that those relationships which he encountered that had a semblance of monogamy were very often a facade. Many in those relationships were sleeping around behind their partners’ backs; or there was an arrangement where both partners agreed to stay together while ‘permitting’ the other partner to have sex on the side.
Kirby says it is ‘ridulous and wicked’ to deny homosexuals the right to marry. On the contrary, it is ‘ridulous and wicked’ to allow it. Wicked because it flies in the face of the ordinance of Almighty God, endorsed by the Lord Jesus, that marriage is between one man and one woman. Ridiculous because a marriage must be consumated in law to be valid. How can a pair of homosexuals, lacking between them the complementary parts of the anatomy necessary for such an act of sexual intercourse, possibly do that?
Kirby pretends that African attitudes to homosexuality were introduced by colonialists. The truth is that homosexuality and other sexual immorality has been contrary to African attitudes for generations. The irony is, Kirby’s motion at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in October 2011 is a shameless attempt at neo-colonialism, where rich white nations use threats of withdrawal of foreign aid to browbeat those less wealthy than themselves.
Motions at the Commonwealth meetings are only passed if they are agreed by consensus. If the African, Caribbean and Asian Commonwealth nations stand together for truth and morality, Kirby’s self-serving motion will deservedly fail.
BBC News reported that MPs have agreed to stage an historic debate on whether to hold a referendum on Britain’s future in the EU.
The day-long debate will occur next Monday and will culminate in MPs voting on whether to give the people of Britain a referendum.
Although originally scheduled for Thursday, Downing Street brought it forward to Monday amid fears that the party might use Cameron’s absence later in the week to stage a rebellion against his pro-EU policies.
All three political parties are putting pressure on their members to vote against the referendum and the BBC reported that conservative MPs may even be facing a three-line whip. This is a procedure that would require MPs in Government jobs to follow the Prime Minister’s lead or be threatened with losing their positions. If Europhile David Cameron does order his MPs to vote against the referendum, it would practically ensure its defeat.
Even if MPs vote in favour of the motion next Monday, David Cameron is not bound to enforce the result, although it could be politically dangerous for him not to.
The motion that MPs will vote on reads:
This House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom:
A) Should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
B) Should leave the European Union;
C) Should re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.
Tory back-benchers voted to hold the debate after more than 100,000 people signed a petition demanding a choice. Conservative MP David Nuttall articulated the case for the referendum when he said, “I believe that a referendum along these lines would allow the public to make clear their views about our current membership of the European Union.”
“It is 36 years since we last held a referendum and our relationship with what was then known as the Common Market and the European Union has changed out of all recognition.”
Pressure on David Cameron has been mounting ever since his 2009 U-turn on the Lisbon treaty referendum. If he chooses to use his weight to block the referendum in next week’s vote, he could force a mutiny within his own party.
Speaking of the prospect of Down Street intervention, Tory MP Bill Cash said it would be ‘beyond belief’, commenting,
“It would be quite extraordinary for the Prime Minister to prevent the British people from having their say on a European project that is quite clearly failing. We have protests and riots all over Europe, we have billions of pounds being poured into bailouts and we have a trade balance with the EU which has deteriorated by £40billion. For the Prime Minister to ask the Conservative Party to vote against asking people their views would be beyond belief.”
PHONE your MP and ask how he intends to vote next week. Emphasize that we need a referendum since no one under the age of 54 has ever had a say on Britain’s relationship with the EU. Information on contacting MPs can be found here.
Do African nations really need gay pride marches? This sad and depraved scene took place in London.
CANBERRA, Australia — An official says leaders of former British Empire countries will be asked next weekend to legalize homosexuality.
Australian delegate Michael Kirby told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio yesterday that the agenda includes a recommendation to legalize homosexuality. Kirby claims countries have a difficult time educating populations about safe sex while also banning ‘gay sex’.
Leaders of 53 Commonwealth countries will meet in the Australian city of Perth over the weekend of 28th to 30th October 2011 for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. As motions are determined by consensus, the Australian initiative will most likely get nowhere, but it is part of the pressure being exerted by the white donor nations on those they regard as less ‘enlightened’.
Australian activist Rob Lake says most Commonwealth countries outlaw homosexuality and the response to the recommendation would ‘test their human rights commitment’.
London Gay Pride March
The truth about HIV/AIDS
Firstly, Kirby’s claim is both self-serving and contradictory. For years sodomy advocates have told the rest of us that HIV/AIDS is not a ‘gay disease’ and did not predominantly affect the homosexual network. Now Kirby admits that it does. So what is the truth?
In fact, HIV/AIDS is a bloodbourne disease which needs to get into the bloodstream direct or through an open wound.
So, firstly, the rectum is easily torn during sodomy, and the rectal wall is only one cell thick. It is perfectly designed to extract water from bodily waste, so viruses of all sorts can be absorbed straight into the blood-stream during the unnatural act of sodomy.
Secondly, if sexually-transmitted diseases go untreated, they can leave lesions through which HIV can travel during normal sexual intercourse. Thirdly, reuse of hypodermic needles following inadequate sterilisation can transmit HIV in some countries’ medical establishments. Chastity before marriage, faithfulness in marriage and good medical practice, which may need better funding, are much more effective than condoms in stopping HIV/AIDS.
Legalising homosexual acts will increase gay tourism
Legalising sodomy would only make matters worse, and will also lead to more of the horrors of gay tourism which already corrupt children in parts of Africa, the Caribbean and Asia. Despite what Mr Lake and other ‘health’ and ‘human rights’ activists say, there is no human right to commit unnatural sexual acts in any human rights document. Homosexual attraction is not inbuilt. Both men and women have been released from it.
Lesbian aggression at Sidney Mardi Gras; one of the less indecent photos on the Mardi Gras website.
Let us look at the countries leading the pro-sodomy charge. In Australia, the Sydney ‘MardiGras‘ has, according to its website, been taken up with enthusiasm by the city. It, like every MardiGras and Gay Pride everywhere in the world, is an annual display of Western depravity and obscenity.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:
‘Those Commonwealth nations who still respect morality and the sovereignty of Almighty God have to stand together against the cultural imperialism of rich white countries. Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand still have a colonialist mindset in which the white man knows best. Well perhaps Britain and the rest, where immorality in public policy is leading to a breakdown of society and even to violence on the streets, need to take some lessons in decency and respect from African, Caribbean and Asian nations.
‘I live in a country which has been rushing along a godless road to destruction for the past fifty years. Britain legalised sodomy, abortion, divorce-on-demand and pornography in the 1960s. Today Britain is described as brutal and broken even by leading politicians like David Cameron himself.
‘The nation which took the Gospel around the world is now intent on exporting our peculiar brand of wickedness.
‘Our experience in Britain shows that legalising sodomy leads to full gay rights, recognised homosexual partnerships and then ‘gay weddings’, hate crimes laws designed to prevent pastors speaking the truth about human sexuality, and an aggressive homosexual lobby which allows no dissent in political parties or in the corridors of power.
‘In Britain, it has led to hoteliers being forced to let rooms to pairs of homosexuals and forced those who oppose sodomy out of public-sector jobs. Ours is a society going to a libertarian hell on earth where the rights of people to practice their Christian faith are openly trampled on.
‘And if activists want to talk about human rights, let them explain away the fact that in England and Wales, 189,574 children were killed by abortion in 2010 alone. Every single day of the year, on average, over 500 unborn children are being torn out of what should be the safest place on God’s earth in the United Kingdom. Where is their human right to life? For some amazing pictures of life – and death – before birth, click HERE
‘Truly, David Cameron has no moral high ground at all from which to lecture non-white Commonwealth nations about ‘human rights’.
‘I hope and pray that those nations will stand together to tell Australia and Britain a few home truths about basic morality.’
A petition to defend marriage is now up-and-running.
The text is simple:
‘We the undersigned believe that marriage was ordained by God to be the union of one man and one woman and that marriage between two persons of the same sex can not and should not be legalised by any earthly government.’
PLEASE NOTE: You can remain anonymous and you don’t have to give ANY personal information (like your phone numbers and address) to sign this petition. However, if you provide it in the boxes provided we can keep in touch with you better. We will never under any circumstance give your personal details to any third party at all, ever!
And for that very reason we do not advocate or support signing petitions on the No10 or other Gvt websites …
P.S. Any invitation for a donation following your signature of the petition is from ipetitions and not from Christian Voice. You are free either to donate to the site or not as you wish.
As the Government announces its intention to legislate a lie and allow two men or two women to ‘marry’, here are two of the most ludicrous recent civil partnerships which are already bringing marriage into disrepute.
The first is the Star-Trek-themed bash in Swansea where two middle-aged women, one of whom accompanied by her two young sons, became ‘civil partners’. In other words, at least one of the pair was a fully-functioning heterosexual before deciding to be a lesbian.
The Daily Mail, in all seriousness, reported: ‘46-year-old Anita’s children threw themselves into looking good for their mother’s big day.’ Now either Anita was one of the one-in-six adults currently living in sin, or she was married, in which latter case, she would have had a rather more Godly ‘big day’ before these two boys were born.
The second is the civil partnership between two male-female transsexuals in Cambridge, one of whom served as mayor of the City and the other as his consort.
The Cambridge News reported: ‘The ceremony at Shire Hall only took a few minutes and was attended by two witnesses who threw confetti over the happy couple.
‘Antoinette Jackson, chief executive of the city council, said: “Jenny and Jennifer had a great year when they were mayor and mayoress, and we’d like to wish them all the best on their happy day.” ‘
