Home Blog Page 61

Changing Ideas of Liberty

What Obama’s Re-Election Tells us About America (Part 4)

Obama’s re-election has huge symbolic value, since he epitomizes changing attitudes towards liberty in America. He represents a growing constituency which believes that maximization of liberty means removing all barriers to sexual license.

It is common knowledge that no president has been as virulently pro-abortion and pro-homosexual as Obama. But the real significance of this is that as Obama attempts to overturn centuries of Christian morality, he does so in the name of liberty.

In the case of Obama’s support of abortion, the policies he embraces actually remove liberty from the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. Similarly, his recent support of same-sex ‘marriage’ could see unprecedented restrictions on freedom of speech and even thought. However, Obama pursues these policies in the name of greater freedom for the American people. This is significant since it shows that America is involved in a sea-change shift of what liberty actually means.

In the older tradition, the government’s role in preserving liberty was primarily negative, with the state acting as a hedge against outside threats to life, property and the pursuit of happiness. In this framework, liberty was as much a restriction of the state as it was anything else. Put another way, liberty was essentially negative.

Since roughly the time of Franklin Roosevelt, however, rights and liberties have increasingly come to be seen as something the state has a responsibility to proactively create. In his 1944 State of the Union Address, Franklin Roosevelt created the template for a new way of thinking about liberty when he called a “second Bill of Rights” on the grounds that “Necessitous men are not free men”. If a man is necessitous—that is, if there are things he needs but doesn’t have—then he is lacking true liberty. Of course, if this be granted, then the only way for the state to preserve liberty is to satisfy people’s needs. Roosevelt thus went on to suggest that the state should provide a “new basis of security and prosperity” which included “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.”

Now there is nothing wrong in principle with the state providing medical care to its citizens, provided it can afford to do so. The problem is when we assert that anything less represents a deficit of liberty, and that I can only be truly free in a society where government meets my needs. To confuse freedom with provision in this way is to imply that for most of the United States’ history the citizens have never been truly free and that the ideals of liberty can only be realized under modern activist government.

This new concept of liberty is analogous to evolving notions of human rights. No longer are rights God-given conditions that the state simply protects; rather, rights become benefits that government is responsible to actually create.

It’s interesting to see how this played out in two of the most contentious issues during the election: contraception and Obamacare. Significantly, Obama has not simply argued that the state should provide free contraception and healthcare to all its citizens. On the contrary, again and again he has suggested that government must do this because Americans have a right to it. By converting a growing amount of needs and desires into inalienable rights, Obama has given the American government a burden it cannot afford (literally) to bare.

The shift in the concept of liberty and rights arises from confusion over where our rights actually originate. Do our most basic inalienable rights and liberties come from God, who then ordains the state to protect those rights and liberties? Or are our most basic inalienable rights the creation of the State?

According to America’s Declaration of Independence, our inalienable rights come from God. It reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Because our most basic rights come from God, the role of the state in preserving liberty is primarily negative, acting as a hedge against people and forces who would take away those rights.

Obama has made it clear that he disputes the notion of negative liberties. In a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM, he referred to needing to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” and he criticized those who believed ” the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.” Bruce Walker had this to say about the utter absurdity of these new “positive liberties” that Obama hoped to introduce:

The 2001 audio tape of Barack Obama describing the Constitution as a document of “negative liberties” reveals an utterly Orwellian Obama.  How can liberty be anything other than negative?  Liberty is the absence of external control.  Only in our age of collective thinking and untidy language could such a thing as “positive liberty” be conceived.  The state power to coerce is not liberty.

Notions like “positive liberty” are part of the web of thought control by language manipulation which Orwell  described in 1984. If Obama cannot think of “positive liberty” as a contradiction in terms, then he simply cannot think.  The conscious surrender of language to the needs of the party creates a self-made prison from which escape is, quite literally, inconceivable.  These unguarded remarks by Obama display a mind trapped in a reality in which words are phantoms.

Obama could have spoken about the limited value of liberty.  Government does some things which reduce our private rights and yet which increase the common good.  Politics is all about where the boundary between broad notions of promoting the general welfare by state coercion and preserving liberty should be.  Politicians on the Left have often argued that liberty should be reined in more tightly so that “the people” can live better.  But implying that more state power somehow increases liberty is beyond mere Leftism.  It is entry into that dead realm of Newspeak in which language is pureed into nonsense, and then nonsense is presented as argument.

Behind Obama’s Newspeak is a certain worldview that we must be attentive to. In Obama’s world, because liberties and rights do not have any objective a priori grounding, it is totally consistent to turn them into the plaything of an all-powerful state. Since rights and liberties do not come from God but from the state, government has the responsibility to invent and then dispense these positive liberties to the populace (and indeed, to the world).

But how do we know that Obama does not believe that rights and liberties originate with God? Listen to Obama when he tries to quote this passage (taken from a speech made at a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Rockville, Md:

As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Do you notice something missing when Obama quotes the Declaration? He leaves out part which says that our certain inalienable rights are endowed to mankind “by their Creator.” Could this be a simple oversight on Obama’s part? Perhaps, if it was only this one speech. But in fact, Obama has misquoted the Declaration on at least two different occasions, making it difficult to dismiss as a simple mistake. This apparently deliberate omission is a powerful statement about Obama’s worldview, in which it is not God who gives us our most basic rights and liberties, but the State.

Ken Myers put his finger on the pulse of this attitude in his Mars Hill Audio Journal, when he commented that “Modern liberal societies are structured around the assumption that since there is no one definition of happiness that everyone can agree on, the state and state-approved social institutions will promote freedom and equality so that everyone will be able to pursue happiness on their own terms. However, in the absence of any substantive understanding of happiness—of the ends of human life—freedom and equality become variable, plastic, elusive terms, defined relative to the cultural status quo and not objectively.”

 

Further Resources

 

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

Image Over Reality

5

What Obama’s Re-Election Tells us About America (Part 3)

Obama’s re-election tells us that image matters more than reality.

In the days leading up to his re-election, Obama announced to America that the federal deficit had gone down under him. “We tried our ideas. They worked. The economy grew. We created jobs. Deficits went down.” Well, the federal deficit actually expanded under Obama, and not even his supporters have tried to argue otherwise.

However, what has mattered more than the facts was the impression Obama gave of himself as an experienced statesman who halted the rising deficit through his policies of fiscal prudence. Most of America bought the lie, or Obama wouldn’t now be preparing to serve a second term.

In addition to portraying himself as a thrifty leader who had brought America out of its recession, Obama successfully portrayed Romney as an intolerant, right-wing plutocratic. The barrage of the withering television ads that the Obama campaign let loose in the swing states solidified this caricature of Romney, though it was about as accurate as Obama’s claim to have decreased the federal deficit.

What this tells us about America is that impression matters more than substance. As I pointed out in an article I wrote last summer, political speeches “are increasingly filled with vacuous statements that do not invite rational disputation. Speeches are designed to maximize applause lines, stroke the emotions and appeal to our intuitions, while being lean on substantive content.”

Obama embodies this image-based paradigm. He was able to appeal to the intuitions and emotions of most Americans, especially those living in urban areas, while being lean on factual content.

 

Further Resources

 

 

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

The Christian Retreat

7

What Obama’s Re-Election Tells us About America (Part 2)

Obama’s re-election shows us that the Christians living in the nation need a kick in the backside. Obama’s victory was made possible by the thousands of Christians who supported him, as well as by those who did not support him yet decided not to vote for Romney.

CNN reported that “One-in-four Obama voters were religiously unaffiliated, the second-largest “religious” demographic in the president’s coalition…. Minority Christians – consisting of black, Asian, Hispanic and mixed-race Americans – made up 31% of Obama’s coalition, the largest religious group.” American Christians elected Obama!

Obviously Obama did not have the support of very many conservative Christians, yet many of these refused to vote. Obama won by a slim enough margin in the swing states that some experts believe the results would have been different had enough evangelicals and conservative Christians voted for Romney.

Leading up to the election, most of the Christians I spoke with told me that they could not bring themselves to vote for Romney even if it meant Obama got another four years. One of the common justifications evangelical Christians gave for not voting for Romney is because they were concerned about his Mormonism. While it is certainly true that we should be concerned about any false religion, it is unclear why so many Christians felt they couldn’t engage in cobelligerents with a Mormon, especially one claiming to be pro-life and against same-sex ‘marriage.’

Certainly Romney was not the ideal candidate from a Christian perspective, especially since he was so quick to merely echo whatever he thought people wanted to hear. Yet precisely because Romney did have a conservative base to please, it is possible that the electorate could have kept him accountable to some of his campaign promises. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. However, with three Supreme Court nominations coming up in the next four years, it’s hard to imagine Romney doing any worse than Obama. Sometimes the most responsible thing to do is to choose the lesser of two evils.

Leading up to the election a number of Christians told me that they believed it would be wrong—if not sinful—to choose the lesser of two evils. When pressed, those who put forward this concern were never able to explain why choosing the lesser of two evils is wrong from a Biblical point of view. And when you stop to think about it, unless Jesus Himself were running for office, any vote is going to be a vote for the lesser of two evils, at least on some level.

The concern that Christians should not vote for the lesser of two evils fails to appreciate why we actually vote in the first place. From almost any ethical perspective—certainly from the Christian perspective—the decision who to vote for ought to be based on what benefits the common good, and not on there being a candidate we feel happy to get behind (which, if we’re honest, will rarely be the case). As my friend Brad Littlejohn explained it in a recent blog post,

a vote is [not] an endorsement of, or an identification with any particular candidate—it is simply an attempt to secure a relatively better realization of the common good, and to render less likely particularly serious evils.  That being the case, one may vote for a candidate whom one expects to make a number of evil decisions, without being personally culpable for those decisions, if one believes that on the whole, justice will be better served by that candidate.

Unfortunately, the concept of needing to serve the common good plays far too small a role within the political discourse of the conservative Christian community of America. The Christian right in America is becoming increasingly individualistic, myopic and self-serving. In reaction to the incipient socialism of the political left, America’s conservative community is fast becoming characterized by individualistic opportunists who associate any appeal to the common good with utilitarianism or collectivism. I first started realizing this was a problem when a conservative businessman said to me (in another election), “I’m not concerned with which candidate is going to best serve our nation, I’m going to vote for the candidate whose policies will benefit me.”

 

PRAY: that the Christians in America would move from a posture of retreat and compromise to become a light to the nation. Ask that during the years of Obama’s second term, the Lord would raise Christians up to witness to the truth and bring America to her knees in repentance.

 

Further Resources

 

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

America’s Changing Spiritual Environment

What Obama’s Re-Election Tells us About America (Part 1)

On the surface, Obama’s re-election was a puzzle. With unemployment in America at 7.9%, food prices skyrocketing and the price of living at it’s highest in three years, all the odds were stacked against the incumbent. By all accounts, Romney should have sailed to an easy victory.

The common narratives to explain Obama’s re-election doesn’t really get to the root of things. Republicans are blaming Obama’s re-election on the fact that Romney was insufficiently conservative and too changeable, that the Obama campaign was better organized, that Romney had managed to alienate the Hispanic vote during the primaries, or that Hurricane Sandy deflected media focus away from Romney’s campaign in the final crucial days.

While all of these factors played a part, they don’t really get at the deeper spiritual and social issues which explain why the American electorate was so eager to give Obama another four years. In series of five blog posts I will seek to uncover some of those deeper issues and to ask, “What does Obama’s re-election tells us about America?”

Changing Spiritual Environment

America’s choice to re-elect Obama has huge spiritual significance because of what Obama symbolically represents. Never before have Americans chosen a national figurehead who was as openly hostile to the Christian faith.

Earlier this year David Barton did us a great service of putting together in one place a list of Obama’s acts of hostility to the Christian faith. I want to quote Barton’s list in full. (Click on the footnotes to see references substantiating that Obama or his administration actually did these things.) The fact that the United States decided to re-elect a President with this kind of track record says much about the changing spiritual environment of contemporary America.

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

  • April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” 1
  • February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2
  • April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. 3
  • May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4
  • April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5
  • October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6
  • November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7
  • January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8
  • February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9
  • April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10
  • August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11
  • November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12
  • November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13
  • December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14
  • January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16

2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:

  • June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 17
  • August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America). 18
  • September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 19
  • September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 20
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 21
  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans. 22
  • February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 23
  • February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 24
  • February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 25
  • April 2012 – A checklist for Air Force Inns will no longer include ensuring that a Bible is available in rooms for those who want to use them.26
  • May 2012 – The Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs.27
  • June 2012 – Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles.28

3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:

  • January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 29
  • January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 30
  • March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 31
  • March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 32
  • March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 33
  • May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 34 He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. 35
  • May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 36
  • July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 37
  • September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 38
  • July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 39
  • August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 40
  • September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 41
  • February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 42
  • March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 43
  • July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 44
  • September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 45
  • October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 46

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:

  • May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 47
  • April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 48
  • April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 49
  • August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 50
  • August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 51
  • 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 52
  • October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 53
  • February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 54 but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. 55


PRAY
: that the Lord would have mercy on America and strengthen His church during this time of virulent opposition to the gospel.

 

Further Resources

 

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

Churches should benefit the public

An Excluisve Brethren meeting hall

An Exclusive Brethren church trust in Devon is to consider advertising its services to satisfy the Charity Commission that it serves a public benefit, according to Third Way magazine yesterday.

The news that the Preston Down Trust had been refused charitable status was greeted with alarm in some Christian circles, but the National Director of Christian Voice believes it is a very special case and that good can come from it if the decision forces churches into the gospel imperative of social action.

In a letter to the Brethren, the Charity Commission cited a tribunal ruling that religion is not always for “the public benefit” and said “there is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England”.

The Brethren have announced their intention to seek an appeal.

The Exclusive Brethren are a Christian denomination who have no fellowship with those outside.  They affix a small sign to their meeting hall stating that it is a place of public worship to satisfy the law, but little else gives its function away.  They do not extend hospitality to outsiders and are not involved in the community at large, keeping themselves as separate as they can from the world.

MPs on the Public Administration Select Committee, which is investigating the work of the Charity Commission, are concerned that the commission could start denying charitable status to other religious groups.

Charlie Elphicke, a member of the committee and the MP for Dover and Deal, believes the commission is ‘committed to the suppression of religion’.

The Charities Act 2006 means that organisations which previously gained charitable status automatically now have to demonstrate “public benefit”.

Professor Peter Luxton, an expert in charity law at Cardiff University, said the Charity Commission’s attempt to define public benefit was “a nonsense,” since the 2006 law did not make any changes to the definition of a charity.

He added: “The Commission has been completely out of control.”

The Charity Commission said: ‘The application from Preston Down Trust was not accepted on the basis that we were unable to conclude that the organisation is established for the advancement of religion for public benefit within the relevant charity law.’

A spokeswoman went further, saying that the decision to deny charitable status to the Preston Down Trust ‘took into account the nature of Christian religion embraced by the trust and the means through which this was promoted, including the public access to its services and the potential for its beneficial impact on the wider community’, according to Third Sector.

Rod Buckley, a member of Preston Down Trust, said that it does allow non-members to attend services, but advertising its meetings will demonstrate that.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:

‘This decision, while it may seem unwelcome, is not quite the big deal that some are making out.  There is not the remotest possibility of churches up and down the land losing their charitable status.

‘In a sense it is a pity that new charity law has allowed the Charity Commission to change the old understanding that the promotion of religion is a good thing and that ‘it is good for people to have a religion’, but that was in an era when ‘religion’ in our land simply meant Christianity.

‘However, in Britain today, we are beginning to see that not all religion is good.  Churches engage, or should engage, in social action, and the Christian faith has brought immense benefit to our nation.  Our laws were historically based on Christian principles of justice, although secularists have deliberately legislated against righteousness in the last fifty years.  Our heritage of generosity, altruism, philanthropy and care for the poor and needy were based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, although these too are now under pressure.

‘But other religions struggle to show any public benefit.  Mosques and Islamic trusts further the Islamic faith and give nothing beneficial to the community at large.  Hinduism is similarly introspective, while campaigning atheist concerns with charitable status offer nothing that could conceivably be described as having a public benefit.

‘By observing that the Exclusive Brethren need to show how their faith benefits the outside world, the Charity Commission are pussing them into an openness and a willingness to serve that should be at the heart of the Gospel.  That can only be a good thing.

‘Christians and churches in general need to take note and if they do not have projects which benefit the community, they should put them in place as a matter of urgency.  God became one of us in Jesus Christ, and especially as we come up to Christmas, we need to learn the message of his incarnation and become his hands and feet doing what he urged us to do on earth.  In addition, we need to show that Christians live industrious, God-fearing lives which make a positive impact on the world around us.

‘We should also begin to draw the attention of the Charity Commission to the lack of public benefit of anti-Christian bodies with charitable status.  Groups promoting evil under the guise of ‘educating the public’ should be exposed for what they are.  The Charity Commission may have done the cause of Christ a lot of good in this decision.’

Some suggestions of social action church projects:

Engaging with the community in prayer and worship

Evangelism

Wide advertising of worship meetings, services and projects

Street Pastors and ‘Night Lights’

Soup Kitchens

Food Banks

Offering help with unemployment claim forms and housing benefits

Debt counselling

Helping people into work with courses, drafting CVs, etc

Advice with business skills and encouragement,

Marriage preparation, guidance, and building.

Poverty relief at home

Support of projects overseas

MIcro-finance

Support for parents in trouble with Social Services,

Help with parenting and home management skills,

Speaking out on the issues of the day,

Do our members have any other suggestions?

 

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

Cameron’s ‘gays’ to paedophilia link

 

Philip Schofield ambushes David Cameron with ‘the list’

David Cameron’s inadvertant link between homosexuality and paedophilia has sent the media into a bit of a damage-limitation exercise.

In a live interview earlier this week, This Morning presenter Phillip Schofield handed the Prime Minister a card with a list of names on it drawn from the internet, saying that they were people Mr Cameron knew and asking whether he would be talking to them.

Mr Schofield was wrong to dignify gossip in such a way and no-one being interviewed appreciates an ambush.  A furious Mr Cameron, who did not look at the names, replied:

“There is a danger, if we’re not careful, that this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay and I’m worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now – giving me a list of names that you’ve taken off the internet.”

The media attention focused on Mr Schofield, who was scolded for the ‘schoolboy error’ of misjudging a camera angle and showing some eagle-eyed viewers the top two Tory names on his list.

Nobody in the world of media wants to talk even about the possibility of links between homosexuality and paedophilia, or to confuse the public by separating paedophiles into those attracted to adolescents (usually referred to as ‘pederasts’) and those attracted to pro-pubertal children (true paedophiles).

Uncomfortable as it is to admit, Mr Cameron was correct in his slip of the tongue.  There is indeed a link between homosexuality and sexual attraction to children.

Those campaigning for the legalisation of paedophilia have always been male homosexuals.  The founders of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL), the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and the New Zealand based Aotearoa Man-Boy Love Association (AMBLA) were all adult male homosexuals.  Ian Dunn, who helped set up PIE, was a leading light in the Scottish Minorities Group, an early homosexual activist group.  The Campaign for Homosexual Equality had the abolition of all ages of consent as one of its aims.

It all seemed wonderfully sexually liberated to these activists in the 1970s and early 1980s.  PIE even published a book in 1982 called ‘Betrayal of Youth’ (BOY) campaigning against ages of consent, and edited by their Vice-Chairman.  Peter Tatchell contributed a chapter to Betrayal of Youth: ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent’.  There has never been any suggestion that Peter Tatchell was or is himself a paedophile, but he helped their cause with his expressed desire to abolish ages of consent.

But if paedophilia is a minority interest in the homosexual world, pederasty is widespread.  A cult of youth is a mainstream part of homosexual culture, where magazines with names like ‘Boyz’ and websites are filled with pictures of attractive young men.

In their 1979 book ‘The Gay Report’, Jay and Young, two American homosexuals, revealed that 73% of their fellows had at some time had sex with boys 16-19 or younger.  One reported “My lover and I are into many young boys 13-18 years old …”  There is no reason to suppose that with lowering of ages of consent and generally more liberal attitudes to under-age sex that today’s homosexual men have suddenly become less inclined to adolescent boys.

The UK Home Office carried out research on cases of indecent assault in 1973, and were able to distinguish between ages of victim as follows.  Out of 802 convictions for indecent assault on males, we find the following:

Age of victim: 0-4   5-9  10-11  12-15  16-17  18-20  21+        All 0-15
% of cases:    3.1  32.5   18.6    33.9     4.9        2.8    4.2           88.1%

It is quite common for apologists for homosexuality to assert that ‘heterosexual men are more likely to be paedophiles’, so we need briefly to examine this claim.

For the same year that the Home Office did their research into indecent assault, they also published the figures for assaults on females.  There were 3,006, and the ages broke down as follows:

Age of victim: 0-4   5-9  10-12   13-15  16-17  18-20  21+        All 0-15
% of cases:    3.2  24.8   15.4     26.2       7.1       7.8 15. 5          69.6%

Leaving aside for a moment the paedophile/pederast distinction, the total assaults on under-16 males were 18.55% of all convictions (88.1 x 802 / 3808), and those on under-16 females were 54.94% of all convictions (69.6 x 3006 / 3808) .  We must assume for the sake of the argument that all the assaults were carried out by men, and also assume, to be generous, that there are 1.5% of men in the UK population who are sadly homosexual.

Then we can say that the 1.5% who are homosexual were responsible for 18.5% of assaults, and the 98.5% who are heterosexual were responsible for 55%, meaning that a homosexual in the statistics was (18.55/1.5) / (54.94/98.5) = 22 times more likely to offend than a heterosexual.

But this is not the whole picture.  If heterosexuality is the ability to enter into a complete loving and sexual relationship exclusively with an adult of the opposite sex, then the men convicted of the offences on girls under 16 were not up to the mark either.  Jimmy Savile committed his staggering litany of abuse against pubescent girls because he was emotionally unable to form a normal relationship with a woman.  He was not ‘heterosexual’ by any reasonable definition.

We must thank Messrs Schofield and Cameron for giving us the opportunity to talk about an issue which is too often kept under wraps, and which has implications wider than their immediate focus at a time when homosexual activists from groups like Stonewall are demanding ever more rights and acceptance.

 

Read more evidence on links between homosexuality and paedophilia in this expert report prepared earlier this year.

 

Please sign our petition urging Barclays, Coutts and PWC to sever their financial links with Stonewall.

 

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

Cardinal named ‘bigot of the year’

Cardinal Keith O’Brien

A Roman Catholic cardinal has been named ‘Bigot of the Year’ by the publicly-funded Stonewall pro-sodomy lobby group.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, and is said to have stated that same-sex relationships are “harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well-being” and compared equal marriage to slavery and child abuse.

In a newspaper article earlier this year, the cardinal wrote that the proposal for same-sex marriage represented a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

Under his leadership the Catholic Church in Scotland has pledged to “declare war” on marriage equality and committed an additional £100,000 for the fight.

Other nominees included Christian politician Alan Craig, who complained of the ‘Gaystapo’ and Simon Lokodohe, the Ugandan ethics and integrity minister, who ordered the disbanding of meetings of gay equality groups, the arrest of pro-sodomy activists, insisting that they ‘recruit children’ into homosexuality and supported David Bahati’s proposal of the death penalty for those convicted of sodomy.

As the blogger ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ observed,

‘By giving the award to Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Stonewall deem the free expression of religious conviction and Christian theological tradition to be more ‘bigoted’ than active persecution …  Is any more evidence needed of Stonewall’s blind hypocrisy, perverse immorality and vicious bigotry? They don’t even permit the nominees of this award to attend the ceremony and make an acceptance speech in their own defence.’

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson picked up ‘politician of the year’ at the £180-a-head bash last night in recognition of her being a lesbian.  But she used her acceptance speech to criticise the bigot of the year category, saying it was “simply wrong” to use such terminology.

Ms Davidson, who attended the ceremony presented by broadcaster Gok Wan, said: “There are many voices in this debate and just as I respectfully express my sincerely held belief that we should extend marriage to same-sex couples, I will also respect those who hold a different view.”

She said: “But where I disagree with Stonewall in these awards is the need to call people names like ‘bigot’. It is simply wrong.

“The case for equality is far better made by demonstrating the sort of generosity, tolerance and love we would wish to see more of in this world.”

But of course Stonewall don’t do generosity, tolerance and love.  Miss Davidson was booed by the audience for voicing her criticism.

Christian Concern’s Andrea Minichiello Williams said she regarded Cardinal Keith O’Brien as “a courageous Christian leader who has stood for the truth”.

Coutts and Barclays, who were sponsoring categories at the awards dinner, have also strongly criticised the ‘Bigot of the Year’ award and will not longer fund the event if it contains the insulting nomination.  The Coutts decision came just one working day after a Christian Voice witness outside their London HQ. (see our 31st October story below)

Their decision follows that of the Nationwide Building Society to drop their £65,000 sponsorship of the event after Christian Voice members prayed and wrote to them last year.  (See our 21st July story below)

 

* Please sign our online petition condemning Stonewall’s ‘Bigot of the Year’ award.

 

Earlier posts:

31st October 2012: Banks condemn Stonewall ‘Bigot’ award

27th October 2012: PWC, Coutts and Barclays in Stonewall ‘bigot’ witness

3rd October 2012: Banks support Stonewall ‘Bigot’ dinner (2012)

21st July 2012: Sorry’ is the hardest word for Nationwide

14th July 2012: Nationwide in ‘Bigot’ award challenge

4th November 2011: Stonewall ‘cowards’ call Melanie Phillips ‘Bigot of the Year’ (2011)

 

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

 

Banks condemn Stonewall ‘Bigot’ award

Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green handing out leaflets outside Coutts Bank HQ opposite London’s Charing Cross Station on Friday 26th October. Coutts condemned Stonewall’s ‘bigot’ award on Monday 29th.

It’s not often we are able to celebrate a victory, but the announcement from the Queen’s bankers that they will no longer support the Stonewall lobby group’s playground bullying is welcome news.

Coutts Bank have joined Barclays in condemning Stonewall’s insulting ‘Bigot of the year’ award. In an email sent to one of our members on Monday evening they said:

‘Thank you for your email. Coutts are sponsors only of Stonewall’s Writer of the Year Award and have in no way been involved in the judging or support of the Bigot of the Year category. We have advised Stonewall that we will be withdrawing our support of the awards unless they remove this category.’

Coutts remarkable decision comes just one working day after we gave out leaflets about the affair to Coutts employees in a street witness outside their London headquarters in The Strand last Friday afternoon.

We first encouraged our members to pray, write and email to the directors of Barclays, Coutts and Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) on 3rd October concerning their sponsorship of categories of the Stonewall awards and to draw their attention to the ‘bigot’ award.

Barclays immediately condemned the ‘bigot’ award in trenchant terms.  Their ‘Head of Global Diversity’, Mark McLane, said the next day:

‘As part of what is a positive longstanding relationship with Stonewall we were approached to see if we would be willing to sponsor a category for the 2012 Awards, which we agreed to do – the Sports Personality of the Year – on the understanding that the awards are a celebration of diversity and positive impact in our communities.

‘I have recently been made aware of the inclusion of a ‘Bigot of the Year’ category in the awards. Let me be absolutely clear that Barclays does not support that award category either financially, or in principle and have informed Stonewall that should they decide to continue with this category we will not support this event in the future. To label any individual so subjectively and pejoratively runs contrary to our view on fair treatment, and detracts from what should be a wholly positively focused event.’

Going further, Mr McLane said: ‘We have been very clear with Stonewall that we regard the award in question to be beyond the pale and will not sponsor this event in the future should they decide to continue this award category.’

Despite that, Mr McLane continued:

‘This matter apart, it is our view that Stonewall do valuable work in the field of promoting equality, and provide outstanding resource to our communities in the pursuit of becoming more diverse and inclusive.’

Whether Barclays support Stonewall’s new demand for ‘gay marriage’ or not Mr McLane has failed to say.

However, Coutts and PWC, while distancing themselves from the ‘bigot’ award, failed to condemn it. The move by Coutts leaves PWC out on a limb.

Despite the Banks’ condemnation, Stonewall are intent on keeping the ‘bigot’ award, even if it means losing sponsorship for some of the categories. Awash with donations and public money, they are certainly wealthy enough to fund the whole event without the need for the odd £5,000 in prize money.

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall’s Chief Executive, told the Guardian: “We have never called anyone a bigot just because they disagreed with us.” He continued “All the nominees have gone well beyond what anyone normal would call a decent level of public discourse.”

Stonewall said goodbye to Nationwide Building Society’s sponsorship of the whole event this year thanks to a dogged campaign of prayer and action by Christian Voice members from November last year up to its AGM in July 2012.

We are grateful to Christian Concern for joining our campaign against these awards on Monday.  Co-incidentally, Coutts were formulating their shift in position as Christian Concern were putting out an email encouraging their people to lobby the CEO’s of Barclays, Coutts and PWC.  They were able to celebrate the Lord’s victory just one day later.

Pray: Praise the Lord for his victory. Pray for the directors at PWC that they too will condemn the ‘bigot’ award.  Pray for the Lord to expose the bullying Stonewall group and for their support to fall away.

 

* Please sign our online petition condemning Stonewall’s ‘Bigot of the Year’ award.

 

Earlier posts:

27th October 2012: PWC, Coutts and Barclays in Stonewall ‘bigot’ witness

3rd October 2012: Banks support Stonewall ‘Bigot’ dinner (2012)

21st July 2012: Sorry’ is the hardest word for Nationwide

14th July 2012: Nationwide in ‘Bigot’ award challenge

4th November 2011: Stonewall ‘cowards’ call Melanie Phillips ‘Bigot of the Year’ (2011)

 

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

 

PWC, Coutts and Barclays in Stonewall ‘bigot’ witness

PWC security staff inexplicably attempt to move us off the public highway outside the firm’s HQ near London Bridge

Two banks and the world’s biggest firm of accountants were on the receiving end of a witness against name-calling by homosexuals yesterday.

Price Waterhouse Cooper, known as ‘PWC’, Coutts and Barclays are all sponsoring awards for the annual Stonewall pro-sodomy awards dinner.  Barclays Bank are sponsoring the ‘sports award’, Coutts Bank are funding ‘writer of the year’ and PWC are sponsoring ‘hero of the year’

But not content with congratulating those who have advanced the homosexual cause, Stonewall also have a ‘bigot of the year’ award, just to insult and bully their opponents.

Christian Voice supporters started outside Coutts Bank at lunchtime, before moving to Barclays flagship branch in Piccadiily Circus and finishing at PWC for going-home time.

In fairness, our leaflets pointed out that Barclays have at least condemned the ‘bigot award’ as ‘beyond the pale’ which is more than Coutts or PWC have done.  Nevertheless, all three institutions compliment Stonewall on their work.

PWC’s front entrance off Tooley Street, SE1. Do its directors agree with Stonewall’s demands for gay marriage or not?

Whether that means the directors of PWC, Coutts and Barclays support ‘gay marriage’, Stonewall’s big new demand, and the consequent redefinition of marriage and it key concept of ‘consummation’, none of them have yet addressed.

Last year, Nationwide Building Society sponsored the whole awards dinner, but after being made of the ‘bigot’ award by Christian Voice, pulled out of any more financial involvement with the dinner (see links below).

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, commented today:

‘This was a very blessed time for us, and we pray that some of the 250 leaflets we handed out to the well-dressed employees of Coutts opposite Charing Cross Station and the 100 at Barclays have made people think about whether these banks’ relationship with Stonewall is a bit too close.

‘The security staff at Coutts and Barclays were dignified enough to stay inside and allow our witness to proceed uninterrupted.  The same could not be said of PWC, whose bouncers tried to have us moved on.  PWC has a back entrance in the private ‘More London’ complex, and its main entrance is in Abbey Street off Tooley Street near London Bridge Station.

Don’t cross the line! The division between the public highway in Tooley St and More London’s diagonal paving in Abbey St.

‘They came out to remonstrate and even called the ‘More London’ staff when we were on the public highway in Tooley Street.  Clearly we struck a nerve, but the PWC staff were more willing than the Coutts folk or the Barclays customers and passers-by to take our leaflets.  Four hundred were given out at PWC, a total for the day of 750.

‘We also had an encounter with the police when someone complained that the leaflets were insulting, abusive or threatening, along the lines of Section 5 of the Public Order ACt 1986.  However, the police office who attended told us he saw that we were calm and reasonable, not causing an obstruction, and that there was nothing in the leaflet that could cause a reasonable person alarm or distress.

‘The leaflets also nailed five key lies told by the sodomy lobby and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ.  All in all it was a very worthwhile exercise and we pray that our gracious God will open someone’s mind to the sad truth about homosexuality and turn at least one heart to the truth that Jesus Christ died to release everyone who belives in him from both the stain of sin and the power of sin.

‘May God be praised and glorified in the Lord Jesus’

 

Text of the Leaflets (Coutts and PWC are similar):

https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/coutts-leaflet

https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/barclays-bank-leaflet

https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/pwc-leaflet

 

Please sign our Petition:

We the undersigned believe that the homosexual Stonewall group’s ‘Bigot of the Year’ award is a shameless piece of bullying and name-calling.

We are aghast that Barclays Bank, Coutts Bank and Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) are named as sponsors of Stonewall’s awards dinner on the website page for this year’s event on 1st November, at which a public figure will be insulted and vilified as ‘bigot of the year’.

We call on Barclays Bank, Coutts Bank and PWC to stop sponsoring this aggressive, immature and divisive group forthwith.

 

The five lies told by homosexual activists nailed by the Christian Voice leaflets:

‘(1) Homosexuals claim to be 10% of the population on the basis of the dishonest Kinsey Report.  The true figure from proper academic research is around 1.5%.
‘(2) They claim they were born that way, refusing to accept the evidence of ‘ex-gay’ men and women who have turned their backs on the gay lifestyle and been released from their homosexual desires.
‘(3) They insist they just want to live their lives in peace, yet they hold intimidating gay pride parades and their paid activists campaign for laws to silence dissenting voices and force all of us to respect their immorality.
‘(4) They do all they can to avoid discussing the reality of their abusive, dangerous sexual practices, framing their arguments instead in terms of ‘human rights’.
‘(5) They pretend their lives are just the same as everyone else’s, despite academic studies revealing promiscuity levels and associated ill-health in the gay world unheard of even in today’s sex-obsessed heterosexual society.’

 

Earlier posts:

3rd October 2012: Banks support Stonewall ‘Bigot’ dinner (2012)

21st July 2012: Sorry’ is the hardest word for Nationwide  

14th July 2012: Nationwide in ‘Bigot’ award challenge

4th November 2011: Stonewall ‘cowards’ call Melanie Phillips ‘Bigot of the Year’ (2011)

 

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

 

Pro-Lifers shock Brighton Students

Students file past the Abort67 witness
Students file past the Abort67 witness

Pro-Life activists caused a stir yesterday by displaying abortion imagery at a Brighton campus.

Christians from Abort67 stood outside Sussex University with the graphic pictures as the students turned up in their hundreds for lectures.

The banners the activists used had only recently been returned to them following their acquittal on public order charges by Brighton Magistrates last month.  The material had been held by Brighton Police since their arrests last year.

Andy Stephenson of Abort67 was asked about the location of the witness and said yesterday: ‘Why university campuses? Because not only are 19-24 year olds having significant numbers of abortions, but this is where our future leaders are.

‘We saw people change their minds in this way today.  One guy who was studying nursing at another university talked at length with the team and left saying he was going to try and get us a three hour lecture spot for his medical faculty.  Others included a Law student who moved significantly in his position.’

Pro-abortion students attempt to obscure the pro-life message

Pro-abortion students mounted a counter-demonstration after a couple of hours, standing in front of the pictures shouting and swearing in the hope that people wouldn’t notice the pro-life witness.

Andy Stephenson continued: ‘I am fairly certain that the rest of the day, the only topic of conversation on campus was abortion.  Indeed before I even had a chance to unpack our things, a blogger at Huffington Post responded with an article.

‘It is unlikely (though not impossible) that those so entrenched in their pro-death position will ever move, but they are not our target audience.  A majority of people are just plain ambivalent about abortion. These are the ones with functioning consciences and enough intellectual honesty to recognise they have been lied to about who the baby is and what abortion will do to him/her.

‘I am always amazed that pro-aborts don’t see the irony in what they blindly recite over and over.  If people are distressed by what they believe to be a noble choice, it is because abortion is a distressing act. Of course, we are grateful for the coverage and the inclusion of one of our graphic images that will now be seen by countless people.

‘Do the pictures work?  The pro-aborts think so.’

Please sign our simple online petition to Parliament to repeal the 1967 Abortion Act:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/repealtheabortionact/

 

See our previous story: 18/09/2012:  Anti-abortion activists win their case

 

Christian Voice Website Cyber Attack!

How a DDOS attack works – The attacker recruits thousands of slave computers to send simultaneous requests to the target website.

Yesterday, the Christian Voice website was off-line most of the day after coming under a massive cyber-attack.  We apologise to our members and readers but there was nothing we could do.

Our web host reported at 8:22 am: ‘A few moments ago the Christian Voice website began to come under a massive DDOS attack which quickly crippled the server.

‘You’ve probably upset some people!  We see these from time to time – it’s usually outspoken Christians who get targetted.

‘I’ve had to temporarily suspend it, as the attackers had sufficient resources to bring down the whole shared-hosting machine – if you were paying for dedicated hosting, i.e. only your website on a single machine belonging to you, you’d still be brought down.

‘The scale of the attack was the largest we’ve ever seen. When people have enough resources, they can bring Amazon down.

‘Sadly, launching powerful attacks is very cheap these days. You can go onto the Internet’s “underground” and hire the computing capacity of thousands of virus infected computers for a few minutes for a few dollars, and that’s enough to bring down a few servers.’

In the Police and Justice Act 2006, the United Kingdom specifically outlawed denial-of-service attacks and set a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.  But the attack was from faked IP addresses which cannot be traced.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

‘This attack on our website is encouraging.  I don’t know whether it was Secularirists or Islamists we have upset beyond measure, but clearly someone out there thinks Christian Voice is doing such a great job we have to be disrupted.  So by the grace of God we’ll stand up for Jesus Christ and for righteousness all the more.’

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

Objections invited to ‘Megamosque’

17
Tablighi Jamaat’s Abbey Mills mosque site

The London Borough of Newham is inviting objections to a planning application for a project dubbed the West Ham ‘megamosque’.

An Islamic separatist group, Tablighi Jamaat, have submitted the application for outline planning permission for a project that would have a capacity of 9,350, including 1,830 segregated places for women, with an additional dining hall for 2,000.

Tablighi Jamaat’s followers have been linked to a number of planned and actual terrorist atrocities.  They are said to operate as a charity in England and Wales under the name Anjuman-E-Islahul-Muslimeed of London (UK), in whose name the application has been made.

A search at the Charity Commission did not yield such a name, but the similar-sounding ‘Anjuman-E-Islah-Al-Muslimeen (Madrasa Taleem Ul Islam) Of United Kingdom‘ runs the Tablighi Jamaat mosque in Dewsbury, Yorkshire as registered charity 505732.

Christian Voice members have been meeting for prayer on the Greenway overlooking the site on the first Saturday morning of every month without fail since January 2007, in response to Tablighi Jamaat’s boast that they would have their mega-mosque up and operating in time for the London Olympics.  They failed to do that.  In the time we have been praying we have seen two sets of architects and one bunch of public relations people sacked and general confusion has reigned, all in answer to our prayer.

Battersea Power Station

According to the group’s latest architect, Richard Owers of NRAP in Cambridge, the project will be the size of Battersea Power Station, with almost 50′ (15m) minarets which will dwarf even the local landmark of Channel Sea House.

In May 2011, Tablighi Jamaat won the right to stay on site with temporary planning permission for a further two years during which time they are required to put in a planning application setting out their plans in full.

The Planning Application is HERE on Newham’s Planning PortalOver six hundred comments have been left, the majority of which are supportive, because emails and texts from Tablighi Jamaat went around the world urging the ummah, the Muslim faithful, to support the application.  However, we understand that comments will be given more weight the nearer the respondent lives to the site itself.

PRAY for wisdom for all those opposing the application of Tablighi Jamaat.  Pray that the project’s opponents will enjoy favour with Newham Council Planning Officials so that they will reject this application.  Pray the Council will follow all proper procedures so that there are no loopholes which may be exploited at the appeal stage.  Pray for Alan Craig and the Megamosque No Thanks team as they raise local awareness.  Pray for confusion amongst the enemies of the sovereign incarnate Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords.  Pray also for those taking the Gospel to Muslims in the UK and around the world.  May they see a mighty move of the Holy Spirit and the lost turing from their dead prophet to the living Saviour .

RESPOND to the application in any one of three ways:

1 In writing to:

Mr Sunil Sahadevan,
Planning and Building Control,
London Borough of Newham,
1st Floor, West Wing,
1000 Dockside Road
LONDON
E16 2QU

2 By email to Sunil.Sahadevan@newham.gov.uk

3 By going through the registration process on the planning link above

 

See our previous stories:

Prayer at West Ham ‘megamosque’ site

Council Moves Against Proposed Megamosque

Block the Olympic Mosque  (ignore ‘Secret Meetings’ – it’s no longer relevant)

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

 

Christian hoteliers lose case

22
Mike and Susanne Wilkinson outside the Swiss B&B
Mike and Susanne Wilkinson outside the Swiss B&B

A Christian couple who run a B&B in Cookham, Berkshire have lost their case against two homosexuals they turned away.

Michael Black, 64, and John Morgan, 59, brought their case against Susanne and Mike Wilkinson in January 2011 after they were prevented from sharing a double room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast.

Mr Morgan and Mr Black booked the room and paid a deposit but when they arrived at the B&B in March 2010, Mrs Wilkinson realised they were a couple and refused to allow them to stay.

The couple even called the police over her refusal but were told they should make a civil claim against the Wilkinsons.

Yesterday, the homosexuals, from Brampton near Huntingdon, were awarded £1,800 each at Reading County Court for “injury to feelings”, reported the Press Association.

Mrs Wilkinson said that allowing two men to share a double room would violate her religious beliefs.

Recorder Claire Moulder said that by refusing access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had “treated them less favourably than she would have treated an unmarried heterosexual couple in the same circumstances”.

However, the judge appeared to contradict herself by accepting that Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.

Mrs Wilkinson was granted permission to appeal against the ruling and said she would give it “serious consideration”.

Jubilant Michael Black, 64, and John Morgan, 59

The Chief Executive of homosexual lobby group Stonewall, Ben Summerskill, urged Christians to embrace philanthropy rather than stand up for their beliefs:

“It’s a shame tens of thousands of pounds have been wasted reiterating this well-established principle, when any good Christian would surely prefer to have seen that money spent on relieving poverty or tackling hunger,” he said.

The Equality Act makes it illegal to refuse people goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Earlier this year, Pete and Hazlemary Bull who own the Chymorvah Hotel in Marazion in Cornwall were granted leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court against a similar verdict.

Please sign our online petition:

Uphold Christian freedom and repeal ‘woke’ laws →

Support us!

We appreciate your support; it enables our research and helps us inform your prayers.
So click below to support Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings

Or fill in the form below to keep in touch:

Click on the social media links below to share this post:

‘Zombies’ in children’s play centre

29
Three Images from the ‘Rise of the Zombies’ website – there are many we cannot show

An event encouraging young people to take an interest in zombies and the occult is to take in Lincolnshire – at a children’s play centre.

A group calling itself ‘Rise of the Zombies’ is holding an event based on ‘zombie’ role-playing at ‘Fun Farm’ in North Hykeham near Lincoln on Saturday 27th October. The group’s website http://www.riseofthezombies.co.uk/ declares ‘this area contains flesh-eating zombies’ and promotes the experience as an ‘adrenaline-packed, blood-soaked, zombie survival gorefest’.

It goes on to describe a zombie as ‘a re-animated organism by means of infection [chemical mutation, et al]; stripped of normality and mental balance, leaving only primal instincts of survival and violent behaviour; and reproducing by means of feeding off flesh’.

It then tells people they will go through a ‘scare-maze with live actors.. with many missions and objectives to make it as close as possible to a zombie pandemic’. ‘This experience involves live action horror, blood and gore,’ it boasts.

Youth workers are alarmed by the growing interest by young people today in the occult, the ‘undead’ and related imagery. From music and films to computer games, it seems that you don’t have to walk very far into any entertainment store to find digital media using occult imagery to draw people in. It mirrors the rise in websites discussing and promoting suicide and the inevitable tragedies of young people being drawn into a destructive world-view which can leave them mentally scarred – or dead.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today: ‘This zombie-themed event may appear on the surface to be an occult version of paint-ball, but its emphasis on a class of sub-humanity and on blood-letting makes it unacceptable to be held at all, let alone in a place where children are normally present.

‘The website for “Fun Farm” where the event is being held clearly states that the venue is a “family entertainment centre” with a maximum age limit of 12 years old. In contrast, the photo gallery for Rise of the Zombies has images of people smeared and dripping with what appears to be blood, others of people seeming to eat human flesh and yet other images with sexual overtones. It is incomprehensible that a civilised society would think that is entertainment.

How it should be – promotional image from Fun Farm in Lincoln

‘What kind of message does it send to young children who may hear of this event or see something of what is happening and what effect might this have on them?

‘How many parents want to take their child to a venue which the night before has been promoting “violent behaviour” which is ”stripped of normality and mental balance”? And for that matter, what kind of people could even consider renting out their premises to a group like “Rise of the Zombies”?

‘It says a lot for the state of our nation when in stark contrast to the scriptures people find entertainment in imagery and themes deeply based in the occult.  Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

‘We have our values upside-down if we think that making money out of young people play-acting at zombies and dripping with blood has any good in it whatsoever.’

 

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

Cameron’s Tory backlash to ‘Gay Marriage’

34
Former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Lord Carey, addressed the event, sponsored by the Coalition for Marriage

On the opening day of the Conservative Party Conference, about 900 people gathered in Birmingham Town Hall to listen to speeches opposing Government plans to introduce same-sex ‘marriage.’

Significantly, the meeting consisted of an audience of mostly Tory members and came as a complete embarrassment for David Cameron, who likes to pretend that the majority of his party support his plans to change the definition of marriage.

Addresses were given by former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, David Burrowes MP and former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe, in addition to other high profile members of the party.

In his speech Lord Carey warned that “We can be sure any move away from our traditional understanding of marriage is to put our society on a slippery slope where the unintended consequences could be shocking.”

Former defence secretary Dr Fox was also at the gathering and has warned that

“To ask the majority to change how they define marriage because of what a smaller number want will not be socially acceptable and is likely to undo a great deal of the tolerance that has actually come to the fore in recent decades and that would be a great pity.”

One of the most compelling speeches was made by Dermot O’Callaghan, who ingeniously argued against same-sex ‘marriage’ from arguments employed by gay scholars themselves.

Outside the building, gay activists gathered to protest against the protest and to accuse those inside of being ‘bigots.’

Yesterday, Culture Secretary Maria Miller defended ‘gay marriage’ in her speech to the Conservative Conference itself, arguing that being homosexual is not a good enough reason to stop someone from participating in the institution of marriage – any more than we would stop someone getting married because of their ethnicity or disability. (To learn why this argument is faulty, read this Salvo article ‘Apples, Oranges & Gay Marriage.’)

Supporters of David Cameron have consistently been reluctant to debate this divisive issue in an open forum. The Westminster think-tank Policy Exchange backed out at short notice of a debate organized with Anglican Mainstream, but then agreed half an hour before the scheduled event for the debate to proceed. David Skelton, author of What’s in a Name?, represented Policy Exchange against Dermot O’Callaghan.

PRAY: thank the Lord that the Government’s wicked plans are meeting with such opposition. A survey of constituency party chairmen was published earlier this week showed that seven out of 10 are opposed to Mr Cameron’s plans to change the law.

(See below for previous stories) 

Please sign our online petition to defend Almighty God’s holy institution of marriage.

 

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

 

Previous posts: 

Aussie MPs reject ‘gay marriage’: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=4235
Nick Clegg in ‘Bigotgate’ row: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=4148
Scottish Nationalists will enact ‘gay marriage’: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=3808
Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Plans: Q & A: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=3848
Company Wrecked by Gay Marriage Support: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=3685
Needs of children irrelevant to gay ‘marriage’ issue, Guardian writer claims
https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=3255
Free pro-marriage briefing: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=3217
Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Threatens Freedom: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=3207
THE TRIVIALISATION OF MATRIMONY: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?page_id=3135
EU Court Rules Gay Marriage is NOT a Human Right: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=2971
Happy ‘Parent B Day’?: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=2935
Making a mess of marriage: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=2931
Defend Marriage Petition: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=1536
Gay marriage proposal overturns reality: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=1383
Gay Marriage Threat Worsens: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=983
Becoming One Flesh: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?page_id=931
The Abomination of Homosexual Theology: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?page_id=893

Jeremy Hunt’s abortion view ‘untenable’

Baby in its amniotic sac eight weeks from conception

Jeremy Hunt’s view that the abortion limit should be halved to 12 weeks is untenable, says the National Director of Christian Voice.

The Health Secretary said he believed there is a moral case for cutting the current time limit of 24 weeks.
“Everyone looks at the evidence and comes to a view about when they think that moment is, and my own view is that 12 weeks is the right point for it,” Mr Hunt told The Times.

Mr Hunt, who was appointed to his post last month, denied that his view on abortion was based on religious belief.

He said: “It’s just my view about that incredibly difficult question about the moment that we should deem life to start. I don’t think the reason I have that view is for religious reasons.”

David Steel and Yvette Cooper would allow the legalised killing of this unborn child 20 weeks after conception

Prime Minister David Cameron, Culture Secretary Maria Miller and Home Secretary Theresa May backed a reduction of four weeks, to twenty weeks, but Mr Cameron stressed there were no plans to bring legislation forward.

Some Christian groups have urged their members to write and thank Mr Hunt, Mrs May and Mrs Miller but Anthony Ozimic of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said any move to reduce the abortion limit was doomed to failure. “There is a large pro-abortion majority in parliament which will ensure that any time-limiting amendments are rejected while using the opportunity to push for pro-abortion amendments,” he said.

“The real political debate about abortion in the UK should focus – as it does elsewhere in the world – on the right to life of all unborn children and on the way governments bankroll abortion access at home and abroad.”

Andrew Stephenson of Abort67 agreed. A Parliamentary debate “may allow the pro-aborts to slip in amendments to make access to abortion easier.”  He said a reduction might save a few babies from death but pointed out that well over 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester (13 weeks and below) in any case.

A baby in its amniotic sac less than a month after conception, sadly removed because it was growing ectopically, in the mother’s fallopian tube. Abortion can always be allowed to save the life of the mother – but not her lifestyle!

On a positive note, Mr Stephenson said:

“Any attack on the abortion industry is a good thing.  This puts them on the defensive and causes them to speak.  If you have listened to the abortion advocates speak you will know that they always provide us with new openings to expose how deceptive and corrupt they really are.   We want them to keep speaking!

“It also shows that there is growing discontent for the status quo.  When MPs feel they can stand up for issues that would have previously been considered too contentious they must know that things are changing; over 63% of people (and increasing) in a recent poll support a total ban on abortion.”

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:

“I am totally perplexed by Mr Hunt’s logic. Why should we ‘deem life to start’ at twelve weeks when all organs are in place at eight weeks, the baby’s heart is already beating four weeks after conception and all genetic material is there when sperm meets egg? His view is simply untenable.”  (See link here.)

Mr Hunt’s remarks drew a predictable tirade of abuse from abortionists and their supporters.

Lord Steel, the unrepentant architect of the Abortion Act 1967, responsible for the deaths of over 6 million British children, “expressed his dismay” while shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper described Mr Hunt’s remarks as “chilling”.

“David Cameron needs to make sure his health secretary doesn’t distort medical evidence and does not impose his own view on women about their health,” she said.

Stephen Green responded:

Child in the womb at 16 weeks gestation – an entirely separate human being from his mother.

“All but a handful of abortions are carried out on perfectly healthy women who just find this new human being growing inside them inconvenient.  As for medical evidence, Yvette Cooper merely needs to look at the wonderful new catalogue of images of children in the womb.  And if she wants something really ‘chilling’, she could take a look at the results of abortion.”  The results of abortion – pictures here.

 

Please sign our online petition to repeal the 1967 Abortion Act

 

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

 

Banks support Stonewall ‘Bigot’ dinner

Antony Jenkins, Chief Executive of Barclays, is giving cash to Stonewall as they call their opponents ‘bigots’

Two banks and a leading firm of accountants are sponsoring a homosexual group as it goes about its annual name-calling exercise.

Barclays Bank, Coutts Bank and Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) are named as sponsors of Stonewall, the ‘gay rights’ lobby group, on an advertisement for this year’s awards dinner, which includes an award for ‘Bigot of the Year’.

The homosexual group’s awards dinner takes place at the Victoria and Albert Museum on Thursday 1st November 2012 and is likely to be the focus of a street witness.

The awards are mainly to applaud people who have advanced the homosexual cause in some way, and are being sponsored by major firms.  Barclays Bank are sponsoring the ‘sports award’, Coutts Bank are funding ‘writer of the year’ and PWC are sponsoring ‘hero of the year’

The Earl of Home, Chairman of Coutts, which is sponsoring the Stonewall awards

But Stonewall are not satisfied with congratulating those who have advanced their cause.  They have to insult their opponents.

So among the awards is an anti-award called ‘Bigot of the Year’ intended to insult and vilify people particularly opposed to the gay rights agenda. Those shortlisted this year are Christian politician Alan Craig, the Ugandan Ethics and Integrity Minister, Simon Lokodo, Lord Maginnis, Cardinal Keith O’Brien and Archbishop Philip Tartaglia.

Previous ‘nominees’ and ‘winners’ have included the Bishop of Hereford, Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, Northern Ireland politician Iris Robinson, journalist Jan Moir, Chris Grayling MP, the Earl of Devon, Lillian Ladele, Frederick Forsyth, A.A. Gill of The Sunday Times, Rt Rev Arthur Roche, hotelier Susanne Wilkinson, Melanie Phillips, Scottish entrepreneur Sir Brian Souter, Bill Walker, MSP and Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice.

In response, Alan Craig said: “The Bigot of the Year Award is a vicious name-calling Stonewall annual event that reflects more on the donor than the recipient.

Philip Powell is Chairman and Senior Partner of Price Waterhouse Coopers, sponsors of the Stonewall awards.

“By attempting to bully, intimidate, humiliate and generate hatred of individuals through the award, Stonewall fully justifies the Gaystapo tag which I gave the organisation and for which apparently I have been nominated.”

Mr Craig continued: “Nonetheless if I win the award over the other candidates and if Stonewall invite me, and permit me without harassment to offer a proper acceptance speech, I plan to attend their awards dinner and ceremony”.

Alan Craig’s gauntlet is unlikely to be taken up.  In previous years Stonewall have never found the courtesy or the courage to invite to their dinner any of those shortlisted for ‘Bigot of the Year’.

Stephen Green added: ‘Bullies never like it when someone stands up to them.  Or perhaps social intercourse is just not one of Stonewall’s strong points.’

Last year, the Nationwide Building Socety gave £60,000 to Stonewall for the dinner (which did not stop the greedy lobby group from charging £180 a ticket) and they gave £5,000 as a prize to the ‘Community Group of the Year’.  Nationwide have pulled out of sponsoring any more Stonewall events following adverse publicity.

In an email, Mark McLane, Barclays Director of Global Diversity and Inclusion, said:

‘As part of what is a positive longstanding relationship with Stonewall we were approached to see if we would be willing to sponsor a category for the 2012 Awards, which we agreed to do – the Sports Personality of the Year – on the understanding that the awards are a celebration of diversity and positive impact in our communities.

‘I have recently been made aware of the inclusion of a ‘Bigot of the Year’ category in the awards. Let me be absolutely clear that Barclays does not support that award category either financially, or in principle and have informed Stonewall that should they decide to continue with this category we will not support this event in the future. To label any individual so subjectively and pejoratively runs contrary to our view on fair treatment, and detracts from what should be a wholly positively focused event.’

To date, Coutts and PWC have refused to condemn the ‘bigot’ award’.

Stephen Green said: ‘Barclays have not yet pulled out of Stonewall’s event this year despite their welcome condemnation of the ‘bigot’ award.  They are in our view still associated with Stonewall’s name-calling.  But the refusal of Coutts and PWC to condemn the ‘bigot’ award is quite staggering.’

 

Please sign our Petition:

We the undersigned believe that the homosexual Stonewall group’s ‘Bigot of the Year’ award is a shameless piece of bullying and name-calling.

We are aghast that Barclays Bank, Coutts Bank and Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) are named as sponsors of Stonewall’s awards dinner on the website page for this year’s event on 1st November, at which a public figure will be insulted and vilified as ‘bigot of the year’.

We call on Barclays Bank, Coutts Bank and PWC to stop sponsoring this aggressive, immature and divisive group forthwith.

 

Earlier posts:

21st July 2012: Sorry’ is the hardest word for Nationwide

14th July 2012: Nationwide in ‘Bigot’ award challenge

4th November 2011: Stonewall ‘cowards’ call Melanie Phillips ‘Bigot of the Year’

 

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

 

£40,000,000? It will take more than that.

Gigi Chao Sze-tsung (right) and her civil partner Sean Eav (left) – we honestly thought at first that the one on the left was her father!

One of Hong Kong’s richest men has offered a reward of nearly £40 million to the man who can woo his lesbian daughter, reports the Daily Telegraph.

Cecil Chao Sze-tsung, a property magnate, announced the HK$500 million bounty this week after reports that his daughter Gigi Chao, 33, a University of Manchester graduate, entered a civil partnership in France with Sean Yeung, her girlfriend of seven years, who also uses the name Sean Eav, on April 4.

The Facebook profile of Miss Chao, an architecture graduate, reads: “Helicopter pilot. Social entrepreneur. Creator of expressions in colour and emotion.” It also describes her as an executive director at her father’s Hong Kong-based property firm, Cheuk Nang.

Miss Chao has yet to comment on her father’s offer but her Facebook and Twitter accounts have been bombarded by people keen to become her friend. “No longer accepting Facebook friend requests … sorry,” she wrote.

“My father took a hands-off approach in parenting,” Miss Chao said of her father in a 2007 interview for HK Magazine. “I see him as a friend more than a father. My parents never pressure me with high expectations.”

Mr Chao made headlines in 2003 when his Rolls-Royce caught fire while he and his girlfriend were inside. The tycoon has never married and once claimed to have had “intimate relations” with about 10,000 women.

Miss Chao is one of three daughters born to Mr Chao by three different women.

“I don’t mind whether he is rich or poor. The important thing is that he is generous and kind-hearted,” Mr Chao told the South China Morning Post, describing reports about his daughter’s civil partnership as “false”.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice said today:

“An emotionally distant father, having loose relationships with women other than his daughter’s mother, is a classic theme in lesbian lifestories. According to reports, Miss Chao’s father has sadly not been the sort of fatherly male role model who would inspire his daughter’s emotional confidence in men as a group.

“There are many testimonies of people who have walked away from the homosexual lifestyle and been released from same-sex attraction through the power of Jesus Christ.  As the Bible says: ‘Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.’ (Psalm 37:4)  But that person has to want to change, or if you prefer, the Lord has to place that desire on their heart, and they must fix their hopes in the Saviour of mankind.

“So there is no question that it is do-able, but it is something that even £40,000,000 cannot buy.”

See: Charlene Cothran’s story at Evidence Ministries.

See: Peter’s story at Soldiers of Christ UK.

PRAY: For Gigi Chao, and for her father.  May he turn from his philandering and she turn from her lesbianism by the grace of God and through the saving, healing power of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

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

The Mess in the Middle East

3

As the U.N. General Assembly continues its 67th session, two things have become clear about the Middle East: (1) it’s a mess; (2) the West cannot fix the endemic problems.

These two things were clear from day one of the General Assembly. Of course, the fact that the West cannot fix the problems in the Middle East does not mean that America will cease to try. All indications suggest that America’s involvement in the Middle East will only increase in the days ahead, even if it ends up plunging the nation (and, by extension, all the nations who depend on the dollar as a reserve currency) into economic Armageddon.

Is there a solution? Gary Johnson believes there is. Johnson is the former Governor of New Mexico and the Libertarian Party nominee for the 2012 Presidential Election. Writing in the Huffington Post earlier this month, he made a statement that at one time might have seemed axiomatic: “Foreign policy is supposed to make us safer, not get Americans killed and bankrupt us.”

Johnson’s article, titled ‘Libya, Afghanistan and the Middle East — Why Obama and Romney are Both Wrong’ went on to propose an astonishingly straight-forward solution:

Stop trying to manipulate and manage history on the other side of the globe and then being shocked when things don’t turn out the way we wanted. As far as what we do right now in response to the tragic events of this week, it’s actually pretty simple. Get our folks out of places they don’t need to be — and out of harm’s way — and cut off every dime of U.S. tax dollars we are sending to clearly ungrateful regimes.

Johnson went on to point out the irony that America’s ‘War on Terror’ is actually self-defeating, since it has been systematically empowering the most dangerous terrorist regimes:

Let’s review American foreign policy during the Bush-Obama years. Just imagine for a minute that, in 2002, President Bush granted Iran’s Ayatollah one wish above all others. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Supreme Leader would have said, “Can you please kill Saddam Hussein and make sure our mortal enemy Iraq can no longer threaten us. Then, we can get about our goals of destroying Israel, building a nuke and becoming a legitimate thorn in the side of the Western infidels.”

Well…

And then there are Afghanistan and Pakistan. After 9/11, going after Bin Laden and al Qaeda was exactly the right thing to do. We were attacked and we attacked back. We must defend ourselves, and we absolutely must have a strong defense. But within a few months, our troops had scattered al Qaeda like ants from a kicked anthill, and Bin Laden had set up housekeeping in Pakistan. Al Qaeda left, but we stayed — and kept fighting a war that was, in terms of our immediate interests, over. And we’re still fighting it today, ignoring the lessons learned at great cost by the Soviet Union and the British Empire.

While we’re fighting a war we don’t need to fight in Afghanistan, we’re pumping billions of dollars into the coffers of our new best friend Pakistan — making them the second largest recipient of our borrowed and printed dollars on the globe. When we finally found and killed Bin Laden, was anyone surprised that we found him — you got it — in Pakistan? And our new best U.S.-financed friends are treating the good Pakistanis who helped us find him like criminals.

Fast forward to Libya. Make no mistake, Muammar Gaddafi was a despicable human being and no reasonable person mourns his demise. But toppling dictators we don’t like has not worked out very well for us. We launched hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of missiles to kill the guy, and what do we get? A Libya that cannot even keep its benefactors safe — and may not even be trying very hard. Somebody needs to ask, and I will be that somebody: As despicable as he was, would our ambassador and three other dedicated public servants have been killed in a Gaddafi-controlled Libya? Are we safer today after launching all those missiles and killing Gaddafi? Clearly not.

So much for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan. But what about last year when America supported protests in Egypt to topple President Mubarak? At the time many Christians saw this as a good thing, and yet in all the excitement about democracy coming to Egypt, we felt compelled to offer some warnings. In our newsletter we wrote that,

Despite the criticisms that can be made against him, President Mubarack has provided a stabilizing influence in the region, helping Israel secure its borders and keeping radical Islam in check…. What Obama’s approach overlooks is that the “free elections” in Middle Eastern countries can often be a summons for the advancement of Islamic radicalism and fundamentalist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

We then went on to point out that American interference in Middle Eastern politics has normally backfired, and we predicted that President Obama’s support of the Arab Spring in Egypt could prove to be an uncanny repeat of what happened in Iran during the Middle of the last century.

In an attempt for the West to regain control of Iran’s oil, Britain had urged the United States to intervene in Iranian politics during the Truman’s administration. Truman’s Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, refused, urging that the British were “destructive and determined on a rule or ruin policy in Iran.” It was not until General Dwight Eisenhower was elected President in 1953 that Britain had another chance to regain control of Iran’s petroleum reserves. Churchill put an embargo on Iran’s oil industry while the CIA began spreading anti-Mossadegh propaganda, hoping to convince the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh from the post of prime minister. At first the Shah refused to go along with the American plan to overthrow his democratically elected government (a plan known to the CIA as ‘Operation Ajax’). However, after continued pressure from America the Shah relented. The prime minister was then arrested and kept under house arrest until his death in 1967.

With Iran’s democratic government out of the way, the Shah’s rule became increasingly autocratic. While he made friends of America (granting US companies the majority of the country’s oil contracts, which had been the intended outcome of Operation Ajax), he steadily alienated his own people by crushing all political dissent. This set the stage for Iran’s Revolution in 1978 when the religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini helped to mobilize opposition to the Shah and his pro-American policies. The following year 98% of the country voted to replace the monarchy with an Islamic Republic, unaware that Khomeini was planning to use the new government as a front to rule as a dictator. Since then Iran has suffered under a theocratic Shiite government and remains a focal point for militant Islam and is one of the worst countries for the persecution of Christians. How much better it would have been had America never got involved in undermining Iran’s government.

We haven’t had to wait that long before being able to say, of Egypt, “How much better if America had never got involved.” (And yes, America did act behind the scenes to topple President Mubarack.) Since President Mubarack was forced to step down, the one thing that has stepped-up is the killing of Christians. Compass Direct News has been regularly reporting on the violence against Egypt’s Christian population, which has escalated relentlessly since President Mubarack was forced from power.

So much for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and Egypt. But what Iran. Should America begin bombing Iran to stop them getting a nuclear bomb? If only it were that easy! Defence analysts Anthony Cordesman has put together a pdf outlining exactly what America would have to do to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. A less technical summary of Cordesman’s findings were put together earlier this month in Noah Shachtman’s article ‘U.S. Attack on Iran Would Take Hundreds of Planes, Ships, and Missiles.’ As the title of Shachtman’s piece suggests, taking on Iran won’t be a cakewalk. As The Week magazine wrote, summarizing these findings:

…it would require “an all-out effort” involving squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, interceptor missiles, drones, Navy carrier strike groups—in other words, a war. …the mission would begin with at least 90 fighter jets launching simultaneous attacks on the country’s extensive air-defence network and numerous missile sites. B-2 stealth bombers would then drop 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs on Iran’s nuclear sites, some of which are buried beneath mountains. After that first strike, U.S. warships and minesweepers would fight for months to stop Iran from blocking the Straight of Hormuz and cutting off 20 percent of the world’s oil supply. Despite our best efforts, Cordesman warns, Iran’s retaliation against Israel and U.S. allies in the Gulf would be fierce, with “devastating regional consequences.”

Is there a solution to this mess? Probably not, as long as Islam reigns supreme in the Middle East. Behind the Middle East’s increasing political problems is a spiritual problem, and the only way for that to be adequately addressed is through the power of the gospel.

PRAY: Sometimes human problems are so complex that only God can solve them. Pray that He would turn around the mess in the Middle East and bring glory to His name as a result. Also pray for the struggling Christian population throughout the Middle East and for the safety of Israel as her enemies are growing in both strength and number.

 

 

Christian Voice Researcher Releases Book

1

Christian Voice journalist, Robin Phillips, has released a book about some of the good guys and bad guys of history.

Titled Saints and Scoundrels and available through Amazon,co.uk, the book promises to be rewarding to Christian Voice members who enjoy reading Robin’s column on Christian reformers in the monthly newsletter, or have been inspired by the Heroes of the Faith section of this website.

The book presents complete stories of twenty heroes and villains from the birth of Christ to the fall of the USSR. At the end of each chapter are discussion questions relating the chapter’s themes to larger issues and a personal challenge applying the lessons from these lives to the reader and current society.

What Others Are Saying

Author and public speaker Dr. George Grant has called Saints and Scoundrels, “not only an important book but a delightful one.”

Reviewer Matthew Sims has commented, “His writing was approachable for the average reader and engaging …Everything is covered from a Christian world-view and will help nurture discernment in the young and up-and-coming reader in your family.”

In an interview with Robin Phillips for the program Trinity Talk, Pastor Uri Brito commented, “The book is not just biographical you actually deal with the implication of their lives and how their lives testify to a particular worldview whether good or bad.”

The Good and the Bad

Mr Phillips covers the following men and women in the book:

  • Herod the Great (bad guy)
  • Saint Perpetua (good woman)
  • Saint Irenaeus (good guy)
  • Saint Columbanus (good guy)
  • Alfred the Great (good guy)
  • King John (bad guy)
  • William the Silent (good guy)
  • Richard Baxter (good guy)
  • J. S. Bach (good guy)
  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau (bad guy)
  • Edmund Burke (good guy)
  • William Wilberforce (good guy)
  • Thomas Chalmers (good guy)
  • Joseph Smith (bad guy)
  • George MacDonald (good guy)
  • Dietrich Bonhoeffer (good guy)
  • Dorothy Sayers (good guy)
  • Jim Elliot (good guy)
  • Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (good guy)

In discussing each of these good guys and bad guys, Phillips draws lessons that can be applied not only to our personal lives, but which also offer a vision for a godly society.

Below are some notable quotes from Saints and Scoundrels.

On Building Christendom

What is just as important as defeating or converting God’s enemies is the positive work of building up the culture of Christendom. For every Berlin wall that crashes to the ground, there are dozens of churches to be raised up, schools to be created, homes to be established. For each Roman coliseum that decays into ruins, there remain hundreds of libraries to be built, hymns to be composed, families to be nurtured in the faith. Here again, God does not work ex nihilo but calls men and women to be agents in His kingdom-building work.” Saints and Scoundrels, pages 13-14

On Goodness, Truth and Beauty

“…the greatest defense against evil is to enjoy the good…the strongest bulwark against unbelief is our capacity to love what is beautiful…the surest support against the lies of the devil is to be attracted to what is true.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 14

On the Messiah’s Kingdom

“…throughout the Old Testament, first-century Jews looked forward to a climactic event that would establish the God of Israel as the sovereign God of the entire world. While many have supposed Christ’s coming to be something which changes people’s hearts but makes no difference to the public order, this was not the hope of the Jews. Had they expected that kind of a kingdom, Herod may not have lifted an eyebrow when the news reached him that the Messiah had been born in Bethlehem. As it was, however, Herod knew what Zacharias knew and had prayed about— that when the Messiah came, the game would be up for tyrants like himself, and a new order of justice and peace would be introduced. (Lk. 1:67–79).” Saints and Scoundrels, page 35

On Christ’s Kingdom being for this World 

“Jesus never said that His kingdom is not of this world, despite wrong translations of John 18:36. The Revised Standard Version translates John 18:36 closest to the original Greek: “My kingdom is not from this world.” Christ’s kingdom is certainly of and for this world, but it does not arise from the authority of worldly powers in the way that Herod’s kingdom did. Rather, it descends from heaven to earth, like Jesus. Thus, Christ taught us to pray, “Thy kingdom come on earth . . . as it is in heaven” (Mt. 6:10). As used in the gospels, the expression “kingdom of heaven” refers to God’s lordship being brought to bear in the present reality. This draws on the theology of passages like Daniel 7: 26–27 and is the same crowning vision we find in Revelation 11:15: “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 36

On Jesus vs. Caesar

The Christians, like the Caesars, applied the language of euangelion (“gospel” or “glad tidings”) to their movement. The Christians, like Rome, taught that they held the answer for bringing justice, order ,and peace to the world (Lk. 2:13–14; Jn. 14:27). The Christians, like the Romans, claimed that a single man had rightful dominion over the whole earth (Mt. 28:18). The Christians, like the imperial religion, offered a sense of community to previously warring pluralities (Gal. 3:28). The Christians, like the religion of Rome, were intent on evangelizing the world (Mt. 28:19). But whereas the Caesars sought to Romanize the world through brutality, force, and bloodshed, the Christians sought to evangelize the world through love, self-giving, and sacrifice. The glad tidings of Jesus was therefore bad news for Caesar, since it proclaimed there was another way to transform the world that was superior to Caesar’s way. It announced that God had called out a people whose vocation was to work for peace and justice on Jesus’ terms, not Caesar’s.

Even when the early Christians submitted to the ruling authorities, there was an implicit challenge. In writing to the Romans, Paul made clear that the reason Christians were to submit to the civil magistrates is because the rulers have been placed there by the higher authority of God (Rom. 13:1). Though the Caesars liked to think of themselves as subject to no one, Christians proclaimed that earthly rulers are God’s ministers, responsible for carrying out His business here on earth (Rom. 13:2–7). The idea that Caesar’s authority was derivative rather than ultimate was nothing less than fighting talk in the politically tumultuous days of the first and second centuries.” Saints and Scoundrels page 43-44

On Growing in Wisdom

“The Christian life is both practical and intellectual, and that we separate these two facets at our peril. The Christian life should be practical, since the effectiveness of our witness for Christ depends on the gospel flowing out of our fingertips, being constantly applied to the material of our daily lives. But in order for a Christian to serve Jesus in practical ways, he must also grow in wisdom and understanding.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 85

On Christendom

The life of the nation, no less than the life of the individual, needs to be regulated by Christ’s lordship. The Bible is not simply a devotional manual for our private lives, but a template for bringing all of culture into subjection to Christ… “Christendom” is not simply a collection of Christians living together in society, but it comprises the institutions, literature, manners, works of arts, educational values—in short, the entire fabric of culture—which emanate from Christian civilization. A moment of time is all it takes for a person to turn from unbelief to faith in Christ, but it takes hundreds of years to build Christendom out of a previously pagan society.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 87-88

On Culture

Geniuses do not arise out of a vacuum. They are the product of years—often centuries—of collective input from dozens of individuals. Most of these individuals will probably be unaware of the heritage they are contributing to, yet their collective efforts help to foster and sustain a culture in which greatness can thrive.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 142

On Self-Regulation

Those who have never learned to be responsible and self-regulating have difficulty conceiving solutions to life’s problems apart from the extremes of complete antinomianism, on the one hand, or complete totalitarianism on the other.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 169

On the Weapons of our Warfare

We remember Wilberforce for what he achieved. Yet the most valuable lesson from his life comes not from what he accomplished, but how he accomplished it. Unlike in America, where abolitionists were willing to use violent force to achieve their ends, in England abolition remained a peaceful movement. This was no accident, for Wilberforce steadfastly refused to pursue revolutionary means for achieving his goals. This is because he recognized that the slave trade was not itself the root problem but merely a symptom of a society that had rejected God’s laws. It followed, he believed, that spiritual rather than revolutionary means were necessary in the fight for justice.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 193

On Faithfulness

God calls us to be faithful in the jobs He has given us, but He does not guarantee the consequences of doing right. Faithfulness, not success, is what truly matters in the Lord’s economy.” Saints and Scoundrels page 194

On Changing the World

Thomas Chalmers teaches us the importance of having bold and outrageous vision. He once remarked, “Regardless of how large, your vision is too small.” Chalmers lived by these words, always seeking ways to expand his vision. His vision was so large that it went beyond the confines of his own country and was international in its scope. He was concerned, not just with Scotland, but with Christendom. But although Chalmers’ vision for God’s kingdom was a vision for the whole world, it always started with the needs that lay closest to home. Unlike Rousseau, who neglected the needs of those closest to him in order to save the world, Chalmers’ love for mankind always manifested itself in his love for the person next door. The key to changing the world was to change the neighborhood.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 206

On Liberty

Liberty is not a natural right of man (as Rousseau had claimed), but the product of tradition, family, and faith. It is passed on in much the same way as property is transmitted, from one generation to another, namely, 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 Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and the entire network of common law freedoms which the hereditary succession of the monarchy helped to preserve. The legacy of these liberties would not long abide a generation that was willing to cast off the heritage of their ancestors. Because of this, whenever Burke wished to reform, it was in order to conserve.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 181

On False Prophets

false prophets always speak what the people around them want to hear. Though false prophets usually like to think of themselves as modern-day Jeremiahs, going against the grain of popular opinion in order to proclaim God’s truth, their messages are usually carefully constructed to mesh with the biases already popular within the wider community.”Saints and Scoundrels, page 255

On Christian Parenting

The task of Christian parents is not merely to pass on the truth to their children, but also to show the next generation that the truth is lovely. Many Christian young people have willingly walked away from a faith they once believed to be true because they were enticed by the illusory attractiveness of idols. But few will abandon a faith they believe to be both true and beautiful.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 227

On Suffering

George MacDonald helps us to understand that suffering can be redemptive. His was not an easy life. Providing for eleven children was always a great weight on his mind, even after his books began to sell. Witnessing the death of four of his children was even harder. MacDonald also experienced physical suffering, struggling all his life with eczema, asthma, and bronchitis. Moreover, he often experienced periods of intense doubt, depression, and dryness. However, throughout all these trials, he retained a childlike trust in God, believing that his heavenly Father was using everything that happened to him—including the challenging circumstances—to make him more like Jesus. This perspective helped him to see his periods of spiritual dryness as gifts sent for the perfecting of his faith. “That man is perfect in faith,” he once wrote, “who can come to God in the utter dearth of his feelings and desires, without a glow or an aspiration, with the weight of low thoughts, failures, neglects, and wandering forgetfulness, and say to Him, ‘Thou art my refuge.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 249

On Bonhoeffer’s Gratefulness

Even in the midst of the agonizing circumstances of a Nazi prison, Bonhoeffer never ceased to overflow with gratitude to God. Facing the daily possibility of death, he regarded each day as a precious gift from the Lord, to be received with thankfulness and joy. One English officer imprisoned with him later commented: “Bonhoeffer always seemed to me to spread an atmosphere of happiness and joy over the least incident and profound gratitude for the mere fact that he was alive.” Thankfulness did not come easy to Bonhoeffer. He had much to be troubled over. His worst torment was the separation from his beloved fiancee, Maria, and the uncertainty of not knowing whether she was safe. During these sufferings, Bonhoeffer’s approach was not merely to refrain from complaining. Nor was it to be joyful in spite of the hardship. Rather, he teaches us that we can be grateful not just in suffering but for the suffering itself. Bonhoeffer believed that difficult circumstances, no less than pleasant ones, come from the hand of God.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 264

On Bringing Communism to the Inner Man

Communism, as such, never worked. Even during the heyday of the Soviet Union, the outcomes that Marx predicted never materialized. Yet even as the visible symbols of Marxism came crashing down at the close of the twentieth century, there was another, more subtle, version of Marxism coming to fruition. The apparent downfall of communism merely masked the imminent victory of a new variant, one that was less visible yet more subversive, less observable yet more insidious.”

“Gramsci realized, that the proletariat revolution could never succeed until the integrity of the culture that was blocking it had been compromised. Before the political hegemony of communism could emerge, the ideological hegemony of Christianity would first have to be dismantled. Workers must begin to see themselves as being separated from the ruling classes not through economics but through ideology. Marxist categories must first be internalized by the masses before they could be externalized by the socialist political parties. This could happen only to the degree that such categories came to permeate every level of society, becoming part of the very air people breathed. Once the new values formed the unchallenged assumptions—the collective “common sense”—of society, the aims of the revolution could be brought to bear. When that happened, a revolution would not be necessary, for the people would willingly embrace the communist solution.” Saints and Scoundrels, pages 270 & 274

On The Cultural Revolution of Herbert Marcuse

Instead of seeking to give the working classes control over the means of production, Marcuse sought to give groups aligned with the Left control over the intellectual infrastructures of the West. One of the ways he approached the goal was through redefining the notion of tolerance. Marcuse considered that the traditional way of conceiving tolerance—permitting another person’s viewpoint regardless of how one personally felt—to be “repressive tolerance.” What was needed instead was what he termed “liberating tolerance.” Significantly, liberating tolerance involved “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. Movements from the Left included various groups that Marcuse encouraged to self-identify as oppressed, including homosexuals,women, blacks, and immigrants. Only groups such as these could be considered legitimate objects of tolerance.”Saints and Scoundrels, pages 284-285

On the Medieval Vision

When medieval man looked up into the sky and contemplated the heavens, he was greeted not with a deep vacuity, but with a delightful dance; not a mechanical unwinding like clockwork, but a magnificent, unfolding play. It was a cosmos that C. S. Lewis described as “tingling with anthropomorphic life, dancing, ceremonial, a festival not a machine.”  Saints and Scoundrels, page 291

On 20th Century Gnosticism

By the twentieth century, this separation of matter and spirit not only permeated universities like Oxford and Cambridge but had affected the outlook of much of the British church. In the Church of England, it began to be seen as a badge of intellectual sophistication for clergy to water down, and sometimes even reject completely, the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith. The Anglican laity were hardly any better, having imbibed a sentimentalized, moralistic faith that had become unhinged from any spiritual reference point. Even those Englishmen committed to espousing a biblical faith often colluded with the modernist separation of the physical from the spiritual. This false separation resulted in the British church imbibing a Gnostic-like spirituality which failed to see how the world of ordinary things—work, matter, creativity, culture, to say nothing of the universe itself—was spiritually infused and dynamic….The false separation of the physical and the spiritual had led to an unofficial theology which stressed that the fundamental Christian hope is immortality rather than physical resurrection. This notion was reinforced by the Platonic bent of post-Victorian evangelicalism, in which the word “resurrection” began to be used simply as an approximation for the soul’s immortality. It even became fashionable for Anglican bishops to spiritualize away Christ’s own resurrection.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 299

On Critical Thinking

In our era, young children are continually being pressured to engage in self-expression before they are shown how to think coherently, and they are pressured to engage in reasoning before they are given the facts with which to reason. The result is not intellectual freedom but enslavement, for someone that is never taught how to think is by default trained to be a bondservant to the latest fad or fashion.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 302

On Dorothy Sayers’ Integralism

She was particularly gifted at showing how things that people viewed as separate and distinct were in fact two sides of the same coin. The false antithesis between faith and fact, work and glory, spirit and matter, religion and reason, dogma and drama, the sacred and the secular, the head and the heart, and many other false dualisms came crashing down under the hammer of her incisive logic. By emphasizing that redemption involves the whole personality, she showed that there is no part of creation untouched by the magic of the Incarnation. There is no aspect of life separate from the demands of Christ’s lordship.” Saints and Scoundrels, page 304

On Solzhenitsyn’s View of Democracy

Given the crucial role that repentance played in his thought, Solzhenitsyn cautioned us not to put too much confidence in political solutions, including the solution of democracy. Democratic institutions, he warned, cannot act as a hedge against the latent corruption of the human heart any more than communism could. This is because democracy is just as capable of being corrupted, and Solzhenitsyn pointed to the triumph of mediocrity “under the guise of democratic restraints” as an example.”Saints and Scoundrels, page 334