MPs debate rise of 'Christianophobia'

Members of Parliament have debated a perceived rise in intolerance towards Christians in Britain.

The 90-minute Private Members' debate on the sidelining of Britain's Christian traditions by the "politically correct brigade" was called by Mark Pritchard MP.

Several MPs agreed that there was such a thing as so-called 'Christianophobia', often promoted by what one described as "aggressive secularism". Many affirmed the value of Britain's Christian heritage.

Mike Judge, of The Christian Institute, was quoted in the Daily Express as welcoming the debate. He said: "Christians do feel they are being treated as second-class citizens in the name of political correctness."

Mr Pritchard said: "The roots of Christianity in Britain go back to the first century. Yet today there appears to be a reluctance by some public bodies and institutions to recognise our nation's Christian heritage and history."

He told the BBC: "It's gone far enough. If there are those who want to see the Christian church reduced to the margins in this nation they should have the courage to say so, rather than using the rights of other religions as an excuse."

Gore Caught Lying

The United Kingdom court ruling, smacking down Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" as shameless political fantasy unfit for schoolchildren, elicited an interesting reaction from the former vice president.

Did he challenge the court's findings?

No.

Did he provide new evidence to bolster his case for any of the specific findings of falsehood and exaggeration by the court?

No.

Did he argue that the court itself was corrupt or incapable of understanding the "science" behind his film?

No.

He didn't do any of those things.

Instead, what Al Gore did was to make scurrilous and unsubstantiated accusations about the concerned parent who brought the case to court, at some personal sacrifice, to protect his child from the mental abuse of being forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth."

The people who created and distributed this propaganda film throughout the world are among the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. And here they are questioning the motives of one obscure parent who battled, like David vs. Goliath, the national education establishment in the United Kingdom and won!

Interestingly, Gore himself has publicly said nothing about the court case – nothing! Apparently, he hopes you won't learn about it. He hopes that by not commenting on it, the amazing story of one parent's battle for truth and justice in the United Kingdom will not be heard in the United States. And, he may have something there.

This story had no legs whatsoever – which is why we are writing about it in this space.

A reputable court of law has heard the facts on "An Inconvenient Truth" and found it seriously wanting. That court has determined that the movie is unfit for viewing in public schools in the UK without specific and explicit disclaimers explaining that the assertions offered by Gore are not supported by science. And the reaction in the U.S. is like nothing ever happened. The movie is still being shown in classrooms from coast to coast. It is, besides evolution, the very centrepiece of what passes for science education in American schools today!

This raises a number of important questions:

• Why isn't Al Gore being hounded in all his public appearances to address this court ruling and its implications?

• Why isn't he put on the spot in every venue to answer the specific findings of fact?

• Since Al Gore won't comment nor dispute the court's findings, why aren't his acolytes in Hollywood and elsewhere, all those involved in the film and supporting it, being asked to take up the challenge?

• Why aren't U.S. parents challenging the showing of this film in schools the way the British parent-hero, Stuart Dimmock, did?

• Is there not even one prominent school authority in America who is willing to re-examine his commitment to the educational value of this film in light of the UK court ruling?

Well done Stuart!

Thank you!

Wording of 'gay' Speech Crime Published by the Government

The Christian Institute has issued the following statement:

"The Government has published its proposed 'homophobic hatred' law. The offence could yet be amended by MPs or Peers.

Parts of the law are modelled on the religious hatred law, but there is no specific free speech protection.

Only 'threatening' words or behaviour will be covered by the Government's current wording, not those which are 'insulting' or 'abusive' (both very broad terms).

In addition, a prosecutor must prove that a person intended to stir up hatred on grounds of sexual orientation, rather than having been 'likely to' stir up hatred. This mirrors the religious hatred law.

However, The Christian Institute is concerned that the free speech protection which is present in the religious hatred offence is not included in the 'homophobic hatred' law.

While the Human Rights Act offers some protection for free speech and religious liberty, the lack of a specific protection in the offence sends out the signal that free speech is more important when debating religion than when debating homosexual practice.

The Christian Institute remains opposed to the principle of a 'homophobic hatred' law. Existing offences are sufficient to protect homosexuals from any violence or harassment. A 'homophobic hatred' law, in any form, could be used as a pretext for challenging the free speech and religious liberty of Christians."

Ten Arguments Against a 'Homophobic Hatred' Law

This law will restrict free speech.

It could be a criminal offence to publicly express the religious belief that homosexual practice is morally wrong. Christian ministers, evangelists, university CUs, writers and broadcasters, among others, could be affected.

This law confuses disagreement with hatred.

Free speech involves the freedom to disagree with others but this proposed law could classify disagreement as hatred. Reasonable statements of Christian belief are often characterised as 'hatred' by people who strongly disagree with them. In a democratic society people should be free to express disagreement without fear of censure from the state.

This law will be used against Christians.

Christians have already been subject to questioning and investigation by the police for legitimately expressing their views on homosexuality - even though no law yet exists. If a 'homophobic hatred' law is introduced, we would almost certainly see it being used against Christians.

This law is unnecessary.

It is already a criminal offence to intimidate or attack anyone. Inciting a crime against another person, for whatever reason, is also outlawed. In England and Wales crimes committed against a person because of their sexual orientation are already punished more heavily, because of the introduction of aggravated offences. There is no need for this law.

This law would not have stopped the Dobrowski attack.

Homosexual campaigners cite the tragic case of Jody Dobrowski, a homosexual who was beaten to death by two convicted criminals. The thugs who killed Jody Dobrowski were mindless. An incitement offence would not have prevented the attack.

This law wrongly assumes homosexual practice is like race.

The law that is being sought would extend the existing 'Incitement to Racial Hatred' offence to cover homosexuality. But homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Many 'gay rights' activists would say that their sexual orientation is a choice, not a genetic characteristic.

This law contains no protections for religious liberties.

The 'Incitement to Religious Hatred' law, which The Christian Institute campaigned heavily against, was eventually passed with a large number of protections for free speech. But the 'homophobic hatred' law proposed by gay rights groups would be an extension of the original 'Incitement to Racial Hatred' law, so it would carry no protections for free speech and religious liberties.

This law could lead to Christians facing prison sentences for what they believe.

This law carries a maximum 7 year prison sentence. In Sweden, a pastor who preached a calm sermon against homosexual practice was sentenced to jail under similar laws. He had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Sweden to secure his freedom. Similar cases could happen in the UK under the proposed law.

This law will have a 'chilling' effect on open debate.

Even if there are no prosecutions (which is unlikely), the very existence of the law will make people fearful of expressing their views on this issue. As part of its Christian heritage, Britain has a long tradition of free speech. A homophobic incitement law runs counter to that. The criminal law should not be used as a political tool to silence your opponents.

This law will be used to attack political freedoms.

Stonewall, the proponents of this law, believe it should be unlawful for Christians publicly to protest against 'gay rights' laws. Earlier this year they suggested police should have stopped a peaceful Christian protest outside Parliament against the Sexual Orientation Regulations, claiming it was "inciting hatred against gay people".

Jack Straw Concedes Cannabis Law Mistake

Minister for Justice, Jack Straw, has admitted that relaxing cannabis laws was a mistake.

Speaking on Channel Four News, he said, "I was always against it, let me say, I can disclose this now, reducing the categorisation of cannabis from B to C, I thought that was an error."

"I'm glad to know that we are now looking again at that. I don't think would work.

"I'm happy to have a debate about that, but I'm absolutely clear - what we know about cannabis now, more than we did even five and 10 years ago, is the way it can lead to very serious exacerbation of mental health problems."

Speaking on GMTV, he said, "Why I want to upgrade cannabis and make it more a drug that people worry about is that we don't want to send out a message - just like with alcohol - to teenagers that we accept these things."

Cannabis was reclassified from a class B to a class C drug by then Home Secretary David Blunkett in changes which were implemented in 2004.

Gordon Brown announced soon after becoming Prime Minister that a review of the law would be launched. Mr Straw's comments add to speculation that the Government is keen to see the drug returned to class B.

Suspected “child-porn ‘art’” Owned by Homosexual Elton John

A photograph by a controversial American artist which is part of Sir Elton John's private collection has been seized by police from a gallery on suspicion it may have breached child pornography laws.

The image, which featured two young girls one of whom was sitting down with her legs wide apart, was taken by the renowned photographer Nan Goldin.

The shot, from the artist's Thanksgiving series, was to be exhibited at the Baltic Modern Art gallery, Tyneside, this week along with some of her other work. But the day before it was due to be viewed by the public, police came and removed the image over fears that it was breaking the law.

Goldin, 54, is well known for her shots of young, semi-clothed girls.

In 2001, one of her photos featuring a very young naked girl looking up between the open legs of a semi-clothed older child had been criticised for making money from exploiting children.

Goldin was born in Washington DC, ran away from home and was fostered by several families during her childhood. She moved to New York after graduating from art school where she became known for her pictures of alcoholics, drug addicts and Aids sufferers.

She was admitted to rehab in the 1990s and much of her work since has reflected her own experiences.

Sir Elton John has long been an admirer of her work and is also a close friend. He was not available for comment and a spokesman referred inquiries to the Baltic.

Question: What kind of person desires to gaze at a naked young, prepubescent girl sitting with her legs spread apart?

Answer: A pervert.

It is interesting that many homosexual-tolerant groups are currently promoting the lowering of the age of consent, and even the abolition of the laws against child-porn, and sex with children. (For further details, see this BBC news report.)

This is most certainly not normal, and anyone who even suggests otherwise clearly has a reprobate mind.

The Bible says:

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness..., haters of God..., inventors of evil things...: Without understanding..., without natural affection..., Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.”

(Romans chapter 1, verses 28 – 32)

THE UN "CULTURE OF PREVENTION"

The UN has established a massive, worldwide, inter-agency program of "prevention." Through the coordinated efforts of UNESCO, The World Health Organization, The World Bank and countless other UN agencies, its agenda is transforming not only beliefs and values everywhere, but also schools, churches, communities and nations. Words like "war" and "genocide" have been used for more than fifty years to persuade the world to participate in "peace-building" ventures that would create a climate of prevention everywhere. This cultural atmosphere is defined by UN declarations such as UNESCO's Declaration on Tolerance and Declaration of Principles on Religion in a Culture of Peace.

The UN policy of prevention requires "lifelong learning," re-learning, group-learning and service-learning. Continual progress must be measured through unceasing assessments that monitor compliance with new global standards for human resource development. What counts is progress toward the envisioned solidarity -- a global community where no one takes a stand contrary to UN ideology -- and where everyone is willing to compromise their beliefs, seek common ground, and flow with the group consensus.

While Biblical Christianity hinders such universal solidarity, the war against "hate" supports it. After all, it provides the incentive needed to intimidate and persuade the masses that they must change and conform.

In 1999, the United Nations published a pamphlet by Secretary-General Kofi Annan titled, "Facing the Humanitarian Challenge: Towards a Culture of Prevention." In it, Mr. Annan states:

"...the common thread running through almost all conflict prevention policies is the need to pursue what we in the United Nations refer to as good governance. In practice, good governance involves promoting the rule of law, tolerance of minority and opposition groups.... Above all, good governance means respect for human rights...

"Long-term prevention strategies, in addressing the root causes of conflict, seek to prevent destructive conflicts from arising in the first place. They embrace the same holistic approach to prevention that characterizes post-conflict peace-building...."

Do you wonder what he means by a holistic approach? It has to do with the vision of unity, wholism, solidarity, interconnectedness, or -- as the new global management puts it -- a systems approach based on "General Systems Theory." It tolerates no Christian "separatist" views. As Al Gore said at a 1992 Communitarian Conference, "Seeing ourselves as separate is the central problem in our political thinking."

But "peace-building" implies more specific action than simply a holistic approach. An UNESCO publication clarifies a broader issue. Ponder the following excerpts from Our Creative Diversity: Report on the World Commission on Culture and Development. The first paragraph was written by former UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar:

"An ounce of prevention is better than a ton of punishment.... Imagination, innovation, vision and creativity are required.... It means an open mind, and open heart and a readiness to seek fresh definitions, reconcile old opposites, and help draw new mental maps."

"Universalism is the fundamental principle of a global ethics."

"Religion... has affected and sometimes poisoned the relations between majorities and minorities.... Extreme doctrinaire views [Biblical Christianity?] look to an imagined past, seen as both simpler and more stable, thus preparing the ground not only for a variety of overtly violent acts but also for the intimidation of individuals and indeed entire communities in matters of thought, behaviour and belief, coercing them into accepting a single 'orthodox' point of view.... The challenge today, as in the past is to... distinguish between the beliefs and activities of the peaceful majority... and a minority of extremists...."

"PREVENTION" AS A PLOY TO SILENCE CHRISTIANS

Some of the same warnings were sounded by the respective founding directors of both UNESCO (Julian Huxley) and the World Health Organization (Dr. Brock Chisholm). Both were determined to wipe out the "poisonous certainties" of Biblical Christianity in their quest for UN solidarity. Notice Dr. Chisholm's emphasis on prevention back in 1946:

"We must... find and take sure steps to prevent wars in the future.... The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training... these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy.... The pretence is made [by uncompromising Christians who cling to old standards] that to do away with right and wrong would produce uncivilized people, immorality, lawlessness and social chaos....

"When [infectious diseases] were attacked at the preventative level, some martyrs had to be sacrificed to the cause of humanity, because reactionary forces fought back.... The problem is no longer the germ of diphtheria, but rather the attitudes of parents who are incapable of accepting and using proven knowledge for the protection of their children. Surely the training of children in home and schools should be of at least as great public concern as their vaccination....

"For the very survival of large parts of the human race, world understanding, tolerance, and forbearance have become absolutely essential.... If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently."

Today, more than half a century later, the world is rapidly conforming to this UN agenda touted by Chisholm and Huxley in the 1940's. The global network of "lifelong learning" aims to prevent anything that would hinder "positive" collective thinking. Few notice how effectively its tentacles now reach into community [mental] health programs in over 130 nations around the world.

During his 1997 White House Conference on Hate-Crimes, former President Clinton suggested that "The Justice Department will make its own hate crimes training curriculum available. A lot of hate crimes still go unreported.... If a crime is unreported, that gives people an excuse to ignore it." Then he announced a Justice Department website which invites children to tell "trusted adults" about "hateful" or exclusive attitudes they see in their relatives at home or in friends in school.

Hard to believe? It all makes sense when you consider the history of the UN. Ponder the words of Federico Mayor, former Director-General of UNESCO:

"We have witnessed... the growth of fundamentalism and of religious and ethnic intolerance. The roots of exclusion and hatred have shown themselves even deeper and more tenacious than we had feared... Peace... requires, in the words of the Constitution, 'the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind'."

Today's well-funded champions for boundless sexual "freedom" are fighting an all-out war against those who resist. Their efforts are pushing the United Kingdom toward inconceivable lawlessness, bondage (to their own sensuality), and social chaos, which will surely be countered by more intensified surveillance and control.

J. Matt Barber describes the battle in his article 'Pro-Gay' Bullies Pick Up the Pace:

"Not surprisingly, many of those non-judgmental, freedom-loving moral-relativists on the left are up-in-arms, demanding that Pace apologize and offer a full retraction or be fired.... Their carefully crafted propaganda is peppered with provocative and sensational code-words like “hate,” “violence,” “bigot,” “homophobia” — and on and on, ad infinitum. They are militant, organized, extremely powerful and well funded. Through clever semantics and shrewd political subterfuge they cynically play to honourable notions of freedom and fair-play in order to push a deceptive and activist agenda.

"They are the radical homosexual lobby.... Theirs is a carefully orchestrated and skilfully executed scheme not only to undermine, but to abolish from public discourse, any words — or even thoughts — which might stem from the traditional Christian worldview upon which our nation was founded.

"Their agenda: To mandate that only a secular-humanist worldview may be properly entertained or referenced. That worldview is one in which morality is entirely relative, and any reference to traditional notions of natural human sexuality, the natural family, or any fixed lines of demarcation between right and wrong are “hateful,” “discriminatory,” and to be strictly forbidden by force of law."

Eph 6:12 ~ "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Homosexual Harassment Laws Quashed

A judge in the Belfast High Court has quashed laws which threatened the religious freedom of Christians.

Mr Justice Weatherup struck down the 'harassment' provisions of the Northern Ireland sexual orientation regulations. This means Christians cannot be sued for expressing their opposition to homosexual practice.

The judge also ruled that religious liberty may be significantly affected by the regulations in individual cases which may come before the courts.

The judge added that in such cases County Courts in Northern Ireland should consider the principles of the Brockie case from Canada. In that case a court ruled that a Christian printer should not be forced to print material which goes against his core religious beliefs, but that a Christian printer must be willing to print other material, such as letterhead, for homosexual customers.

The ruling also narrows the sexual orientation regulations in Northern Ireland so that they cannot apply to the school curriculum or affect every activity of a faith-based group which receives some public funding (only the specific activity for which a faith-based group receives public funding will be affected).

There is no doubt that the religious freedom of Christians in Northern Ireland is very much safer as a result of this legal action, but there will still be cases where Christians must defend themselves in court.

This result is a definite answer to prayer, however let us continue to pray that the principles from the High Court ruling are followed in the rest of the UK.