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!