Welcome to the Christian Voice UK National Director's Blog. Find Press Releases, E-Alerts, and a Christian take on the news. See more at http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/

Make sure you right-click on links and open them in a new tab or window so as to keep this blog on-screen.

Over the next few weeks, the articles here both old and new will be copied on to www.christianvoice.org.uk and this blog will wind down. Thank you for following, and will followers now please kindly follow us to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk

Monday, 28 February 2011


In the February Christian Voice newsletter we carried a piece about Egypt and the involvement of George Soros in funding the dissident movements which have sprung up all over the Muslim world.
If you would like a copy of the newsletter, please email me on Stephen@ChristianVoice.org.uk (spam protected, so you will receive a verification email) with your name and land address.
We led in the newsletter on the issue of young non-Muslim women converting to Islam as a reaction to the decadence and moral bankruptcy of our society.  They are attracted to Islam's emphasis on modesty and sexual morality (for its own women at least). Why do they not see these virtues in Christianity?  Where is the Church?
But back to George Soros.  We observed that his support of 'democracy' in Egypt, through his network of 'Open Society' affiliates, is an invitation to radical Islam to take control of the country, with probable dire effects on the state of Israel.  Some of our members have wondered why Soros would encourage something damaging to Israel, seeing he is himself Jewish.  This brief article is an attempt to answer that question.
George Soros was indeed born a Jew, in Budapest in 1930.  According to his OWN WEBSITE:
'Soros survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary during World War II as well as the postwar imposition of Stalinism in his homeland. Soros fled Communist-dominated Hungary in 1947 and made his way to England. Before graduating from the London School of Economics in 1952, Soros studied Karl Popper’s work in the philosophy of science as well as his critique of totalitarianism, The Open Society and Its Enemies, which maintains that no philosophy or ideology has the final word on the truth and that societies can only flourish when they allow for democratic governance, freedom of expression, a diverse range of opinion, and respect for individual rights.'
Soros’s exposure to Karl Popper led him to set up an education and culture foundation in Hungary in 1984.  His website says he 'supported dissident movements in Eastern Europe’s other Communist countries, helping people to organize themselves at a time when popular organizations were banned, to voice their opinions when dissonant opinions were considered anti-state propaganda, and to promote tolerance, democratic governance, human rights, and the rule of law when a one-party dictatorship exercised a monopoly on power.'
We might say the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Rose Revolution in Georgia are good things, but nevertheless their protagonists depended heavily on money from Soros.  In 1993, he founded the Open Society Institute, explicitly named after Popper's work.  This 'has spawned a network of foundations dedicated to promoting development of open societies in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. To date, Soros has given over $8 billion to support human rights, freedom of expression, and access to public health and education in 70 countries.'
WIKIPEDIA (I know, but this is all well-documented elsewhere) says: 'In 2010, he donated $1 million in support of Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana in the state of California.'  'In 2008, Soros donated $400,000 to help fund a successful ballot measure in Massachusetts known as the Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative which decriminalized possession of less than 1 oz (28g) of marijuana in the state. Soros has also funded similar measures in California, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Nevada and Maine.[61] Among the drug decriminalization groups that have received funding from Soros are the Lindesmith Center and Drug Policy Foundation.[62]
Soros also gave $23m to Democrat Party groups to try to stop President G W Bush from winning a second term and has poured millions into liberal and left-leaning advocacy groups. 
The Open Society, like the Ford Foundation, is also actively engaged in the promotion of immorality in Africa, funding pro-gay and pro-abortion NGOs under the counter.  The lack of transparency in Soros's dealings led to Russia passing a law to stop NGOs taking money from foreigners.
Now, I am not anti-democratic, although the Bible warns us in Exodus 23:2 not to follow a multitude to do evil.  The people should give assent to a system of law and to those who govern them (See Exod 19:8 and 24:7 - Luke 19:14&27 are in a rather different context).  I am just cautious about encouraging radical Islam anywhere in the world especially on Israel's doorstep.  But for George Soros, ideology reigns supreme.
Soros's fixation with Popper's 'open society' ideas has driven him to support dissident and 'pro-democracy' groups firstly in Eastern Europe and now dangerously across the Arab world.  Even if he had sympathy for Israel - and some Jewish people do not - my guess is that 'democracy' in itself is such a goal for Soros that the consequences now don't bother him.  Is he bothered by the rise of militant Islam?  Probably not.  Democracy is everything.  It has assumed the status of deity in his mind.
So much power in the hands of one man with such a huge bee in his bonnet ...

Monday, 14 February 2011


This is television as it should be, well, for a fleeting moment at least: Adrian Chiles quoting the Bible on ITV (That Sunday Night Show 13/02/2011 - there for six more days).  OK, the context was that in a 2008 survey, over a quarter of people attributed a word from the Bible to Bob Geldof, who was the final guest on the show.  This was the word, as quoted by Mr Chiles:

'You must defend those who are helpless and have no hope. Be fair and give justice to the poor and homeless.' (Proverbs 31:8-9)
The other guests, Jack Dee, Natasha Kaplinsky and Duncan Bannatyne, thought that was from Bob Geldof, which was interesting.  Bob then said jokingly that he wrote the book of Proverbs.  Actually, God wrote it. 

And what about this one: Rise up, this matter is in your hands.  We will support you so take courage and do it (Ezra 10:4)  (The King James Version says: 'Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it.')  Again, the guests thought Bob.  But it's Bible.

The final quote was about Russell Brand and was vulgar and ungracious.  Yes, that was Sir Bob.

When Theos did the survey, its then director, Paul Woolley, said: "The issue of global poverty and injustice is a major concern to a majority of people in society.  It is encouraging to see that 52% of people rightly think that the Bible offers more teaching on this subject than hell, adultery and homosexuality.
"However, there are clearly some important challenges to the Christian community contained within these findings.  The fact that people confuse the Bible and a speech by Bob Geldof is intriguing, but the fact that 42% of people disagree that the Bible champions the cause of the poor and marginalised demonstrates a significant degree of biblical illiteracy and the need for the Christian community to model the emphases of its sacred text more clearly."

That's right, Paul, but some who are hard-hearted against Jesus will never get it.  We need to remember that the Lord Jesus gave more warnings about hell and sexual morality than about the poor and that homosexuals are not among the 'marginalised', they are today among the oppressors, but you are right that there is a lot of anti-Biblical ignorance out there.

Here are some more Bible verses from the book of Proverbs (KJV), ending with Prov 31:8-9, just to make the point that God requires justice for all and cares especially for the poor and dispossessed:

Prov. 14:21 He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he.
Prov. 14:31 He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor.
Prov. 17:5 Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker: and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.
Prov. 19:17 He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.
Prov. 21:13 Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.
Prov. 22:9 He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.
Prov. 22:16 He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.
Prov. 22:22 Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
Prov. 22:23 For the LORD will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them.
Prov. 23:10 Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:
Prov. 23:11 For their redeemer is mighty; he shall plead their cause with thee.
Prov. 28:3 A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food.
Prov. 28:4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.
Prov. 28:5 Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.
Prov. 28:6 Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.
Prov. 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
Prov. 28:10 Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit: but the upright shall have good things in possession.
Prov. 28:15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.
Prov. 28:16 The prince that wanteth understanding is also a great oppressor: but he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days.
Prov. 28:17 A man that doeth violence to the blood of any person shall flee to the pit; let no man stay him.
Prov. 28:18 Whoso walketh uprightly shall be saved: but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once.
Prov. 28:27 He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.
Prov. 29:7 The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.
Prov. 29:14 The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.
Prov. 30:14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.
Prov. 31:8 Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.
Prov. 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Ezra, of course, helped re-establish Jerusalem at the command of the Persian king Artaxerxes, who told him:
Ezra 7:25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.
26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

Even today, any nation that follows the laws of God will enjoy peace and prosperity, and the poor will be looked after a lot better than by today's bunch of self-interest career politicians passing laws on their own authority.  Nevertheless, we must pray for them:

1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;  2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Romans. 13:3 Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power (ie the ruler)? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Saturday, 12 February 2011


These are the rules for writing any letter or email to your MP:
1 Ask your MP to ask a question of the minister responsible.  This ensures you will get a reply.  Never write to a minister direct.  It makes your MP look redundant.  Kill two birds with one stone.
2 Be precise.  Do not ramble.  State the matter in the first paragraph and make each point concisely.  I always try to say everything on one well-spaced page.  If you go to three pages, you have lost the game.
3 Be patient.  Assume your MP knows nothing about the case, so explain carefully (but precisely!)
4 Be accurate.  Do your own research or rely on a group like Christian Voice who check everything.
5 Be legible.  If your handwriting is not up to it, type it or email and spell-check.
6 Be calm.  No ranting and raving, no over-the-top comments, no snide remarks.
7 Ask your MP to agree with you if the occasion arises.  This could be your question (see 1).
8 Keep to one subject.  If two things are on your mind, write two letters, a couple of days apart.

Letters are always written to your MP at: House of Commons, LONDON, SW1A 0AA
Emails can also be sent.  You need to know either your MP's name or your Parliamentary Constituency.  Both of these, together with email addresses may be found here on the Parliament website.  If you know neither your MP nor your constituency you can simply type your postcode in a box.  In fact, that is the easiest way to get staight to his/her contact details.

Friday, 11 February 2011


Last Saturday week, a highly defamatory article about me appeared in the Daily Mail based solely on comments attributed to my former wife.
The article was a catalogue of smears and distortions stitched together by a tabloid journalist who specialises in TV, celebrities, women’s features and gossip.  She also has an anti-Christian agenda.  Just over a year ago, she wrote a sycophantic piece exalting the pro-paedophilia campaigner Peter Tatchell.  In April this year, she gushed over the first two lesbians who have jointly put their names on the birth certificate of the baby born to one of them.
The article led to another in the Guardian which pointed out the Mail’s hypocrisy.  The Guardian sought my comments on the allegations they were to reprint, and as a result, they printed just one allegation, but for their own good reasons omitted my denial of it.
From what people are sending me, the article about me is not the first time a bitter former wife has cast a jaundiced eye over her past marriage and indeed invented allegations about her ‘ex’.
I have never had a wish to cause my former wife distress by producing in public a catalogue of her conduct during our marriage and the divorce proceedings she brought, which were concluded four years ago, even though that would cast things in a very different light indeed.
It is always distasteful when dirty linen is washed in public, despite the media thirst for such material.  Nevertheless, I must address the two most specific and serious allegations that have appeared.
Firstly, I never once had sexual relations with my former wife against her clearly expressed wish.  Secondly, in connection with the published allegations that I assaulted her, the truth, sadly, is the complete opposite.  I had to obtain a harassment order against her to stop a campaign of intimidation and on one of the occasions when she assaulted me, I reported the matter to the police and she received a police caution.
None of us is perfect, we are all sinners saved by grace, but I sincerely tried to lead my marriage and household in a loving and responsible way, and one which was faithful to the Lord.  There are things I dearly wish I could have done differently, but sadly none of us can ever start from somewhere different from where we are.
There are those who will object to remarriage after divorce.  Many years ago I was led to see that scripture provides for such a situation in the case of adultery or when one party walks out of the marriage.  In the first chapter of Genesis it is written: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone.’  It cannot be of God that a vengeful ex should be able to gloat over the enforced single status of his or her former partner.  There is more that could be said on this matter, but this is neither the time nor the place.
My wife and I have been greatly honoured by the many messages of support during this difficult time. Christian Voice members in particular have been typically generous in their comments and realistic in their view of ‘the press’.  Above all, we have been humbled by all the prayers which have been made.  We are very grateful to all who have held us up in this way and at such a time.
P.S. Please read: Psalm 51:3, 103:10-14; Prov , ; Isa ; Micah 7:5-10; Matt -36; John , 8:7; Romans 8:1,34; 2Tim .

Thursday, 10 February 2011


This post concerned a family of Christians who face being murdered in Pakistan and who are seeking asylum in Britain.  They fled to the UK following attempts on their lives after one of the sons authored an article in a Pakistani magazine calling for the repeal of Pakistan's blasphemy laws.
They have now been released while their case is being considered.
This post has been purged of elements which might identify the family after Pakistani Muslims began to threaten other members of the family still living in Pakistan.
For further details, contact us at Christian Voice.

Please remember to pray for the oppressed, downtrodden and voiceless Christians in Pakistan and especially for mother of five Asia Bibi and other Christians accused of blasphemy, including Imran Ghafoor and Rehmat Masih, who are behind bars.
Please pray for the repeal of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which are simply being used by Muslims to settle scores against their Pakistani Christian neighbours.

Friday, 4 February 2011


Last month, the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group extended a dinner speech invitation to Peter Tatchell, who is always described as a 'human rights campaigner'.  (Jewish Chronicle 3/2/2011)  Liberal Rabbis Judith Levitt, Mark Solomon and Ariel Friedlander attended.  The episode raises serious questions about them all in view of Tatchell's work advancing paedophilia.
In 1986 Tatchell penned an article 'questioning ages of majority and ages of consent' for a pro-paedophilia book, Betrayal of Youth, (BoY) edited by the then vice-chairperson of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange, most of whose leaders ended up in jail for distributing obscene images of children and/or contact lists.  Images of the pages have been on our website for a year now and have prompted Tatchell to put a disclaimer on his website.
It says, 'I do not support adults having sex with children.'  But 'BoY' and his article in it called for the abolition of all ages of consent.  You can't abolish ages of consent without facilitating adults having sex with children.  In BoY, its editor wrote plainly: 'The mere fact of an adult having consensual sex with a child should not of itself be construed as an abuse.' 
In 1997, Tatchell wrote to the Guardian to say: ‘Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.’  We read no condemnation from him of this 'intergenerational sex'.
More recently, on his own website, he calls for an age-of-consent law which would accommodate the supposed needs of a 12-year-old boy to have sex with men.  I have met Peter Tatchell on more than one occasion.  He really needs our prayers, and I do pray he is a fool rather than a knave.  But he needs to be opposed.
Apparently, he praised Liberal Judaism at the dinner 'for its same-sex commitment ceremonies' and told the JGLG that 'the UK had become one of the most progressive societies in the Western world in terms of gay rights'.  How much more 'progressive' we could become in advancing the 'human rights' of paedophiles if he and his co-contributors to BoY had their way.

Tuesday, 1 February 2011


Broadcaster John Humphrys has described Darwin's Theory of Evolution as 'a fact' and those who don't believe it as 'slightly bonkers' in the last five minutes of BBC Radio 4's Today programme, broadcast this morning. That'll be half the population of Britain, then, according to a poll carried out for the Guardian, 60% of the most prosperous nation on God's earth, America, and I should imagine virtually the whole of Asia and Africa.

Listen to the programme (until 7th February 2011).
Note: You need to drag the slider across to 2.55.00, near the very end of the programme.

You can write to Mr Humphrys at: Today Programme, BBC Radio 4, Room G630, Stage 6, Television Centre, Wood Lane, London, W12 7RJ or Email: today@bbc.co.uk

The elite seem to be having a bit of a pop at creationsists just now.  In an interview with Andrew Marr, Education Secretary Michael Gove said last year: 'To my mind you cannot have a school which teaches creationism and one thing that we will make absolutely clear is that you cannot have schools which are set up, which teach people things which are clearly at variance with what we know to be scientific fact.'

But evolution isn't a fact, Mr Gove, it's a theory.  (By the way, comments widely attributed to Mr Gove linking Islamic extremists with Christian creationsists were actually made by Michael Gapes (Labour) in a debate on 17th November 2010.)

Humphrys' remarks were made in an interview with Dr Anjali Goswami of University College London and Professor Scott Armbruster of Portsmouth University. Dr Goswami had said that if Darwin were alive today, he wouldn't get funding for his trip to Madagascar. Dr Goswami qualified her words by observing that it wouldn't have much mattered as Darwin was a man of independent means anyway.

But towards the end of the interview, Humphrys broke his own rule 'to be impartial, not to express our own convictions' by saying: 'a lot of people would say today wouldn't they, that he (Darwin) did it, we now know that evolution is a fact, well I mean there are some slightly bonkers people out there who don't believe that I suppose but nonetheless we do know that. What else is to answer?'

Well it turned out there was quite a lot.

Dr Goswami wanted to know, 'What actually drives morphological variation? How do we get the variety of forms that we see today? Why do we see those and not other forms?

Professor Scott Armbruster said there were 'So many things Darwin asked questions about we still don't have the answer to.' For example? 'How does natural selection operate in the wild? How does speciation occur? What created the patterns and diversity we see today? Natural selection as Darwin argued it is something that an organism can respond to if they have the genetic capacity to make that change,' he said.

But of course modern genetics and information theory both say they would not have that capacity. New information has to come in from somewhere.

The comments on speciation are especially interesting for me. I came to faith in God through seeing the ducks on a pond. It struck me that they were all doing a similar job, but had different plumage. Why was that? Why did the coot have a white beak and the moorhen a red one?

Being a hard-nosed engineer, I needed an explanation which worked and the evolutionary model seemed too far-fetched and needed too much faith! I mean, what could possibly be the evolutionary purpose on the bars on the hen mallard's wings, which can only be seen when she flies? Or the tuft on the head of the tufted duck? So I was drawn logically to see them as designed like that. I suppose I believed in an intelligent designer long before the idea became fashionable. So that left me as a sort of a deist.

But God gradually became more personal to me and I was drawn against all my adolescent atheist beliefs deeper and deeper over the years into faith in Jesus Christ. Two main things sustain my continued belief in God, or to go further, in God in the person of Jesus Christ. The first is the intellectual coherence of Scripture. As it would be humanly impossible to come up with a collection of different works by so many human authors over 15 or 16 centuries which agreed in so much detail the Bible must be inspired from outside the human realm. The second is the day-to-day experience of the love and grace of the miracle-working Lord Jesus.

Funnily enough, when John Humphrys chaired a debate in 2007 between atheist Lewis Wolpert and Christian Dr William Lane-Craig on this subject he was much more impartial (and dare one say more professional)!

Genesis 1:1: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
Isa 45:18  For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Mark 10:6: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
John 1:3: All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Romans 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

LINKS embedded in the text above:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/contact_today/default.stm  (Contact page)