It's that time of the year when a small number of twisted teachers are planning to corrupt the children in their care with homosexual propaganda.
February has been renamed Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History Month and that means:
For Secondary Schools:
* Sir Ian McKellen coming in to say 'gays are different but we are all different'
* Staging the pastiche play Romeo and Julian
* Screenings of the pro-gay video FIT
* Discussions in PHSE of how homosexuals are 'discriminated against' (as if they are).
* Getting pupils to write pro-gay essays perhaps with the support of outside agencies.
For Primary Schools:
* Using the 'relationship' bit of 'sex and relationships' education to talk about how nice gay relationships are,
* Getting the children to read books like King and king in which a prince 'marries' another prince or And Tango Makes Three in which two male penguins raise a little penguin. (The last is based on a true story of what happened in a zoo; the fact that one of the male penguins later went and got hitched up to a girl penguin is passed over.)
* Using cartoons of sex acts.
* Showing pictures of two pairs of feet in a bed and telling the tots they could belong to a man and a woman or two men.
* Using Elton John's music to talk about being gay.
* Using the issue of bullying to promote homosexuality. This last one is really bad, because talking up name-calling like 'gay' and 'lezzie' actually gives bullies a weapon they might not have thought of, and can result in a studious boy or tom-boyish girl being labelled as homosexual. And that can become a self-fullling prophecy.
There is one bright spot: Right in the middle of February is Valentine's Day, which is now being designated a Day of Purity.
PRAY: For your children and those in your church or fellowship to be protected from this propaganda. Pray for Christian teachers to stand up to the pro-gay pressure and object to 'gay lessons'.
ACTION: Parents: Ask the school head if there are any special lessons or events happening in your child's school during February. Teachers can do the same. Parents, teachers and young people especially of secondary school age can celebrate the Day of Purity instead and promote it in school.
THE PRESS: If you find out that something untoward is happening in a school, contact Christian Voice and also contact the local press. They will respect your anonymity if you ask although it is a better witness to go public. The kind of school we are talking about often try to inflict gay lessons and assemblies by stealth. The two things they fear are Parents and the Press. Using this method, parents in Waltham Forest succeeded in the face of massive intimidation in having LGBT History Month quietly dropped in the Borough. But it won't make you popular with the school head.
BACKGROUND:
Organisations and people promoting 'LGBT History Month' include Stonewall, (and that means Her Majesty's Government) Schools Out (scary Schools-Out website is here), Gareth Thomas, The British Museum and the Lesbian and Gay Foundation, who had this to say:
'LGBT History Month is almost upon us and it is an opportunity to learn more about the histories of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and celebrate their lives.
'Until recently, the silencing of LGBT people was often reinforced by legislation and in some countries this is still the case. The history of those who have gone before us shows us what can be achieved when we say Enough is Enough to Homophobia and Transphobia.
'We must use every opportunity to support LGBT people, particularly in our families and in schools. Over the next few months The LGF will be increasing our focus on supporting families and providing more resources to schools.
'In February we will launch the Enough is Enough! Safer Schools Packs, because two thirds of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils report homophobic bullying in English secondary schools.
'We want to get as many Packs into UK schools in time for May 17th, International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia and the campaign’s one year anniversary, because every child has the right to learn in a safe environment.'
Paul Martin, Lesbian & Gay Foundation Chief Executive
Friday, 21 January 2011
OFFENSIVE JIHAD JUSTIFIED
So Baroness Warsi gave her speech exonerating Islam in Leicester University last night. I am grateful to Archbishop Cranmer for printing her speech in full, from which I see her proposing compatibility between Islam and John 1 and then (just half-way down), thinking it funny to rubbish the Old Testament using the sneering Dr Laura Questions (which are in fact easily answered).
In her speech, she also said this to her mainly-Muslim audience:
'Muslim communities must speak out against those who promote violence.
'Muslim men and women must make clear that any hatred towards others is wrong.
'And above all, not stand on the sidelines, but step forward and help to lead a progressive, united fight.'
Sayeeda Warsi is whistling in the wind. You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at the idea of Muslims helping to lead anything 'progressive' in Coalition terms.
But as to violence and hatred, well, just a few days ago, an important revelation appeared in the Jerusalem Post, written by the respected Barry Rubin. As he predicted, this development, the justification of 'offensive jihad' by a mainstream Muslim cleric, has not been covered in the mainstream media.
The Region: Revolutions, walk-outs and fatwas
By BARRY RUBIN
Jerusalem Post
16th January 2011
[...]
In Egypt, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world's most important Islamic university.
He began by stating the well-known doctrine of "defensive jihad," that is Muslims must go to war against infidels who attack them. Of course, the word "attack" is often spread rather thinly to justify aggression.
But now Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: "Then there is another type of fighting against the non-Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...
"Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam's border, to extend God's religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula."
What does it mean about extending "God's religion," i.e., Islam? On the surface, "where the governments do not allow it" and the reference to Pharaoh seem to imply the complete prohibition of Islam.
But in the current context, this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything "necessary" to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics' interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).
In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century-style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to "extend God's religion" to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam's main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.
Of course, that doesn't mean most Muslims will accept this new stance. But it does mean that radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa's statement publicly - if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West - this idea will be more and more taken for granted. ...
Moreover, we probably won't see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal and Turkish Studies. He blogs at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/
In her speech, she also said this to her mainly-Muslim audience:
'Muslim communities must speak out against those who promote violence.
'Muslim men and women must make clear that any hatred towards others is wrong.
'And above all, not stand on the sidelines, but step forward and help to lead a progressive, united fight.'
Sayeeda Warsi is whistling in the wind. You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at the idea of Muslims helping to lead anything 'progressive' in Coalition terms.
But as to violence and hatred, well, just a few days ago, an important revelation appeared in the Jerusalem Post, written by the respected Barry Rubin. As he predicted, this development, the justification of 'offensive jihad' by a mainstream Muslim cleric, has not been covered in the mainstream media.
The Region: Revolutions, walk-outs and fatwas
By BARRY RUBIN
Jerusalem Post
16th January 2011
[...]
In Egypt, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world's most important Islamic university.
He began by stating the well-known doctrine of "defensive jihad," that is Muslims must go to war against infidels who attack them. Of course, the word "attack" is often spread rather thinly to justify aggression.
But now Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: "Then there is another type of fighting against the non-Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...
"Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam's border, to extend God's religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula."
What does it mean about extending "God's religion," i.e., Islam? On the surface, "where the governments do not allow it" and the reference to Pharaoh seem to imply the complete prohibition of Islam.
But in the current context, this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything "necessary" to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics' interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).
In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century-style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to "extend God's religion" to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam's main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.
Of course, that doesn't mean most Muslims will accept this new stance. But it does mean that radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa's statement publicly - if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West - this idea will be more and more taken for granted. ...
Moreover, we probably won't see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal and Turkish Studies. He blogs at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/
Thursday, 20 January 2011
TAQIYYA FROM SAYEEDA WARSI
Baroness Warsi, the Conservative Party Chairman, is giving a speech in Leicester tonight in which she will complain that prejudice against Muslims has 'Passed the dinner-table test.'
In an pre-speech interview on BBC, she expanded her view, saying 'It has become acceptable around dinner to have these conversations where anti-Mulsim hatred and bigotry is openly discussed.'
She was not trying to control what is said in homes around the land (of course not) but 'drawing a line as to the state of anti-Muslim bigotry in Britain today.' Let me try to understand the distinction ... no, failed.
How any of us deal with such dinner-table discussions is a matter 'of the people you wish to have dinner with', said the Baroness.
How terribly upper-middle-class. Baroness Warsi is of that stratum in society which feels put out if it has not recently been to dinner with Nigela or the local Deputy Lieutenant.
Those of us with sympathies for the nation of Israel, or simply anyone who reads the news, will raise more than an eyebrow when Sayeeda Warsi wonders how we deal with what she describes as 'the rising tide of anti-semitism.' How ironic not to say hypocritical that she mentions anti-semitism when the bulk of that, world-wide, is coming from Muslims.
Of course the noble baroness is a Muslim herself so we have treat what she says with a degree of caution, bearing in mind the propensity of Muslims to use taqiyya in defending Islam. On top of that, she is a member of a political class which always wants to pretend that there is nothing wrong with the world (when their side is in power, of course).
In her speech, she is expected to say the description of Muslims as either moderate or extremist encourages false assumptions. Well we must agree there. Such a distinction is for all practical purposes meaningless. After all, are the Muslims persecuting their Christian neighbours in Pakistan, or those who send bricks through the windows of converts in this land, or those who celebrated when the Twin Towers came down, or those who insist on halal meat moderate or extreme?
The BBC interviewer suggested that we can't really separate Criminal behaviour from religion.
Baroness Warsi replied, 'Sadly one of the concerns that has been raised (she must mean by Muslims - SG) as I travel around the country is that somehow because there are a minority of people who commit criminal acts who come from the faith of Islam, that that somehow means that it is fair game to have a go at the community as a whole and I think it is about unpacking that and clearly showing that anybody who becomes so extreme in their beliefs is somehow detached from the faith to which they belong.'
Can anyone show that? Is it remotely true? Those Muslims who commit acts of terrorism or who rape non-Muslim girls would say they are simply following the example of their prophet. They would deny they are detached from their faith. They would say they are fully integrated with it. And listen to those (moderate?) Muslim leaders whom the Muslim Council of Britain wheel out on chat shows constantly qualifying their guarded denunciations of terrorism.
Or just watch some of the excellent programmes about subversive Muslim activities on Channel 4 or BBC2. Dispatches, Channel 4 news, BBC2 Newsnight and Panorama spring to mind.
Apparently it is 'all about trying to unpack this debate in a reasoned way', so why can we not have a reasoned debate over how we stem Islamic aggression in our nation?
On the recording you will hear Warsi admit that the the Muslims 'community is not entirely at ease with their country' which is putting it mildly. Muslims despise our decadent society, they have no concept of democracy, and they regard our nation as Dar al Harb, or a House of War. And seeing non-Islamic societies as Dar-al-Harb is dare we say moderate Muslim theology.
The English Defence League are holding a rally in Luton on Saturday 6th February. They seem to be a reasonable working-class movement alarmed at the drug-dealing, violence and intimidation wreaked by Muslims in their communities, activities which a politically-correct police force terrified of offending the Baroness Warsis and Teresa Mays of this world allow to carry on. It is hard not to have sympathy with them.
Finally, any invitations to dinner to discuss how to combat creeping Islamification will be very welcome!
In an pre-speech interview on BBC, she expanded her view, saying 'It has become acceptable around dinner to have these conversations where anti-Mulsim hatred and bigotry is openly discussed.'
She was not trying to control what is said in homes around the land (of course not) but 'drawing a line as to the state of anti-Muslim bigotry in Britain today.' Let me try to understand the distinction ... no, failed.
How any of us deal with such dinner-table discussions is a matter 'of the people you wish to have dinner with', said the Baroness.
How terribly upper-middle-class. Baroness Warsi is of that stratum in society which feels put out if it has not recently been to dinner with Nigela or the local Deputy Lieutenant.
Those of us with sympathies for the nation of Israel, or simply anyone who reads the news, will raise more than an eyebrow when Sayeeda Warsi wonders how we deal with what she describes as 'the rising tide of anti-semitism.' How ironic not to say hypocritical that she mentions anti-semitism when the bulk of that, world-wide, is coming from Muslims.
Of course the noble baroness is a Muslim herself so we have treat what she says with a degree of caution, bearing in mind the propensity of Muslims to use taqiyya in defending Islam. On top of that, she is a member of a political class which always wants to pretend that there is nothing wrong with the world (when their side is in power, of course).
In her speech, she is expected to say the description of Muslims as either moderate or extremist encourages false assumptions. Well we must agree there. Such a distinction is for all practical purposes meaningless. After all, are the Muslims persecuting their Christian neighbours in Pakistan, or those who send bricks through the windows of converts in this land, or those who celebrated when the Twin Towers came down, or those who insist on halal meat moderate or extreme?
The BBC interviewer suggested that we can't really separate Criminal behaviour from religion.
Baroness Warsi replied, 'Sadly one of the concerns that has been raised (she must mean by Muslims - SG) as I travel around the country is that somehow because there are a minority of people who commit criminal acts who come from the faith of Islam, that that somehow means that it is fair game to have a go at the community as a whole and I think it is about unpacking that and clearly showing that anybody who becomes so extreme in their beliefs is somehow detached from the faith to which they belong.'
Can anyone show that? Is it remotely true? Those Muslims who commit acts of terrorism or who rape non-Muslim girls would say they are simply following the example of their prophet. They would deny they are detached from their faith. They would say they are fully integrated with it. And listen to those (moderate?) Muslim leaders whom the Muslim Council of Britain wheel out on chat shows constantly qualifying their guarded denunciations of terrorism.
Or just watch some of the excellent programmes about subversive Muslim activities on Channel 4 or BBC2. Dispatches, Channel 4 news, BBC2 Newsnight and Panorama spring to mind.
Apparently it is 'all about trying to unpack this debate in a reasoned way', so why can we not have a reasoned debate over how we stem Islamic aggression in our nation?
On the recording you will hear Warsi admit that the the Muslims 'community is not entirely at ease with their country' which is putting it mildly. Muslims despise our decadent society, they have no concept of democracy, and they regard our nation as Dar al Harb, or a House of War. And seeing non-Islamic societies as Dar-al-Harb is dare we say moderate Muslim theology.
The English Defence League are holding a rally in Luton on Saturday 6th February. They seem to be a reasonable working-class movement alarmed at the drug-dealing, violence and intimidation wreaked by Muslims in their communities, activities which a politically-correct police force terrified of offending the Baroness Warsis and Teresa Mays of this world allow to carry on. It is hard not to have sympathy with them.
Finally, any invitations to dinner to discuss how to combat creeping Islamification will be very welcome!
GAYS THREATEN THERAPY WITNESS
A Christian counsellor, due to appear before a Professional Conduct Panel for giving therapy to a homosexual man who pretended to be a Christian, is bringing in the police after at least one of her witnesses was threatened with violence.
Lesley Pilkington was due before a panel of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (“BACP”) today charged with unprofessional conduct in the two sessions she gave to campaigning gay rights activist Patrick Strudwick, who posed as a Christian struggling with same-sex attraction and asking for prayer and therapy.
But BACP have adjourned the case citing breaches of confidentiality after details of the case were blazed all over the media.
Lesley's legal team have challenged those grounds for adjournment, but asked instead for an adjournment to enable the police to investigate the witness intimidation.
BACP are furious that what was intended to be a quiet stitch-up behind closed doors is now being conducted in the full glare of publicity.
A formal complaint was brought against Mrs Pilkington by Strudwick, a campaigning homosexual journalist who lied about himself in order secretly to record two therapy sessions with her. Strudwick published his account of the sessions, changing Lesley's name to 'Lynne', in The Independent and The Guardian, in February 2011.
Strudwick quoted an article which had appeared in Therapy Today quoting psychiatrist and militant gay activist Michael King and attacking reparative therapy. A courageous reply by Keith Rice in the same journal demolished its arguments, but to no avail.
BACP were content so far, but when the Sunday Telegraph reported on the story on 16th January, naming both Lesley Pilkington and Patrick Strudwick, and bringing the whole matter out into the open, BACP took fright. But the flaw in their citing of 'confidentiality' as a reason for adjournment lies in the fact that Patrick Strudwick was never a bona-fide client or patient of Lesley Pilkington.
In the article Strudwick penned for the Guardian, right down at the bottom, he says of Christian therapists: 'But we are determined to root them out however long it takes. This won't be a battle. It's war.'
So that might explain why, no sooner had the BACP required all Witness Statements to be passed to them with contact details shortly before the hearing, and to Strudwick, Mrs Pilkington's expert witness Dr Dean Bird began to receive menacing phone calls, threats and intimidation, telling him not to attend the hearing.
It is said the German Nazi Party started life in a Munich gay bar, and that a majority of its early exponents were homosexual. Clearly, the methods of the Brownshirts have not been forgotten in gay circles. If truth is the first casualty of war (and Strudwick has demonstrated that already) then civilised conduct is the next.
By the way, if you want to know more the gay beginnings of the Nazis, you can order a copy of Scott Lively's book The Pink Swastika on the Christian Voice website.
Lesley Pilkington was due before a panel of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (“BACP”) today charged with unprofessional conduct in the two sessions she gave to campaigning gay rights activist Patrick Strudwick, who posed as a Christian struggling with same-sex attraction and asking for prayer and therapy.
But BACP have adjourned the case citing breaches of confidentiality after details of the case were blazed all over the media.
Lesley's legal team have challenged those grounds for adjournment, but asked instead for an adjournment to enable the police to investigate the witness intimidation.
BACP are furious that what was intended to be a quiet stitch-up behind closed doors is now being conducted in the full glare of publicity.
A formal complaint was brought against Mrs Pilkington by Strudwick, a campaigning homosexual journalist who lied about himself in order secretly to record two therapy sessions with her. Strudwick published his account of the sessions, changing Lesley's name to 'Lynne', in The Independent and The Guardian, in February 2011.
Strudwick quoted an article which had appeared in Therapy Today quoting psychiatrist and militant gay activist Michael King and attacking reparative therapy. A courageous reply by Keith Rice in the same journal demolished its arguments, but to no avail.
BACP were content so far, but when the Sunday Telegraph reported on the story on 16th January, naming both Lesley Pilkington and Patrick Strudwick, and bringing the whole matter out into the open, BACP took fright. But the flaw in their citing of 'confidentiality' as a reason for adjournment lies in the fact that Patrick Strudwick was never a bona-fide client or patient of Lesley Pilkington.
In the article Strudwick penned for the Guardian, right down at the bottom, he says of Christian therapists: 'But we are determined to root them out however long it takes. This won't be a battle. It's war.'
So that might explain why, no sooner had the BACP required all Witness Statements to be passed to them with contact details shortly before the hearing, and to Strudwick, Mrs Pilkington's expert witness Dr Dean Bird began to receive menacing phone calls, threats and intimidation, telling him not to attend the hearing.
It is said the German Nazi Party started life in a Munich gay bar, and that a majority of its early exponents were homosexual. Clearly, the methods of the Brownshirts have not been forgotten in gay circles. If truth is the first casualty of war (and Strudwick has demonstrated that already) then civilised conduct is the next.
By the way, if you want to know more the gay beginnings of the Nazis, you can order a copy of Scott Lively's book The Pink Swastika on the Christian Voice website.
HOW TO COMPLAIN TO OFCOM
Here is how to complain to Ofcom about a programme.
(For example Channel Five's 'The Wright Stuff' broadcast on Wednesday 20th January).
If a programme misrepresents Christianity, subjects the Christian faith to abusive treatment and/or does not treat its subject matter with due impartiality it has breached the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Whether that means the media folk who sit on Ofcom will uphold your complaint is another matter!
Step 1 Watch the programme (see link above)
Step 2 Go to Ofcom's Complaint Page
It is actually surprisingly easy from here on!
Enter your house name or number then your postcode
Highlight your address then click on 'use this address'
Fill in the form:
Enter your details,
Keeping the tick means Ofcom can pass your details to the broadcaster which is best if you can bear it,
Click on the electrronic programme guide putting in the date and highlighting the programme and
Make your complaint citing breach of the codes below. Note that any programme becomes a 'religious programme' when it deals with matters of religion as a significant part of it.
As the type size is miniscule and the Ofcom page 'times out', you must draft and save your complaint in a word processor and then copy it in. Note 1500 characters is really strict and there is no character count on the Ofcom page so keep to 1480 or so including spaces. If a page comes up with two programme finders on it, you are better to close the tab/window and start again.
If you want to write to Ofcom instead, their head office is: Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London, SE1 9HA
My complaint on 'The Wright Stuff' is at the bottom of this blog page. I simply do not know if you copy it verbatim we become seen as 'a lobby' and are disregarded. Always better to put it into your own words after watching the programme.
Here are the relevant sections of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code:
Section Four: Religion
4.1 Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of responsibility with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes.
Meaning of a "religious programme":
A religious programme is a programme which deals with matters of religion as the central subject, or as a significant part, of the programme.
4.2 The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive treatment.
4.3 Where a religion or religious denomination is the subject, or one of the subjects, of a religious programme, then the identity of the religion and/or denomination must be clear to the audience.
Section Five: Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions
Meaning of "due impartiality": "Due" is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. "Due" means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So "due impartiality" does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm and Offence of the Code, is important.
5.1 News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.
5.7 Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes.
5.8 Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.
5.9 Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of "personal view" or "authored" programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views.
5.10 A personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signalled to the audience at the outset. This is a minimum requirement and may not be sufficient in all circumstances. (Personality phone-in hosts on radio are exempted from this provision unless their personal view status is unclear.)
5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service (listed above) in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.
5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.
My complaint about The Wright Stuff Wednesday 19th January 2011
(For example Channel Five's 'The Wright Stuff' broadcast on Wednesday 20th January).
If a programme misrepresents Christianity, subjects the Christian faith to abusive treatment and/or does not treat its subject matter with due impartiality it has breached the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Whether that means the media folk who sit on Ofcom will uphold your complaint is another matter!
Step 1 Watch the programme (see link above)
Step 2 Go to Ofcom's Complaint Page
It is actually surprisingly easy from here on!
Enter your house name or number then your postcode
Highlight your address then click on 'use this address'
Fill in the form:
Enter your details,
Keeping the tick means Ofcom can pass your details to the broadcaster which is best if you can bear it,
Click on the electrronic programme guide putting in the date and highlighting the programme and
Make your complaint citing breach of the codes below. Note that any programme becomes a 'religious programme' when it deals with matters of religion as a significant part of it.
As the type size is miniscule and the Ofcom page 'times out', you must draft and save your complaint in a word processor and then copy it in. Note 1500 characters is really strict and there is no character count on the Ofcom page so keep to 1480 or so including spaces. If a page comes up with two programme finders on it, you are better to close the tab/window and start again.
If you want to write to Ofcom instead, their head office is: Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London, SE1 9HA
My complaint on 'The Wright Stuff' is at the bottom of this blog page. I simply do not know if you copy it verbatim we become seen as 'a lobby' and are disregarded. Always better to put it into your own words after watching the programme.
Here are the relevant sections of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code:
Section Four: Religion
4.1 Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of responsibility with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes.
Meaning of a "religious programme":
A religious programme is a programme which deals with matters of religion as the central subject, or as a significant part, of the programme.
4.2 The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive treatment.
4.3 Where a religion or religious denomination is the subject, or one of the subjects, of a religious programme, then the identity of the religion and/or denomination must be clear to the audience.
Section Five: Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions
Meaning of "due impartiality": "Due" is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. "Due" means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So "due impartiality" does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm and Offence of the Code, is important.
5.1 News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.
5.7 Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes.
5.8 Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.
5.9 Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of "personal view" or "authored" programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views.
5.10 A personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signalled to the audience at the outset. This is a minimum requirement and may not be sufficient in all circumstances. (Personality phone-in hosts on radio are exempted from this provision unless their personal view status is unclear.)
5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service (listed above) in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.
5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.
My complaint about The Wright Stuff Wednesday 19th January 2011
1 The programme dealt with matters of religion as a significant part and did not exercise a proper degree of responsibility contrary to Rule 4.1
2 Matthew Wright misrepresented Christianity by presenting the Old Testament as being in opposition to the Christian faith, a view contrary to basic Christian theology.
The Book of Common Prayer, expressing the doctrine of the established Church ofEngland
Article 6. The sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation ... By holy Scripture is meant those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments whose authority has never been doubted within the church.
Article 7. The Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New ... Although the law given by God through Moses is not binding on Christians as far as its forms of worship and ritual are concerned ... nevertheless no Christian is free to disobey those commandments which may be classified as moral.
So Five.TV breached Rule 5.7. Ignorance is no excuse.
3 MW presented these views as fact and did not make clear they were his personal views, contrary to Rule 5.10
4 MW abused Christianity making denigrating remarks contrary to Rule 4.2
5 The personal interest of Stephen K Amos was not clarified contrary to Rule 5.8
6 No panellist on the programme put a contrary view. For callers-in, only one opposing call was heard. The programme breached Rule 5.1, 5.5, 5.9, 5.11 and 5.12
2 Matthew Wright misrepresented Christianity by presenting the Old Testament as being in opposition to the Christian faith, a view contrary to basic Christian theology.
The Book of Common Prayer, expressing the doctrine of the established Church of
Article 6. The sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation ... By holy Scripture is meant those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments whose authority has never been doubted within the church.
Article 7. The Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New ... Although the law given by God through Moses is not binding on Christians as far as its forms of worship and ritual are concerned ... nevertheless no Christian is free to disobey those commandments which may be classified as moral.
So Five.TV breached Rule 5.7. Ignorance is no excuse.
3 MW presented these views as fact and did not make clear they were his personal views, contrary to Rule 5.10
4 MW abused Christianity making denigrating remarks contrary to Rule 4.2
5 The personal interest of Stephen K Amos was not clarified contrary to Rule 5.8
6 No panellist on the programme put a contrary view. For callers-in, only one opposing call was heard. The programme breached Rule 5.1, 5.5, 5.9, 5.11 and 5.12
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
MATTHEW WRIGHT - HE'S THE POPE!
So Matthew Wright (Channel Five's 'the Wright Stuff') thinks he's the Pope. Well, nothing else can quite explain his ex-studio pontifications on what the Christian faith says, in today's case, about homosexuality. Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who were ordered to pay damages yesterday for refusing a homosexual couple a double bed, are following the 'Old Testament', because it is only in the Old Testament where homosexuality is out of order, proclaimed the infallible presenter.
And what a wonderfully unbalanced programme it was this morning! Young media students should take note. To make sure the secularist boat didn't get rocked, there was no-one to stand up for righteousness coherently, with the sneering Stephen K Amos leading for the gays.
And so off it went, with these smug TV-people wallowing in ignorance about the law, the Bible, Christian theology and the position and person of Jesus Christ. Amos gave the impression that the law against discriminating against homosexuals in hotel accommodation is as old as the laws of the Medes and Persians, and that the Bulls set up their B&B in full knowledge that they would be breaking it. The truth is, as Mr Wright said in an unguarded moment, the law is the state's 'new found' bit of goal-post shifting, and the Bulls were in business ages ago.
A couple of things Wright got right - it really is gays vs Christians, and it is a new case of throwing Christians to the lions. They are financial lions these days, but the root issue is the same as in Roman times. The State thinks it is autonomous, but Christians say there is a higher law and a King of kings to whom every knee should bow.
Wright suggested the Bulls give up their B&B, that 'equality has got to be better than discrimination', that 'the line man shall not lie with man is very Old Testament,', that the New Testament is the guiding principle for Christians, and 'Jesus Christ said love everybody and that's not what the Bulls are doing.'
Duh! Jesus told his followers to 'Love one another' and reminded them that the Old Testament says 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'. However, if we are truly to love the ghastly Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy who set up the Bulls, our Lord said that our love should be expressed in showing them their sin and giving them the opportunity to hear the Gospel and repent of their evil ways. True love does not stand by and let your friend drive his car over the cliff.
More Wright gems: 'We have a long tradition of religious tolerance in this country going back to Elizabeth the First' and surely 'the tolerant thing' for the Bulls to do 'would have been to tolerate the gay couple and offer them a bed'.
Now, would that be the same Elizabeth the First who had her Catholic cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, beheaded, persecuted the Puritans and would have had any practising sodomite burnt at the stake?
But what about a bit of tolerance from the gays, then? Oh, sorry, it's only Christians who have to tolerate what to them is intolerable, everyone else is there to demand tolerance of their dirty habits from the people of Jesus Christ.
Stephen Amos pounced on the 'Old Testament' motif, saying that to avoid trouble the Bulls should have advertised their hotel as that kind of establishment. That's exactly what they did, and that's why they were picked on by Stonewall, Amos! 'They can practise their beliefs', he said, but just open their home up to everyone. But that's not practising their beliefs, Amos! That's suppressing them.
According to the third and last panelist, rapper Aggro Santos, 'everyone knows you can't go into a night-club in trainers.' Now that's something I didn't know, but it shows night clubs can discriminate. In fact Aggro almost spoilt the tone at the end of the piece, by recalling that his heterosexual friends have been turned away and even beaten up by bouncers for trying to enter gay night clubs.
Taking a sideways look, why is 'discrimination' such a dirty word? Part of being human is discriminating between better and lesser, this policy or that policy, these goods or those, this decision or that one, this life partner or that one.
A woman in a red dress called Janet Ellis thought: 'The best way to practice your religion is the way you show it and not what you do.' Erm, so how exactly do you show it except by what you do?
Wright suggested that there was room for establishments where 'You pay with tablets of stone and eat fish,' but that the Bulls were 'Selective about which Bible passages they use'. It was 'God not Jesus who despises homosexuals', he said.
When people start using Old Testament rules to inform Christian belief they were on a rocky patch, thought the exalted theologian. Yes, Matthew, they are on the Rock of Ages!
Email the programme at wrightstuff@five.tv
And here is a little of what the New Testament says about this subject, starting with Jesus Himself (using the King James or 'Authorised' Version of the Bible):
Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matt 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Matt 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Matt 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Now the Lord's Apostles:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1Ti 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
And what a wonderfully unbalanced programme it was this morning! Young media students should take note. To make sure the secularist boat didn't get rocked, there was no-one to stand up for righteousness coherently, with the sneering Stephen K Amos leading for the gays.
And so off it went, with these smug TV-people wallowing in ignorance about the law, the Bible, Christian theology and the position and person of Jesus Christ. Amos gave the impression that the law against discriminating against homosexuals in hotel accommodation is as old as the laws of the Medes and Persians, and that the Bulls set up their B&B in full knowledge that they would be breaking it. The truth is, as Mr Wright said in an unguarded moment, the law is the state's 'new found' bit of goal-post shifting, and the Bulls were in business ages ago.
A couple of things Wright got right - it really is gays vs Christians, and it is a new case of throwing Christians to the lions. They are financial lions these days, but the root issue is the same as in Roman times. The State thinks it is autonomous, but Christians say there is a higher law and a King of kings to whom every knee should bow.
Wright suggested the Bulls give up their B&B, that 'equality has got to be better than discrimination', that 'the line man shall not lie with man is very Old Testament,', that the New Testament is the guiding principle for Christians, and 'Jesus Christ said love everybody and that's not what the Bulls are doing.'
Duh! Jesus told his followers to 'Love one another' and reminded them that the Old Testament says 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'. However, if we are truly to love the ghastly Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy who set up the Bulls, our Lord said that our love should be expressed in showing them their sin and giving them the opportunity to hear the Gospel and repent of their evil ways. True love does not stand by and let your friend drive his car over the cliff.
More Wright gems: 'We have a long tradition of religious tolerance in this country going back to Elizabeth the First' and surely 'the tolerant thing' for the Bulls to do 'would have been to tolerate the gay couple and offer them a bed'.
Now, would that be the same Elizabeth the First who had her Catholic cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, beheaded, persecuted the Puritans and would have had any practising sodomite burnt at the stake?
But what about a bit of tolerance from the gays, then? Oh, sorry, it's only Christians who have to tolerate what to them is intolerable, everyone else is there to demand tolerance of their dirty habits from the people of Jesus Christ.
Stephen Amos pounced on the 'Old Testament' motif, saying that to avoid trouble the Bulls should have advertised their hotel as that kind of establishment. That's exactly what they did, and that's why they were picked on by Stonewall, Amos! 'They can practise their beliefs', he said, but just open their home up to everyone. But that's not practising their beliefs, Amos! That's suppressing them.
According to the third and last panelist, rapper Aggro Santos, 'everyone knows you can't go into a night-club in trainers.' Now that's something I didn't know, but it shows night clubs can discriminate. In fact Aggro almost spoilt the tone at the end of the piece, by recalling that his heterosexual friends have been turned away and even beaten up by bouncers for trying to enter gay night clubs.
Taking a sideways look, why is 'discrimination' such a dirty word? Part of being human is discriminating between better and lesser, this policy or that policy, these goods or those, this decision or that one, this life partner or that one.
A woman in a red dress called Janet Ellis thought: 'The best way to practice your religion is the way you show it and not what you do.' Erm, so how exactly do you show it except by what you do?
Wright suggested that there was room for establishments where 'You pay with tablets of stone and eat fish,' but that the Bulls were 'Selective about which Bible passages they use'. It was 'God not Jesus who despises homosexuals', he said.
When people start using Old Testament rules to inform Christian belief they were on a rocky patch, thought the exalted theologian. Yes, Matthew, they are on the Rock of Ages!
Email the programme at wrightstuff@five.tv
And here is a little of what the New Testament says about this subject, starting with Jesus Himself (using the King James or 'Authorised' Version of the Bible):
Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matt 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Matt 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Matt 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Now the Lord's Apostles:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1Ti 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
GAY ACTIVIST LIED TO CHRISTIAN THERAPIST
A Christian therapist faces discipline from her professional organisation after a homosexual activist encouraged her to offer him therapy to become heterosexual.
Patrick Strudwick, a journalist 'honoured' by the bullying Stonewall group of gays for his 'investigative' work, approached Lesley Pilkington at a Christian conference run by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
Strudwick told Mrs Pilkington that he was unhappy with his homosexual lifestyle and that he "wanted to leave it". He then requested "treatment for his same-sex attraction".
After two sessions, which Strudwick recorded, he unveiled himself as a fraud to Mrs Pilkington and reported her to her professional body, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP)
The BACP, whose chief executive is Laurie Clarke, have summoned Mrs Pilkington to a disciplinary hearing on Thursday 20th January at a hotel in Rugby. She is being represented by leading human rights counsel Paul Diamond.
Christian Voice understands that BACP have refused to call three witnesses who have been delivered from homosexual desires by Christian-informed therapy and they have also refused to hear Dr Dean Bird, an American expert who is coming over for the case.
In law, to refuse to hear a witness is to accept his written evidence, but it is unsure to what extent the BACP hearing, which is to be held in secret, will adhere to established principles of natural justice.
The fact is that the witnesses are living proof that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) is a proven therapy. What the gay lobby hates is that it works. And because it works, it exposes the foundation of the homosexual movement, that everyone is 'born like it', as a lie. That is why homosexual activists want to stop the whole treatment, and why they want to bulldoze the BACP into ruling that patient autonomy, that sacred cow of psychotherapy, is not to be respected when a homosexual presents himself (or herself) as wanting to change.
Strudwick told The Sunday Telegraph: "If a black person goes to a GP and says I want skin bleaching treatment, that does not put the onus on the practitioner to deliver the demands of the patient. It puts the onus on the health care practitioner to behave responsibly."
But being black is immutable. It is not a behaviour. No-one (except Michael Jackson) has changed his skin colour from black to white, but thousands of homosexuals have become heterosexual.
Of course, to develop Strudwick's argument, if a transsexual goes to a doctor asking for hormones and a gender-change operation to change sex, to quote Strudwick, 'the onus (is) on the health care practitioner to behave responsibly' and refer that person to a psychiatrist to get his head sorted out. That rarely happens. Patient autonomy is respected in those cases to the point of expensive evil with surgeons mutilating the patient's God-given body.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists buried its own head in the sand last year with a policy statement which condemned conversion therapies. It stated: "There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be exchanged. Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish."
That was an obvious politically-correct point. Not many know that the psychiatry profession was targeted by gay activists in the 1970s and brow-beaten into changing its stance on homosexuality, which up to then had been regarded as an objective disorder. See this attack on SOCE by the American Psychological Association, this convincing reply by NARTH and this round-up by Fulcrum-Anglican. It was not evidence that changed the position of the profession, it was naked aggression. As a result, psychiatry is now riddled with non-sequiturs and logical absurdities.
For example, the self-satisfied-to-the-point-of-smug 'agony uncle' Philip Hodson, a fellow of the BACP, said: "[BACP] is dedicated to social diversity, equality and inclusivity of treatment without sexual discrimination or judgmentalism of any kind, and it would be absurd to attempt to alter such fundamental aspects of personal identity as sexual orientation by counselling."
Really? Paedophilia and bestiality are 'sexual orientations'. Should psychiatrists not attempt to alter those fundamental aspects of personal identity either? What about other fundamental aspects of personal identity? Violence or theft, or sexual predation, perhaps? Of course, Lesley Pilkington is adamant that she is not passing judgment on those who come to her, and that is a sound professional positon to take.
Nevertheless, for the rest of us, is there not a time when we have to say 'such and such a thing is wrong'? In Christian Voice we are bold and politically-incorrect enough to say that pressing the rectum into service as a sexual organ is wrong, dirty, unhealthy and pathological.
And we also say that a homosexual lifestyle means living the lie that sodomy (now politely called 'anal intercourse') is the moral equivalent of heterosexual love and marriage. Living a lie has a habit of expanding into the rest of life, until it becomes impossible to distinguish truth from falsehood, and lying becomes just part of what you do and who you are. Patrick Strudwick is living proof of that.
PRAY: That justice will be done and that the BACP will exonerate Lesley Pilkington at its hearing on Thursday 20th Jan 2011. Pray for the goodness and strength of the Lord to surround Lesley. May she know that Lord is a strong tower and that he is a God of miracles. Pray also for Lesley's legal team that they may have wisdom and humility and speak the truth with grace.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The trustees of BACP are:
DR LYNNE GABRIEL
LINDA ASPEY
MRS NOREEN GRIFFITHS
MS JANET TOLAN
MRS KATHY RAFFLES
JOHN COWLEY ESQ
MRS AMANDA HAWKINS
MS GAIL KING
MS FAITH STAFFORD
MRS ANNA HAMILTON
DR ELSPETH SCHWENK
The trustees of the linked BACP RESEARCH FOUNDATION are:
DR LYNNE GABRIEL
NICOLA JULIET BARDEN
VALERIE ALVENA POTTER
Interestingly, the Charitable Objects of the latter body are: (1) to facilitate high quality, high priority and independently peer reviewed research in the psychological therapies, based on robust methodology, for the benefit of the community and those who are the recipients of psychological therapy services; and
(2) to promote and provide education and information to users of psychological therapies, including commissioners and practitioners through dissemination of the outcomes of relevant research and to advance the knowledge base of the psychological therapies so as to maximise public benefit and protection through the publication of research findings.
So will we shortly see some high quality research into therapy for people wishing to change from homosexual to heterosexual? The APA couldn't manage it, so don't hold your breath!
Patrick Strudwick, a journalist 'honoured' by the bullying Stonewall group of gays for his 'investigative' work, approached Lesley Pilkington at a Christian conference run by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
Strudwick told Mrs Pilkington that he was unhappy with his homosexual lifestyle and that he "wanted to leave it". He then requested "treatment for his same-sex attraction".
After two sessions, which Strudwick recorded, he unveiled himself as a fraud to Mrs Pilkington and reported her to her professional body, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP)
The BACP, whose chief executive is Laurie Clarke, have summoned Mrs Pilkington to a disciplinary hearing on Thursday 20th January at a hotel in Rugby. She is being represented by leading human rights counsel Paul Diamond.
Christian Voice understands that BACP have refused to call three witnesses who have been delivered from homosexual desires by Christian-informed therapy and they have also refused to hear Dr Dean Bird, an American expert who is coming over for the case.
In law, to refuse to hear a witness is to accept his written evidence, but it is unsure to what extent the BACP hearing, which is to be held in secret, will adhere to established principles of natural justice.
The fact is that the witnesses are living proof that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) is a proven therapy. What the gay lobby hates is that it works. And because it works, it exposes the foundation of the homosexual movement, that everyone is 'born like it', as a lie. That is why homosexual activists want to stop the whole treatment, and why they want to bulldoze the BACP into ruling that patient autonomy, that sacred cow of psychotherapy, is not to be respected when a homosexual presents himself (or herself) as wanting to change.
Strudwick told The Sunday Telegraph: "If a black person goes to a GP and says I want skin bleaching treatment, that does not put the onus on the practitioner to deliver the demands of the patient. It puts the onus on the health care practitioner to behave responsibly."
But being black is immutable. It is not a behaviour. No-one (except Michael Jackson) has changed his skin colour from black to white, but thousands of homosexuals have become heterosexual.
Of course, to develop Strudwick's argument, if a transsexual goes to a doctor asking for hormones and a gender-change operation to change sex, to quote Strudwick, 'the onus (is) on the health care practitioner to behave responsibly' and refer that person to a psychiatrist to get his head sorted out. That rarely happens. Patient autonomy is respected in those cases to the point of expensive evil with surgeons mutilating the patient's God-given body.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists buried its own head in the sand last year with a policy statement which condemned conversion therapies. It stated: "There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be exchanged. Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish."
That was an obvious politically-correct point. Not many know that the psychiatry profession was targeted by gay activists in the 1970s and brow-beaten into changing its stance on homosexuality, which up to then had been regarded as an objective disorder. See this attack on SOCE by the American Psychological Association, this convincing reply by NARTH and this round-up by Fulcrum-Anglican. It was not evidence that changed the position of the profession, it was naked aggression. As a result, psychiatry is now riddled with non-sequiturs and logical absurdities.
For example, the self-satisfied-to-the-point-of-smug 'agony uncle' Philip Hodson, a fellow of the BACP, said: "[BACP] is dedicated to social diversity, equality and inclusivity of treatment without sexual discrimination or judgmentalism of any kind, and it would be absurd to attempt to alter such fundamental aspects of personal identity as sexual orientation by counselling."
Really? Paedophilia and bestiality are 'sexual orientations'. Should psychiatrists not attempt to alter those fundamental aspects of personal identity either? What about other fundamental aspects of personal identity? Violence or theft, or sexual predation, perhaps? Of course, Lesley Pilkington is adamant that she is not passing judgment on those who come to her, and that is a sound professional positon to take.
Nevertheless, for the rest of us, is there not a time when we have to say 'such and such a thing is wrong'? In Christian Voice we are bold and politically-incorrect enough to say that pressing the rectum into service as a sexual organ is wrong, dirty, unhealthy and pathological.
And we also say that a homosexual lifestyle means living the lie that sodomy (now politely called 'anal intercourse') is the moral equivalent of heterosexual love and marriage. Living a lie has a habit of expanding into the rest of life, until it becomes impossible to distinguish truth from falsehood, and lying becomes just part of what you do and who you are. Patrick Strudwick is living proof of that.
PRAY: That justice will be done and that the BACP will exonerate Lesley Pilkington at its hearing on Thursday 20th Jan 2011. Pray for the goodness and strength of the Lord to surround Lesley. May she know that Lord is a strong tower and that he is a God of miracles. Pray also for Lesley's legal team that they may have wisdom and humility and speak the truth with grace.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The trustees of BACP are:
DR LYNNE GABRIEL
LINDA ASPEY
MRS NOREEN GRIFFITHS
MS JANET TOLAN
MRS KATHY RAFFLES
JOHN COWLEY ESQ
MRS AMANDA HAWKINS
MS GAIL KING
MS FAITH STAFFORD
MRS ANNA HAMILTON
DR ELSPETH SCHWENK
The trustees of the linked BACP RESEARCH FOUNDATION are:
DR LYNNE GABRIEL
NICOLA JULIET BARDEN
VALERIE ALVENA POTTER
Interestingly, the Charitable Objects of the latter body are: (1) to facilitate high quality, high priority and independently peer reviewed research in the psychological therapies, based on robust methodology, for the benefit of the community and those who are the recipients of psychological therapy services; and
(2) to promote and provide education and information to users of psychological therapies, including commissioners and practitioners through dissemination of the outcomes of relevant research and to advance the knowledge base of the psychological therapies so as to maximise public benefit and protection through the publication of research findings.
So will we shortly see some high quality research into therapy for people wishing to change from homosexual to heterosexual? The APA couldn't manage it, so don't hold your breath!
Thursday, 13 January 2011
ST GEORGE'S CROSS MAN ACQUITTED
A Reading
Ronnie Peterson had been watching theEngland Japan
While passing the half-built mosque, which he has called a 'monstrosity', Peterson hung his flag on the railings and staged a one-man protest, chanting 'EDL' (an abbreviation for ‘English Defence League’) and 'England
Ronnie Peterson had been watching the
While passing the half-built mosque, which he has called a 'monstrosity', Peterson hung his flag on the railings and staged a one-man protest, chanting 'EDL' (an abbreviation for ‘English Defence League’) and '
The recent history of mosque-building in Reading Reading
Two Muslims in a cafe opposite said they thought a march was taking place. The Reading Post reports:
'Urfan Azad told the court he was in the Tea House, in Oxford Road, with friend Amar Nazir on the evening of Sunday, May 30, when they heard “EDL, EDL” being chanted. He said: “We thought it was a demonstration. We went around the corner and saw three guys raising their hands up and they had aSt George’s
Urfan Azad was once feared as a drugs gangster in Reading and has been on a weapons-training visit to a Madrassah in Pakistan. But he felt 'a bit scared' seeing the slightly-built Peterson with his flag. Just for good measure, he and his friend foud an alternative story, that fellow Muslims would feel outraged by Peterson's peaceful protest and set upon him (that's more like it):
'Mr Azad said prayers were due to take place in the existing mosque about 100 yards away in Valentia Road and he was afraid the situation might get out of control.
'Mr Nazir added: “Me and my friend discussed it and we thought it could turn into something ugly. Any other Muslim could drive past and do something stupid and start a fight so we decided to call the police.”'
When the police turned up they did not stand by Ronnie Peterson to protect him from the alleged stupid gangs of Muslims, nor did they give him advice about how to conduct his protest. Instead, without warning him to move on they arrested him. The arresting constable told the court he only arrested Peterson 'because my sergeant told me to.' According to the Reading Chronicle:
'Sgt Lee Barnham said he spoke to the witness, and added: “He was offended by the use of what he considered to be a religious cross against the site of worship.
Two Muslims in a cafe opposite said they thought a march was taking place. The Reading Post reports:
'Urfan Azad told the court he was in the Tea House, in Oxford Road, with friend Amar Nazir on the evening of Sunday, May 30, when they heard “EDL, EDL” being chanted. He said: “We thought it was a demonstration. We went around the corner and saw three guys raising their hands up and they had a
Urfan Azad was once feared as a drugs gangster in Reading and has been on a weapons-training visit to a Madrassah in Pakistan. But he felt 'a bit scared' seeing the slightly-built Peterson with his flag. Just for good measure, he and his friend foud an alternative story, that fellow Muslims would feel outraged by Peterson's peaceful protest and set upon him (that's more like it):
'Mr Azad said prayers were due to take place in the existing mosque about 100 yards away in Valentia Road and he was afraid the situation might get out of control.
'Mr Nazir added: “Me and my friend discussed it and we thought it could turn into something ugly. Any other Muslim could drive past and do something stupid and start a fight so we decided to call the police.”'
When the police turned up they did not stand by Ronnie Peterson to protect him from the alleged stupid gangs of Muslims, nor did they give him advice about how to conduct his protest. Instead, without warning him to move on they arrested him. The arresting constable told the court he only arrested Peterson 'because my sergeant told me to.' According to the Reading Chronicle:
'Sgt Lee Barnham said he spoke to the witness, and added: “He was offended by the use of what he considered to be a religious cross against the site of worship.
'“It was clear he was upset and felt intimidated. I was satisfied an offence under the public order act had been committed.”'
District Judge Andrew Vickers was rather less than satisfied. 'Care had to be taken' with the statements from the Muslim accusers which were not consistent with the evidence, he said. Not only did the Crown Prosecutors fail to prove Ronnie Peterson had animosity towards Islam, to substantiate the religious aggravation, they failed even to prove the basic public order offence with which he was charged. The police had other options open to them apart from arrest, said District Judge Vickers, one of which was simply to ask Mr Peterson to move along.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said after the verdict:
‘We became interested in this case because the police regarded the England flag, with its red cross, as an aggravating factor in the case. Clearly Ronnie Peterson needs to know the Lord Jesus, but to place the symbol of the Lord's crucifixion, which Islam denies, on the boundary fence of the mosque was an act which many true Christians would like to have done.
‘We became interested in this case because the police regarded the England flag, with its red cross, as an aggravating factor in the case. Clearly Ronnie Peterson needs to know the Lord Jesus, but to place the symbol of the Lord's crucifixion, which Islam denies, on the boundary fence of the mosque was an act which many true Christians would like to have done.
‘Him having placed the flag, the police should have protected Ronnie Peterson’s right to hold a peaceful protest rather than arrest him. It is an outrage that the cross of Jesus Christ could even be thought of as an ‘aggravating factor’ to an alleged crime in a Christian country.
‘Did our fathers and grandfathers die fighting Nazi Germany so that our national flags expressing our Christian heritage could be viewed as religiously aggravating? Did the Muslims coming here not realise that this is a constitutionally Christian country? Can a word of Muslim disquiet now terrify a policeman into arresting an innocent man displaying the Cross of St George, the English Patron Saint and Christian Martyr?
‘The 'not guilty' verdict was the only one possible in a fair reading of the case. But attention should now focus on the politically-correct Reading Police and their wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution of Ronnie Peterson. He should bring an action against them to discourage similar attempts at intimidation in future. The Crown Prosecution Service are also to blame for allowing such a ridiculous case to proceed to trial.'
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
DAY OF PURITY 14th FEB 2011
Working in partnership with Liberty Counsel in America a number of believers are coming together for a Day of Purity here in the UK on February 14th 2011 to combat the increasing wave of immorality sweeping our nation. The UK has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe, an explosion of STDs has led to an epidemic of teenage infertility, our youth are fed sexual messages daily and they have few positive role models in society. Our education system is encouraging young people to experiment in under age sex and many have tapped into vices of drugs, alcohol and promiscuity before they can even understand, let alone contemplate, a committed marital relationship.
The situation is a challenge to the church. We read that young British women are turning to Islam because of its emphasis on chastity and modesty. Why are they not viewing the Christian faith as expressed by the Church as the repository of such Christian virtues?
Many are seeking answers but do not know where to turn for support and direction. Our modern society has encouraged a lifestyle which is contrary to the Word of God with images on MTV, cinema and popular music. Holiness seems prudish and chastity confined to the Victorian era. Such negativity about virtue needs to be countered.
For this purpose, our Lord is raising up those who will pray for our nation's youth - and adults - who want change. The Holy Spirit challenges the Body of Christ to repent for our own lack of witness, for turning a blind eye to sin and for failing to demand that our Government should stop teaching promiscuity to our children in sex education classes, stop giving information that is contrary to natural modesty and virtue and which flies in the face of the Word of God and go back to the Creator for His eternal blueprint!
PLEASE PRAY: that Almighty God will raise up men and women, both of youth and of experience, to launch the Day of Purity here in the UK, and that many organisations and churches will join in this move to challenge our society to see that there is a better way.
PRAY: that those in the sex education and pornography industries (school resources, internet sites, magazines, movies) will be impacted by the Day of Purity and its message.
PRAY: That many lives will be touched and transformed and that the enemy's grip of sexual sin over our nation will be broken. That He will bring a hunger for His word and for repentance in many lives.
PRAY: for the necessary organisation for the Day of Purity. That the day will be a beginning not an end. That Christ Jesus will open doors that no man can shut. That preparations will be ordered by the Lord and that much fruit may abound.
PRAY: The enemy has had a field day with our young people. Pray and Believe for a mighty outpouring of divine grace upon the United Kingdom and for Jesus to be Lord.
READ: Zech. 4:6: Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts. ALSO SEE:
Isaiah 5:20: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Psalm 51:10: Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Matt 5:8: Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Mark 9:42: And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
1Cor 6:19: What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Tim 1:5: Now the end (goal) of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.
Please phone me on 07931 490050 or email stephen@christianvoice.org.uk to give your support.
Monday, 10 January 2011
ZACHARY'S GODFATHER? OK, I'LL DO IT.
The MAIL ON SUNDAY reports that ‘Sir’ Elton John has appointed a couple of lesbians to act as 'godmothers' to his (or David Furnish's) son Zachary, for whom of course he will be a 'hands on dad'.
That'll be the Zachary whom hands-on-dad Elton and David have dumped in a flat next-door with a couple of nannies while they continue their gay lifestyle out on the town.
"The singer is said to have chosen Scottish-educated magazine editor Ingrid Sischy and her lesbian partner Sandy Brant to be Zachary’s moral guardians."
Curiously, "Before her relationship with Ingrid, socialite Sandy was married toNew York
Now I thought the gays said they were born that way? And yet Mrs Brant seems to have entered into a heterosexual marriage and tried the alternative at least five times before she decided she didn't like it.
Let us hope the MoS had its tongue in its cheek when describing these ghastly lesbian partners-in-perversion as Zachary's 'moral guardians'. According to the Church of England's baptism service, the duties of godparents are to set the young child an example by their own godly living, draw him into the community of faith, walk with him in the way of Christ, reject the devil and all rebellion against God, renounce the deceit and corruption of evil, repent of the sins that separate them from God, turn to Christ as Saviour, submit to Christ as Lord and declare that they come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life.
That little package is going to be as high a mountain to climb for a pair of self-confessed lesbians as it would be for Elton and David. Their whole lives are lived in rebellion against God, filled with deceit, sin and corruption, walking down the broad path which leads to destruction, spitting in the face of Jesus Christ.
Now this is a really tough decision for me to make, but as Elton scours his morally-bereft entourage for further godparents, I thought I ought to offer my services.
OK, it might involve some tedious expenses-paid trips to the USA, and I have a horrible feeling that someone like the Episcopalian gay anti-bishop Gene Robinson will conduct the 'baptism,' so I might have to grit my teeth during the service, and while mingling with the weird at the after-show party, but if all that gives just one child a chance of a decent life, it will be worth it.
Who knows, I might be the only opportunity Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John will ever have to be acquainted with someone who is more-or-less normal and who could help him escape from the lifestyle of decadence and depravity he is set to be led into.
So Elton, if you are reading this, and you are still short of a godfather, count me in.
“The Liturgy of Baptism (Common Worship version):
"The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living."
"At the baptism of a child, the president says to the parents and godparents
"Parents and godparents, the Church receives this child with joy.
"Today we are trusting God for his growth in faith.
"Q: Will you pray for him, draw him by your example into the community of faith and walk with him in the way of Christ?
"A: With the help of God, we will.
"Q: In baptism this child begins his journey in faith. You speak for him today. Will you care for him, and help him to take his place within the life and worship of Christ’s Church?
"A: With the help of God, we will.
"The Decision
"A large candle may be lit. The president addresses the candidate through his parents, godparents and sponsors.
"In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light. To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him. Therefore I ask:
"Q: Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
"A: I reject them.
"Q: Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
"A: I renounce them.
"Q: Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
"A: I repent of them.
"Q: Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
"A: I turn to Christ.
"Q: Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
"A: I submit to Christ.
"Q: Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
"A: I come to Christ.”
That'll be the Zachary whom hands-on-dad Elton and David have dumped in a flat next-door with a couple of nannies while they continue their gay lifestyle out on the town.
"The singer is said to have chosen Scottish-educated magazine editor Ingrid Sischy and her lesbian partner Sandy Brant to be Zachary’s moral guardians."
Curiously, "Before her relationship with Ingrid, socialite Sandy was married to
Now I thought the gays said they were born that way? And yet Mrs Brant seems to have entered into a heterosexual marriage and tried the alternative at least five times before she decided she didn't like it.
Let us hope the MoS had its tongue in its cheek when describing these ghastly lesbian partners-in-perversion as Zachary's 'moral guardians'. According to the Church of England's baptism service, the duties of godparents are to set the young child an example by their own godly living, draw him into the community of faith, walk with him in the way of Christ, reject the devil and all rebellion against God, renounce the deceit and corruption of evil, repent of the sins that separate them from God, turn to Christ as Saviour, submit to Christ as Lord and declare that they come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life.
That little package is going to be as high a mountain to climb for a pair of self-confessed lesbians as it would be for Elton and David. Their whole lives are lived in rebellion against God, filled with deceit, sin and corruption, walking down the broad path which leads to destruction, spitting in the face of Jesus Christ.
Now this is a really tough decision for me to make, but as Elton scours his morally-bereft entourage for further godparents, I thought I ought to offer my services.
OK, it might involve some tedious expenses-paid trips to the USA, and I have a horrible feeling that someone like the Episcopalian gay anti-bishop Gene Robinson will conduct the 'baptism,' so I might have to grit my teeth during the service, and while mingling with the weird at the after-show party, but if all that gives just one child a chance of a decent life, it will be worth it.
Who knows, I might be the only opportunity Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John will ever have to be acquainted with someone who is more-or-less normal and who could help him escape from the lifestyle of decadence and depravity he is set to be led into.
So Elton, if you are reading this, and you are still short of a godfather, count me in.
“The Liturgy of Baptism (Common Worship version):
"The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living."
"At the baptism of a child, the president says to the parents and godparents
"Parents and godparents, the Church receives this child with joy.
"Today we are trusting God for his growth in faith.
"Q: Will you pray for him, draw him by your example into the community of faith and walk with him in the way of Christ?
"A: With the help of God, we will.
"Q: In baptism this child begins his journey in faith. You speak for him today. Will you care for him, and help him to take his place within the life and worship of Christ’s Church?
"A: With the help of God, we will.
"The Decision
"A large candle may be lit. The president addresses the candidate through his parents, godparents and sponsors.
"In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light. To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him. Therefore I ask:
"Q: Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
"A: I reject them.
"Q: Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
"A: I renounce them.
"Q: Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
"A: I repent of them.
"Q: Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
"A: I turn to Christ.
"Q: Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
"A: I submit to Christ.
"Q: Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
"A: I come to Christ.”
Links embedded above:
Thursday, 6 January 2011
NATIVITY BETTER THAN TOP GEAR
As it is Epiphany, I think it is time for me to apologise to the BBC for criticising The Nativity before seeing it. It did take extra-Biblical liberties, but from what I saw, it brought the reality of the story to light very well.
What prompts me on this particular day is the recollection of the Top Gear presenters, Clarkson, May and Hammond traversing the desert as the 'Three Wise Men' to offer gifts to an infant Stig in a stable over Christmas. Making fun of ordinary people's daily battle with terrorism came with dressing up in burkas, offering the wrong gifts when they got there and not having a clue what the real Wise Men's gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh actually meant (they signify Christ's Kingship, his Divinity (or Priesthood) and his sacrificial death on that cross the Muslims and the Secularists hate so much).
But what has lost so much of my respect for Top Gear is not its flippant, deliberately-ignorant manner (I so hope it is deliberate), but the sham of the whole thing.
There is Clarkson being a big scaredy-cat, saying 'there might be a sniper around this corner.' We see his timid little car poking its nose around the corner in question. Er, filmed by the cameraman who has just taken the last two or three minutes to set up in the road in front of him around exactly the same corner, where he and the director are plainly not exactly dodging the bullets.
Some years ago, I was playing in a band at a church in Sydenham, South London, for the Epiphany service. The woman vicar was a bit like Dawn French, but with short, grey hair. Treating the adult congregation as if they were children, she opened, 'Well, this is the time of the church's year we call 'E-PIPH-A-NEE'. This is when we remember that the baby Jesus had a visit from three wise men - if there is such a thing.'
On Top Gear there is indeed not such a thing.
It's only the realisation that God is working his purpose out and that Christ has the victory which enables me to say with any hope:
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
What prompts me on this particular day is the recollection of the Top Gear presenters, Clarkson, May and Hammond traversing the desert as the 'Three Wise Men' to offer gifts to an infant Stig in a stable over Christmas. Making fun of ordinary people's daily battle with terrorism came with dressing up in burkas, offering the wrong gifts when they got there and not having a clue what the real Wise Men's gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh actually meant (they signify Christ's Kingship, his Divinity (or Priesthood) and his sacrificial death on that cross the Muslims and the Secularists hate so much).
But what has lost so much of my respect for Top Gear is not its flippant, deliberately-ignorant manner (I so hope it is deliberate), but the sham of the whole thing.
There is Clarkson being a big scaredy-cat, saying 'there might be a sniper around this corner.' We see his timid little car poking its nose around the corner in question. Er, filmed by the cameraman who has just taken the last two or three minutes to set up in the road in front of him around exactly the same corner, where he and the director are plainly not exactly dodging the bullets.
Some years ago, I was playing in a band at a church in Sydenham, South London, for the Epiphany service. The woman vicar was a bit like Dawn French, but with short, grey hair. Treating the adult congregation as if they were children, she opened, 'Well, this is the time of the church's year we call 'E-PIPH-A-NEE'. This is when we remember that the baby Jesus had a visit from three wise men - if there is such a thing.'
On Top Gear there is indeed not such a thing.
It's only the realisation that God is working his purpose out and that Christ has the victory which enables me to say with any hope:
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
50% MUSLIMS ARE JIHADIST 'TOO OPTIMISTIC' IN PAKISTAN
It is too optimistic to say that only 50% of Muslims in Pakistan are extreme Jihadists, a liberal Pakistni novelist told Channel 4 News last night, 5th January 2011.
Jon Snow interviewed Kamila Shamsie last night at the conclusion of a revealing piece about the assassination of Punjab governor and ruling party politician Salman Taseer by a member of his own bodyguard in Islamabad.
(Note that: the Snow/Shamsie clip is only on the CH4 website until 12th January).
Salman Taseer was killed for expressing support for Asia Bibi, who is on death row convicted of blasphemy, and for supporting the repeal of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which are typically used by Muslims in Pakistan to settle personal scores against Christians.
Kamila Shamsie observed that anti-Taseer feeling was rampant on twitter and facebook. It was in English, she said, the language of the middle-class (a point illustrated by the eloquent young Muslim lawyer saying the 'young lawyers of the Islamabad Bar' would defend his killer) . It was impossible to argue that only the poor and illiterate supported jihad.
A crowd shouted support for Malik Mumtaz Qadri when he appeared in court.
Meanwhile, 500 Islamic scholars said anyone grieving for Mr Taseer could face the same fate as he did.
To begin the interview, Jon Snow asked Kamila Shamsie: 'If opponents were to pick a liberal totem of Pakistani society would this be the man?'
'He probably would be', she replied. 'He was not afraid to stand up and say words like secular ... and he spoke out against the blasphemy laws and extremism'.
The killing could not be seen as a one-off tragedy, she said, because the body-guard made it clear that he did it because Taseer opposed the blasphemy laws. So the killing is a sign of a very deep rot that has been growing for 30 years.
'It is not just the assassination but the responses to the assassin', Kamila Shamsie went on. 'Rather than people being horrified, there is an extraordinary level of support for the assassin, especially on twitter and facebook and english-language blogs.'
'You are describing one-half of Pakistan, one half of which wants to be of the west and half of which is fueled by a desire to go in the opposite direction,' suggested Snow.
'No, it's not one half,' replied Shamsie. 'Typically there was a view in Pakistan that the radicals were illiterate, poor, were brainwashed and with no access to other world views. That's why I mentioned facebook and twitter. We have to confront that fact that radicalisation is also a middle-class phenomenon. To say it is half-and-half is too optimistic, I'm afraid.
'What's behind it is Pakistan's history over the last 30 plus years', she went on. 'You start with Ul Haq and Islamisation and the support for jihad. They thought they could export jihad to Afghanistan and Kashmir and that it would not turn around and attack them, and that has proven to be untrue. There has also been a culture growing over the past thirty years that dying in the name of religion is a good thing.
In a telling moment, Jon Snow asked, 'So what can be done?' There was a long pause before Kamila Shamsie said, 'Well, that's the question, I think, which a lot of people in Pakistan are asking. Salman Taseer was one of the few people sticking his head above the parapet. A march opposing the blasphemy laws this weekend has been cancelled following security fears. People are frightened.'
Jon Snow interviewed Kamila Shamsie last night at the conclusion of a revealing piece about the assassination of Punjab governor and ruling party politician Salman Taseer by a member of his own bodyguard in Islamabad.
(Note that: the Snow/Shamsie clip is only on the CH4 website until 12th January).
Salman Taseer was killed for expressing support for Asia Bibi, who is on death row convicted of blasphemy, and for supporting the repeal of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which are typically used by Muslims in Pakistan to settle personal scores against Christians.
Kamila Shamsie observed that anti-Taseer feeling was rampant on twitter and facebook. It was in English, she said, the language of the middle-class (a point illustrated by the eloquent young Muslim lawyer saying the 'young lawyers of the Islamabad Bar' would defend his killer) . It was impossible to argue that only the poor and illiterate supported jihad.
A crowd shouted support for Malik Mumtaz Qadri when he appeared in court.
Meanwhile, 500 Islamic scholars said anyone grieving for Mr Taseer could face the same fate as he did.
To begin the interview, Jon Snow asked Kamila Shamsie: 'If opponents were to pick a liberal totem of Pakistani society would this be the man?'
'He probably would be', she replied. 'He was not afraid to stand up and say words like secular ... and he spoke out against the blasphemy laws and extremism'.
The killing could not be seen as a one-off tragedy, she said, because the body-guard made it clear that he did it because Taseer opposed the blasphemy laws. So the killing is a sign of a very deep rot that has been growing for 30 years.
'It is not just the assassination but the responses to the assassin', Kamila Shamsie went on. 'Rather than people being horrified, there is an extraordinary level of support for the assassin, especially on twitter and facebook and english-language blogs.'
'You are describing one-half of Pakistan, one half of which wants to be of the west and half of which is fueled by a desire to go in the opposite direction,' suggested Snow.
'No, it's not one half,' replied Shamsie. 'Typically there was a view in Pakistan that the radicals were illiterate, poor, were brainwashed and with no access to other world views. That's why I mentioned facebook and twitter. We have to confront that fact that radicalisation is also a middle-class phenomenon. To say it is half-and-half is too optimistic, I'm afraid.
'What's behind it is Pakistan's history over the last 30 plus years', she went on. 'You start with Ul Haq and Islamisation and the support for jihad. They thought they could export jihad to Afghanistan and Kashmir and that it would not turn around and attack them, and that has proven to be untrue. There has also been a culture growing over the past thirty years that dying in the name of religion is a good thing.
In a telling moment, Jon Snow asked, 'So what can be done?' There was a long pause before Kamila Shamsie said, 'Well, that's the question, I think, which a lot of people in Pakistan are asking. Salman Taseer was one of the few people sticking his head above the parapet. A march opposing the blasphemy laws this weekend has been cancelled following security fears. People are frightened.'
ST GEORGE'S CROSS SCARES MUSLIM
Sentence will be pronounced next week on a Reading man who hung a St George's Cross flag on some railings outside a controversial mosque in the town's Oxford Road.
Ronnie Peterson had been watching the England vs Japan friendly in May 2010 and was carrying his St George's cross flag. His trial for aggravated public order offences was heard in December but District Judge Andrew Vickers reserved judgment until 13th January 2011.
While passing the mosque, Peterson hung his flag on the railings and staged a one-man protest, chanting 'EDL' and 'England' a couple of times.
The recent history of mosque-building in Reading has been dogged by controversy. The one outside which Ronnie Peterson protested is in Oxford Road, and is not yet finished, being described as an eye-sore locally. It was supposed to be Reading's only mosque, and yet planning permission was given for yet another one a few miles away in Green Road. Both appear to be on land leased at a peppercorn rent from Reading Council, and gifts have been made by the Council to the Muslims, according to this blog.
Two Muslims in a cafe opposite said they thought a march was taking place. The Reading Post reports:
'Urfan Azad told the court he was in the Tea House, in Oxford Road, with friend Amar Nazir on the evening of Sunday, May 30, when they heard “EDL, EDL” being chanted. He said: “We thought it was a demonstration. We went around the corner and saw three guys raising their hands up and they had a St George’s flag on the fence around the mosque which is being built. I felt a bit scared and called the police.”'
Urfan Azad was once feared as a drugs gangster in Reading and has been on a weapons-training visit to a Madrassah in Pakistan. But he felt 'a bit scared' seeing the slightly-built Peterson with his flag. Just for good measure, he and his friend foud an alternative story, that fellow Muslims would feel outraged by Peterson's peaceful protest and set upon him (that's more like it):
'Mr Azad said prayers were due to take place in the existing mosque about 100 yards away in Valentia Road and he was afraid the situation might get out of control.
'Mr Nazir added: “Me and my friend discussed it and we thought it could turn into something ugly. Any other Muslim could drive past and do something stupid and start a fight so we decided to call the police.”'
When the police turned up they did not stand by Ronnie Peterson to protect him from the alleged stupid gangs of Muslims, nor did they give him advice about how to conduct his protest. Instead, without warning him to move on they arrested him. The arresting constable told the court he only arrested Peterson 'because my sergeant told me to.' According to the Reading Chronicle:
'Sgt Lee Barnham said he spoke to the witness, and added: “He was offended by the use of what he considered to be a religious cross against the site of worship.
WITNESS: For Ronnie and for the right to display the cross on 13th January 2011 at Reading Magistrates Court. The case is scheduled for 10am but could be heard at any time during that day.
Ronnie Peterson had been watching the England vs Japan friendly in May 2010 and was carrying his St George's cross flag. His trial for aggravated public order offences was heard in December but District Judge Andrew Vickers reserved judgment until 13th January 2011.
While passing the mosque, Peterson hung his flag on the railings and staged a one-man protest, chanting 'EDL' and 'England' a couple of times.
The recent history of mosque-building in Reading has been dogged by controversy. The one outside which Ronnie Peterson protested is in Oxford Road, and is not yet finished, being described as an eye-sore locally. It was supposed to be Reading's only mosque, and yet planning permission was given for yet another one a few miles away in Green Road. Both appear to be on land leased at a peppercorn rent from Reading Council, and gifts have been made by the Council to the Muslims, according to this blog.
Two Muslims in a cafe opposite said they thought a march was taking place. The Reading Post reports:
'Urfan Azad told the court he was in the Tea House, in Oxford Road, with friend Amar Nazir on the evening of Sunday, May 30, when they heard “EDL, EDL” being chanted. He said: “We thought it was a demonstration. We went around the corner and saw three guys raising their hands up and they had a St George’s flag on the fence around the mosque which is being built. I felt a bit scared and called the police.”'
Urfan Azad was once feared as a drugs gangster in Reading and has been on a weapons-training visit to a Madrassah in Pakistan. But he felt 'a bit scared' seeing the slightly-built Peterson with his flag. Just for good measure, he and his friend foud an alternative story, that fellow Muslims would feel outraged by Peterson's peaceful protest and set upon him (that's more like it):
'Mr Azad said prayers were due to take place in the existing mosque about 100 yards away in Valentia Road and he was afraid the situation might get out of control.
'Mr Nazir added: “Me and my friend discussed it and we thought it could turn into something ugly. Any other Muslim could drive past and do something stupid and start a fight so we decided to call the police.”'
When the police turned up they did not stand by Ronnie Peterson to protect him from the alleged stupid gangs of Muslims, nor did they give him advice about how to conduct his protest. Instead, without warning him to move on they arrested him. The arresting constable told the court he only arrested Peterson 'because my sergeant told me to.' According to the Reading Chronicle:
'Sgt Lee Barnham said he spoke to the witness, and added: “He was offended by the use of what he considered to be a religious cross against the site of worship.
'“It was clear he was upset and felt intimidated. I was satisfied an offence under the public order act had been committed.”'
When the police charged Peterson, they added that his offence had been 'racially or religiously aggravated' by the display of the national flag of England and its red cross. Muslims might well be offended and upset to be reminded that when Allah told Mohammed that Jesus Christ did not die on the Cross he was not telling the truth, and was trying to hide from them that Jesus died for their sins and that even today the Lord of Life commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel, before He returns in judgment and in conquest.
But did our fathers and grandfathers die fighting Nazi Germany so that our national flags expressing our Christian heritage could be viewed as religiously aggravating? Did the Muslims coming here not realise that this is a constitutionally Christian country? Can a word of Muslim disquiet now terrify a policeman into arresting an innocent man displaying the Cross of St George, the English Patron Saint and Christian Martyr?
Actually, the cross should scare Muslims. They say Jesus is merely a prophet, but if so, when he said 'I have power to lay down my life and power to take it up again,' when He described Himself as Daniel's Son of Man to whom all authority is given, when He said 'I and my Father are one,' he told us He is the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God. The Cross, if the Church is forthright enough to proclaim it, should remind them that that he spurns their words of 'Peace be upon him', and that death could not hold the Redeemer of mankind.
Indeed, the Cross of Christ should remind us all that there is a holy God in heaven who commands us to turn from our sin and wickedness and all that offends His Majesty and to seek forgiveness in the Lord Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, who gave His life that all who believe in Him might be saved. We shall all stand before Christ the righteous judge one day and every knee will bow to Him them, just as every knee ought to bow right now.
PRAY: Clearly, District Judge Andrew Vickers has gone away to seek advice from his superiors. He needs to rule 'not guilty' and state clearly that the cross on our national flags is not an 'aggravating factor' but a declaration of a great salvation, celebrated in these islands for over 1500 years. Please pray for him. You can let him know you are praying for him by writing to him at Reading Magistrates Court, Castle Street READING, RG1 7RD Tel: 0118 9552600
PRAY: For Ronnie Peterson. The scars he is bearing in the Reading Post story resulted from him being set upon by a Muslim gang near a friend's home days before the hearing. He needs the Lord's protection and guidance from on high. He expressed himself as 'not a religious' person in court. That says he did not realise the full significance of the cross he was holding up. But none of us needs 'religion' as much as we need the presence of Jesus Christ. May the Christ who died on the cross become a saving reality in Ronnie Peterson's life.WITNESS: For Ronnie and for the right to display the cross on 13th January 2011 at Reading Magistrates Court. The case is scheduled for 10am but could be heard at any time during that day.
GAYS PLAN SICK SURROGACY CENTRE
'The UK’s first gay dads to have surrogate children have announced plans to open a surrogacy centre,' reports PinkNews.
'Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow made history in 1999 when they travelled to the US to conceive twins Saffron and Aspen, now 11, through a surrogate mother.
'The couple now have three more children – Orlando, seven, and another set of twins, Jasper and Dallas, who are ten months old.'
The pair are now bouncing off the news about Elton John's designer baby to open the 'British Surrogacy Agency' in Maldon, Essex next month.
According to the Chelmsford Weekly News, Barrie said: “The centre will focus on all things surrogacy-related and will be the first centre of its kind in the UK.
“Its aim is to bring together intended parents with egg donors and surrogates along with sperm donors, and offer legal advice from qualified legal professionals.
“I will be responsible for the assessment of intended parents and the assessments of potential egg donors and surrogates, and for helping with all legal documentation to allow each couple to bring home their baby to the UK.”
The mention of 'legal documentation' highlights the fact that surrogacy - paying a woman to conceive and/or carry a baby - is illegal in the United Kingdom, as is choosing the sex of a baby. There is still the vestige in our law of the old-fashioned concept that a baby should be born as a result of the loving union of man and woman, and brought up by both parents. Not much of a vestige, but until we see major national repentance it is about all we have.
And when Barrie speaks of 'assessment' he refers to the designer element. Most egg donors are young college graduates and it is possible to screen them for good looks, eye and hair colour, academic, sports or musical ability, affluence or any other characteristic deemed desirable in the gay world. The fertilised egg is then implanted into another woman, usually of working-class background, to do the donkey-work of carrying the embryonic child to birth.
Like John and Furnish, Barrie and Drewitt-Barlow are millionaires and although their service will only be available to homosexuals with significat disposable income, very many fall into that category. The expenditure will not end with the surrogacy arrangement and all the legals. Babies are irritating things, interfering with gay life no end, so nurseries have to be built and nannies paid to bring them up.
'Barrie said: “Like any first, we have taken most of the criticism and the flak, which will make it easier for anyone else taking this pathway to parenthood.
'“There are many gay parents now in the UK thanks to the measures we took over a decade ago."'
Some gays may still take the direct route. PinkNews reported in 2007 about surrogacy clinics in California, where everything banned in Britain - surrogacy itself, choosing the sex of the baby, etc - is allowed.
'Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow made history in 1999 when they travelled to the US to conceive twins Saffron and Aspen, now 11, through a surrogate mother.
'The couple now have three more children – Orlando, seven, and another set of twins, Jasper and Dallas, who are ten months old.'
The pair are now bouncing off the news about Elton John's designer baby to open the 'British Surrogacy Agency' in Maldon, Essex next month.
According to the Chelmsford Weekly News, Barrie said: “The centre will focus on all things surrogacy-related and will be the first centre of its kind in the UK.
“Its aim is to bring together intended parents with egg donors and surrogates along with sperm donors, and offer legal advice from qualified legal professionals.
“I will be responsible for the assessment of intended parents and the assessments of potential egg donors and surrogates, and for helping with all legal documentation to allow each couple to bring home their baby to the UK.”
The mention of 'legal documentation' highlights the fact that surrogacy - paying a woman to conceive and/or carry a baby - is illegal in the United Kingdom, as is choosing the sex of a baby. There is still the vestige in our law of the old-fashioned concept that a baby should be born as a result of the loving union of man and woman, and brought up by both parents. Not much of a vestige, but until we see major national repentance it is about all we have.
And when Barrie speaks of 'assessment' he refers to the designer element. Most egg donors are young college graduates and it is possible to screen them for good looks, eye and hair colour, academic, sports or musical ability, affluence or any other characteristic deemed desirable in the gay world. The fertilised egg is then implanted into another woman, usually of working-class background, to do the donkey-work of carrying the embryonic child to birth.
Like John and Furnish, Barrie and Drewitt-Barlow are millionaires and although their service will only be available to homosexuals with significat disposable income, very many fall into that category. The expenditure will not end with the surrogacy arrangement and all the legals. Babies are irritating things, interfering with gay life no end, so nurseries have to be built and nannies paid to bring them up.
'Barrie said: “Like any first, we have taken most of the criticism and the flak, which will make it easier for anyone else taking this pathway to parenthood.
'“There are many gay parents now in the UK thanks to the measures we took over a decade ago."'
Some gays may still take the direct route. PinkNews reported in 2007 about surrogacy clinics in California, where everything banned in Britain - surrogacy itself, choosing the sex of the baby, etc - is allowed.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
MUSLIMS DOMINATE SEX GANGS
The news that 50 out of 56 people convicted of pimping under-age girls since 1997 were Muslims comes as no surprise. DAILY MAIL.
When someone becomes a Christian, he leaves behind his previous hedonistic life. Just look at the stories of convicts, druggies and prostitutes having their lives turned around on the Transformed Website. It's because they try to make their lives reflect, as much as possible, that of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Yes, some Christians fall along the way, but we are surprised by it. Pastor runs off with the cash or Vicar decamps with organist's wife are stories because they are so rare and so out-of-character. We are so used in Britain to seeing the Christian faith make a positive impact in a person's life that we find it really hard to think that religious faith could lead someone to be a worse person.
But when a man becomes a Muslim he is expected to follow the example of Mohammed, who was, to be generous, a brigand, a torturer, a murderer, a terrorist and a liar (it's called 'taqiyya' or 'deception'), a rapist, and a man who had sexual relations with a girl of nine (that's his little wife Ayesha). See HERE and HERE.
That is why it comes as no surprise to find that Muslims do a lot of their recruiting in prisons nor that there are more Muslims in prison than there are in the population at large. The situation is the same in Britain (11% vs 4%), India, USA (revealing link, that) while in FRANCE, 60+% of prisonners are Muslims, compared with 12% in the population. You can't blame all that discrepancy on 'deprivation'.
Apparently Muslims are targeting white girls for sex as well as Hindus and Sikhs. Some they marry, some they prostitute, all the while demanding sexual purity from their sisters. Don't see this as hypocrisy. It is just their way of conquering bit by bit or even of displaying supremacy over the rest of the population. Spoils of war and all that.
Even in Pakistan, one of the cases of persecution of Christians we heard of involved an elderly couple terrorsied because they would not let a Muslim gang use their home as a brothel.
Meanwhile, agencies dealing with the aftermath are busy denying that there is any religious dimension at all. Why are the authorities in this land so weak and so stupid? Is pathetic leadership another dimension of the judgment of God on a nation?
When someone becomes a Christian, he leaves behind his previous hedonistic life. Just look at the stories of convicts, druggies and prostitutes having their lives turned around on the Transformed Website. It's because they try to make their lives reflect, as much as possible, that of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Yes, some Christians fall along the way, but we are surprised by it. Pastor runs off with the cash or Vicar decamps with organist's wife are stories because they are so rare and so out-of-character. We are so used in Britain to seeing the Christian faith make a positive impact in a person's life that we find it really hard to think that religious faith could lead someone to be a worse person.
But when a man becomes a Muslim he is expected to follow the example of Mohammed, who was, to be generous, a brigand, a torturer, a murderer, a terrorist and a liar (it's called 'taqiyya' or 'deception'), a rapist, and a man who had sexual relations with a girl of nine (that's his little wife Ayesha). See HERE and HERE.
That is why it comes as no surprise to find that Muslims do a lot of their recruiting in prisons nor that there are more Muslims in prison than there are in the population at large. The situation is the same in Britain (11% vs 4%), India, USA (revealing link, that) while in FRANCE, 60+% of prisonners are Muslims, compared with 12% in the population. You can't blame all that discrepancy on 'deprivation'.
Apparently Muslims are targeting white girls for sex as well as Hindus and Sikhs. Some they marry, some they prostitute, all the while demanding sexual purity from their sisters. Don't see this as hypocrisy. It is just their way of conquering bit by bit or even of displaying supremacy over the rest of the population. Spoils of war and all that.
Even in Pakistan, one of the cases of persecution of Christians we heard of involved an elderly couple terrorsied because they would not let a Muslim gang use their home as a brothel.
Meanwhile, agencies dealing with the aftermath are busy denying that there is any religious dimension at all. Why are the authorities in this land so weak and so stupid? Is pathetic leadership another dimension of the judgment of God on a nation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)