Nick Clegg: faith schools should teach children that homosexuality is ‘normal’ – Telegraph.
I note that Mr Clegg believes that,

“faith schools should teach children that homosexuality is ‘normal’ as reported in the Telegraph 12/01/10.

One of the first things I remember Nick Clegg announcing as he became Liberal leader was that he is an atheist.  I appreciated his honesty and ticked another box as to why I would never vote for his party.  Mr Clegg has every right to hold his atheist conviction.  Exactly the same right in fact as say a Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim has to hold their religious conviction.  He has the right to an opinion on any subject of faith or morality as do we all.  What he does not have is the right to impose his atheist, secular ideology on those who do not share his particular ”faith’.

No doubt he would be the first to object should any person of a religious conviction attempt to enforce their moral code onto his daily life.

Well, as it happens that is exactly what Mr Clegg is advocating for faith schools.  He seeks to impose his own secular idea of morality, namely that homosexuality is ‘normal’, upon all faith schools regardless of their creed.  Normal it may be according to Mr Clegg’s worldview but as I am sure he would acknowledge our tolerant and multicultural island also encompasses other worldviews.  Like others before him he seems to make a direct connection between disapproval and discrimination.  These two positions however are not synonymous neither in religious faith nor according to English Common law.

For example whereas the position of Christianity is to disapprove of the practice of homosexuality, (as with all sex outside of marriage) this does not equate to discrimination against those of homosexual orientation since Christ died for all.  Mr Clegg’s proposal would be to force religious believers to teach in a manner contrary to their faith.  As far as I am aware this position is contrary to English law which states that all are entitled to express their opinion whether on faith as in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006,

‘Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.’

or whether on matters of sexual conduct as in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 although the clause is weaker.

‘In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.’

How interesting to note that whilst the former clause was strongly supported by the Liberal Democrats, most vocally by Dr Evan Harris MP, the latter was opposed tooth and nail by the very same Dr Evan Harris MP!  So in the world of the LibDems it would seem that to criticise faith is freedom of speech whilst to criticise sexual conduct is discrimination.  Do wetherefore conclude that the LibDems support our Human Right to freedom of expression but only insofar as it agrees with their secular ideology?  Maybe this would explain Mr Clegg’s peculiar conviction?

‘Bonkers’ police drop the word Christmas from poster to avoid upsetting other faiths | Mail Online.

The above may seem a trivial article but is actually indicative of an ideology which is seeping into every corner of British life namely Political Correctness.

Political correctness is not a new phenomenon but has its roots in the atheist ideology of Marxism.  At its rotten heart is a rejection of biblical morality hence anything that represents that established order must be torn down or overturned.  The policies of this current government are closer to that lawless ideology than any that has gone before therefore, organised religion, marriage, charity, have all suffered under a barrage of EU inspired directives the culmination of which is that Queen of PC Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill.  Labour’s swansong for their final term of office is a gross piece of social engineering will ‘enable’ the government finally to sweep away the Christian foundation of our law and hence our nation.  History shows that no nation which overturns God’s established order has survived.

The good news is that, whether invited or not, Christ will return to this earth, place His feet on the Mount of Olives and establish his rule in Jerusalem.  Zechariah 14.

In that day it will be a hard task for those who have rejected His authority to explain why they thought they knew better!

“Therefore you also be ready, for in that hour you think not, the Son of Man comes.” (Matt 24:44)

Registrar loses discrimination case – Yahoo! News UK.

Althought the victory for Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang was good news I did not get too carried away.  Why?  Because that case fell under the Public Order Act 1986,

which has a freedom of speech clause whereas most of the recent difficulty for religious believers has come from the more pernicious Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations) 2007  which, have no such protection.

Hence in the case of Christian registrar Lillian Ladele the judge was compelled to conclude that,

“It appears to me that, however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events which she considers to be contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy, such as the United Kingdom, include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions.”

And there we have the problem in a nutshell.  In the Vogelenzang case the Judge was able to dismiss the prosecutions claims that harassment had taken place.  In the Ladele case the legislation gives him no room for manoeuvre no matter “how much sympathy” he has with the defendant.

With Harriet Harman’s flagship piece of social engineering the Equality Bill sailing throught its second reading in the commons by 330 all party votes expect to see more, much more of this kind of suppression of religious conscience.  The message is the same as it has always been from this ‘liberal’ as opposed to libertarian government that equality is for all except those of the established faith of our nation, namely Christianity.

With every extra legislative burden we move one step further along the road of totalitarianism.  John Bunyan’s words are as relevant today as they were when he stood trial for holding non conformist religious meetings in October 1660.  By the way Bunyan was sentenced to six years

“However much I may be in disagreement with another man’s sincerely held religious beliefs, neither I nor any other may disallow his right to hold these beliefs.  No man’s right in these affairs are secure if every other man’s rights are not equally secure.”

What has now become clear is that the rights of neither man nor woman are secure under this appalling Labour government which is as bankrupt morally as it is financially.

The ugly face of anti-semitism in the English Christian Church.

It is with great shame and deep horror that I include this youtube clip on this blog.  The event as you can see is the Palestinian Solidarity Christmas Carol service held at Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church.  For those of you who may be offended I must sincerely apologise at one of the featured Baptist church goers use of foul language.  I must also apologise for his openly expressed and quite appalling anti-semitism as he invites British Jews to “f*** off back to Israel”.

No doubt this man is not representative of all Baptists or the Baptist church.  He is however a symptom of their very much mistaken theology.  As the interviewer attempted to point out Hamas are not only killing Jews but also Christians and even Fatah the Palestinian opposition party.  In fact the interviewees who appear on the clip give us a very revealing glimpse into two sides of the problem.  How ironic that both of these men bear the anglicised but very Jewish name of John?  A tale of two Johns if you like.

On the one hand we have John Sullivan who was very willing to air his worldview on film.  He put his case forcefully if not very eloquently.  For him I doubt that his motivation for attending the event was any real feeling of affinity with Palestinians.  Rather it was quite simply a shared hatred of Jews.  John Sullivan believes that Jews are nasty people.  Does  he realise therefore that his namesake the apostle John was in fact a Jew as indeed were all of the twelve apostles?  Does he realise that Jesus Christ our Messiah was born, lived, was crucified and rose again a Jew?  Does he realise that when Messiah returns it will be to the Mount of Olives in Israel?  Does he appreciate that Christ will rule and reign for 1000 years from Jerusalem?  How about you?

This John had the temerity to cite “love thy neighbour” as unique to Christianity whilst not only spouting hatred but also challenging the interviewer to quote a Jewish equivalent!  The Jewish equivalent happens to be enshrined in the law of Moses!  Has he never read his Old Testament?

Lev 19:18  You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people; but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Jehovah.

In response to the question of a young Lawyer even Christ Himself acknowledged this as the second most important of all the commandments after loving God.

Mat 22:37-40  Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.  (38)  This is the first and great commandment.  (39)  And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  (40)  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

On the other hand we have the apparently benevolent John Benyon, Secretary of the Church, willing to listen, consider the points put forward and even concede  that giving money to Hamas “sounds unreasonable”.  There is every probability that the second John feels a genuine affinity with the Palestinian cause as if in some way he is representing an oppressed underdog.  No doubt he believes that Jesus would have done the same?  Although the view of John Sullivan is more obnoxious than that of John Benyon the latter is however no less dangerous.  Why?  Because it is born of ignorance and ignorance is lethal.

For too long now the likes of Jonh Benyon have fallen under the spell of those who teach replacement theology insisting that all the promises that God made to Israel are now to be fulfilled in the Church which is the new true Israel.  Wrong, just plain wrong!  A Christian of twenty one years I too was slow to realise the place of Israel in God’s plans as it was simply never taught in my otherwise excellent church.  However when I came to read for myself the words of Romans Chapter 11 what conclusion could I draw other than God has not yet finished with His chosen nation Israel?
I  say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.  Rom 11:1

No obviously God has not cast away His people.  He has however sought to provoke them to jealousy through his grafting in of the gentiles to the Jewish Olive tree!

Rom 11:13-22  For I speak to you, the nations; since I am the apostle of the nations, I glorify my ministry;  (14)  if by any means I may provoke those who are my flesh to jealousy, and might save some of them.  (15)  For if their casting away is the reconciling of the world, what is the reception except life from the dead?  (16)  For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, also the branches.  (17)  And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and became a sharer of the root and the fatness of the olive tree with them,  (18)  do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, it is not you that bears the root, but the root bears you. (19)  You will say then, The branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.  (20)  Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear.  (21)  For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear lest He also may not spare you either!  (22)  Behold then the kindness, and the severity of God; on those having fallen, severity; but on you, kindness, if you continue in the kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

How much clearer can it be that we the church are not to “boast against the branches”?  Have we all too soon forgotten that we are the branches not the root?  Do we heed the warning of verse 21″ For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear lest He also may not spare you either!”

Given the failure of the Christian church in our nation to recognise the roots of our faith how surprising is it therefore that we have lost our way all together.  Not only do we have baptists supporting those who wish to wipe Israel off the map and drive the Jews into the sea but we also have an Archbishop calling for Sharia law.  What was it that Jesus said about this kind of leadership?

Luk 6:39  And He spoke a parable to them: Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?

Hoteliers cleared of insulting Muslim guest for wearing hijab to breakfast | Mail Online.

The case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang now concluded you would think we could all breathe a sigh of relief that freedom of speech has been upheld.  In one sense yes we can thanks to the wisdom of a British judge who saw that this was no more than a heated discussion of the type we should all be willing to have.  On the other hand the Equality Bill has just passed its second reading which will tighten the net even further around those who wish to express a contentious view in public.

I do have some sympathy for Ericka Tazi in this case.  It is quite possible that things did become heated and that she may well have felt aggrieved.  However this is not a case for the law courts.  Much better a letter of complaint and a simple apology if that were deemed necessary.

But despite the apparently positive outcome of this case there is no doubt that it will still have a gagging effect on public discussion.  Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang have indeed been vindicated but at what price?  It has already cost them a huge chunk of their business.  Nonetheless for now at least one of the finest aspects of British freedom has been upheld, the right to simply express your view no matter how contentious or controversial that may be.

On more than one occasion on this blog I have expressed the fear that Tony Blair would be the first EU President.  Thankfully I was wrong and we can all breathe a sigh of relief.  Can’t we?

Surely Herman Van Rompuy the bureaucrats choice is so anonymous that he will disappear into the background as he administers the EU Council?  Yes it seems that the EU maybe as a result of conservative backlash have opted against the “all singing all dancing” President so feared by David Cameron and in favour of Mr invisible.

If only it were that simple.  Invisible on the world stage he may be but insubstantial he most certainly is not.  Mr Van Rompuy (a devout Catholic) is European to the core in that he appears to despise the very notion of the independent sovereign state.  Not for him are the trappings of nationality such as flags, anthems and the like.  He would have them all banned.  The Express and the Mail have both highlighted his desire to raise Europe wide taxes which sounds a very Roman Empire practice.  So how far does his federal agenda go and what will that mean for the Bunyans of this world who favour freedom thought, speech and religious conscience above flag, anthem, state or puppet president?  Well we had a clue in his first address as President elect.

“2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of a financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet.”

So although we may not have the president we anticipated the New World Order agenda remains unchanged.  So what is needed for global governance and how far have we come?  Lets take stock..

• Global banking:  The manufactured financial crisis has paved the way.
• Global taxation:  The climate change fraud has given the cause and the means for global taxation.
• Global religion.  Multifaith is well underway assisted by Mr Blair. (who is also now free to forge a Middle East peace deal)
• Unified continents.  Obama has his single telephone number for a unified Europe.
• Global control of people:  The bogus war on terror has provided the excuse for a global surveillance network.
• I wonder what or who else is the world waiting for?

Even so Lord come!

Victory at last and that on of Armistice of all days?  In what could be the final skirmish in the battle between Parliament and the Lords concerning Lord Waddington’s freedom of speech clause the battle for now seems to be over.  Having been soundly rebuffed for the fouth time even Jack Straw has had to concede defeat or risk losing the Bill all together.

So is that the end of the matter do we all breathe a sigh of relief.  Not just yet!  Everbody thought Armistice day was the end of all hostility only for the world to be at war again within a generation.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said.

“We will, naturally, keep the operation of the offence and the saving under review and will return to this issue in the future should it prove necessary to do so in the light of experience.”

Oh and of course there is the governments flagship piece of social engineering which it desperately hopes to force through before the general election The Equality Bill.

With regard to my blog  Dear Harriet, I have now received a reply from the Government Equalities Office.  In fact I have received it twice, once from an office junior and then in duplicated form from Michael Foster DL MP?  Obviously a standard letter then.

It was largely as I expected full of assurances that “nothing in our domestic law (or for that matter within the draft EU Directive) would be a threat to free speech or religious conscience.”  How comforting, although if that were truly the case it makes me wonder why the government has on at least six occasions sought to delete a freedom of speech clause from so called anti-discrimination legislation?

One of the main points of my original letter was about the “reversal of the burden of proof” which is totally contrary not only to English Common law but natural justice.  The department were only too happy to confirm that yes of course innocence until proven guilty is a thing of the past!

“It is standard for both directives and domestic legislation that provide protection from discrimination to include a reversal of of burden of proof and this is already the case in our existing legislation.  It is generally accepted that there is unlikely  to be direct evidence of discrimination and that once a claimant has established a case that amounts to discrimination it is right that the respondent has to show that discrimination did not occur.”

In this single paragraph the author (whoever that actually was) has turned the British legal system on its head.

• “unlikely  to be direct evidence” In which case no case should exist?  Hearsay is not admissable!
• “once a claimant has established a case” It appears that hearsay is now admissable?
• “the respondent has to show that discrimination did not occur.”  Effectively the defendant is now guilty until proven innocent.

It is simply not possible to argue that freedom of speech is not under threat without the protection of innocence until proven guilty.

Hardly surprising that our politicians are under the misguided notion that we have “no written constitution” since they have spent the last thirty years or so trampling it underfoot.

Blair ‘to be made EU president next month’ | Mail Online.

In a previous blog I had asked the question “Blair which project?” Would he be the man to bring peace to the Middle East, unite all the world’s religions or become the first President of the world’s newest empire?  Well lets be honest about he would really love to manage all three whilst maintaining a background advisory role for comings and goings at No 10?

With the Irish having done him a big favour (not for the first time) and the Czechs clinging on by the fingernails of one dogged pensioner at least now one leg of this man made trinity is virtually within his grasp.  Yes of course William Hague will do all he can to prevent the coronation as the very sight of Blair as our new de facto head of state could topple the Tories perilous Lisbon high-wire act.  However if Iraq was not enough to dent Monsieur Blair’s credibility such is the Europeans love of this linguistic Europhile it is unlikely that he will be denied.

What will it mean for us?

If previous collusion between Pope and Caesar are anything to go by we could end up with an Iron and Clay mix of secular state married to a religious ideology?  What might we see?

• The establishment of a ‘Holy Roman Empire’ of European nations under one dominant religion, Catholicism.  The Anglicans finally return to Rome?
• All religions to be legally registered under a multi-faith umbrella (The Vatican?), facilitated by the Blair “Faith Foundation”, designed to counter extremism.  There is room for  diversity provided that the “shared values” of “equality” central to the EU are adhered to.
• Extremists (those who insist there is only one “narrow path” to God) are declared illegal cults whilst Evangelism is outlawed as “offensive” and discriminatory?
• Britain’s special relationship with the USA redefined.  As Kissinger said “If I want to speak to Europe who do I call?”  The European President will be the first port of call for the Whitehouse?
• A new identity as citizens of Europe?   Britain is already divided into EU regions as opposed to nations.
• Pressure on Israel to cede land for peace as Blair and Obama collude to force a two state deal?

The end goal might be a link up of “The Quartet” of world powers in order to bring about a single government.  We already hear that banking regulation and action on climate change must be global as is the “war on terror”.  A small step surely to a unified system of world governance?

<object width=”560″ height=”340″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/iKJfU4rtKjE&hl=en&fs=1&”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/iKJfU4rtKjE&hl=en&fs=1&” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”560″ height=”340″></embed></object>

UPDATE: THIS AMENDMENT HAS NOW BEEN DEFEATED.

In the long running saga of the tangled Coroner’s and Justice bill we have another twist to the plot. The Lords having fended of Euthanasia under its new guise of “assisted dying” it is now back on the agenda courtesy of Lord Alderdice.

Here is the latest succinct fact filled bulletin with points for action from Major Harry.

Facts
Lord Alderdice (pro- assisted suicide) has just tabled an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill adding exceptions to the current ruling as follows:
Notwithstanding sections 53, 54 and 55, no offence shall have been committed if assistance, is given to a person to commit suicide who is suffering from a confirmed, incurable and disabling illness which prevents them from carrying through their own wish to bring their life to a close, if the person has received certification from a coroner who has investigated the circumstances, and satisfied himself that it is indeed the free and settled wish of the person that they bring their life to a close.’

This means that:
You will not have committed an offence if you have helped a person to commit suicide if you can prove that:
• that person is suffering from an incurable and disabling illness (emphasis mine) which prevents them from killing themselves on their own;
• if you have access to a document from a coroner stating that he has evidence that that person stated clearly that he or she wanted to die at exactly this stage in their life adn wanted help to do so.

Action
I think this is clearly wrong and totally impossible to prove because of the exact definition of ‘incurable’ and ‘disabling’ becoming so ambiguous that it leads to untold problems.

If you agree, please write to any one or two of the peers known to oppose assisted suicide
( www.carenotkilling.org.uk/?show=848 ), asking them to be present to vote against this Alderdice amendment No 66 which should come up on 26 or 28 October.

My own letter (which I am send by email to avoid the postal strike). as a model, is copied below.

May the Lord bless you for this sacrifice of you time,

Harry

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Dear Lord XXXXXXXXXX

Thank you for opposing Lord Falconer’s assisted suicide amendment on 7 July 2009.

May I, please, ask you to vote against Lord Alderdice’s assisted suicide amendment (No 66) which, I understand, msy come up at report stage on 26 or 26 October?

In my humble opinion, the wording of the amendment is so ambiguous and vague that it can never be reliable and could lead to untold suffering, for it has no safeguards to prevent abuse.

Yours sincerely,

N.B

You may find the appropriate Lord by using my write to them link in the blogroll. Just put in your post code, enter the site and follow directions for contacting al Lord.

UPDATE: THIS AMENDMENT HAS NOW BEEN DEFEATED.