Those who strive to be Politically Correct have been tearing each other apart over the demands of Muslims to adhere to their own customs. Special sex-segregated sessions at public swimming pools with vastly stricter dress codes have been established by many left-wing local authorities, and have attracted criticism from other lefties. A Labour minister walked out of a Muslim wedding when he discovered men and women had separate rooms, and has been practically accused of racism by a Labour peer. Sharia courts have been recognised as legitimate forums for arbitration by the Government, to the dismay of those who think they are sexist.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Muslim question: segregation and secularisation
Monday, March 30, 2009
Another health worker sacked for being Christian
Briefing.
From CFNews: A Council worker has been suspended for encouraging a terminally ill woman to turn to God after she told him her doctors could do nothing more for her.
Duke Amnchree, a Christian who has worked for Wandsworth council in south west London for neatly 18 years, was suspended after he discussed his faith with a client.
He claims he was later told that he should not raise the issue of religion at work. He says he was also told it was inappropriate to 'talk about God with a client and that he should not even say 'God bless'.
Mr Amachree, 53, a member of the UK World Evangelism Church in London, was disciplined as a result of a complaint made by the woman client who had come to the council to discuss a housing problem.
He described the moment he was told by council staff that he was being suspended: 'I was speechless. I was so stunned could not even bring myself to tell my wife,'
Mr Amachree, who is British but was born in Nigeria, has not worked for two months. 'This is it worrying time for me,' he said. Senior council sources have confirmed his suspension but dispute his account of events. They say it has been alleged that Mr Amachree made a long and aggressive 'religious rant' against the seriously ill woman, who has not been identified. They also say he has been warned in the past for raising his religious beliefs with members of the public.
The case comes two months after the Sunday Telegraph disclosed that Caroline Petrie, 45, a nurse from North Somerset, was suspended for offering to pray for an elderly patient's recovery from illness. Mrs Petrie, also a Christian, was accused of failing to demonstrate a 'personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity', but she was later reinstated by the North Somerset Primary Care Trust.
Mr Amachrce's case has been taken up by Christian Legal Centre (CLC). which seeks to promote religious freedom and, particularly, to protect Christians and Christianity. The centre. in turn, has instructed Paul Diamond, a leading religious rights barrister. Mr Amachree, a married man with two young children who earns £30,000 a year as a homelessness prevention officer, said that the incident took place on January 26 after a woman, aged about 30, came to ask for advice.
He says they spent 50 minutes discussing her concerns that she was going to have to move out of her privately rented flat because her landlord was selling it. The woman, an artist, hoped to find alternative accommodation nearer a hospital, where she could be treated for what he says she described as an 'incurable bowel condition'.
Mr Amachree said: 'She was in despair. It was out of compassion that I said to her: 'Sometimes the doctors don't have all the answers'. I suggested she could put her faith in God.'
He insisted the woman had not been concerned by his comments, although she said religion had not worked for her. According to Mr Amachree, she then smiled, thanked him and left.
But on January 28 he was handed a two-page letter by the council's director of housing and told that he was being suspended. Mr Amachree is taking legal action against the council decision which he says effectively 'privatises' Christian faith and is against his human rights.
A spokesman for the Conservative-run council said: 'A serious allegation has been made which is being investigated as a disciplinary matter'. [Sunday Telegraph]
Monday, February 02, 2009
Nurse suspended for offering a prayer for a patient
Briefing. See also John Smeaton's post on this.
From CFnews: Caroline Petrie, from Weston-super-Mare, a committed Christian, has been suspended from her job for offering to pray for an elderly patient's recover, reports today's Sunday Telegraph. Mrs Petrie has been accused by her employers of failing to demonstrate a 'personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity'.
She faces disciplinary action and could lose her job over the incident. Mrs Petrie, a married mother of two, says she has been left shocked and upset by the action taken against her.
She insists she has never forced her own religious beliefs on anyone but politely inquired if the elderly patient wanted her to pray for her - either in the woman's presence or after the nurse had left the patient's home.
'I simply couldn't believe that I have been suspended over this. I knew I hadn't done anything wrong. All I am trying to do is help my patients, many of whom want me to pray for them,' she said.
Mrs Petrie, 45, is a community nurse employed by North Somerset Primary Care Trust to carry out home visits to sick and elderly patients. The incident which led to her suspension took place at the home of a woman patient in Winscombe, North Somerset.
'It was around lunchtime and I had spent about 20 to 25 minutes with her. I had applied dressings to her legs and shortly before I left I said to her: 'Would you like me to pray for you?'.
'She said 'No, thank you.' And I said: 'OK.' I only offered to pray for her because I was concerned about her welfare and wanted her to get better.'
However, after the incident on December 15, she was contacted by the trust and asked to explain her actions.
The woman patient, who is believed to be in her late 70s, is understood to have complained to the trust.
Mrs Petrie will not disclose the woman's name or reveal the precise nature of her ailment because it would breach patient confidentiality.
Mrs Petrie, who lives in Weston-super-Mare, North Somerset, said she was initially confronted the next day by a nursing sister who said the patient had been taken aback by her question about prayer.
'I said: 'I am sorry. Did I offend or upset her?' The sister said: 'No, no. She was just a bit taken back. You must be aware of your professional code of conduct. I would be careful.'
'But the next day my coordinator left a message on my home phone and I realised this had been taken further.'
Mrs Petrie said that she often offers to pray for her patients and that many take her up on it.
She either prays with them or after she has left their home. The nurse has been a committed Christian since she was ten - after her mother died of breast cancer.
Initially, she was Church of England but she switched to the Baptist faith nine years ago. 'My faith is very important to me,' she said.
Mrs Petrie had previously been reprimanded for an incident in Clevedon last October when she offered to give a small, home-made prayer card to an elderly, male patient, who had happily accepted it.
THE PRAYER CARD
Prayer of Salvation. Good News. John, Chapter 3 v16. 'For God so loved the world . . .' I am sorry for what I have done wrong in my life and I ask for forgiveness. Thank you for dying on the cross for me to set me free from my sins. Please come into my liufe and fill me with your Holy Spirit and be with me forever. Thank you Lord Jesus. Amen
On this occasion, the patient's carer, who was with him, raised concerns over the incident.
Alison Withers, Mrs Petrie's boss at the time, wrote to her at the end of November saying: 'As a nurse you are required to uphold the reputation of your profession.
'Your NMC [Nursing Midwifery Council] code states that 'you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity' and 'you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health'.'
In the letter, Mrs Petrie, who qualified as a nurse in 1985, was asked to attend an equality and diversity course and warned: 'If there is any further similar incident it may be treated as potential misconduct and the formal disciplinary procedure could be instigated.'
Mrs Petrie said: 'I stopped handing out prayer cards after that but I found it more and more difficult [not to offer them]. My concern is for the person as a whole, not just their health.
'I was told not to force my faith on anyone but I could respond if patients themselves brought up the subject [of religion].'
It is the second incident - the offer to pray for a patient - that led to the disciplinary action. She was suspended from her part-time job, without pay, on December 17.
She faced an internal disciplinary meeting last Wednesday and expects to learn the outcome this week.
At last week's hour-long meeting, Mrs Petrie says she was told the patient had said she was not offended by the prayer offer but the woman argued that someone else might have been.
The nurse had her representative from the Royal College of Nursing present Mrs Petrie's husband, Stewart, 48, works as a BT engineer and they have two sons, aged 14 and ten.
The couple attend Milton Baptist Church every Sunday and Mrs Petrie said: 'Stuart and I have decided to put God first in our lives.'
Mrs Petrie, who has worked for the trust since February last year, has already taken legal advice from the Christian Legal Centre, which seeks to promote religious freedom and, particularly, to protect Christians and Christianity.
The centre, in turn, has instructed Paul Diamond, the leading religious rights barrister. Andrea Williams, the founder and director of the centre, said: 'We are backing this case all the way.'
A spokesman for North Somerset Primary Care Trust said: 'Caroline Petrie has been suspended pending an investigation into the matter.
'She is a bank nurse and she has been told we will not be using her in this capacity until the outcome of our investigation is known.
'We always take any concerns raised by our patients most seriously and conscientiously investigate any matter of this nature brought to our attention. We are always keen to be respectful of our patients' views and sensitivity as well as those of our staff.' [Sunday Telegraph]
Friday, March 07, 2008
Lords vote to abolish blasphemy law
Action: please lobby MPs. For a recent example of what the law is supposed to prohibit, see the recent post of the obscene statue of Jesus.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: The House of Lords voted to abolish the common law blasphemy offences last night.
Baroness O’Caithan in a courageous and powerful speech argued for keeping the blasphemy laws and said that the “fundamental question is this: should we abolish Christian beliefs and replace them with secular beliefs?” Several Peers voiced concern about abolishing the blasphemy laws because of the deep symbolic nature of removing them and due to the signal this would send, possibly resulting in a drift towards secularism.
The move to repeal blasphemy was pushed through by the Government within a very limited time frame and with little or no consultation. Lord Kingsland QC added: "Christianity has been absolutely fundamental to the development of our constitutional freedoms and I worry a little that this is no longer understood in our society." The Government whipped the Labour vote but the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had a free vote. The amendment to repeal blasphemy was won by 148 to 87 votes.
The House of Commons has yet to vote on the matter.
(See previous post here.)
Friday, February 22, 2008
Anglican bishop: UK Govt imposing a new morality
Briefing. Note the bishop's sadness at the passing of 'benign secularism': having given up on the idea of having a Christian society, we can't complain if an alternative world view is adopted. The UK has got to be either Christian or, simply, something else.
From CFNews: Gordon Brown's government is like the seven-headed, 'demonic beast' of Revelation, bent on imposing its 'moral agenda' (which is opposed to 'longstanding Christian morality'), on British society, according to an Anglican bishop. The Labour government's policies, especially their support of the homosexual political agenda and the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill, are a move away from a benign secularism, said the Rt. Rev. Graham Dow, bishop of Carlisle.
Speaking at a meeting at the Church of England's General Synod on the release of the book, 'God, Gays and the Church', Bishop Dow said, 'I happen to believe that our government is moving into the realm of imposing its morality and it is therefore becoming a Revelation 13 government rather than a Romans 13 government.'
The bishop was citing St. Paul's letter to the Romans in which Christians are admonished to be good citizens and obey the lawful commands of the Romans. 'Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.'
But, Revelation 13, regarded by Christians as a prediction of the apocalypse and the end of the world, says, 'And I saw a beast coming up out the sea, having seven heads and ten horns: and upon his horns, ten diadems: and upon his heads, names of blasphemy.' Biblical commentators say that the seven heads of the beast are a metaphor for 'the whole company of infidels, enemies and persecutors of the people of God, from the beginning to the end of the world'.
The chapter goes on, 'And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name and his tabernacle and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.'
Bishop Dow called on those present to continue defending Christian doctrine. 'The challenge is to be brave and bolder than we have been, keeping the issue in the public domain, not falling into the trap of being aggressive. We will be called homophobic constantly.'
In a later statement, Bishop Dow said, 'By way of clarification I would want to say that the government has certainly been 'God's instrument for good' (Romans 13), for example in the promotion of the equality and in social inclusion, in its support for poorer nations and its emphasis on the environment.
'However in the last year or two it has been imposing its own moral agenda in a way that is contrary to longstanding Christian morality and the significant voice of Christian churches.'
In addition to the imposition of the homosexual doctrines on Britain, the bishop mentioned the Labour government's Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill and the refusal to allow Catholic adoption agencies to function according to their moral conscience.
He added, 'The underlying point is that I and many others are critical of the government's promotion of legislation about the structure of society and about lifestyles which has as its moral basis only that choice and complete licence are good.
'Further, when the government speaks and acts as if the only possible moral basis is that which it promotes, it is acting as if it is god. Hence the terms of my criticism of it.'
In his foreword to the book, 'God, Gays and the Church', Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, warned that the Church's integrity had been 'gravely undermined' by its acceptance of homosexuality and criticised the 'public advocating and vaunting of behaviour contrary to the teaching of the Church of England.'
The book, 'God, Gays and the Church' may be purchased online from the Latimer Trust at this website:
[LifeSiteNews] 1425.16
Friday, January 25, 2008
MPs take aim at Bishop of Lancaster
Update: praise for Bishop O'Donaghue from the Vatican: he groundbreaking education document 'Fit for Mission', produced by the Bishop of Lancaster has received further praise from the Vatican. The document had previously been praised by the Congregation for Clergy. It has now also been singled out by Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, as a "reliable resource for renewing the vitality of Catholic education in today's society". The cardinal commended Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue on behalf of the congregation for his "initiative and work done to strengthen the values inherent in the Catholic school". Cardinal Grocholewski highlighted the publication's "comprehensive" use of documents from the Holy See to support the Catholic ethos in schools on a diocesan level. The implementation of the Fit for Mission? Schools programme will be developed throughout Lancaster over the course of this year. The diocese's education centre will facilitate and co-ordinate further consultation and implementation of the action plan among primary and secondary schools, and colleges. The consultation will culminate in a diocesan conference in November 2008 to discuss the progress of the initiative over the year. Bishop O'Donoghue, currently on a pastoral visit to India at the invitation of the Syro-Malabar community, said: "I am absolutely delighted with the letter from Cardinal Grocholewski. "It is so encouraging to learn that Fit for Mission? Schools has been commended by the Congregation that has authority over all Catholic schools and colleges throughout the world." He added: "I see it as yet another sign that our efforts at Lancaster are moving in the right direction. "We are honestly trying to make our schools and parishes fit for mission - striving to communicate the Gospel with a freshness and energy to young and old." [Gabriel Communications]
Briefing 07/01/08. This quotation is very interesting:
The Observer quotes MP Barry Sheerman: 'A group of bishops appear to be taking a much firmer line and I think it would be useful to call representatives of the Catholic church in front of the committee to find out what is going on,' he said. 'It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith. But as soon as there is a more doctrinaire attitude questions have to be asked. It does become worrying when you get a new push from more fundamentalist bishops. This is taxpayers' money after all.'
This is aimed at Bishop O'Donoghue's call for properly Catholic schools. We have explained before the absurdity of the state complaining that Catholic schools use government money: the deal was to make the huge network of Catholic schools free at the point of delivery with government funds to extend free education. The schools are owned by the Church, and the Church continues to subsidise them, and it's a bit late for the state to complain about it.
But the real point here is that Sheerman and his friends want to enforce doctrinaire secularism in all schools before the Muslims get state schools of their own. He is not really worried about Catholic fundamentalists. He's desperate not to distinguish between one religion and another, so he's kicking the Church to ward off Islam.
The whole Observer article is here. More on the very positive reaction to Bishop O'Donoghue's initiative from Fr Finigan here.
Friday, January 18, 2008
James Macmillan: no more grovelling to secularism
Briefing: a very good article in this week's Catholic Herald by the composer James Macmillan. Big hat-tip to the New Liturgical Movement.
"It is not just in the liturgical sphere that we see a new impatience with the comfy laxness of the previous generation. For many years successful professional Christians have sought to ingratiate themselves with their liberal secular associates by playing down the parts of the Church’s teaching that caused most offence. Nevertheless there was more at stake here than just their incorporation into trendy sophisticated company.
Secular liberals have gladly gobbled up all these concessions and now want more – the complete obliteration of religion from public life. In the process liberal Christians have lost the respect of their secular peers. They gave no indication of intellectual rigour or ethical integrity in their eagerness to ditch bits and pieces of the faith. Their faith has been caught in a cruel light – their Christianity is bland, sentimental and anaemic.
History will look back unkindly on the generation of Vatican II Catholics who were handed such a precious pentecostal gift of grace – a unique opportunity to purify the Church, only to squander it disastrously. They bent over backwards to accommodate the zeitgeist, rather than open a generational heart to the Heilige Geist...
We can begin with the liturgy. Nothing signals the weakened state of the modern Church more than the contemporary practice of Catholic liturgy in hundreds of churches throughout the land. A breath of fresh air is wafting through St Peter’s, and in his own gentle way Pope Benedict is inviting the universal Church to taste the beauties and spiritual sustenance of true Catholic worship. I am convinced that from the liturgy everything else will flow."
Full article here (but only this week).
Friday, January 11, 2008
Challenge to Blasphemy law
Update: vote not held; government promises to review the law. The vote on whether to abolish the blasphemy law did not take place as Evan Harris MP, who tabled the clause, withdrew it. He did this because the Government stated it would consult with the Church of England on the matter and would be bringing forward legislation in due course. Although this means that for the time being the blasphemy law remains in place, it seems the Government do intend to abolish the law in the near future, after consultation with the Church of England.
There is much disagreement, even within the church, about the best response to the blasphemy laws. We believe it should be kept because Christianity has historically and constitutionally been the basis and bedrock of our nation and our laws. In respecting Christian principles this nation has been a society of freedom, fairness and true tolerance and justice. Freedom of speech is preserved in that the law does not prevent strident criticism or even attack of Christianity, but it does set in place certain standards of decency and respectful discourse with regard to how we talk about and portray God and Jesus. We believe that if the UK purposefully renounces God in this way there may be spiritual repercussions for society, with a further slip away from moral principle.
Briefing 09/01/08: we received this too late for action, but it is of interest. It is important to note, as Stephen Green does below, that the existing, traditional blasphemy laws do not purport to protect the sensitivities of human beings but to maintain respect for God, Our Lord, and the Bible. This is an idea that the secularists simply cannot understand.
From Christian Voice: Dr Evan Harris MP, an 'Honorary Associate' of the National Secular Society, is moving an amendment to the Criminal Justce and Immigration Bill tomorrow to abolish the laws against blasphemy and blasphemous libel. It is Amendment 143 to the Bill. We published all MP's email addresses in the November Christian Voice newsletter. If you cannot find it a poor imitation is on the Parliament website here.
Today a letter was published in the Daily Telegraph from more than a dozen campaigning atheists and, depressingly, two retired bishops, supporting Dr Harris. Richard Harries, the pro-gay, pro-divorce ex-bishop of Oxford I can understand, but *George Carey's *support of
the blasphemers is inexplicable. If I found myself in the company of those who detest everything I hold dear, I should ask if I was in the right club. See here.
*My Petition *to the House of Lords to appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court not to allow a prosecution in respect of Jerry Springer the Opera was lodged at the House last week, on 3rd January. This email gives me the opportunity to ask you to *pray for us to find
favour with the Appeals Committee*, who will decide whether or not we can appeal to the highest court in our land. May it please God to allow that appeal to go ahead.
Unsurprisingly, the author and director of Jerry Springer the Opera was
among the signatories of the Telegraph letter as were Philip Pullman and
Richard Dawkins. The attachment discloses the 'credentials' of the
signatories.
*Firstly*, you may like to tell your MP that it is wrong to say, as
the Telegraph letter does, that the blasphemy law 'purports to protect
beliefs'. 'His Dark Materials' and 'The God Delusion' have been
published, both criticising Christian beliefs, without falling foul
of it. In fact, the blasphemy law seeks primarily to maintain simple
respect for Almighty God, Jesus Christ and the Bible.
It is always the person of the Lord Jesus Christ who is the target of
blaspheming poets, playwrights and artists. This was true in the Gay
News poem (the most recent successful prosecution for blasphemy) it was
true in Jerry Springer the Opera, which is still in the courts, and it
is true in the latest case, Terence Koh's statue currently on display in
Gateshead.
*Secondly*, it is not the law against blasphemy which damages social
cohesion as the signatories contend, it is the lack of any civilised
standards of decency, restraint, respect and consideration in the world
of the arts. What the Telegraph's correspondents call 'freedom of
expression' the rest of us too often have to describe as obscene,
blasphemous, offensive, inhuman, pornographic, degrading or just plain
crass.
*Thirdly, *it is true that the law against blasphemy discriminates in
favour of Christianity. That is because historically, culturally and
constitutionally, the United Kingdom is a Christian country, as
Professor Dawkins himself conceded only last month.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm - but he's wrong to
say the pressure to de-Christianise is coming from other faiths not
secularists. The truth is the precise opposite.) There can be no
expectation from the followers of other faiths that their religions will
be protected. The attempt to prosecute Salman Rushdie under the
blasphemy laws failed, inevitably and rightly so.
That being said, the existence of the blasphemy law should engender a
proper *respect for the sacred *and so provide an umbrella of protection
for the deeply-held religious beliefs of others. Respect for others
comes, as Jesus Christ (Luke 18:2) said in His parable of the unjust
judge, from respect for God. God may not need the protection of such a
law, but the social fabric of our society clearly does. And the
recognition that God 'can take care of Himself' should fill us with holy
fear, not the desire to humiliate His name.
*Lastly*, the Law Commission cited by the correspondents is not an
impartial commentator, and nor is the blasphemy law in breach of human
rights law. The European Court of Human Rights has actually held the
complete opposite in the Wingrove and Preminger cases. As to whether
anyone will be convicted, I suggest we wait and see.
As the *Bishop of Rochester *said at the weekend, we need to affirm the
Christian roots of British society. It is precisely the spiritual
weakness of secularism with its multiculturalist (for which read
anti-Christian) philosophy which has opened the door to Muslim ambition
to turn this country, slowly but relentlessly, into an Islamic state.
Only Christianity has the spiritual muscle to resist such a force, but
we need to start standing up for Christianity, for God, Jesus Christ and
the Bible, before it becomes illegal to do so.
Yours in His mighty name*,*
*Stephen Green, *National Director, Christian Voice
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Christina Odone silenced for pointing out persecution of Christians
Update: Christina Odone writes about it herself here. She argues that intolerance towards Christians could easily become intolerance towards other groups. How long before the hatred of religion shown by the British political elite is extended, as logic demands, towards Judaism and Islam?
Action (29/11/07): complaints to the Director General of the Royal Commonwealth Society, Stuart Mole, please: stuart.mole@rcsint.org
Comment: the supreme irony: an invitation to Christina Odone to speak at a 'carol service' in a 'political and controversial' way was withdrawn when it emerged she planned to talk about the way Chritians are silenced in the UK.
See the news report here; hat-tip to Damian Thompson.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
National Secular Socety: critique of Catholic Schools
Discussion: this continues a discussion from 'Catholic Mom of 10'.
Hullo, Zeno, a latecomer to this discussion I don't think anyone has addressed your central point (at least to your satisfaction): why should the state allow itself to get involved financially with schools founded to promote a particular set of beliefs and values?
The historical answer: the state wanted to ensure free education for all, at a time when free or very low cost education was already being provided for the great majority by various charitable and church establishments. It would have been absurd to found new shcools and close all the old ones down, so they did a deal: the existing schools got state funding if they agreed not to charge the pupils. So this great array of grammar schools, charitable schools and church schools carried on teaching, you might say as subcontractors for the government. But they remained independent institutions, and when the government decided to prevent the Grammar Schools - some dating back to the 16th C - from selecting by academic criteria, in the 1960s, some left the 'maintained' sector, and became, once more, 'independent'. The exact terms of the agreement have varied over time, and perhaps they are different in England and Scotland, but the details aren't important.
So the Government still has this problem: they can't be too rough with the Church schools becasue they'll lose them. Those of us who think it was a Faustian bargain in the first place might regard that prospect with pleasure, and perhaps Zeno and I would agree on that. But the bargain had obvious advantages for both the state and the Churches at the time.
But that's not the fundamental thing. The matter of principle here is whether it makes sense for the Government to spend taxpayers' money on schools with a specific ethos. The main answer to that is that it is impossible to avoid doing so. There is no school with no 'ethos'; there are no value-free schools. Education itself is a value, and each subject has to be taught from some point of view or other. At the moment the government is tying to force the most dreary politically correct brainwashing on pupils: every Shakespeare play is an idictment of some kind of oppression; French is all about the evils of racism; Geography is loaded with critiques of capitalism and development theories. But while I'm sure we can agree that this ham-fisted stuff is contrary to values of the love of learning and truth which should be at the heart of education, as I say no presentation of Shakespeare, or Geography, or French history and culture, can avoid taking a view about values.
And that is the fundamental problem with the NSS agenda: it is incoherent. When the NSS's oponents say they don't want their children indoctrinated with secularism as a substitute religion, this is why: because a school which avoids religious values will be based on some kind of alternative values. It has to be. Simple as that.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
European threat to Catholics' free speech
Briefing. This story puts together the German courts' sentencing of a Lutheran minister to a year in prison for inflamatory speach against abortion (ie comparing it to the holocaust), and efforts at the Council of Europe to create a Europe-wide ban on the teaching of alternatives to 'orthodox' Darwinism, namely creationism and 'intelligent design' (which are, incidentally, quite distinct theories). The justification for the Coucil of Europe's concern is not that those theories are mistaken, but that they are linked to Christian extremism, which could lead to a theocratic, anti-democratic revolution. The degree of paranoia which this last claim implies is simply staggering. It seems, however, that even while militant Islam poses an increasingly serious challenge to liberal values, it is the Christians who are to bear the brunt of any anti-religious crack-down.
Notice also the use of supra-national institutions to push the secularist agenda. None of the officials at the meeting of the Coucil of Europe will have to explain himself to voters, most of whom won't even hear of the meeting.
From CFNews: Paul Belien, in the Brussels Journal of June 25, 2007, writes : 'Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for volksverhetzung' (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe's official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are 'undemocratic' and 'a threat to human rights.'
Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 -- which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany. Pastor Johannes Lerle compared the killing of the unborn to the killing of the Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World War. On 14 June, a court in Erlangen ruled that, in doing so, the pastor had 'incited the people' because his statement was a denial of the holocaust of the Jews in Nazi-Germany. Hence, Herr Lerle was sentenced to one year in jail. Earlier, he had already spent eight months in jail for calling abortionists 'professional killers' -- an allegation which the court ruled to be slanderous because, according to the court, the unborn are not humans.
Other German courts convicted pro-lifers for saying that 'in abortion clinics, life unworthy of living is being killed,' because this terminology evoked Hitler's euthanasia program, which used the same language. In 2005, a German pro-lifer, Gunter Annen, was sentenced to 50 days in jail for saying 'Stop unjust [rechtswidrige] abortions in [medical] practice,' because, according to the court, the expression 'unjust' is understood by laymen as meaning illegal, which abortions are not.
Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate homeschoolers. Soon, the German authorities will be able to use the same charge against people who question Darwin's evolution theory.
Indeed, next Tuesday, the Council of Europe (CoE), Europe's main human-rights body, will vote on a proposal which advocates the fight against creationism, 'young earth' and 'intelligent design' in its 47 member states.
According to a report of the CoE's Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous 'religious fundamentalists' who propagate 'forms of religious extremism' and 'could become a threat to human rights.' The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism 'is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.'
'Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon,' the report says.
'Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states. [T]his is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy. [...] If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists.'
According to the CoE report, America and Australia are already on their way towards becoming such undemocratic theocracies where human and civic rights are endangered. Creationism is 'well-developed in the English-speaking countries, especially the United States and Australia,' the report states.
'While most curricula in Europe today unashamedly teach evolution as a recognised scientific theory, the same does not apply to the United States. In July 2005, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll that showed that 64% of Americans favoured the teaching of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution and that 38% would support the total abandonment of the teaching of evolution in publicly owned schools. The American President George W. Bush supports the principle of teaching both intelligent design and the theory of evolution. At the moment, 20 of the 50 American states are facing potential adjustments of their school curricula in favour of intelligent design. Many people think that this phenomenon only affects the United States and that, even if it is not possible to be indifferent to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, it is not the Council of Europe's role to deal with this issue. That, however, is not the case. On the contrary, it would seem crucial for us to take the appropriate precautions in our 47 member states.'
Though one may disagree with people who take the Book of Genesis literally (believing that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh), surely secularist political organizations telling people what they may or may not believe, constitute a far greater threat to human rights than religious institutions telling their faithful how to vote. In the voting booth people are free to do what they like, whilst in contemporary Europe people are no longer free to publicly voice their own, deeply felt opinions in public.
In Germany, believing abortion to be as murderous as the holocaust is a crime, and educating your own children is a crime too. In France, saying that 'homosexual behaviour endangers the survival of humanity' is a crime, and so is the distribution of pork soup to the poor. In Belgium, speaking out against immigration is a crime.
In the latest issue of the Dutch conservative magazine Bitter Lemon the Dutch author Erik van Goor writes that European courts are silencing conservative and orthodox citizens. Freedom of speech no longer exist, says van Goor.
'While many in the West still idolize the second-hand fighters for free speech, such as [Ayaan] Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh, the true victims of curtailment are deliberately kept under wraps. Hirsi Ali, [Pim] Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were not curtailed by the state or by court, Johannes Lerle is. The former voiced mere opinions -- expressions of a public opinion which one may or may not value or believe. The latter -- Dr Lerle -- shows that what is at stake is not merely opinions, but a moral order which is being questioned; a reality of life and death which is at risk.'
Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn and van Gogh did not defend Europe's traditional Christian moral order. People such as Johannes Lerle and Christian Vanneste, the French parliamentarian who was convicted for 'homophobia,' do. The latter are being persecuted by Western Europe's political regimes -- a phenomenon which is ignored completely by the Western mainstream media, who participate in the persecution.
[Paul Belien is the editor of the Flemish quarterly Secessie and the editor-in-chief of The Brussels Journal. He is a columnist at the Flemish weekly Pallieterke and at the Flemish monthly Doorbraak and a regular contributor to the Flemish conservative monthly Nucleus, which he co-founded in 1990. Paul can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com ]
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
National Secular Socety: Catholic Stereotyping?
Briefing: The NSS, a group of militant secularists, is accusing a fellow Catholic blogger of 'liv[ing] up to every stereotype imaginable – and then some'. Quite a compliment, really. It is worth noting that the opponents of Orthodox Catholicism cannot match the internet presence of its defenders, and their attempts to ask awkward questions on the blog in question, 'Catholic Mom of 10', have proved to be a damp squib.
Hat-tip to Hermeneutic of Continuity, where there is more commentary.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Benedict XVI: without Christian values, Europe will collapse
Background briefing: this the Pope's message in his new document, 'That Europe may again be "leaven for the world“'
Full text follows.
Esteemed cardinals,
venerated brothers in the episcopacy,
honorable parliamentarians,
dear ladies and gentlemen!
I am particularly happy to receive so many of you in this audience, which is
taking place on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the
Treaty of Rome on March 25, 1957. This event marked an important step for
Europe, which had emerged exhausted from the second world war and wanted to
build a future of peace and of greater economic and social well-being, without
dissolving or denying the different national identities. I greet Adrianus
Herman van Luyn, bishop of Rotterdam, president of the Commission for the
Episcopates of the European Community, and I thank him for the gracious words
that he has addressed to me. I greet the other prelates, the distinguished
personalities, and those taking part in the conference sponsored in these days
by COMECE to reflect upon Europe.
Since March of fifty years ago, this Continent has taken a long journey that has
led to the reconciliation of the two “lungs” – the East and the West – bound by
a common history, but arbitrarily separated by a curtain of injustice. Economic
integration has stimulated these political developments and has fostered the
search, still underway with great effort, for an appropriate institutional
structure for a European Union that, by this point, numbers 27 countries and
aspires to become a global actor in the world.
In recent years it has become increasingly clear that there is a need to
establish a healthy balance between the economic and social dimensions, through
policies capable of producing wealth and increasing competition without
overlooking the legitimate expectations of the poor and marginalized.
Under the aspect of demography, one must unfortunately note that Europe seems to
be traveling along a road that could lead to its disappearance from history.
Apart from putting economic growth at risk, this can also cause enormous
difficulties for social cohesion, and above all it can foster a dangerous
individualism heedless of future consequences. One can almost think that the
European Continent is, in fact, losing trust in its own future.
Furthermore, concerning the examples of respect for the environment or of
orderly access to resources and energy investments, solidarity is incentivized
with great effort, not only on an international scale but also on a strictly
national one. It is seen that the very process of European unification is not
shared by all, because of the widespread impression that various “chapters” of
the European project have been “written” without adequately keeping in mind the
expectations of the citizens.
It clearly emerges from all this that one cannot think of building an authentic
“common European home” while overlooking the very identity of the peoples of
our Continent.
This is, in fact, an historical, cultural, and moral identity before being
geographical, economic, or political; an identity constituted by a collection
of universal values that Christianity has contributed to forging, thereby
acquiring a role that is not only historical, but also foundational in relation
to Europe.
These values, which constitute the soul of the Continent, must remain in the
Europe of the third millennium as a “ferment” of civilization. In fact, if
these were to be diminished, how could the “old” Continent continue to carry
our the function of being “leaven” for the entire world? If, on the occasion of
the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the governments of the Union wish
to “get closer” to their citizens, how could they exclude an element of
European identity as essential as Christianity is, and with which the vast
majority of them still identify themselves? Is it not a cause for surprise that
today’s Europe, while striving to position itself as a community of values,
seems more often to contest the idea that there are universal and absolute
values? Does not this remarkable form of “apostasy” from itself, even before
[apostasy] from God, perhaps induce it to doubt its very identity?
This ends in the spread of the conviction that the “weighing of benefits” is the
only method of moral discernment, and that the common good is synonymous with
compromise. In reality, if compromise can constitute a legitimate balancing of
different particular interests, it becomes a shared ill whenever it involves
agreements that are harmful to the nature of man.
A community that constructs itself without respect for the authentic dignity of
the human person, forgetting that every person is created in the image of God,
ends up by not being good for anyone.
This is why it appears increasingly more indispensable that Europe should guard
itself against that pragmatic attitude, widespread today, which systematically
justifies compromise on essential human values, as if the acceptance of a
presumably lesser evil were inevitable. Such pragmatism, which is presented as
balanced and realistic, is not that way deep down, precisely because it denies
the dimension of values and ideas that is inherent in human nature.
When, later, secularist and relativist tendencies and currents are woven into
this sort of pragmatism, Christians are in the end denied the right to
intervene as Christians in public debate, or at the very least their
contribution is disqualified with the accusation that they want to safeguard
unjustified privileges.
In the present historical moment and in the face of the many challenges that
mark it, the European Union, in order to be a valid guarantor of the order of
law and an effective promoter of universal values, cannot help but acknowledge
clearly the certain existence of a stable and permanent human nature, the
source of rights common to all individuals, including those who deny them. In
this context, the right to conscientious objection must be safeguarded whenever
fundamental human rights may be violated.
Dear friends, I know how difficult it is for Christians to make a strenuous
defense of this truth of man. But do not grow weary, and do not be discouraged!
You know that it is your task to contribute to building up, with the help of
God, a new Europe - one realistic but not cynical, rich in ideals and free from
naïve illusions, inspired by the perennial and life-giving truth of the Gospel.
So then, be present in an active way in the public debate on the European level,
aware that this is now an integral part of the national debate, and accompany
this effort with effective cultural action. Do not bow to the logic of power as
an end in itself! May you draw constant motivation and support from the
admonition of Christ: if salt loses its flavor, it is good for nothing but to
be thrown out and trampled underfoot (cf. Mt. 5:13). May the Lord bring
fruitfulness to all of your efforts, and help you to recognize and value the
positive elements present in today’s civilization, while still denouncing
courageously everything that is contrary to the dignity of man.
I am certain that God will not fail to bless the generous effort of those who,
in a spirit of service, work to build a common European home in which every
cultural, social, and political contribution is ordered toward the common good.
I express my support to you, who are already involved in various ways in this
important human and evangelical undertaking, and I address to you my most
lively encouragement. Above all, I assure you that I will remember you in
prayer, and, invoking the maternal protection of Mary, mother of the incarnate
Word, I wholeheartedly impart to you and to your families and communities my
affectionate blessing.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Haringey Council threatens Christian charity
Background briefing.
From CFNews. Gosia Shannon, the organiser of a Family Centre for Eastern European migrants who have settled in London, was told last month by Haringey Council that unless the Centre agreed to renounce all expression of Christianity from the voluntary services they provided, they would lose the vital funding they received from the local authority. In one of the letters from the Council, it was said 'We expect all our services to be inclusive and without religious content, so I was concerned to learn that Gosia leads the singing of songs about loving Jesus in every session. I asked Gosia to leave this song out in future but she is still refusing to do so.' This response came after the Family Centre sought to change its name from 'The Polish Drop-In Centre' to 'The Polish and Eastern European Christian Family Centre'.
Reacting to the use of the word 'Christian' in the name of the organisation, Haringey Council explained that this could damage the funding that was currently provided. Gosia, motivated by her Christian faith, set up the voluntary centre, including mother and toddler groups, in order to help and meet the needs of Eastern European migrants as they sought to integrate and settle into life in London. Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Officer at the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship comments 'The scenario highlights one of the main threats posed by the Government's controversial Sexual Orientation Regulations. If the Regulations come into force unamended, they will require all local authorities to withdraw funding from Christian voluntary organisations, if those organisations wish to espouse the Biblical position on sex outside of heterosexual marriage' Gosia's family centre had sought to explain to Council officials that 'we welcome gay people but will not promote gay values' Thomas Cordrey, Public Policy Analyst at the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, commented 'The dedicated voluntary work done by thousands of Christians across Britain is jeopardised by these Regulations. The losers will be the most vulnerable, lonely and isolated people in society who currently benefit from Christian voluntary work. If the Government press ahead with these Regulations, no Christian organisation in receipt of public funding will be able to refuse to promote or assist homosexual practice.' Mr Cordrey continued 'The issue is broader than sexual orientation. These Regulations deny the ability of Christian organisations to hold to basic truths in the Bible that we should not promote or assist conduct which God says is wrong. Christians must continue to insist that the Government alter their stance so that Christian organisations can continue to receive public funding for the work they do, as well as adhere to the Bible's teaching'. [Lawyers Christian Fellowship]
As the shadows of legislation such as the Sexual Orientation Regulations begin to fall upon us, CF NEWS asked for a comment from Haringey Council on whether public prayer is a consideration when giving a judgement on funding, but is still waiting for a response.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Muslims attack secularisation of Christmas
Current status: Local action as necessary. Readers may like to quote this when confronting officialdom. The existence of non-Christian religious groups in the UK is being used as an excuse for many anti-Christian policies, but it is a bad one. For some commentary on the Christmas stamp issue, see here.
From the Telegraph: Leave Christmas alone, say Muslims
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
Muslim leaders joined their Christian counterparts yesterday to launch a powerful attack on politicians and town halls that play down Christmas.
They warned that attempts to remove religion from the festival were fuelling Right-wing extremism.
A number of town halls have tried to excise references to Christianity from Christmas, in one case by renaming their municipal celebrations "Winterval". They have often justified their actions by saying Britain is now a multi-faith society and they are anxious to avoid offending minority groups. But the Muslim leaders said they honoured Christmas and that local authorities were playing into the hands of extremists who were able to blame Muslim communities for undermining Britain's Christian culture.
The unprecedented broadside was delivered by the Christian Muslim Forum, which was launched this year by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, with the support of Tony Blair. The forum's reaction reflects growing anger among Christians and other faiths about the efforts of secularists to push religion to the margins of public life. In 1998 Birmingham renamed its celebrations "Winterval", and in 2001 Luton described its Christmas lights as "luminos", taken from Harry Potter. Last week, the Church of England criticised Royal Mail for issuing Christmas stamps with no Christian theme.
The forum, which draws half its membership from senior members of the Muslim community, said in a statement that "as Muslims and Christians together" it was "wholeheartedly committed" to the religious recognition of Christian festivals." Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Jesus and we wish this significant part of the Christian heritage of this country to remain an acknowledged part of national life." The desire to secularise religious festivals is offensive to both of our communities." The statement, signed by the forum's chairman, the Bishop of Bolton, the Rt Rev David Gillett, and its vice-chairman, Dr Ataullah Siddiqui, urged society to promote religious freedom. "Those who use the fact of religious pluralism as an excuse to de-Christianise British society unthinkingly become recruiting agents for the extreme Right. They provoke antagonism towards Muslims and others by foisting on them an anti-Christian agenda they do not hold."
Bishop Gillett said in a separate article that it was strange that so many public bodies were nervous or dismissive about Christmas when 72 per cent of Britons described themselves as Christian in the 2001 Census.Any repetition by councils to rename Christmas so as not to offend other faith communities will "backfire badly" on the Muslim community, he said. "Sadly it is they who get the blame — and for something they are not saying."
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
BBC admits bias
Background briefing. See also update.
Update: The Vatican has decided to 'filter' requests from the BBC in the light of the Sex Crimes and the Vatican programme. The Catholic Herald reports that 'all future requests from the BBC and independent television companies for Vatican press accreditation will now be scrutinised carefully.' Withholding press accreditation is one of the few ways in which the Vatican can directly punish specific journalists and organisations.
BBC claims the leaked 'Impartiality Seminar' was intended to be public, and was broadcast on the web. Can we see it again, then, Sue Lawley?
The BBC's new Robin Hood series leaves out Friar Tuck and refers to Maid Marian simply as 'Marian'. The BBC's Christianophobia strikes again.
Thanks to Valle Adurni for the reference to this story.
Key quote: '[At an 'impartiality' summit] executives were given a fictitious scenario in which they were asked to make a judgment. In the illustration, Jewish comedian Sasha Baron Cohen would participate in a studio program in which guests were allowed to symbolically throw in a garbage bin things they hated. What would you do, the executives were asked, if Cohen decided to throw kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bible and the Quran in the trash. Everything would be allowed, the executives said, except for the Quran, for fear of offending the British Muslim community.'
For the full story, see here for a US source, here for the Daily Mail.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Anglican attack on 'Multi-faith' policies
Current status: background briefing.
The Church of England has launched an astonishing attack on the Government's drive to turn Britain into a multi-faith society. In a wide-ranging condemnation of policy, it says that the attempt to make minority 'faith' communities more integrated has backfired, leaving society 'more separated than ever before'. The criticisms are made in a confidential Church document, leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, that challenges the 'widespread description' of Britain as a multi-faith society and even calls for the term 'multi-faith' to be reconsidered. The document, Cohesion and Integration - a Briefing Note for the House (of Bishops), claims that divisions between communities have been deepened by the Government's 'schizophrenic' approach to tackling multiculturalism. While trying to encourage interfaith relations, it has actually given 'privileged attention' to the Islamic faith and Muslim communities. Written by Guy Wilkinson, the interfaith adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, the paper says that the Church of England has been sidelined. Instead, 'preferential' treatment has been afforded to the Muslim community despite the fact that it makes up only three per cent of the population. Britain remains overwhelmingly a Christian country at heart and moves to label it as a multi-faith society suggest a hidden agenda, it says. [Sunday Telegraph]
For the full text of the Sunday Telegraph article, see here.