Tag: Christianity

Norwich Reform Church banned from meeting and from their own market stall by Norwich Council for “hate”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A BBC East report from yesterday (16/4/12):

Norwich Reformed Church banned for Islam ‘hate’ leaflet

A church has been banned from holding a weekly bookstall in Norwich following a complaint it was producing “hate-motivated” literature against Islam.

The Norwich Reformed Church held the stall on the city’s Hay Hill, which is owned by Norwich City Council.

The council has stopped the church using the site for equality reasons.

Pastor Alan Clifford said the church would appeal in the hope “the council will see sense and see how they are violating our freedom of speech”.

Mr Clifford wrote the leaflet, Why Not Islam, about 10 years ago. The church has been distributing the literature from Hay Hill since 2008.

‘High and mighty’

He said: “Our first response was one of surprise.

“We felt this a violation of freedom of speech and I was accused of hate motivation in producing this leaflet.

“It’s an intolerance from the city council acting in a high and mighty manner as we’ve had it confirmed by Norfolk Police – who’ve inspected the document – there is no crime involved.”

Masoud Gadir, Muslim chaplain at University of East Anglia and president of Norwich and Norfolk Muslim Association, said: “When you look at the leaflet it brings in hatred and scaremongers as to what Islam is.

“God has given us the mind and brain to think – not to follow any religion blindly.”

The Norwich Reformed Church, associated with the Farthing Trust, received notice from the council on 5 April that it would no longer be able to do outreach work on Hay Hill.

The authority has also advised the council-owned Eaton Park Community Centre not to take any further bookings from the church, which has used the centre as a place of worship since 1994.

A council spokesman said: “We received a complaint from a member of the public about material published by the Norwich Reformed Church which uses council facilities.

“This was considered to be hate motivated.”

The spokesman added that the police advised that no criminal offence had been committed, but the council had a “duty to foster good relations between people of all backgrounds and religions”.

The Farthing Trust is appealing against what it describes as the city council’s “dramatic action”.

The Norwich Evening News also have the story.

More details are accessible, courtesy of Max Farquar.  The leaflet was HERE in PDF form, but has sadly vanished.  The story is also mentioned here at the Happy Propagandist blog, who comments:

Unfortunately, [the law in question] is extremely vague and the criteria for breaking the law are entirely subjective. We all know some people who are taken aback by even the most minor of grievances.  This law also allows individuals or groups with ulterior agendas to target freedom of speech, at will. Consequently, the law needs to get a grip on the difference between ‘inciting religious hatred’ and simply voicing innocuous opinions, which we are all entitled to do (just about).  It also needs to define what ‘grossly offensive’ means.  I was of the opinion that one of the great things about a liberal society is that one does not have the right to ‘not be offended’.

It seems that the church have contacted the Christian Institute, and are taking legal advice.

Now I know that bookstall personally, because I pass it every time I visit Norwich.  It’s a tiny little table, with a little hut built around it, about 6 foot long in its largest dimension.  It’s unobtrusive, and innocuous in every way, as is the literature on it.  Yet, apparently, the council — paid for by the taxes of church members — can ban the stall, expel the church from a building paid for by taxpayers, even though no crime has been committed.

It is useless to complain that the council officials — nameless, of course — have acted in this manner.  Rather, a legal climate has been created in which those officials are afraid NOT to censor in this way.  I only learned of this case by accident.  Yet up and down the country, liberty is being interfered with, routinely, deliberately, without malice.  This is what comes of evil laws and bad government.

I would suggest that younger church members organise a sit-in at the next council meeting, notifying the local TV just before they do, and appear on TV being dragged out by the police or security.  Protest visibly, chaps.  It’s the only way.

Share

Why imposters love the church

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An excellent article here.

Share

Michael Bordeaux, Faith on Trial in Russia

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Back in the summer I noticed that there was very little material online about the Soviet persecution of the Christians.  This saddened me, since it was something that should not be forgotten.

Keston College, which sought to publicize the situation in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, has disbanded but the Keston Institute still exists.  I was able to correspond with Michael Bordeaux, who founded Keston, and obtain permission to put a couple of his books online.  I created a PDF of one, and enquired if it might be hosted here or there — my site isn’t the best place for such — but in vain.  Then pressures of work forced me to lay the matter aside.

Today I have been running “Faith on Trial in Russia”[1] through my scanner.  The pages are yellowed, and the paperback spine is stiff, although thankfully the glue warmed and became flexible as I worked.  It is, neverthless, a risky business scanning a paperback of that period.

The book deals with the sufferings of the Russian baptists, and is an interesting and involving read.  Unlike some such books, it is not a depressing read.

What I think that I will do, is to create a page on my site, and also to OCR the book so that the search engines can find it easily.  It’s pure gold, from a historical point of view.

UPDATE: I’ve now scanned the book, and also his 1983 publication, Risen Indeed.  They’re both here.

Share
  1. [1]Michael Bordeaux, Faith on Trial in Russia, Hodder and Stoughton, 1971.↩

Atheists in Santa Monica hijack nativity displays

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Atheists often complain that they are not a popular group, that they are misrepresented and so forth.  In Santa Monica they’ve managed to give a whole city a reason to hate their guts.  (h/t Mark Steyn).  This from the Daily Telegraph:

For more than six decades, religious groups have recreated life-size scenes   depicting the birth of Jesus, alongside statues of the Virgin Mary and the   three wise men, on the city’s cliff top promenade.

But this year the traditional tableau in Palisades Park was replaced with a   battleground on religion.

Instead of Jesus being rocked softy in a manger, passers-by were greeted with   images of Satan, Father Christmas  and Jesus with the strap line: “37 million Americans know a myth when   they see one… What myths do you see?”

Fifteen of the boxes were simply left empty with a security fence surrounding   them.

Councillors were forced to pool requests for the spaces in a lottery this year  after atheist groups objected to the traditional use of the displays.

By a quirk of fate, the atheists won 18 of the 21 available display areas. A   Jewish group won the other spots. …

Bobbie Kirkhart, of Atheists United, said their use of the boxes was  simply levelling the playing field.

“For many years, atheists were excluded from city-subsidised displays,” he said. “Now, finally, atheists have an equal chance. Christians who   believe their god is concerned about such things might take note of the extraordinary luck the atheist lottery winners have enjoyed.”

Yes, I’m sure we all know precisely how much luck is involved in “winning” 18 out of 21 display slots.  Kirkhart apparently was allocated 9 “slots” by the city.

The LA Times has more details.  It seems that the “slots” were really an organised display of the nativity scene, in 14 sections, from the annunciation, the manger, the flight into Egypt, and so forth.  The whole thing was put together by a united effort by local churches.

The same article features a selection of comments by various atheists:

Patrick Elliott, a lawyer for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said tradition is no excuse for violating the boundaries between church and state. “Just because they’re long-standing doesn’t mean they’re right,” he said.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said December is a busy time for the organization’s attorneys, who challenge the use of public spaces for religious messages.

“It’s littering — literally, littering — these spaces,” Gaylor said of such displays, which she said are a “territorial attempt by Christians to impose their beliefs in this season.”

“That creates an atmosphere of intimidation,” said Gaylor, who noted that the organization’s banner was destroyed by vandals after being hung in Palisades Park. “Christians are the insiders, and everyone else is an outsider.”

In Santa Monica, atheist Damon Vix called national organizations seeking help because he felt marginalized by the display, and tradition alone didn’t merit saving it. Vix, a 43-year-old prop maker from Burbank, said the display “defines Santa Monica as a Christian city, and I feel very excluded by that.”

Vix, apparently, is the other one whom the city officials considered was the best possible person to award nine slots to.

The Independent also covers the story, although I have yet to see the BBC mention it.  Nor have I yet seen an apology from the city of Santa Monica.

Mark Steyn comments dryly:

Perhaps Santa Monica should adopt a less-theocratic moniker and change its name to Satan Monica, as its interpretation of the separation of church and state seems to have evolved into expressions of public contempt for large numbers of the citizenry augmented by the traumatizing of their children. Boy, I can’t wait to see what those courageous atheists come up with for Ramadan.

I have a feeling that it will be a long, cold, hard winter before the city of Santa Monica listens to atheist groups ever again.

Share

An example of why abolishing AD and BC causes problems

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A report in the Daily Mail at the weekend highlighted a fresh stage in the step-by-step campaign by the establishment to replace AD and BC with the Jewish-originated CE and BCE. 

The BBC’s religious and ethics department says the changes are necessary to avoid offending non-Christians.

It states: ‘As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians.

In line with modern practice, BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD.’

The report has been attacked for being “untrue”, although the authenticity of the statement does not appear to be in dispute.  Nor is the creeping introduction of this novelty denied either — indeed it has been apparent to most of us for years.  The attacks, therefore, are merely an attempt to quiet media criticism.

But today I came across an example of how this nonsense is causing confusion.

In  Laina Farhat-Holzman, Strange Birds from Zoroaster’s Nest: An Overview of Revealed Religions, (2003), p.201, there is a summary of Mary Boyce’s discussion of Zoroastrian sources.  In this I read:

None of this [the Zoroastrian scripture] was committed to writing until the Avestan alphabet was designed for this purpose in the 5th century B.C.

Fortunately I had just been reading a useful book on modern research on Zoroastrianism, and this felt wrong.  And I found Mary Boyce, Textual Sources for the study of Zoroastrianism, University of Chicago Press (1990) p.1, which stated:

All their religious works were handed down orally: it was not until probably the fifth century A.C. that they were at last committed to writing, in the ‘Avestan’ alphabet, especially invented for the purpose.

Had Dr Boyce stuck to AD and BC, this error could hardly have arisen.  Thank you, University of Chicago Press, for causing an unnecessary confusion.

Share

Christianity — the only belief you can censor?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My attention was drawn by eChurch blog to a rather worrying report, on the threat of anti-Christian censorship on new media platforms.  The report on Internet censorship is by the  National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and the American Center for Law and Justice and is entitled: An Examination of the Threat of Anti-Christian Censorship and Other Viewpoint Discrimination on New Media Platforms.  The report is a sober, and rather worrying document.

The report is US-based, but a major example happened in the UK.  I excerpt some key findings:

Apple has twice removed applications that contained Christian content from its iTunes App Store. In both instances, Apple admitted that these apps were denied access because it considered the orthodox Christian viewpoints expressed in those applications to be “offensive.” One app had expressed the traditional, heterosexual view of marriage as set forth in the Bible; the other had stated the view that homosexuality is inappropriate conduct that can be changed through a Christ-centered spiritual transformation. Of the 425,000 apps available on Apple’s iPhone, the only ones censored by Apple for expressing otherwise lawful viewpoints have been apps with Christian content.

The search engine giant Google has committed past practices of anti-religious censorship. For content reasons, it refused to accept a pro-life advertisement from a Christian organization, an issue that prompted litigation in England. Google is also alleged to have blocked a website in America that had conservative Christian content. It had blacklisted certain religious terminology on its China-based Internet service, and in the United States it bowed to questionable copyright infringement threats from one religious sect, which had complained when a blog site criticizing it had quoted from the sect’s materials. Google blocked that blog site on alleged copyright violation grounds, disregarding the obvious “fair use” provisions of copyright law. Such a practice could block the ability of Christian “apologetics” ministries to quote from primary source materials when using Google platforms to educate the public on the teachings of certain religious groups. Also, in March of 2011, Google established new guidelines for its “Google for Non-Profits,” a special web tool program, but specifically excluded churches and other faith groups, including organizations that take into consideration religion or sexual orientation in hiring practices.

Facebook has partnered with gay rights advocates to halt content on its social networking site deemed to be “anti-homosexual,” and it is participating in gay-awareness programs, all of which suggest that Christian content critical of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, or similar practices will be at risk of censorship.

The underlying attitude of those in power in our days is mildly but profoundly hostile to Christianity.  It has been made socially acceptable to say almost anything about Christians, however negative or unfair; and socially unacceptable and risky to object to it.   The general urge towards censorship in our days will impact Christians badly, therefore.

Share

How giving a beating has replaced discussion online

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The internet has always been a rough place.  People feel anonymous, and feel able to behave in ways that they would not dream of doing offline.  Because it’s “only words”, people used to think that it didn’t matter.  Accidental rudeness is easy online, where there is no body language.  But as long as the internet has existed, the practice of “trolling” has left behind some very upset and hurt people. 

There has always been malice online; but more commonly those online were generally from the same background, generally with a certain degree of civilised upbringing.  The really nasty, cold, deliberate, calculated attacks, designed and intended to cause pain to the victim, were a rarity.  

In recent years this has changed.  Group lynchings online have become far more common, as access to the web has extended enormously, and the age of some of those contributing has dropped.  Those desperately sad cases of teenagers driven to suicide online in Facebook should tell us that something horrible is happening.  It happens when the pleasure of online interaction is deliberately twisted, like a knife, so that logging on becomes a worry, not a pleasure.  I have seen this kind of murderous attack in Wikipedia myself, and it doubtless goes on far more than I know about.

I have seen, over the last year or two, increasing evidence that this technique is being deployed intentionally.  I have started to think of it under a specific name: giving someone an internet beating. 

We need to wake up, and realise that we’re not in Kansas any more.  The technique is used because it works.  The object is to give so much pain to the victim that he or she stops using the web, leaves the forum, dares never speak about the subject again.  It’s organised, premeditated, and not different in intent, nor in any important respect from getting a gang of people together with sticks for the same purpose.  The main difference is that the victim can’t call the police.

Today I read on the eChurch blog of an internet beating is being handed out to Stacy, a young Catholic mother, who complained that she couldn’t even go to the park with her toddlers without being confronted by a pair of gays who had decided that a public park in front of the children was the place to fondle each other.   As she rightly observed, such conduct was a public statement, and a provocative, spiteful one.  It was made in the knowledge that a lot of people there would object, and was designed to insult, to swagger, to say “we can do this and you can’t do a thing about it”.   She naturally did not want such displays in a public park — paid for by us all — in front of her toddlers.  And who would?

What happened next was sickening.   She was handed a cyber-beating.  The comments on the post promptly filled up with vitriolic hate and abuse, intermixed with the usual poisonous types who aid and comfort these cyber-thugs by blaming the victim for “provoking” the assault, expressed in fake-polite terms but with exactly the same agenda.  Any attempt at rational discussion was drowned.  Apparently she even received death threats.  When this was reported, the beaters promptly blamed her for this too.  Bullying always blames the victim, so this was classic.

eChurch blog adds:

I knew nothing of this post until I noted comments arriving on one of Stacy’s posts that I’d linked to, entitled: Self-Injury and the Sacraments.

I was truly bewildered as to the ferocity, quantity and nature of the comments on the self-injury post, until one commenter pointed me to Stacy’s original post, in which she’d closed comments.

Well, talk about quantity and ferocity of comments, I’d seen nothing until Stacy posted her recent blog, a few hours ago, entitled: You duped me, O LORD.

There are currently a whopping 328 comments!

It transpires that news has spread onto a prominent atheist forum and the hoards had simply hopped across to vent their spleen.

Lisa Graas has now jumped into the fray and blogged in defense of Stacy.

Good for Lisa.  If you saw someone being given a beating, and you had the power to come to their aid, wouldn’t you do so?  It could be you being beaten and stabbed.  It has been me, recently, and nothing depressed me more than the refusal of others to help. 

Stacy had a perfect right to object to public homosexual behaviour — I share her sentiments completely, as does most of the population of this world.  If gays object to being hated, don’t be hateful, don’t parade your vice in front of people you know might well object.   Do to others as you would like them to do to you.  It’s really that simple.

Is it accidental that it is atheists and gays doing this?  I fear it is not.  Since these creeps apparently want to stifle criticism, let us tell it like it is.

It is entirely in keeping with my experience of atheists online that they should be active in this vile pursuit.  A rational person would ask just why disbelief in God involved endorsement of a hideous vice.  Logically there is no connection, of course.  Except that, in reality, their atheism is merely hatred of Christians, and the atheist will endorse whatever the Christians are opposed to; indeed will try to force, by violence, the Christian to endure.  There have been and are decent atheists.  There are a great number who are murderous vermin.

Nor is it a marvel that this is a “gay rights” issue.  From this pressure group I have come to expect no less than the most atrocious bigotry.  This, if you remember, is a practice that was detestable to almost everyone, that was legalised under the pretence that “what two people do in private is their own business”.    The determination by this lobby to silence any criticism, any discussion other than warmest approval, has brought to Britain the first arrests of clergy on religious grounds since the corrupt and brutal persecutions of the Restoration period. 

Everyone opposed to such violence — call it what it is — should support Stacy.  We must not let her fight our battle unaided.  And we should support her without resorting to weasel words like “I don’t agree with what she says but she should have the right to say it.”  To say this is to compromise with the intimidators, to tell them you’re afraid that they will attack you too.  Let’s not.  Let’s give these thugs the finger, and endorse heartily someone who had the courage to stand up for what they believe in.

I shall, of course, be moderating comments on this post.  

UPDATE: The first four hate comments duly arrived overnight!

Share

Problems in the broadcast media

Posted on by Roger Pearse

We’ve all seen the story about the explosion and shootings in Norway yesterday.  I’ve noticed something worrying in the reporting of the story by the BBC and SkyNews on their teletext service, yesterday and today.

Yesterday, the word “Moslem” was not used.  On page 6 of 7 of the SkyNews report a mention was made of the possibility that the attacks were by “al Qaeda”, but quickly qualified by a claim that perhaps it was by “far right” groups.

Today we learn that the attacker was a single man, a Norwegian, supposed to be linked to the “far right”.  The news reports also describe him as a “Christian fundamentalist”.  We’re also told that nothing like this “right wing violence” has ever happened before, which makes it curious that they referred to it as a possibility yesterday.

This is not good reporting. 

Firstly, it’s clear that those writing these reports fully expected Moslem terrorists to be responsible, and were trying not to say so.   That’s a bit dodgy, but we might allow them this, to refrain from speculation, and not stirring up hate against a group which has yet to be found guilty of this specific atrocity, on the basis that to do so is strictly and narrowly reporting the news.  But today, one day on, they don’t feel any hesitation in attributing exactly that to the Christians.  So objectivity there was none.  In short, they were deliberately not reporting the guilt of one party for political reasons. 

That means that we can’t trust their reporting of anything to do with Islam or Moslems.  It means — can it mean anything else? — that there is probably a lot more Moslem violence than we are allowed to hear about.   And we have to ask … what else are we not allowed to hear about?  What other things, other than Islam, are on the list of “may not be mentioned critically”? 

Once a political censorship is in place, and we can show that it is, then we must remind ourselves that we don’t know what is being said.  Our conception of what is normal tends to be formed or influenced by the news media, whether we like it or not.  It is what is NOT said that is important, sometimes.

Now this may seem like an over-reaction, and, in some ways, I hope that it is.  I doubt that every journalist is corrupt!  I don’t suppose that every newspaper has a censor at their office.  But censorship can be imposed in many ways other than a man in a uniform — societal intimidation is one — and anyway … how can we tell?  We can tell that we’re being misled.  The evidence has appeared.

Secondly, I read today that in the 1990’s, with “far right” activity at a high, and voters supporting them, all the Swedish newspapers on the same day published photographs on their front pages of all the members of the relevant political party.  It sounds quite Orwellian — no concerns about “diversity of control of the press” there! — but that is what the BBC reports today. 

But that raises more questions.  With that kind of Goebbels-like orchestrated intimidation directed at a small group by the political establishment, I found myself wondering whether the supposed bomber was really just a fall guy.  Is it possible that this really was an Islamic attack?    If it was, and if this happened … how would we know?  These are the questions you start to ask, once you know that you can’t trust the media.

Let’s not get lost in the political aspects of this.  The issue for me is one of freedom of information, and political censorship.   Whatever our political views, we don’t need this kind of interference with information, whoever does it.  We need more diversity and less censorship.  At the moment the pressure is all the other way.

It is, after all, Christians who have been fingered as responsible for this atrocity.  That means me, you know.  And I’m reasonably sure that I didn’t do it.

UPDATE: I’ve removed material which, interesting as it is, is extraneous to this post.

Share

More on “human rights” for Christians in Britain

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Following the announcement by the Orwellian-sounding “Equalities and Human Rights Commission that it regrets some of the harassment of Christians in the UK which it funded, on which I posted earlier, “eChurch blog has helpfully listed the resources and online responses. 

They make interesting reading indeed.  Four victims have brought test cases to the European court, and this is causing flutters of concern among the guilty men.

What I had not realised, however, is that the trigger for this is that the EHRC have applied to intervene in four test cases now before the European court.  They profess:

‘Our intervention in these cases would encourage judges to interpret the law more broadly and more clearly to the benefit of people who are religious and those who are not’.

Long experience in corporate politics leads me to look below the surface.  This is an organisation that has funded harassment of Christians.  Why would they change tack, suddenly?  The leopard does not change his spots, and there is no change of personnel.  On the contrary, the man responsible is John Wadham, a lawyer who has spent his life in gaming the legal system to promote left-wing causes.  This is, therefore, a considered tactic.

Once we sidestep the fluffy language, it becomes obvious that the EHRC hope to get something from this. 

If the EHRC were not involved, then the case will come before the court as one of persecution, and, given the large numbers of Catholics in the EU, it is possible — even probable — that the Euro-court would limit their activities considerably. 

But by being “part of the process”, they can play themselves back into the game.  They might even be able to obtain a judicial position over the Christians.  If they lie and spin hard enough, then they might be able to convince the Euro-judges to appoint the EHRC themselves as “protectors of religion”. 

Fanciful?  Well, if we go back to the sinister Trevor Phillips article of less than a month ago, we see that this is precisely what he was talking about.

The EHRC, therefore, should not be allowed to intervene.

The EHRC takes it upon themselves to define what is “religion”.  Furthermore, as Phillips made plain, they propose to game this, so that those who refuse to conform will be stripped of their charitable status and forced to pay crushing and discriminatory taxes.

Sadly, therefore, this is not “good news”. 

Share

UK: Harassment of Christians to resume

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Yesterday the Sunday Telegraph published an interview with Trevor Phillips, the black Ghanaian-born former newsreader placed in charge of the UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission.  There was also a headline article on p.1 and 2 ‘Moslems are integrating better than Christians’, which summarised the interview.

A web version of the article is here, but is significantly different from the paper version.   The interview itself, entitled “I’ll defend faith, says equality chief” is here, although the picture, which showed Phillips laughing his head off, has been replaced with a more sober image. 

The articles contained a number of interesting statements made by Phillips.

  • “churches and faith groups have to fall into line with the views of wider society to keep their charitable status”
  • “Churches, mosques, temples, religious organisations of all kinds now have to some extent protection under the law but they also have to obey the law including anti-discrimination law because they are charities, because they offer a public service“
  • Catholic care was a clearer and simpler case. You’re offering a public service and you’re a charity and there are rules about how charities behave. You have to play by the rules. We can’t have a set of rules that apply to one group of people simply because they happen to think it’s right.

The rules to which Phillips refers were drawn up a few years ago, when the regulation of charities was changed to facilitate an attack on the privately run public schools.  They differ in many respects from those previously in force.  Charitable status exempts bodies from the crushing UK taxation.

Phillips is not part of the Charities Commission, but this seems to be a clear statement of the intentions of the establishment.   They state that, unless Christians endorse unnatural vice — which is the point at issue — their charities will be deregistered, and Christians will not be permitted to provide any kind of public service, except by paying a tax that charities endorsing sodomy will not be subject to.  No school, no soup kitchen, no adoption agency, no hospice — none of these aims, all charitable, will be permitted to have charitable status, and all will be taxed as if undertaken for profit. 

None of this rules out further action on “equality” grounds by Mr Phillips’ organisation, of course.  Phillips and his team have already prosecuted commercial businesses and private individuals who are not charities.  This is a further stage, intended to target further Christian groups such as the Salvation Army.

Phillips makes clear that mosques need not fear: “Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they’re doing their best…” 

There is a great deal in the article about respect for faith-based beliefs, which at first sight is at odds with the draconian stratements above.  But if read carefully, it explains itself.

  • “there is certainly a feeling amongst some people of belief that they are under siege”
  • Our business is defending the believer. The law we’re here to implement recognises that religious identity is an essential part of this society. It’s an essential element of being a fulfilled human being.
  • I understand why a lot of people in faith groups feel a bit under siege.
  • There are a lot of Christian activist voices who appear bent on stressing the kind of persecution…
  • There are some Christian organisations who basically want to have a fight

All the mentions of Christians are negative.  “People of faith” means Moslems.

The article also signals that the establishment intends to attack the black churches.  These have hitherto been protected to some degree by the unwillingness of the establishment to be seen to attack black institutions.  There has, all the same, been some sniping at them as primitive and backward.  However:

  • I come from that kind of community. We like our faith strong and pretty undiluted. If you come from an Afro-Caribbean Christian background the attitudes to homosexuality are unambiguous, they are undiluted, they are nasty and in some cases homicidal.

In the mouth of a state official, in charge of a body often seen as inquisitorial, this language has a sinister sound.

There is also an attack on the Christian groups that fund the defence of those attacked by his (tax-funded) organisation. 

  • There are some Christian organisations who basically want to have a fight and therefore they’re constantly defining the ground in such a way that anyone who doesn’t agree wholly agree with them about everything is essentially a messenger from Satan.   “I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on. I think that whole argument isn’t about the rights of Christians. It’s about politics. It’s about a group of people who really want to have weight and influence and they’ve chosen that particular ground.

The Christian B&B owners who were denounced by gay activist informers were dragged into court by Phillips, and the prosecution funded by the state.  Clearly the Christian Legal Centre and the Christian Institute are doing the right thing; the accusation is projection, I think.

At one point the article is not clear.  This is when Philips addresses atheism.  

The establishment has encouraged the rise of atheism, in order to attack the Christians.  It is an old trick to deprive some group of their rights by creating a counter-movement and then claiming to be “mediating” between them.  The group you are attacking must therefore either abandon some of what it has always had, or else be seen to be refusing to compromise. 

But it sounds as if the establishment is not entirely satisfied with the performance of its puppets.  There are more comments from Philips in the other article, supposedly summarising the first:

  • [Philips] warned it had become “fashionable” to attack and mock religion, singling out atheist polemicist Richard Dawkins for his views

This suggests to me that they have recognised that Dawkins’ hysterical accusations have become counter-productive.  Dawkins himself has received quite a bit less publicity in the last couple of years, and is perhaps something of an embarassment.

But this may merely be an excuse for his own organisation to “protect” “believers” — a power play.

Finally some words that Philips must have sniggered silently while uttering:

  • “It seems right that the reach of anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church or mosque. At the moment the law says it [appointing openly gay bishops] is a matter for the Church of England. It’s probably right. “

The game was given away, immediately above the article on p.2, in another article, which explained all: “Church clears the way for gay bishops”.  The same day the BBC was giving the same story:

Legal advice is due to be published as early as Monday saying homosexual clergy in civil partnerships can become bishops.

The move is in response to the Equality Act, which protects from discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

(My italics).  The appointments in the Church of England have always been controlled by the establishment.  Evidently Phillips knew that other establishment stooges would be responsible for dealing with that.

It’s all strikingly reminiscent of the religious policies of the old Soviet Union.  On the one hand Christian charitable bodies were forbidden; on the other priests were appointed by the KGB, and those who refused to conform to church policies set by the state were demonised.  I was rereading a book by Michael Bordeaux of Keston College this evening, describing the appalling persecution of Russian Baptists in the 1960’s. 

The choice before Christians is clear.  The state has made endorsement of sodomy a shibboleth, deliberately, knowing that it is offensive to most people and condemned by the bible.  Endorse it, they say, or face the consequences. 

In times past similar demands were made, of sacrificing to the genius of Caesar, or bowing the knee to Baal.  Neither, perhaps, seemed very shocking to contemporaries.  “Why can’t they just conform and not cause trouble?” people asked.   The rest of the time they jeered at Christians as “breaking the law”.  The Christians replied that they must obey God, rather than man.

It seems those times are here again.  Some will conform, and will thereby apostasise.  Others will suffer loss.  Many will try to keep their heads down, while informers roam around seeking whom they may denounce.

The situation is not nearly so bad here as it was in Russia, and let us hope that it does not become so.  Rather it resembles the harassment arranged by Julian the Apostate — what Gregory Nazianzen called a “soft persecution”, designed to destroy the churches by harassment.  But the intent is clear.

Let us pray for those who are determined to persecute the church here.  And let us pray for the confessors, those who suffer harassment and persecution because they will not betray Christ.

Share