Archive for August, 2009

Beck to the Future III: “Quality of Life” Rationing Links Nazi Doctors and ObamaCare Experts

Monday, August 31st, 2009

See Part 1

Beck to the Future: Glen Beck Exposes Dangerous Link Between Nazi Eugenics and ObamaCare Reform Experts

See Part 2

Beck to the Future II: Three Scary ObamaCare “Czars”

Part 3

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Glen Beck says that Germany went terribly wrong from two things: the nation “ran out of money” and it had “crazy people” – the National Socialists – running a centralized bureaucracy that extended its reach into all corners of German society, and particularly in the nation’s universal health-care system.

For Beck, the list of Obama advisors behind health-care reform certainly seems to fit the description of “crazy people.” But Beck is drawing lessons from Nazi Germany and how its nationalized health-care program nourished a cornucopia of horrors that culminated in the Shoah: the destruction of six million Jews and other atrocities of similar magnitude. This horror had its root in Anglo-American eugenics and was founded on one core principle: some lives have more intrinsic worth than others.

During the 1930s, “social progressives” such as Joseph Kennedy, patriarch of the Kennedy clan, viewed Nazi Germany with admiration, and its health-care policies were considered the envy of the world. Anglo-American eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, heaped praise on the Nazi eugenics program. For most Europeans, National Socialism represented the destiny of Europe. Few shared the opinion of Winston Churchill, the last of the Victorians, who remained constant and outspoken in his conviction that National Socialism represented the end of Christian Civilization and heralded a new chapter of human history guided “by the lights of perverted science.”

Eugenics became discredited in the horrible aftermath of the Second World War, especially among Americans, as many saw Hitler’s “final solution” as a direct consequence of eugenic philosophy. But, as historical memory dims and as President Obama aggressively expands the size and scope of the power of the Executive Branch through his czars, Beck is asking, could America find itself going back to the future?

At one point in going through the facts about Obama’s health care experts, Beck exclaims, “Is it truly crazy to have these conversations?” The special advisors or “czars” surrounding President Barack Obama have resumes that are the stuff of conspiracy theorists and science fiction novelists. But the facts are there; their opinions and attitudes on the value of human life are deeply disturbing. Worse still, Beck says: these men and their ideas are behind Obama’s health-care reform and have power.

“This is the stuff they are now saying out loud. What are they saying behind closed doors when we aren’t there to watch it,” asks Beck, pointing out to his viewers that under the Constitution, these special advisors do not have to answer to anyone but the President himself.

So what will government-run health care become for Americans if it embraces a policy of rationing based on Cass Sunstein’s “Quality of Life Adjusted Years” lead, or Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel’s “Complete Lives System?” Add to the mix John Holdren, the Science Czar, who wrote a book on totalitarian population control. With people like these behind health-care reform, Beck makes the point that the specter of Sarah Palin’s “death panels” looks a lot more real. Especially when it comes to rationing health-care, which Beck says must surely happen under Obama’s proposals.

“Government officials are going to have to be in the position of deciding how to allocate scarce resources,” says Beck.

Why? The laws of supply and demand still apply in health-care. If 50 million are added to the list of insured, that means an added burden on the current supply of primary care physicians and specialists. But with government subsidies and low co-pays, people will also have little incentive to refrain from making unnecessary doctors visits or seeing specialists that they may not need. And that means government, which foots the bill, will have to make those choices.

Germany’s National Socialists and Obama’s health-care reform experts have a key thing in common as Beck makes clear: they both embrace the idea of establishing universal health-care systems on the principle that “quality of life” or usefulness to the collective good of society ultimately matters in the equation of how a human being receives health-care. That is, if they agree that the patient is human in the first place. On that point, John Holdren may have more in common with National Socialists than Americans are comfortable with.

In fact, Beck supposes that understanding Holdren may give some insight into the Green Movement, saying “how many people in the Green Movement think people are a virus?” Beck says that Van Jones, Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” also has a hand in health-care reform as part of Obama’s inner circle. Jones describes himself as a “basically a community organizer with the federal family.”

And while everyone agrees that the heath care system needs improvement, Beck observes that replacing the profit motive of insurance with the power motive of government may not be in everyone’s best interests. The proposed cure could appear more lethal than the disease. The lessons learned from one of the most darkest chapters of human history may provoke Beck’s viewers to “question with boldness” the trajectory of the United States under President Obama and the czars.

“When you start valuing life differently, then you’ve already started down that path,” says Beck, pointing to the experience of Germany, once regarded as a symbol of the future of world civilization.

Beck lays out the facts, but at the end of the day, only the viewer can judge for himself the answer to this question: is America headed back to the future?

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Franklin County Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ruled Aug. 26 a 2006 amendment to a law establishing the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security that declared “the safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God” an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Monday, August 31st, 2009

I thought this was a rather interesting piece from our friends over the pond. This is not related as such, but has reminded me of my days in the shipping world, when dealing with Marine damage, insurance companies would never pay out for “Acts of God”? The world is quick to cite God when it suits them!

Judge: Kentucky can’t depend, legally, on God for homeland security

by Bob Allen – Associated Baptist Press

FRANKFORT, Ky. (ABP) — A state judge has ruled that Kentucky cannot legally depend on God to keep its citizens safe.

Franklin County Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ruled Aug. 26 a 2006 amendment to a law establishing the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security that declared “the safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God” an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Attorneys for the Commonwealth of Kentucky argued that all three branches of government have acknowledged the role of religion in public life for more than 200 years and that removing them would create “a wholly secular society completely divorced from religion.”

Wingate said both the federal and Kentucky constitutions “permit a passing reference to Almighty God nestled in the middle” of legal statutes but the law in question “is more than an ephemeral general reference to God.” Rather, he said, the statute “places an affirmative duty to rely on Almighty God for the protection of the Commonwealth.”

That, the judge ruled, made the Kentucky law “exceptional among thousands of others” and transgressed the First Amendment’s requirement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“Even assuming that most of this nation’s citizens have historically depended upon God by choice for their protection, this does not give the General Assembly the right to force citizens to do so now,” Wingate ruled. “That is the very reason the Establishment Clause was created; to protect the minority from the oppression of the majority.”

In the lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality, American Atheists, Inc., claimed the law constituted an attempt to “establish religion, endorse belief over non-belief, set up a religious test, [and] indoctrinate Kentucky citizens and state employees in theistic religious beliefs.”

The group said the law would “diminish the civil rights, privileges or capacities of atheists and others who do not believe in a god, or who believe in a different god or gods than the presumed supernatural entity unconstitutionally endorsed by the legislation.”

State Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a Southern Baptist minister who slipped the “Almighty God” language into a homeland security bill three years ago, told the Lexington Herald-Leader he was unhappy with the judge’s ruling.

Riner, pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church in Louisville, said the law did not mandate that Kentuckians depend on God for their safety but simply acknowledged that government without God cannot protect its citizens.

“The decision would have shocked and disappointed Thomas Jefferson, who penned the words that the General Assembly paraphrased in this legislation,” Riner said.

Edwin Kagin, national legal director of American Atheists, disagreed. In a blog on the group’s website, Kagin called the ruling a win for atheists.

“I think Thomas Jefferson would have been pleased,” Kagin said.

Judge Wingate said he did not subscribe to the atheist group’s belief that the law was an attempt to “Christianize” Kentucky, but he did describe it as “baffling that Christians would seek government endorsement of their respective religion and give a secular government an opportunity to taint an unadulterated church.”

“The Commonwealth’s history does not exclude God from the statutes, but it hasn’t ever permitted the General Assembly to demand that its citizens depend on Almighty God,” Wingate said in his ruling.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

The Ukrainian Autocephalous Church has sent an official request last week to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of the 250 million world’s Orthodox Christians. It said the church “is ready and strives” to come under Constantinople’s jurisdiction as an independent group.

Monday, August 31st, 2009

Ukraine splinter church seeks independence

By MARIA DANILOVA (AP)

KIEV, Ukraine — A breakaway Orthodox Christian church in Ukraine is pressing its call for recognition as a legitimate entity independent of the Moscow-based church that dominates the faith in the former Soviet Union, officials said Monday.

The appeal comes weeks after the head of the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, visited Ukraine and criticized splinter churches seeking independence.

The Ukrainian Autocephalous Church sent an official request last week to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of the 250 million world’s Orthodox Christians. It said the church “is ready and strives” to come under Constantinople’s jurisdiction as an independent group.

Spokesman Yevhen Zapletnyuk said the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church believes that winning recognition from Bartholomew would will help heal the rifts among Ukraine’s Orthodox believers, many of whom want to come out of Moscow’s shadow.

“We have extended a hand,” Zapletnyuk told The Associated Press. “We believe this is the way to salvation.”

Allegiance in Ukraine’s predominant Orthodox Christian faith is split among three major churches. The Ukrainian Autocephalous Church and the larger Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate have lobbied Constantinople for recognition as legitimate and independent of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate, which is subordinate to Patriarch Kirill.

Ukraine’s pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko has championed those efforts as part of a campaign to shed Russia’s political, economic and cultural dominance over its neighbor and integrate with the West.

The Ukrainian Autocephalous Church has some 1,200 parishes and 700 priests in the nation of 47 million, according to the State Committee on National Religions.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate, which broke away after the 1991 Soviet collapse, claims 14 million parishioners and some 3,000 priests, and opinion polls show it is gaining popularity. The Russian-affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church claims 28 million followers in Ukraine and more than 9,000 priests.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches has voted to hold its next General Assembly in Busan, South Korea, in 2013.

Monday, August 31st, 2009

Global Ecumenical Body to Hold Next General Assembly in S. Korea

By Maria Mackay – Christian Today Reporter

The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches has voted to hold its next General Assembly in Busan, South Korea, in 2013.

After hours of deliberation, the final vote was cast by more than a hundred members of the Central Committee in a secret ballot.

Busan came out on top with 70 votes, followed by Damascus in Syria with 59 votes in favor. There were no abstentions.

Two other contenders, Rhodes in Greece, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, fell out the race for the next venue earlier in the meeting of the Central Committee.

A report by the Policy Reference Committee was read out to Central Committee members prior to the vote. It noted that Syria offered “the opportunity to be present in the cradle of Christianity, a place of uninterrupted Christian witness since apostolic times, as an expression of solidarity with a threatened and dwindling Christian population.”

It added, however, that the Korean church context “holds the possibility of the WCC’s inter-relating with the dynamic spirituality of new and emerging churches of Evangelical and Pentecostal families, as well as for witnessing to the possibilities for reconciliation and the peaceful reunification of divided Korea.”

Welcoming the vote, WCC Moderator the Rev. Dr. Walter Altmann expressed his gratitude on behalf of the WCC to the churches in Rhodes, Ethiopia and Damascus for extending the invitation to host the next General Assembly.

“We are looking forward to the hard work of preparation for Busan … and we are asking for God’s blessing on our Assembly when it takes place in 2013,” he said.

The vote will be seen as a great victory for South Korean churches in the WCC, after South Korean theologian the Rev. Dr. Park Seong-won failed in his bid to become the next General Secretary of the WCC.

Some 7,000 Christians from across the global ecumenical movement are expected to gather for the next General Assembly.

The last General Assembly was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006.

The WCC is an ecumenical fellowship of 349 Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches representing more than 560 million Christians in over 110 countries.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

The American Jewish Committee, one of the oldest Jewish advocacy organizations in the United States, denounced a statement made by the World Council of Churches General Secretary the Rev. Samuel Kobia who called Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian territories “a sin against God.”

Monday, August 31st, 2009

American Jewish Group Blasts WCC Head for Israel Comment

By Ethan Cole – Christian Post Reporter

The American Jewish Committee, one of the oldest Jewish advocacy organizations in the United States, denounced a statement made by the World Council of Churches General Secretary the Rev. Samuel Kobia who called Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian territories “a sin against God.”

“Rev. Kobia parrots the same hypocritical statements regarding Israel that the WCC regularly issues, ignoring the root cause of Israel’s presence in the West Bank,” said Rabbi David Rosen, AJC’s international director of interreligious affairs, in a statement issued Friday.

The prominent rabbi pointed to the Six-Day War in 1967 when Israel battled against Egypt, Syria and Jordan to protect the Jewish state from being destroyed. As a result of the war, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Sinai desert and the Golan Heights all fell under Israel’s control. The Sinai Peninsula was later returned to Egypt after a peace treaty was signed.

“Israel does not seek to govern another people,” Rosen maintains. “Rather, Israel has offered in direct negotiations with the Palestinians repeatedly to withdraw from most of the West Bank in exchange for peace and security.”

Kobia, who will step down as WCC general secretary at the end of the year, made the statements while giving his report to the group’s main governing body, the central committee, last Wednesday.

In his presentation, Kobia said the occupation and humiliation of the Palestinian people in Israel-controlled territories is like anti-Semitism in that it is “a sin against God.”

The WCC during its founding assembly in 1948 had declared that anti-Semitism is a “sin against God,” but Kobia last Wednesday asked if the group is “ready to say that occupation is also a sin against God?”

He recalled his experience visiting Palestinians in the areas controlled by Israel and later told reporters about the “dehumanization” of the occupied and occupiers in the territories, according to Ecumenical News International.

“The concern is not only for the victims but also the perpetrators,” he said, referring to Israel.

He talked about the million Palestinians who were forced to migrate after the founding of the State of Israel, the “largest forced migration in modern history,” Kobia noted.

Weeks earlier, the WCC had supported the “just peace initiative” proposed by the United Church of Canada. The church’s proposal states that its convictions would lead it to believe that just peace in the Middle East would require Israel to recognize a fully sovereign state of Palestine that would compose of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as the state of Palestine and other Arab states to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

The proposal also says Israel needs to dismantle its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while Palestinians need to end their suicide bombings and other violent attacks on Israel.

The United Church of Canada’s “just peace” ideas are similar to that of the WCC.

Given the history of WCC and Jewish groups, it is not surprising that AJC made such a statement against Kobia. Jewish groups have repeatedly criticized the WCC for their Middle East policies, which the groups see as favoring Palestinians and ignoring the constant terrorism threat against Israel.

On Sunday, Kobia was honored by central committee members with a farewell service in Geneva where the meeting is taking place. His report last Wednesday was his last one to the committee as general secretary.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

World Council of Churches – “Nature is our home,” said Dr. Maria Sumire Conde from the Quecha community of Peru. She says some of those who have come there, however, have not been good guests.

Monday, August 31st, 2009

WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES – ECOLOGICAL DEBT IS A SPIRITUAL ISSUE

“Nature is our home,” said Dr. Maria Sumire Conde from the Quecha community of Peru. She says some of those who have come there, however, have not been good guests.

In a 31 August hearing on “ecological debt” during the World Council of Churches Central Committee meetings in Geneva, Sumire and others shared some of the ways that the global South has frequently been victimized by greed and unfair use of its resources.

In the case of Peru, Sumire said mining has had particularly devastating effects: relocation, polluted water, illness and decreasing biodiversity.

“We indigenous peoples propose that those responsible should take on the ecological debt and commit themselves to rectify the harm done over the years” to the earth and its people, she said.

The concept of ecological debt has been shaped to measure the real cost that policies of expansion and globalization have had on developing nations, a debt that some say industrialized nations should repay. Dr Joan Martínez Alier, a professor at the Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona in Spain, said that debt includes both actual financial costs as well as intangibles such as quality of life.

Martínez said climate change, unequal trade, “bio-piracy”, exports of toxic wastes and other factors have added to the imbalance, which he called “a kind of war against people around the world, a kind of aggression”.

“I know these are strong words, but this is true,” he said. Martínez beseeched those present, at the very least, to not increase the existing ecological debt any further.

Dr Ofelia Ortega of Cuba, the WCC president from Latin America, said it is a spiritual issue, not just a moral one.

“The Bible is an ecological treatise” from beginning to end, Ortega said. She described care for creation as an “axis” that runs through the Word of God. “Our pastoral work in our churches must be radically ecological,” she said.

Dr Kim Yong-Bock of the Advanced Institute for Integral Study of Life in South Korea also framed the issue in biblical language. “God has made comprehensive covenants with all living beings and with the earth as the living entity,” he said. “This covenant is broken.”

Delegates at the central committee meetings are considering a statement on “eco-justice and ecological debt”. The proposed statement first came to the central committee in February 2008 and was subsequently circulated to member churches for ideas and suggestions. Delegates heard a first draft of the revised version on Monday and offered additional refinements. They are expected to take action on the statement later this week.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

How does the church interact with a rapidly changing society? Members of the World Council of Churches central committee spent much of the morning discussing this question in a pair of plenary sessions in Geneva.

Monday, August 31st, 2009

CHURCHES MUST BE “SALT OF THE EARTH”

How does the church interact with a rapidly changing society? On 31 August, members of the World Council of Churches central committee spent much of the morning discussing this question in a pair of plenary sessions in Geneva.

The discussion marked 30 years since the landmark Church and Society Conference on Faith, Science and the Future took place in the United States, but Dr Mary Tanner, WCC president from Europe, said the topic remains highly relevant for today.

“We should not just look at it as a relic from the past,” said Tanner, who moderated the plenary, “but see how (it) remains a living, dynamic tradition in today’s ecumenical movement.”

She said “living the fellowship” of churches today begins with listening to one another’s stories and supporting one another. In that spirit, she invited several speakers to share “a tapestry of poignant stories” of struggle within their communities.

For example, Rev. Geraldine Varea of the Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma talked about a military coup in her country, and tensions that resulted between the government and the church. Through the help of several WCC churches and other members of the Pacific Council of Churches, some dialogue and reconciliation were able to begin.

“They have given new light to the issue,” said Varea, who at 26 is the youngest minister in her church.

Likewise, Metropolitan Mor Eustathius Matta Roham of the Syrian Orthodox Churches of Antioch and All the East said the churches can assist his region by helping people “hear and understand the voices of suffering in the region”. The Middle East, he said, has had to deal with both the instability caused by the ongoing Arab/Israeli conflict as well as climate change, which has sparked both floods and sandstorms.

Two speakers shared stories from the Democratic Republic of Congo and other parts of Africa’s Great Lakes region. Civil wars, large numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons, violence against women and children and other issues have caused an ongoing crisis.

Rev. Micheline Kamba Kasongo of the Church of Christ in Congo-Presbyterian Community of Kinshasa compared her hopes for the situation to the book of Esther, who had to “risk to do something for her people”.

“We want to find our Esthers, those who are prepared to stand up against evil,” she said. “I believe the church always has the possibility of intervening to change things.”

Delegates also watched a video message from Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, a Catholic priest who served as president of the United Nations General Assembly in 2008-2009. A veteran statesman in his home country, d’Escoto has been active in helping the poor.

“The world is in desperate need of prophetic voices” d’Escoto said in the video. “Are we being the salt of the earth as we should be?”

Many other stories from around the globe were gathered from WCC members before the plenary and posted on the WCC website, www.oikoumene.org/cc2009. WCC general secretary Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia said it was the biggest response the WCC had received from central committee members on any item in more than a decade.

“Our public witness clearly needs to be rooted in the experiences of the churches in society,” Kobia said. “We can very well be the pulse of society as the church.” Kobia named “mutual learning through deep listening”, accompanying one another, and mutual support and solidarity as “key elements” for the fellowship of churches.

Fernando Enns of the Mennonite Church in Germany, in comments following the stories, emphasized the importance of the topic in the ongoing life of the organization.

The interaction of church and society, he said, looks “not just at a ministry of the church, but what the church itself is. We’re discussing the essence of ecclesiology here. We need to reflect on who we are as churches, and who we are as churches together.”

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Cherie Blair has urged the Catholic Church to reconsider its hardline stance against contraception, suggesting it could be holding some women back from pursuing a career.

Monday, August 31st, 2009

I must admit that I have just seen this headline from the telegraph and do prefer it somewhat:-

Cherie Blair attacks Catholic Church for holding back career women

Last time it was Tony Blair trying to tell the Pope that he should revise the Catholic stance on homosexuality! It seems like the Blair’s are determined to let everyone know where they believe the Catholic church has got it wrong in their [not-so-humble] opinion.

Herald Scotland by Helen McArdie

Blair: end Church’s hard line on birth control

Cherie Blair has urged the Catholic Church to reconsider its hardline stance against contraception, suggesting it could be holding some women back from pursuing a career.

The barrister told an audience at Edinburgh International Book Festival she believed the church should be “more positive” about permitting women to use artificial birth control as a means of regulating their fertility.

A devout Catholic who encouraged her husband, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, to convert from Anglicanism after he left office in 2007, Mrs Blair has previously revealed that she uses contraception and that the couple’s nine-year-old son Leo was conceived at Balmoral after she neglected to pack contraceptives for a stay with the Queen.

Promoting her new book Speaking for Myself, she said: “If you look at what progress women have made in the world, one of the reasons they have been able to make progress is because they have been able to control their fertility.

“I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with that, and indeed without being able to control that I wouldn’t have been able to achieve the things that I’ve been able to do.

“I think it’s a really important issue and I would prefer it if the Catholic Church took a more positive attitude towards contraception because I think there’s a lot of difference between preventing a life coming about and actually extinguishing a life when it has come about.”

The Catholic Church in Scotland said the barrister was wrong to suggest oral contraception did not “extinguish” life. A spokesman said: “That is exactly what the morning-after pill does, while the conventional pill can potentially do the same.”

The church also argues that greater availability of contraception has led to a rise in promiscuity and underage sex.

Last year Pope Benedict XVI launched a strong defence of the 1968 Papal Letter of Human Life, a controversial document written by Pope Paul VI that set out the case against artificial birth control.

The spokesman added that the tide was turning against prioritising a career over family. He said: “Increasingly women are finding that postponing or preventing pregnancy to focus on a career leaves them unable to conceive later in life, causing many to suggest that ‘kids then career’ might be a more sensible choice than ‘career then kids’.”

The church warned of four major problems when it reaffirmed its opposition to contraception. It said that birth control caused a infidelity, a general lowering of moral standards throughout society, a lowering of respect by men towards women and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments. It added that the past 40 years had confirmed the fears.

The church’s spokesman did not oppose regulating fertility but recommended a natural approach rather than ingesting large doses of synthetic hormones in the form of oral contraceptives that had physical, emotional and environmental side effects.

Mrs Blair was questioned about whether the church’s position was being upheld, even in its European strongholds.

She replied: “If you look at the birth rates in France and Italy and Spain it seems as though I might not be the only devout Catholic who likes to control her fertility.”

A spokesman for the Family Planning Association said: “It’s incredibly important that women have safe and convenient access to contraception because it has a big effect on their life. It’s also important that women have the choice of all 15 methods of contraception so that they can choose what fits them and their lifestyle best.”

Mr Blair launched an inter-faith foundation and converted to Catholocism after quitting UK politics. He was discouraged from discussing religion by his Downing Street press secretary Alastair Campbell, who famously advised him: “We don’t do God.”

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

For a religion that’s supposed to have died with its deity, Christianity seems to be having a remarkably vital post-mortem existence.

Monday, August 31st, 2009

I quite enjoyed this article from the Herald by Ron Ferguson

Why the world is still mad about religion

For a religion that’s supposed to have died with its deity, Christianity seems to be having a remarkably vital post-mortem existence. It was Friedrich Nietzsche, the brilliant Prussian-born philosopher, who famously declared in 1882 that God was dead. In The Gay Science, Nietzsche told of a madman who lit a lantern early in the morning and ran into the market place shouting, “I am looking for God! I am looking for God!” When he was mocked by the bystanders, the madman cried: “Where has God gone? I shall tell you. We are his murderers How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves?” Seeing the looks on the faces of the bewildered punters, he went on: “I have come too early, my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling – it has not yet reached the ears of men.”

Well, it has noo. The word came down via the First and Second World Wars, the ovens of Auschwitz, the Russian gulags, Mao’s mad slaughter, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the rise and rise of science as the explainer of all things. Nietzsche, son and grandson of prominent Lutheran preachers, was himself deranged for chunks of his life.

His stuff is great to read, though: wild, extravagant, prophetic, disturbed and disturbing. There are times in our overwhelmingly narcissistic culture when Nietzsche’s madman seems the only sane man in the circus. His words have certainly gained resonance in our times, when the credibility of religion and religious institutions is (properly) under huge pressure.

And yet, if God is dead in the 21st century, I can report from the tented village which is home to the Edinburgh International Book Festival that the corpse is a dead man dancing. God has not just been lurking around but packing them in. It seems that God, dead or alive, is still the hottest gig in town. There have been several sessions on Darwin, and where Darwin is, the deity is never far away. Harry Reid’s passionate defence of the Scottish Reformation and his rollicking, highly-readable new book on the subject got the audience buzzing. Professor Sara Maitland talked about ancient and modern practices of silent prayer and meditation. Carole Hillenbrand and Yasmin Hai explored the subject of women and Islam.

Another sell-out session with an enlivened audience was titled The Old Religion and the New Atheism. David Fergusson, Professor of Divinity at Edinburgh University, feminist Catholic theologian Tina Beattie and atheist philosopher John Gray got to grips with some core issues at the heart of the current impassioned atheist-believer debates. The session certainly gave the lie to the daft notion that these matters are somehow settled.

But what about the situation away from the book festival tents and in the wider world? The trumpeted notion that religion is dying on its feet is actually a very Euro-centric view. In many parts of the world, religion – for better and for worse – is flourishing and gaining many new adherents. And even in western Europe, where religious institutions are up against it, religion is still a subject which triggers great passions. This must be a source of enormous irritation to the “new atheists”. My own conviction is that Richard Dawkins and his colleagues have performed a great service to religion by asking some very sharp questions. What distorts the current rather hostile debate, though, is the lust for certainty exhibited on both sides. To say that science has made religion untenable is itself a dogmatic rather than a scientific statement – as dogmatic as anything uttered by a medieval archbishop.

What died in 1882 was an image of God. Today, God seems to be hauntingly present, even in his absence. Nietzsche seemed to know this would be the case. “God is dead,” he wrote, “but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown.”

Today is the last day of the book festival. The final evening usually features big topics and big-hitters. The speakers in the tented, echoing, caves? Theologian Karen Armstrong, Professor Richard Dawkins and former bishop Richard Holloway.

Deid? What must God have been like when He/She was alive?

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

The Bizarre Views of President Obama’s ‘Science Czar’ John Holdren

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

By Steven W. Mosher

Population Research Institute (www.pop.org)

No one in their right mind would suggest that American women would be forced to abort their children?

FRONT ROYAL, Va. (Catholic Online) – President Obama’s top science adviser and I have something in common: We both have a long-term association with Paul Ehrlich, my former colleague at Stanford University. There any similarity ends, however. Holdren, who has co-authored books on population control with Ehrlich and his wife, is the Stanford Professor’s ideological clone. For my part, I have long opposed the prescriptions of the infamous population bombster, and now find myself compelled to reject the almost identical views of the lesser-known but now more powerful Holdren as well.

What views? Let’s start with his 1973 book, co-authored with the Ehrlichs, called Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. In it, he argued that “Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature. Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”

Their solution, if you can believe it, was to make everyone poor. They argued that the West should be “de-developed,” by which they meant that countries like the U.S. should have their economies deliberately dismantled and their wealth redistributed to the poor at home and abroad.

But their big push was for population control. The publication of the book predated Roe v. Wade decision, and the authors strongly argued for legalizing abortion as a population control measure. They suggest that abortion cannot really be considered the taking of a human life, on the grounds that neither the fetus, nor the newborn, nor the toddler, is truly human anyway: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” [i] write the authors. [Italics added] Move over, Peter Singer. Holdren apparently agrees with the Princeton University “ethicist” that infants up to the age of two or so are not really human beings, and so can be eliminated without qualms.

Holdren and company go so far as to argue that abortion is essentially an act of mercy for “unwanted children” because it spares them from “undesirable consequences,” such as illegitimacy, or growing up in a broken home, or being deemed unfit for military service. They conclude, drawing upon a study from Sweden, that “There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of overpopulation.”

But who is Holdren to say, on the basis of a single study, that the illegitimate would be better off if they had never been born? What consequence could possibly be more “undesirable” for a child than being deprived of the right to life itself? Better off? They would be dead.

Holdren then attacks opponents of abortion for condemning future generations to an “overcrowded planet.” “Those who oppose abortion often raise the argument that a decision is being made for an unborn person who ‘has no say’. But unthinking actions of the very same people help to commit future unheard generations to misery and early death on an overcrowded planet.” The trouble with this formulation, in which Holdren poses as the defender of generations as yet unborn, is that human beings have been leading longer, healthier lives precisely because our numbers have been growing. Contra Holdren, the prosperity generated by our numbers is helping to stamp out misery and lower mortality rates.

Convinced that mankind faced a population apocalypse, Holdren went on to propose even more extreme measures in his next book, also co-authored with the Ehrlichs. Called Ecoscience, this 1977 book endorsed compulsory abortion, mass sterilization, child abduction, the sterilization and abortion of undesirables, and a ‘Planetary Regime” with the power to dictate life and death to Americans. I am not making this up, as you will see below.

You might think that no one in their right mind would suggest that American women, like their Chinese counterparts, could be forced to abort their children. Yet Holdren et. al. wrote “[I]t has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (p. 837) Lest you be fooled by the passive voice (“it has been concluded”), let me point out that it was Holdren and the Ehrlichs themselves, who have not one whit of legal training among them, who “concluded” that there was nothing in the Constitution that forbade forced abortion.

Holdren turns out to have a particular animus against single mothers, whom he apparently believes should have their babies seized by the government and given away to other couples to raise. As he writes on page 786, “One way to carry out this disapproval [of single motherhood) might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children along. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

The Chinese government’s solution to illegitimacy is to force all pregnant single women to have abortions. Holdren’s scheme is only slightly less Draconian: He would give pregnant single women the “choice” of either a shotgun wedding—with the government holding the shotgun—or an abortion. Those who have already given birth would have their babies seized and given away. The fact that these proposals are written in a neutral “scientific” tone does not make them any less appalling. In fact, I find them all the more appalling for the veneer of “scientific” neutrality in which they are cloaked. Hitler’s “Final Solution” for the Jews was written in equally “scientific” language.

Then there is Holdren’s proposal to put infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water to effect a mass sterilization. “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control,” he writes. But it doesn’t horrify Holdren, who apparently sees no ethical or moral problems with such a nightmarish scheme. Instead, he dispassionately outlines the technical specifications for such a sterilizing agent, which “must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.” (p. 787-8) Only a morally unhinged individual would imagine a sterilant that the government could use to stop all Americans from having children.

Perhaps because he despaired of ever developing such a mass sterilant, Holdren went on to propose that the government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them outright, or forcing them to accept long-term birth control. In a section called, “Involuntary Fertility Control,” he wrote that “a Program of sterilizing women after their second or third children, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men …. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.” (p. 786-7)

Here again there are echoes of China’s birth control policy, since women in China must have official permission to get pregnant, and are limited to one child in the cities and two children in the countryside. And, as he suspected, the Chinese government has found it easier to sterilize women than men after they have had their allotted number of children. Men, after all, tend to fight back. But even China, as despotic as its one-child policy is, hasn’t gone as far as Holdren, who imagines a society in which the government chemically sterilizes all girls at puberty.

You might think it cannot get worse. You would be wrong. In Holdren’s imagined population control utopia, anyone whom the government decides is causing “social deterioration,” can be compelled not to have children. Let me quote what I believe is the most chilling sentence in the whole book: “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. (p. 838)

There are two ways to read this sentence, both of which are equally repugnant. Here may lurk the old eugenics goal of more children from the fit and fewer from the unfit—with government bureaucrats determining who is contributing to “social deterioration” and who is not. Those who are found to be unfit will be hustled off to the sterilization or abortion clinic to prevent them from reproducing their kind.

But it is also possible that Holdren meant that those who are “overproducing children” are causing social deterioration and that such reckless reproduction must be stopped. In this interpretation, the government must intervene to prevent those who have more than two children, such as believing Christians, homeschoolers, or farm families, from having even more. Does he envision the police arresting women for the crime of being pregnant, hustling them off to clinics for a forced abortion, then sterilizing them to prevent a re-occurrence? That is what routinely happens in China, after all, where the government shares Holdren’s belief that too many people cause “social deterioration.”

Perhaps because Holdren understands that most Americans would object to his population control program, he wants to take matters out of our hands by setting up a world government to oversee it. In a section called, “Toward a Planetary Regime, “ he writes that “Perhaps these agencies, combined with the UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control … all natural resources, … all international trade, … including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating each country’s share within the regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” (p. 942-3)

Having lived in the People’s Republic of China, I can tell you that any government that controls all goods, all food, and all commerce will be a brutal tyranny. This is especially true if--like the PRC and the proposed “Planetary Regime”--it is dedicated to enforcing inhumane forced abortion and mass sterilization laws.

Holdren justifies his proposals—proposals that if enacted would effectively brutalize the entire human population--in the name of stopping a global overpopulation catastrophe. “Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century,” he writes breathlessly. “This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny.” (p. 944) Yet the eco-catastrophe that he predicted by the year 2000 did not materialize. Instead, as our numbers have grown, so has our prosperity and well being. On the whole, mankind is leading longer, healthier lives than ever before.

Holdren has apparently felt little angst over either his failed predictions of a population apocalypse or his outrageous proposals to counter it, either of which should have been sufficient to disqualify him from being named to advise the President on matters of science and technology. But his bizarre views did not come up at his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate. The White House released a statement saying, “This material is from a three-decade old, three-author college textbook,” but in fact Holdren has made such arguments in multiple publications and forums over the years. Addressing the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2007, for instance, Holdren opened with a quote from population control enthusiast Harrison Brown: “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die.”

These days, most of his pronouncements on what he calls “public interest science” concern other topics. As the perceived “crisis” of population growth faded—thanks in part to the work of PRI--he began promoting alternative energy and opposing a missile defense for the U.S. More recently, he has zeroed in on another looming “catastrophe” that, like overpopulation a few years ago, has seized the imagination of trendy, power-hungry technocrats. Unless we make dramatic changes in the way we live, Holdren now tells us, we are headed for a climate catastrophe. Sea levels could rise as much as 13 feet by the year 2010, he reportedly said in 2006, a prediction that is scoffed at by respectable scientists. At his confirmation hearings he claimed that 1 billion people could die by 2020 as a result of climate change. And in a report to the U.N. on the dangers of global warming, he called for a planetary tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Same rhetoric, different subject.

As all this should make clear, Holdren, who was trained in Plasma Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has a long history of opining on subjects to which he brings no particular expertise. He wrote on population issues but was not a demographer. He addresses energy resources but is not a geophysicist. He issues oracular statements on climate change but is not a climatologist.

What Obama’s new Science Czar really is is a professional doomsayer along the lines of his mentor, Paul Ehrlich. To advance his scientific career, he has advanced one end-of-the-world scenario after another. He has been, one must admit, rather spectacularly successful at this, given that he is now bending the ear of the U.S. President. But he has been consistently wrong on the facts and in his predictions. The fear mongering that he habitually engages in gives science, and scientists, a bad name.
------

[i] Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973), p. 235. The specific passage expressing the authors’ view that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being” is chapter 8, which is titled “Population Limitation.”
——
Steven Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits (Transaction Books, 2008)

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Supreme Knight of Columbus Carl A. Anderson addressed the Meeting for Friendship Among the Peoples in Rimini, Italy on Friday afternoon. There, he exhorted charitable groups to cooperate in building a “civilization of love” and to follow in the footsteps of Knights of Columbus founder Michael J. McGivney

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

Become Good Samaritans in every aspect of life, Supreme Knight says

Rimini, Italy, Aug 30, 2009 / 05:10 am (CNA).- Supreme Knight of Columbus Carl A. Anderson addressed the Meeting for Friendship Among the Peoples in Rimini, Italy on Friday afternoon. There, he exhorted charitable groups to cooperate in building a “civilization of love” and to follow in the footsteps of Knights of Columbus founder Michael J. McGivney. Over 700,000 people were expected to attend the week-long meeting, which was organized by the Communion and Liberation movement.

Saying that greed, the “worst of human nature,” has been diagnosed as a large part of the economic crisis, he said:

“Many lost sight of the importance of unity – of communion – with their neighbors. And we must look to the best of humanity – to generosity, solidarity, and communion – with our neighbor as the prescription.”

Citing love of neighbor as the key to a sustainable economy, he urged the audience to replace the motivation of Cain, the first fratricide, with the motivation of the Good Samaritan in “every aspect of our lives,” especially business relationships.

Anderson noted the example of Knights of Columbus founder, the Venerable Servant of God Fr. Michael J. McGivney. He discussed one case where the priest personally helped a teenage boy stay with his widowed mother and his family.

“Only Father McGivney’s help saved young Alfred from being wrested from his mother and siblings, and put in a state institution. And let’s not forget that the state that ran those institutions was quite hostile to the Catholic Church,” he remarked.

He then listed the accomplishments of the Knights of Columbus’ charitable endeavors, their fight against anti-Catholic and anti-black bigotry, their pro-life work in support of pregnant mothers and protection for the unborn, and their work in serving both Catholic and non-Catholic troops in the U.S. military.

Anderson recounted how the Knights began to run sports fields for children in Rome who did not have other sports facilities. During the Great Depression, the organization ran job boards to help those who were out of work.

He also mentioned the Knights’ work with the Special Olympics, founded by the late Eunice Kennedy Shriver.

“On a weekly basis, our members cook meals for the homeless, help provide for the needs of those with intellectual disabilities, support women in crisis pregnancies, and the children they bring into the world.”

Noting the Knights’ recent summit on volunteerism as a response to the economic crisis, Anderson urged Catholic groups to “exponentially multiply the good that we do by working together with other groups.”

Cooperation with other beneficent organizations, he said, is an excellent model for Catholic movements as they seek to “transform the world by encouraging people to say ‘yes’ to Jesus Christ.”

“Nowhere is the face of our Church more attractive than in our open embrace of our neighbor,” Anderson emphasized. “Each encounter with those in need is actually an opportunity to create a civilization of love, one person, one act at a time.”

The Knights of Columbus, a lay Catholic fraternal organization, has more than 1.78 million members worldwide. Last year, the organization and its members contributed more than $150 million and almost 69 million volunteer hours to charitable causes.

Its website is at http://www.kofc.org

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Two United Nations agencies – United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) – issued highly controversial new guidelines for sexuality education of children around the world.

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

DISGUSTING!!

American Thinker by Janice Shaw Crouse

The U.N.’s Shocking Sexuality Guidelines

During the summer slump, two United Nations agencies — United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) — issued highly controversial new guidelines for sexuality education of children around the world.  These groups have a long history of pushing “reproductive health care,” and the new report, International Guidelines on Sexuality Education, builds on an earlier report released by the International Planned Parenthood Federation to promote the “need and entitlement” for sexuality education for children beginning at age five.

Not surprisingly, both documents argue for “guaranteeing” the sexual rights of children and for integrating sexuality education as an essential aspect of human rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights is cited as the source for the assertion of the absolute human “right” of young people to have sexuality education, access to condoms, and abortion-on-demand.

Additionally, in the view of the United Nations, sexuality education is the responsibility of “education and health authorities” not parents.  Teachers and doctors, so the liberal line goes, understand the big picture and have the conceptual understanding necessary — the “rights based approach” that excludes parents and incorporates appropriate “practitioner experience and expert opinion.”  Excluding parents from the process keeps them from being aware of how frequently “sexuality education” indoctrinates against traditional values, especially “discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

At the outset, the report makes it clear that “good” sexuality education should “take priority over personal opinion” — which, being translated, means trample all over traditional morality.  One whole section of the report counters the “common concerns” of those who “resist” sexuality education.  The implication is that the report’s “evidence-based” approach is “non-judgmental” and should prevail over those “custodians of culture” who dare to put values ahead of the “needs of young people.”  The report states as fact that “teachers remain the best qualified and most trusted providers of information and support for most children and young people.”  Yet, parents remain their children’s most trusted advisors.

The report paints a very dire picture of young people’s supposed “inadequate preparation for their sexual lives” — especially the “conflicting and confusing messages about sexuality and gender.”  Naturally, the report identifies both “gender” and “diversity” as “fundamental characteristics of sexuality.”  The term “gender” is used nearly 200 times in the 54-page report.  The “inadequacy” of current sexuality education, the report contends, leaves young people “vulnerable to coercion, abuse and exploitation, unintended pregnancy, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV.”

In other words, we learn later on in the report, if kids would just learn how to masturbate at around five years of age they could avoid abuse and exploitation and the other problems mentioned above.  “Masturbation” the report emphasizes, “is a safe and valid expression of sexuality.”  All this information must be conveyed, of course, in the “school setting” as part of a “formal curriculum” for maximum impact and effectiveness.  After all (get ready for high-powered scare tactics!) ignorance and misinformation can be life threatening.

The report recommends “age-specific standard learning objectives for sexuality education.”  The authors stress the importance of addressing “beliefs, values and skills that are amendable to change.”  Thus, they let us know at the outset that authoritative — timeless — beliefs and values are unacceptable.

The authors stress that their report is not a curriculum.  Instead, it is a strategic plan — “a global template,” if you will — “to introduce and strengthen sexuality education.”  Ah!  The purpose is clear: this is a “how to” manual for getting around those pesky parents and their “misplaced” concerns.  It is, after all, (as is mentioned repeatedly) “rights based” and “respectful of sexual and gender diversity.”  There are sections that tell readers how to develop a case for sexuality education in the face of opposition.  Another section describes how to plan for implementation.  So, let’s get this right: schools now must teach reading, writing, math and sexuality.

UNESCO and UNFPA repeatedly refer to their recommendations as “scientifically accurate, age appropriate and evidence based.”  Yet, they spend an inordinate amount of space describing the limits and inadequacies of their studies and evaluation designs.  Even so, we are told that the recommendations “provide a platform for those involved in policy, advocacy and the development of new programmes.”  The bottom line is that the research is primarily from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).  The report admits that SIECUS guidelines “provide the overall organizing framework for the topics and learning objectives.”  In addition, UNESCO conducted interviews and held a consultation with experts from 13 countries.  No conservatives were included, of course.

Once again, the worst of U.S. radical ideology is being exported around the world through these guidelines based on SIECUS recommendations.  All the children are taught that family structure doesn’t matter and that any group of people can be a family.  They are all warned against “rigid” gender roles and responsibilities that reflect “gender inequality.”  All children are taught that “people do not choose their sexual orientation or gender identity” and that expressing your sexuality “can enhance well-being.”  And they repeat the mantra that all “children should be wanted, cared for, and loved.”

* Five- to eight-year-olds are told that “touching and rubbing one’s genitals … ‘can feel pleasurable.’” They learn about “gender stereotypes” and that anybody (regardless of sexual status) can “raise a child and give it the love it deserves.”

* Nine- to twelve-year-olds learn how to get and use condoms, emergency contraception, the “signs and symptoms” of pregnancy, and all about sexual pleasure and orgasm. They learn that abortion is safe and discuss “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.” They learn about their rights – to decide for themselves about whether to become a parent and to have access to anti-retroviral therapy (ART).

* Twelve- to fifteen-year-olds are told about their right to safe abortions and post abortion care, how to use emergency contraception, and that the size and shape of the penis or breasts does not affect sexual pleasure.

The very first paragraph in the section, “Young people’s sexual and reproductive health,” complains that the “burden of disease” among young people stems from “sexual and reproductive ill health.”  In other words, they admit that early sexual activity is not healthy, but they nevertheless advocate “being sexual” as an important part of young people’s lives and contend that “abstinence is only one of a range of choices available to young people.”

Amazingly, the official press release declares that the guidelines are “to help young people learn how to protect themselves against HIV and against abuse and exploitation.”  You’ve got to love the way the left spins their craziness – just cloak all the controversial stuff in lofty goals and protective rhetoric.  Over half of the new STDs every year occur among young people, so don’t promote abstinence.  Instead lament that more than half have never been taught how to use a condom or where the local sexual health office is located, and rejoice that there is greater access to anti-retroviral therapy (ART).  More than four million girls will seek abortions every year, so don’t promote abstinence.  Instead, “introduce and strengthen sexuality education.”  Remove the stigma against sexual activity, and then introduce worldwide programs to remove the stigma against STDs, and establish a bureaucracy to teach masturbation and contraception.

Unbelievable.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

CHARLES SPURGEON HATRED WITHOUT CAUSE

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

“They hated me without a cause.” John 15:26

IT is usually understood, that the quotation our Savior here refers to is to
be found in the 35th Psalm, at the 19th verse, where David says, speaking
of himself immediately and of the Savior prophetically, “Let not them who
are mine enemies rejoice over me, neither let them wink with the eye that
hate me without a cause.” Our Savior refers to that as being applicable to
himself, and thus he really tells us, in effect, that many of the Psalms are
Messianic, or refer to the Messiah; and, therefore, Dr. Hawker did not err,
when he said he believed the Psalms referred to the Savior, though he may
have carried the truth too far. But it will be a good plan, in reading the
Psalms, if we continually look at them as alluding not so much to David, as
to the man of whom David was the type, Jesus Christ, David’s Lord.

No being was ever more lovely than the Savior; it would seem almost
impossible not to have affection for him. Certainly at first sight it would
seem far more difficult to hate him than to love him. And yet, loveable as
he was, yea, “altogether lovely,” no being so early met with hatred, and no
creature ever endured such a continual persecution as he had to suffer. He
is no sooner ushered into the world, than the sword of Herod is ready to
cut him off, and the innocents of Bethlehem, by their dreadful massacre,
gave a sad foretaste of the sufferings which Christ would endure, and of
the hatred that men would pour upon his devoted head. From his first
moment to the cross, save the temporary lull while he was a child, it
seemed as if all the world were in league against him, and all men sought to
destroy him. In different ways that hatred displayed itself, sometimes in
overt deeds, as when they took him to the brow of the hill, and would have
cast him down headlong, or when they took up stones again to stone him,
because he said that Abraham desired to see his day, and saw it, and was
glad. At other times that hatred showed itself in words of slander, such as
these, — “He is a drunken man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans
and sinners ;” or in looks of contempt, as when they looked suspiciously at
him, because he did eat with publicans and sinners, and sat down to table
with unwashed hands. At other times that hatred dwelt entirely in their
thoughts and they thought within themselves, “This man blasphemeth,”
because he said. “Thy sins be forgiven thee.” But at almost every time
there was a hatred towards Christ; and when they took him, and would
have made him king, and a shallow fleeting flood of popular applause
would have wafted him on to an unsteady throne, even then there was a
latent hatred towards him, only kept under by loaves and fishes, which only
wanted an equal quantity of loaves and fishes offered by the priests, to
develop it itself in the cry of “Crucify him, crucify him,” instead of the
shout of “Hosannah! blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”
All grades of men hated him. Most men have to meet with some
opposition; but then it is frequently a class opposition, and there are other
classes who look at them with respect. The demagogue, who is admired by
the poor, must expect to be despised by the rich; and he who labors for the
aristocracy, of course meets with the contempt of the many. But here was
a man who walked among the people, who loved them, who spoke to rich
and poor as though they were (as indeed they are) on one level in his
blessed sight: and yet all classes conspired to hate him; the priests cried him
down because he spoiled their dogmas; the nobles would put him to death
because he spoke of being a king; while the poor, for some reasons best
known to themselves though they admired his eloquence, and frequently
would have fallen prostrate in worship before him, on account of the
wondrous deeds he did, even these, led by men who ought to have guided
them better, conspired to put him to death, and to consummate their guilt
by nailing him to the tree, and then wagging their heads, bade him, if he
could build a temple in three days, to save himself and come down from the
cross. Christ was the hated one, the slandered and scorned, he was

“despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with
grief.”

Now, we shall try this morning, first, to justify the Savior’s remarks, that
he was hated without a cause; and secondly, to dwell upon the sin of men
— that men hated him without a cause; in the third place, to give a lesson
or two to Christ’s own people, which they may well learn from the fact,
that their Savior was hated without a cause.

I. First, then, beloved, let us JUSTIFY WHAT THE SAVIOR SAID, — “They
hated me without a cause.” And we remark, that, apart from the
consideration of man’s sinfulness and Christ’s purity, there certainly is no
cause, whatever to be discovered why the world should have hated him.
First let us regard Christ in his person. Was there anything in Christ’s
person as a man, when he lived in this world, which had a natural tendency
to make any person hate him? Let us remark, that there was an absence of
almost everything which excites hatred between man and man. In the first
place there was no great rank in Christ to excite envy. It is a well known
fact that let a man be ever so good, if he be at all lifted above his fellow
creatures by riches, or by title, though one by one men will respect him, yet
the many often speak against him, not so much for what he is, as for his
rank and his title. It seems to be natural to men in the mass to despise
nobles; each man, individually, thinks it a wonderful fine thing to know a
lord; but put men together, and they will despise lords and bishops and
speak very lightly of principalities and powers. Now Christ had none of the
outward circumstances of rank, he had no chariot, no long sleeves, no
elevation above his fellows, when he walked abroad there were no heralds
to attend him, there was no pomp to do him honor. In fact one would think
that Christ’s appearance would naturally have engendered pity. Instead of
being lifted above men, he did, in some sense, seem to be below them, for
foxes had holes, and the birds of the air had nests, but the Son of Man had
not where to lay his head. Many a democrat has railed against the
archbishop when he has gone by Lambeth palace; but would he curse or
despise him if he were told the archbishop had not where to lay his head,
but simply toiled for the truth’s sake and had no reward? The envy
naturally excited by rank, station, and such-like, could not have operated in
Christ’s case; there was nothing in his garb to attract attention; it was the
garb of the peasant of Galilee — “of one piece, woven from the top
throughout.” Nor was there anything in his rank. He might have been the
son of an ancient royal family, but its royalty was apparently extinct, and he
was only known as the Son of the carpenter. They hated him, then, in that
sense, “without a cause.”

Many persons seem to have envy excited in them against those who
exercise rule or government over them. The very fact of a man having
authority over me stirs up my evil passions, and I begin to look at him with
suspicion, because he is invested with that authority. Some men naturally
fall into the groove) and obey simply because the rule is made;
principalities and powers are established, and they submit themselves for
the Lord’s sake; but the many, especially in these republican times, seem to
have a natural tendency to kick against authority, simply because it is
authority. But if authorities and governments were changed every month, I
believe that in some countries, in France for instance, there would be
revolutions as much under one government as under another in fact, they
hate all government there, and wish to be without law, that each man may
do what is right in his own eyes. But this did not operate in Christ’s case,
he was not a king; he did not assume sway over the multitude. It is true he
was Lord over tempests and seas; it is true he could command demons,
and, if he pleased, men must have been his obedient servants; but he did
not assume power over them. He marshalled no armies, he promulgated no
laws, he made himself no great one in the land; the people did just as they
liked, for all the authority he exercised over them. In fact, instead of
binding laws upon them which were severe, he seemed to have loosened
the rigidity of their system; for when the adulterous woman, who,
otherwise, would have been put to death, was brought before him, he said,
“Neither do I condemn thee.” And he relaxed, to a certain extent, the
rigidity of the Sabbatical ordinance, which was in some respects too
burdensome, saying, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Surely, then, they
hated him “without a cause.”

Some men make others dislike them because they are proud. I know some
men that I should have liked very well if the starch had been left out of
them; I should really sympathize with them and admire them if they had the
least degree of condescension, but they seem to walk about the world with
such a style of pride! They may not be proud — very likely they are not;
but, as an old divine said, “When we see a fox’s tail sticking out of a hole,
we naturally expect the fox is there.” And, somehow or other, the human
mind cannot bear pride; we always kick against it. But there was nothing of
that in our Savior. How humble he was! Why he stooped to anything. He
would wash his disciples feet; and when he walked about among men,
there was no parade about him, as if he would say to them, “See my talent,
see my power, see my rank, see my dignity, stand by, I am greater than
you.” No, he takes his seat there. There is Matthew, the publican, sitting
beside him, and he does not think he is hurt by the publican, although he is
the worst of sinners; and there is a harlot, he speaks to her, there is another
with seven devils, and he casts the devils out of her, and another, who has
the leprosy and he even touches the leper, to show how humble he was,
and that there was nothing of pride about him. Oh! could you have seen the
Savior, he was the very paragon of humility! There were none of your
forms of etiquette and politeness about him, he had that true politeness
which makes itself affable to all men, because it is kind and loving to all.
There was no pride in the Savior and consequently there was nothing to
excite men’s anger on that account. Therefore, they hated him “without a
cause.”

There are others that you cannot help disliking, because they are so
snappish, and waspish, and angry; they look as if they were born on some
terribly dark stormy day, and as if, in the mixture of their body, no small
quantity of vinegar was employed. You could not sit long with them,
without feeling that you have to keep your tongue in pretty tight chain; you
must not talk freely, or there would be a quarrel, for they would make you
an offender for a word. You may say, “Such an one is, no doubt a good
man; but really, that temper of his I cannot bear it.” And when a man
stands prominently before the public, with a nasty sour disposition, one
feels inclined to dislike him. But there was nothing of this about our
Savior. “When he was reviled, he reviled not again ;” if men spat in his face
he said nothing to them; and when they smote him, he did not curse them;
he sat still and bore their scorn. He walked through the world, with
contempt and infamy constantly poured upon him; but “he answered not a
word ;” he was never angry. You cannot find, in reading the Savior’s life,
that he spake one angry word, save those words of holy wrath which he
poured, like scalding oil, upon the head of Pharisaic pride; then, indeed, his
wrath did boil, but it was holy wrath. With such a loving, kind, gentle
spirit, one would have thought that he would have gone through the world
as easily as possible. His kind spirit seemed to make a straight road for his
feet. But, notwithstanding all that, they hated him. Truly, we can say, “they
hated him without a cause.”

There is another set of people you can scarcely help disliking; they are
selfish people. Now, we know some persons who are very excellent in
temper, who are extremely honest and upright, but they are so selfish!
When you are with them, you feel that they are just friends to you for what
they can get out of you; and when you have served their turn, they will just
lay you aside, and endeavor to find another. In trying to do good, their
good deed has an ulterior object, but, somehow or other, they are always
found out; and no man in the world gets a greater share of public odium
than the man who lives a selfish life. Among the most miserable men in the
universe, kicked about the world like a football, is the selfish miser. But in
Christ there was nothing selfish; whatever he did, he did for others. He had
a marvellous power of working miracles, but he would not even change a
stone into bread for himself; he reserved his miraculous power for others;
he did not seem to have a particle of self in his whole nature. In fact, the
description of his life might be written very briefly: “he saved others,
himself he did not save.” He walked about; he touched the poorest, the
meanest, and those who were the most sick; he cared not what men might
say of him; he seemed to have no regard for fame, or dignity, or ease, or
honor. Neither his bodily nor his mental comforts were in the least
regarded by him. Self-sacrifice was the life of Christ; but he did it with such
an ease that it seemed no sacrifice. Ah! beloved, in that sense certainly they
hated Christ without a cause; for there was nothing in Christ to excite their
hatred — in fact, there was everything, on the other hand, to bind the
whole world to love and reverence a character so eminently unselfish.
Another sort of people there are that I do not like, viz., the hypocritical;
nay, I think I could even live with the selfish man, if I knew him to be
selfish; but the hypocrite, do not let him come anywhere near where I am.
Let a public man be a hypocrite once, and the world will scarcely trust him
again; they will hate him. But Christ was, in this particular, free from any
blame; and if they hated him, they hated him not for that, for there never
was a more unvarnished man than Christ. He was called, you know, the
child Jesus; because as a child speaks itself out, and has no reserve, and no
craftiness, even so was it with Jesus; he had no affectation, no deceit.
There was no change about him; he was “without variableness or shadow
of turning.” Whatever the world may say of Christ, they never said they
believed he was a hypocrite; and among all the slanders they brought
against him, they never disputed his sincerity. Had they been able to show
that he really had been imposing upon them, they might have had some
grounds for hating him; but he lived in the sunlight of sincerity and walked
on the very mountain-top of continual observation. He could not be a
hypocrite, and men knew he could not; and yet men hated him. Verily, my
friends, if you survey the character of Christ, in all its loveliness, in all its
benevolence, in all its sincerity, in all its self-devotion, in all intense
eagerness to benefit man, you must say, indeed, “they hated him without a
cause.” There was nothing in Christ’s person to lead men to hate him.
In the next place, was there anything in Christ’s errand which could make
people hate him? If they had asked him, for what reason have you come
from heaven? would there have been anything in his answer likely to excite
their indignation and hatred? I trow not. For what purpose did he come?
He came, first of all, to explain mysteries — to tell them what was meant
by the sacrificial lamb, what was the significance of the scape-goat, what
was intended by the ark, the brazen serpent, and the pot of manna; he came
to rend the veil of the holy of holies, and to show men secrets they had
never seen before. Should they have hated one who lifted the veil of
mystery, and made dark things light, and expounded riddles? Should they
have hated him who taught them what Abraham desired to see, and what
prophets and kings had longed to know, but died without a knowledge of?
Was there anything in that to make them hate him? What else did he come
for? He came on earth to reclaim the wanderer; and is there anything in
that that should make men hate Christ? If he came to reform the drunkard,
to reclaim the harlot, and gather in the publicans and sinners, and bring
prodigals to their father’s house again, sure that is an object with which
every philanthropist should agree; it is that for which our governments are
formed and fashioned, to bring men to a better state; and if Christ came for
that purpose, was there anything in that to make men hate him? For what
else did he come? He came to heal the diseases of the body; is that a
legitimate object of hatred? Shall I hate the physician who goes about
gratuitously healing all manner of diseases? Are deaf ears unstopped, are
mouths opened, are the dead raised, are the blind made to see, and widows
blest with their sons? Are these causes why a man should be obnoxious?
Surely, he might well say, “For which of these works do ye stone me? If I
have done good works wherefore speak ye against me?” But none of these
works were the cause of men’s hatred; they hated him without a cause.
And he came on earth to die, that sinners might not die? Was that a cause
of hatred? Ought I to hate the Savior, because he came to quench the
flames of hell for me? Should I despise him who allowed his father’s
flaming sword to be quenched in his own vital blood? Shall I look with
indignation upon the substitute who takes my sins and griefs upon him, and
carries my sorrows? Shall I hate and despise the man who loved me better
than he loved himself-who loved me so much that he visited the gloomy
grave for my salvation? Are these the causes of hatred? Surely his errand
was one that ought to have made us sing his praise for ever, and join the
harps of angels in their rapturous songs. “They hated me without a cause.”
But once more: was there anything in Christ’s doctrine that should have
made us hate him? No, we answer; there was nothing in his doctrine that
should have excited men’s hatred. Take his preceptive doctrines. Did he
not tell us to do to others as we would they should to us? Was he not also
the exponent of everything lovely and honorable, and of good repute? And
was not his teaching the very essence of virtue, so that if virtue’s self had
written it, it could not have written such a perfect code of lovely morals,
and excellent virtues. Was it the ethical part of his doctrines that men
hated? He taught that rich and poor must stand on one level; he taught that
his gospel was not to be confined to one particular nation, but was to be
gloriously expansive, so as to cover the world-? This perhaps, was one
principal reason of their hating him; but surely there was no justifiable
cause for their indignation in this. There was nothing in Christ to lead men
to hate him. “they hated him without a cause.”

II. And now, in the second place, I come to dwell on MAN’S SIN, that he
should have hated the Savior without a cause. Ah! beloved, I will not tell
you of man’s adulteries, and fornications, and murders, and poisonings,
and sodomies. I will not tell you of man’s wars, and bloodsheds, and
cruelties, and rebellions. If I want to tell you man’s sin, I must tell you that
man is a deicide — that he put to death his God, and slew his Savior; and
when I have told you that, I have given you the essence of all sin, the
master-piece of crime, the very pinnacle and climax of the terrific pyramid
of mortal guilt. Man outdid himself when he put his Savior to death, and
sin did out-Herod Herod when it slew the Lord of the universe, the lover
of the race of man, who came on earth to die Never does sin appear so
exceedingly sinful as when we see it pointed at the person of Christ, whom
it hated without a cause. In every other case, when man has hated
goodness, there have always been some extenuating circumstances. We
never do see goodness in this world without alloy; however great may be
any man’s goodness, there is always some peg whereon we may hang a
censure; however excellent a man may be, there is always some fault which
may diminish our admiration or our love. But in the Savior there was
nothing of this. There was nothing that could blot the picture; holiness
stood out to the very life; there was holiness — only holiness. Let a man
hate Whitfield, one of the holiest men that ever lived, he would tell you, he
did not hate his goodness, but he hated his ranting preaching, and the
extraordinary anecdotes he told; or he would pull out something that
dropped from his lips, and hold it up to derision. But in Christ’s case men
could not do that; for though they sought for false witnesses, yet their
witnesses agreed not together. There was nothing in him but holiness: and
any person with half an eye can see, that the thing men hated was simply
that Christ was perfect; they could not have hated him for anything else.
And thus you see the abominable detestable evil of the human heart —
that man hates goodness simply because it is such. It is not true that we
Christian people are hated because of our infirmities; men make our
infirmities a nail whereon to hang their laughter; but if we were not
Christians they would not hate our infirmities. They hold our
inconsistencies up to ridicule; but I do not believe our inconsistencies are
what they care about; we might be as inconsistent as all the rest of the
world if we did not profess religion, or if they did not think we had any.
But because the Savior had no inconsistencies or infirmities, men were
stripped of all their excuses for hating him, and it came out that man
naturally hates goodness, because he is so evil that he cannot but detest it.
And now let me appeal to every sinner present, and ask him whether he
ever had any cause for hating Christ. But some one says, “I do not hate
him; if he were to come to my house I would love him very much.” But it
is very remarkable that Christ lives next door to you, in the person of poor
Betty there. She goes to such-and-such a chapel, and you say she is
nothing but a poor canting Methodist. Why don’t you like Betty? She is
one of Christ’s members, and “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the
least of these, ye have done it unto me.” You say you do not hate Christ.
Now, look across the chapel. Don’t you know a man, a member of this
place, a very holy man, but somehow or other you cannot bear him,
because he told you of your faults once. Ah! sir, if you loved Christ you
would love his members. What! tell me you love my head, but you do not
love my hands? My dear fellow, you cannot cut my head off and let me be
the same person. If you love Christ the head, you must love his members.
But you say, “I do love his people.”

Very well, then you have passed from death unto life, if you love the
brethren. But you say, “I am not sure that I am a changed character, still, I
am not aware that there is any opposition in my heart to Christ and his
gospel.” You may not be aware of it, but it is your not being aware of it
that makes your case all the more sad. Perhaps if you knew it, and wept
over it, you would come to Christ; but, since you do not know it and do
not feel it, that is a proof of your hostility. Now, come! I must suppose you
to be hostile to Christ, unless you love him; for I know there are only two
opinions of him. You must either hate him or love him. As for indifference
with regard to Christ, it is just a clear impossibility. A man might as well
say, “I am indifferent towards honesty.” Why, then he is dishonest, is he
not? You are indifferent to Christ? Then you hate him. And wily is it that
you hate him? Many a time you have been wooed by the gospel; you have
resisted appeals, many of them; come, now, for which of Christ’s works do
you hate him? Have I a persecutor here? Sinner! for what dost thou hate
Christ? Dost thou curse him? Tell me what he has done, that thou shouldst
be angry with him. Point to a single fault of his in his carriage towards
thee. Has Christ ever hurt thee? “Oh!” says one, “he has taken my wife and
made her one of his children and she has been baptized and comes to
chapel, and I cannot bear that.” Ah! sinner, is that why thou hatest Christ?
Wouldst thou have hated Christ if he had snatched thy wife from the
flames, if he had saved her from going down to death. No, thou wouldst
love him. And he has saved thy wife’s soul. Ah! if he never saves thee; if
thou lovest thy wife, thou wilt have enough cause to love him, to think he
has been so good to thee. I tell thee, if thou hatest Christ, thou not only
hatest him without a cause, but thou hatest him when thou hast ample
cause to love him. Come, poor sinner, what hast thou got by hating Christ?
Thou hast stings of conscience. Many a sinner, by hating Christ, has been
locked up in jail, has a ragged coat, a diseased body, a nasty filthy house,
with broken windows, a poor wife, nearly beaten to death, and children
that scamper out of the way as soon as father comes home. What hast thou
got by hating Christ? Oh I if thou wert to estimate thy gains, thou wouldst
find that getting Christ would be a gain, but that hating him is a dead loss
to thee. Now, if you hate Christ and Christ’s religion, I tell you that you
hate Christ without a cause; and let me give you one solemn warning,
which is this, that if you keep on hating Christ till you die, you will not hurt
Christ by it, but you will hurt yourself most awfully. Oh! may God deliver
you from being haters of Christ! There is nothing to get by it, but
everything to lose by it. For what cause do you hate Christ, sinner? For
what cause do you hate Christ, persecutor? For what cause do you hate
Christ, ye carnal, ungodly men? What do you hate Christ’s gospel for? His
ministers — what hurt have they done you? What hurt can they do you,
when they long to do you all the good in the world? Why is it you hate
Christ? Ah! it is only because you are so desperately set on mischief —
because the poison of asps is under your lips, and your throat is an open
sepulcher. Otherwise, ye would love Christ. They hated him “without a
cause.”

And now, Christian men, I must preach at you for just a moment. Sure ye
have great reason to love Christ now, for ye once hated him without a
cause. Did ye ever treat a friend ill, and did not know it? It has been the
misfortune of most of us to do it sometimes. We had some suspicion that a
friend had done us an injury; we quarrelled with him for weeks, and he had
not done it at all. What he had done was only to warn us. Ah! there are
never tears like those we shed when we have injured a friend. And should
we not weep when we have injured the Savior? Did he not come to my
door one cold damp night, and I shut my door against him? Oh! I have
done what I cannot undo; I have slighted my Lord, I have insulted my
friend, I have thrown dishonors upon him whom I admire. Shall I not weep
for him? Oh! shall I not spend my very life for him? for my sins, my own
treachery spilled his blood. Monuments, ah! monuments I will build;
wherever I live, wherever I go. I’ll pile up monuments of praise, that his
name may be spread; and where’er I wander, I’ll tell what he did, with
many a tear, that I so long have ill-treated him and so fearfully
misunderstood him. We hated him without a cause therefore, let us love
him.

III. Two LESSONS TO THE SAINTS.

In the first place, if your Master was hated without a cause, do not you
expect to get off very easily in the world. If your Master was subject to all
this contempt and all this pain, do you suppose you will always ride
through this world in a chariot? If you do, you will be marvellously
mistaken. As your Master was persecuted, you must expect to be the same.
Some of you pity us when we are persecuted and despised. Ah! save your
pity, keep it for those of whom the world speaks well; keep it for those
against whom the woe is pronounced. “Woe unto you when all men shall
speak well of you.” Save your pity for earth’s favorites; save your pity for
this world’s lords, that are applauded by all men. We ask not for your pity;
nay, sirs, in all these things we rejoice, and “glory in tribulations also,
knowing that the things which happen unto us, happen for the furtherance
of the gospel;” and we count it all joy when we fall into manifold
temptations, for we rejoice that thus the name of Christ is known and his
kingdom extended.

The other lesson is, take care, if the world does hate you, that it hate, you
without a cause. If the world is to oppose you, it is of no use making the
world oppose you. This world is bitter enough, without my putting vinegar
in it. Some people seem to fancy the world will persecute them; therefore,
they put themselves into a fighting posture, as if they invited persecutions.
Now, I do not see any good in doing that. Do not try and make other
people dislike you. Really, the opposition some people meet with is not for
righteousness’ sake, but for their own sin’s sake, or their own nasty
temper’s sake. Many a Christian lives in a house — a Christian servant girl
perhaps; she says she is persecuted for righteousness’ sake. But she is of a
bad disposition; she sometimes speaks sharp, and then her mistress
reproves hen That is not being persecuted for righteousness’ sake. There is
another, a merchant in the city, perhaps; he is not looked upon with much
esteem. He says he is persecuted for righteousness’ sake; whereas, it is
because he did not keep a bargain sometime ago. Another man says he is
persecuted for righteousness’ sake; but he goes about assuming authority
over everybody, and now and then persons turn round and upbraid him.
Look to it, Christian people, that if you are persecuted, it is for
righteousness’ sake; for if you get any persecution yourself you must keep
it yourself. The persecutions you bring on yourself for your own sins,
Christ has nothing to do with them, they are chastisements on you. They
hated Christ without a cause; then fear not to be hated. They hated Christ
without a cause; then court not to be hated, and give the world no cause
for it.

And now may you who hate Christ love him; Oh! that he would bring
himself to you now! Oh! that he would show himself to you! And then sure
you must love him at once. He that believeth on the Lord Jesus will be sure
to love him and he that loveth him shall be saved. Oh! that God would give
you faith, and give you love, for Christ Jesus’ sake. Amen.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

The World Council of Churches offers a unique network that the Norwegian theologian who will take over the helm of the Christian grouping in 2010 says he will use to forge better relations with the Roman Catholic Church, other Christian groups and Muslims.

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

Geneva (ENI). The World Council of Churches offers a unique network that the Norwegian theologian who will take over the helm of the Christian grouping in 2010 says he will use to forge better relations with the Roman Catholic Church, other Christian groups and Muslims.

The Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit, a 48-year-old ordained pastor in the Church of Norway, was elected general secretary of the World Council of Churches on 27 August.

“There is no network in this world like the churches. There is no network so close to the grass roots people in the world. There is no network that is so well linked together and so much called to be together,” said Tveit. He was speaking to journalists the day after his election to head the world’s largest grouping of churches.

The WCC represents more than 560 million Christians and has 349 members, principally Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant churches. The Catholic Church does not belong to the WCC but has members on some of its committees.

Tveit is currently general secretary of the Church of Norway Council on Ecumenical and International Relations and he was elected during a 26 August – 2 September meeting of the WCC’s main governing body, its central committee. He will succeed the Rev. Samuel Kobia, a Methodist from Kenya, who stands down at the end of 2009. Tveit will be the second Lutheran to head the church grouping in its 61-year history.

“We are living in a time when there is a need for inter-Christian solidarity in this world. We can raise the voice of others … making the voice of the local Christian, stronger, richer wider,” said Tveit.

“It is not always easy, but it is important to have a growing accountable accommodation,” said Tveit, saying all churches including those in the WCC, the Catholic, Evangelical, Pentecostal and charismatic churches in effect all pursue the same goal – the call to Christian unity.

“The relationship of the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church is one of the main items of the agenda of the WCC,” said Tveit who said he looked forward to meeting Pope Benedict XVI, “although I have not done any scheduling yet.”

Tveit said that after his election was announced to be the WCC’s new general secretary he had received messages from leaders of both the Islamic and the Jewish communities in Oslo. In Norway he is the moderator of the Church of Norway-Islamic Council of Norway contact group.

Tveit said one call came from the General Islamic Council of Norway with whom he has been engaged in talking about the issues of cartoons published in Scandinavian papers portraying Prophet Muhammad, the right to convert and also concerns about the rights of Christians in Pakistan.

“This are the type of relations we have to develop on the local, national and international level,” said Tveit. He noted churches have “great potential” to break down the various barriers that exist in the world and the way forward begins with a simple premise, “to see one another as fellow human beings. All faiths call us to that.”

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Lesbian women undergoing fertility treatment will be able to name female partners as a ’second parent’ on their children’s birth certificates under controversial changes to be implemented next week.

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

Mail

Lesbian partners allowed to name each other as parents on children’s birth certificates

Lesbian women undergoing fertility treatment will be able to name female partners as a ’second parent’ on their children’s birth certificates under controversial changes to be implemented next week.

Ministers are pushing ahead with new regulations despite criticism that they represent another blow to traditional family values.

The Government is also removing the need for IVF clinics to consider a child’s ‘need for a father’ when approving fertility treatment.

For women who are in a civil partnership and who use donor sperm, the lesbian partner will automatically be named unless they make a written objection.

Single women who give birth using IVF will be allowed to nominate another woman to share legal parentage, whether or not they are in a civil partnership. The ’second parent’ in such circumstances will have to give their written consent.

The change will apply to many of the 2,000 women a year who have IVF using sperm from anonymous donors.

There is concern that the new arrangements will create a legal minefield, since ’second parents’ named on birth certificates will assume the legal rights and responsibilities of biological parents.

They could fight for visitation rights and be chased for child support payments if their relationship with the mother breaks down.

Critics also warn that ’second parents’ could be nominated in much the same way that godparents are now, since it will be impossible to prove whether someone selected by a single mother not in a civil partnership really is a long-term partner or not.

Labour MP Geraldine Smith said: ‘To have a birth certificate with two mothers and no father is just madness.

‘Common sense has completely gone out of the window. It’s very unfair on the children for the state to be colluding to hide their real genetic parentage. The birth certificate

‘I think it’s putting the interests of adults first, rather than the welfare of the unborn child, and that’s contrary to the way the system has always worked in the past.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries said the change sent the wrong message to society on the importance of the traditional family.

‘Everything indicates that a mother and father looking after children in the traditional unit works best,’ she said.

‘This move further undermines that model and sends out the wrong message.’

Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: ‘It’s a peculiarly postmodern way of looking at the world, with almost any family arrangement seen as equally valid.

‘My criticism of this is that effectively it creates a legal fiction around the parentage of children. The names of people on the birth certificate will have no relationship at all to the child.

‘It will create a legal minefield when it comes to issues like maintenance and inheritance.

‘The best interests of the child should always take precedence over parental choice. It’s tragic that we are creating life in these kind of circumstances when there’s a huge amount that could be done for existing children, in terms of adoption.’

Under provisions in Labour’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, fertility doctors will no longer have to have to consider a child’s need for a male role model, simply ’supportive parenting’.

The Archbishop of York led religious objections to the Government’s proposals, claiming they were designed to remove the father from the heart of the family.

Dr John Sentamu warned that ministers were putting the interests of ‘consumers’ who wanted to become parents before the welfare of children.

Polls found that eight out of ten people believe a child has a right to two parents and that six out of ten believe that a child should have male and female parents.

Critics accuse Labour of a systematic attempt to undermine traditional family roles. It has removed the traditional terms ‘husband’, ‘wife’ and ’spouse’ from a wide range of official forms, and replaced them with the word ‘partner’.

Ruth Hunt, of gay rights group Stonewall, said the change in the law would end discrimination.

‘Now lesbian couples in Britain who make a considered decision to start a loving family will finally be afforded equal access to services they help fund as taxpayers,’ she said.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Supporters of the legalisation of voluntary, assisted and state euthanasia are likely to renew their efforts to introduce legislation in the next Parliament. But the general public – and other MPs – should look to the Netherlands as a warning on where such legislation can take a country.

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

Life Bite

The winds of change have swept through the Netherlands – By Andrew Halloway

Supporters of the legalisation of voluntary, assisted and state euthanasia are likely to renew their efforts to introduce legislation in the next Parliament. But the general public – and other MPs – should look to the Netherlands as a warning on where such legislation can take a country.

The majority of the Dutch now support euthanasia – a sweeping change for a nation where doctors of the previous generation heroically refused Nazi orders to kill patients.

In Holland, euthanasia has, to all intents and purposes, become a tool of health care rationing. According to www.current.com, “over 50% of Dutch physicians admitted to practising euthanasia, most often on cancer patients. Only 60% kept written records of their euthanasia practice and only 29% filled out death certificates honestly in euthanasia cases… Only half of Dutch doctors report euthanasia.”

In 2001, a study of 5,500 deaths found that 41% to 54% were of patients that had been euthanised.

In the Netherlands, such statistics are defended by those who say that the suffering of these patients was ended of their own free will. But apparently that is not always the case.

Because euthanasia now has strong public support, running at about 80%, doctors have killed some adult patients who did not request their deaths. Researcher Richard Minister (in ‘The Dutch way of Death’, 2001) says that, even way back in 1990, the government’s own records show that, of 130,000 Dutch deaths, 11,800 were “killed or helped to die” by doctors, and an estimated 5,981 of these were killed without their consent.

In addition, there are the deaths of disabled infants, terminally ill children and mental patients. Around 8% of all Dutch infant deaths are caused by doctors, a figure confirmed in a 1997 edition of the leading British medical journal, the Lancet.

When Groningen University Hospital announced their decision to euthanise children under 12 when their pain is “intolerable, or if they have an incurable illness”, the Catholic Association of Doctors and Nurses gave this response:

“The decision proposes a death solution in situations which could be addressed by modern palliative care… [and it] raises the suspicion of a financial interest of the public authorities, since it decreases the ‘burden’ of prolonged and expensive care in clinical conditions for which any extension of life duration is considered meaningless… it opens the door on a national scale to the ‘mercy killing’ of other mentally incompetent persons, to be eliminated without their consent for reasons based on an external appreciation of their quality of life.”

It is also claimed that 31 per cent of Dutch paediatricians have killed infants – a fifth of which were done without the consent of parents.

In ‘Now They Want to Euthanise Children’ author Wesley J. Smith says: “In 30 years Holland has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for mental illness, from euthanasia for mental illness to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia or as the Dutch prefer to call it ‘termination of the patient without explicit request’.”

In fact, opinion has swung so far that denying someone an assisted death is actually seen as discrimination against the chronically ill! Smith continues: “The next step, non-voluntary euthanasia, is then justified by appealing to our social duty to care for patients who are not competent to choose for themselves.”

When killing is interpreted as ‘care’, we have a complete reversal of normal morality.

Remarkably, the original Hippocratic oath, written as long ago as the 4th century BC, contained higher morals than most Western societies espouse today. The Dutch should be shamed by it. Despite being formulated in a pre-Christian society, it nevertheless contained many prohibitions that pro-lifers of today would be proud of:

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy… In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”

How sad that this oath, particularly because of such politically incorrect values, is no longer a requirement for modern doctors. So much for progress!

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Chief constable Barbara Wilding, of South Wales Police, has warned any change in the law on assisted suicide must not become a way for families with elderly relatives to get rid of a “burden”.

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

BBC

A chief constable has warned any change in the law on assisted suicide must not become a way for families with elderly relatives to get rid of a “burden”.

Barbara Wilding, of South Wales Police, told a newspaper police would have to be “very careful” to make sure it “does not become a way of getting rid of a burden”.

It comes as policy over prosecutions of aiding suicide is being examined.

Ms Wilding said she would watch any change in legislation “very carefully”.

“From a policing perspective we need to be very careful on this to make sure it does not become a way of getting rid of a burden,” she told the Daily Telegraph.

The director of public prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Keir Starmer QC, is working on policy to clarify whether people should be prosecuted for aiding a suicide following a landmark ruling by the Law Lords.

Multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy, 46, from Bradford, brought a case against the head of the CPS to seek a guarantee her husband would not be charged should he help her commit suicide with the right-to-die organisation Dignitas in Switzerland.

‘Growing intolerance’

It has been reported that Mr Starmer’s guidelines would apply to people who helped loved ones die in Britain as well as those who travelled abroad.

More than 100 Britons, mostly terminally ill, have died at Dignitas. Its founder has defended helping people to die, saying it was “a very good possibility to escape a situation which you can’t alter”.

Under the 1961 Suicide Act covering England and Wales, those who aid, abet, counsel or procure someone else’s suicide can be prosecuted and sentenced to serve up to 14 years in jail.

Ms Wilding, 59, who retires in December, also told the Telegraph of a “rift” between people under 25 and those over 50 “who only have to see young people on the street and they call it anti-social behaviour”.

“This growing intolerance and fear of young people has not been helped by the ‘tough on crime’ political views,” she said.

“Every party has been ‘tougher’ than the last one and young people seem to be the butt of it.”

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Bishop of Rochester The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali: Church of England must do more to counter twin threats of secularism and radical Islam

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

WE salute you Bish Naz!

Telegraph – Martin Beckford

Traditional British society is under threat from the rise of aggressive secularism and radical Islam, one of the Church of England’s most outspoken bishops has warned as he steps down.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who ends his time as Bishop of Rochester next week, said the established religion must speak out more to preserve the country’s Christian heritage and offer moral guidance to the masses.

He also claimed that liberal Anglicans around the world who are following contemporary culture rather than the teachings of the Bible are effectively following a different faith.

Dr Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, became the Church’s first Asian bishop when he was appointed to Rochester in 1994 and came to be seen as a contender for the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

However the job went to Dr Rowan Williams and as the global Anglican Communion tore itself apart over the ordination of homosexual clergy, Dr Nazir-Ali instead became known as one of its leading conservative voices.

Last year he claimed some parts of Britain had become “no-go areas” for non-Muslims, and boycotted a once-a-decade gathering of senior Anglicans in protest at the presence of liberal American bishops.

In a final interview with The Daily Telegraph before stepping down on Tuesday, Dr Nazir-Ali said he did not believe the history of the church would have been different had he been given the most important job in Anglicanism.

“This is not about one man – these are currents in culture and they happen in different ages.

“I am happy that I’ve been able to do what I’ve been asked to do.”

But he also said that the Church of England, which is used to working with society, should speak up more often to defend the country’s customs and institutions, most of which are based on Christian teaching.

“I think it will need to be more visible and take more of a stand on moral and spiritual issues,” the bishop said.

“What’s our basis for thinking that people are equal? It’s the Judeo-Christian tradition that has provided us with these resources and we will continue to need it.”

He said that the Church should defend the traditional two-parent family and Christian festivals, which are opposed not by followers of other faiths but by atheists who want to remove religion from the public square.

“I think there’s a double jeopardy – on the one hand an aggressive secularism that seeks to undermine the traditional principles because it has its own project to foster.

“On the other is the extremist ideology of radical Islam, which moderate Muslims are also concerned about.

“This is why there must be a clear recognition of where Britain has come from, what the basis is for our society and how that can contribute to the common good.”

Dr Nazir-Ali, who has just turned 60 and could have remained in his post for several more years, announced earlier this year that he would step down to work with persecuted Christians around the world.

He said he plans to help “develop leadership” in countries such as Iran and Pakistan, where church buildings have been confiscated and Christians attacked.

The bishop denied he would be taking up a formal role in one of the movements for orthodox Anglicans that have been set up recently to resist the liberal direction of the church.

But he said he would continue to support them as they try to stop more churches “capitulating” to modern culture by permitting homosexual clergy or blessing same-sex unions.

“We now have people in the US but not only there who believe things about God, about salvation, about marriage and about human sexuality that seem to be another religion.

“In a way it would be better to recognise it as something quite different, so then we could relate to it in a more positive and constructive way.”

Brava Clapping

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Atheists offer to care for Christians’ pets after the Rapture – It’s a question that all animal-loving Christian evangelicals must address: who will look after their pets on Earth when the Rapture comes and they are taken up to heaven?

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

Oh this is just classic, I couldn’t resist this article from the Telegraph by Michael Moore

Now a group of atheists in the US have come up with a tongue-in-cheek solution, offering to take in the cats and dogs of “saved” believers in return for a small fee.

All the atheists signed up by Eternal Earth-Bound Pets are self-confessed sinners and blasphemers, guaranteeing they will be left behind when the chosen are selected

The business idea is an irreverent attempt to cash in on the belief – widespread among US Christians – that the pious will be carried up to heaven by God in a sudden swoop, leaving unbelievers to endure the seven-year reign of the anti-Christ on Earth.

According to some polls, as many as 55 per cent of Americans believe in the notion of the Rapture.

“You’ve committed your life to Jesus. You know you’re saved. But when the Rapture comes what’s to become of your loving pets who are left behind?” the group’s website asks.

“Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.”

For $110, the firm promises lifetime care for almost all domestic pets if their owners are transported to heaven within the next ten years.

The offer may sound far-fetched, and even a little provocative, but the group insists it is not joking.

It claims to have a network of pet-loving atheists spread across 20 states to ensure speedy, local animal care wherever the Rapture occurs, and has established a PayPal account to take subscriptions.

The founders also assure believers that their animals will enjoy an excellent quality of life: “All pets will live in loving homes, not in animal shelters or pet ‘mills’.”

And while the company promises that all its atheist carers are moral people with no criminal records, it stresses that they are not too saintly.

“Each of our representatives has stated to us in writing that they are atheists, do not believe in God / Jesus, and that they have blasphemed in accordance with Mark 3:29, negating any chance of salvation,” the website states.

But potential customers would be advised to read the terms and conditions before forking out their $110; if the subscriber loses their faith or is not Raputered in the next 10 years, they are not entitled to a refund.

The venture follows the launch last year of a new internet service designed to allow Christian subscribers to send emails to non-believing friends and relatives after the Rapture.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

President Ivan Gašparovic signed into law on Tuesday an amendment to Slovakia’s abortion act that establishes mandatory counselling, requires a 2-day wait, and increases the age until which parental consent is required from 16 to 18

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

Well done!!

Slovakian President Signs Abortion Informed Consent Law

BRATISLAVA, August 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Ivan Gašparovic signed into law on Tuesday an amendment to Slovakia’s abortion act that establishes mandatory counselling, requires a 2-day wait, and increases the age until which parental consent is required from 16 to 18.

The amendment was adopted by the Slovak Parliament in June and it will now come into effect in September.

International abortion groups’ pressure, coordinated by the US based pro-abortion network “Center for Reproductive Rights,” called for rejection of the amendment, claiming that it was “in conflict with women’s rights to privacy, physical integrity and autonomy, confidentiality, health, and non- discrimination.”

A letter signed by 19 pro-abortion organizations and networks and 7 individuals was sent to all Slovak policy makers, quoting the World Health Organization: “Parental notification or authorization is considered a requirement that deters women from seeking timely care and may lead them to risk self-induced abortion or clandestine services,” and also quoting the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

A couple of days before the vote, however, more than 80 organizations and 53 individuals from all over the world, alerted by the Familiokratos Coalition, complimented all Slovak policy makers, pointing out that, “As many as 85 % of women surveyed feel that they were misinformed or denied relevant information during their pre-abortion counseling.”

“While international abortion groups seek to put pressure on this Parliament to restrict a woman’s choice, it is paramount that abortion is not a human right under European law and that individual States have the sole authority to determine the protections they wish to afford to life and to women’s health,” they said.

The amendment was adopted by 87 Members of Parliament voting for and only 7 against.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark