Archive for August, 2009

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

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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!

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.”

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

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.

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.

Switch to our mobile site