Archive for October, 2009

Europe’s far-right parties form international alliance

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

Is this a worrying devlopment?

BUDAPEST (JTA) — An international political alliance grouping the principal radical national movements of the European Union has been formed.

Gábor Vona, leader of Hungary’s far-right Jobbik party, made the announcement Saturday in Budapest.

These far-right parties have made substantial gains in recent European elections by exploiting the rise of anti-Semitism in a climate of economic insecurity generated by the recession.

Their so-called Alliance of European Nationalist Movements will be registered either in Brussels or Luxembourg, Vona said during weekend celebrations honoring the anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution against Soviet rule.

The group’s founding members are the National Front of Belgium, the National Democratic Party of Sweden, the French Front National and the Italian Fiamma Tricolore, as well as Jobbik. But Vona added that negotiations were progressing with several other prospective members including like-minded parties in Austria, Britain, Spain and Portugal.

A nine-point declaration signed by the founders reject any initiative in support of a federal Europe. It also calls for protection against “religious, political, economic or financial imperialism.”

Jobbik party activists were highly visible at many Hungarian celebrations marking the failed revolution, donning the uniforms of the banned paramilitary National Guard and the recently formed Guard Gendarmerie. Both these organizations are modeled on military forces that murdered thousands of Jews during World War II.

The International Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has progressed in its reflection on the role of the bishop of Rome.

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

By Jesús Colina

PAPHOS, Cyprus, OCT. 23, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The International Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has progressed in its reflection on the role of the bishop of Rome.

The commission issued a joint communiqué reporting on its progress at the end of its 11th plenary session, ended today in Paphos. The document in question is titled “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.”

The document is based on a draft prepared by an Orthodox-Catholic committee, which met in Crete last year. At present, the commission is reflecting on the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium — before the Great Schism of 1054.

The current work of the commission responds to the appeal made by Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical “Ut Unum Sint” on the “ecumenical commitment,” in which he proposed “finding a way to exercise the primacy that, without giving up in any way what is essential to its mission, opens to a new situation.”

This is possible, he added, as “for a millennium Christians were united by the fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life, the See of Rome being, by common consent, the moderator when disagreements arose among them on matters of faith or discipline.”

John Paul II himself invited both sides to seek “naturally together, the ways with which this ministry can carry out a service of faith and love recognized by one another.”

Still working

“During this plenary meeting, the Commission analyzed with great care and amended the draft of the Mixed Coordination Committee, and decided to complete its work on the text next year, calling a new meeting of the Mixed Commission,” the communiqué reported.

The meeting was attended by 20 Catholic members; all Orthodox Churches were represented, with the exception of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria.

The commission worked under the guidance of two co-presidents: the Catholic representative was Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity; and the Orthodox representative was Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas of Pergamum.

On Saturday, the co-presidents and other participants, among whom was Argentine Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, were received in the presidential palace by Demitris Christofias, president of Cyprus, who placed his hope “in this important dialogue for a world still divided.”

The president “expressed his best wishes for progress in communion between the two Churches in the future,” the communiqué reported.

Protests of radical Orthodox opposed to dialogue with the Catholic Church interrupted the work of the weeklong meeting. The country’s police arrested four citizens and two monks of the monastery of Stavrovunio, confirmed Amen.gr.

The Orthodox representatives called the protests “totally unjustifiable and unacceptable, as they present false information which creates confusion,” the communiqué stated. “All the Orthodox members of the commission re-affirmed that the dialogue continues with the decision of all the Orthodox Churches and advances with fidelity to the truth and to the Tradition of the Church.”

The mixed commission was established by John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I in Istanbul on Nov. 30, 1979, on the feast of St. Andrew (Patron of the Church of Constantinople).

The Bishop of Lichfield (Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill) has spoken out in defiance of dress codes and workplace uniform policies with a call to Christians to wear their cross necklaces and fish badges in December.

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

by Jenna Lyle

The Bishop of Lichfield has spoken out in defiance of dress codes and workplace uniform policies with a call to Christians to wear their cross necklaces and fish badges in December.

In a pastoral letter published in parish magazines across the Diocese of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill said Christians should not be intimidated into putting their Christian jewellery away.

“The Christian roots to our governance should not be nibbled away without discussion,” he said. “Sometimes I think it wouldn’t be a bad thing if in December we all wore a fish badge or cross necklace and sent out a loud message that Christians aren’t going to disappear quietly from the market place or put away our crib figures in a hurry.”

He went on to challenge Christians to demonstrate a more costly sign of their faith than lapel pins and necklaces by serving their communities.

“The mark of a real Christian community is not so much the lapel badges and crosses we wear as the spontaneous, generous and practical love we show to the world,” he said.

“Christians should not be intimidated into putting away their neck crosses or lapel badges, but in the end these are not the badges that matter. The mark that matters is far more challenging.”

His letter comes just one month after Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin filed for discrimination after she was told by bosses at the Royal Devon and Exeter Trust Hospital to either accept redeployment to a non-nursing role or face the sack for refusing to remove her cross necklace.

Bishop Gledhill condemned companies that threaten to sack their Christian employees for wearing cross necklaces and local councils that want to rebrand Christmas for fear of offending ethnic minorities as acting in “sheer ignorance”.

He said: “Ethnic minorities are far more anxious about the rampant secularism and commercialism that erodes all Christian standards than they are about their host country properly celebrating its Christian foundations.”

FURTHER INTERNET LINK:-

CHARLES SPURGEON PRESUMPTUOUS SINS

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

“Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins.” Psalm 19:13

ALL sins are great sins, but yet some sins are greater than others. Every sin
has in it the very venom of rebellion, and is full of the essential marrow of
traitorous rejection of God. But there be some sins which have in them a
greater development of the essential mischief of rebellion, and which wear
upon their faces more of the brazen pride which defies the Most High. It is
wrong to suppose that because all sins will condemn us, that therefore one
sin is not greater than another. The fact is, that while all transgression is a
greatly grievous sinful thing, yet there are some transgressions which have
a deeper shade of blackness, and a more double scarlet dyed hue of
criminality than others. Now the presumptuous sins of our text are just the
chief of all sins: they rank head and foremost in the list of iniquities. It is
remarkable that though an atonement was provided under the Jewish law
for every kind of sin, there was this one exception. “But the soul that
sinneth presumptuously shall have no atonement, it shall be cut off from
the midst of my people.” And now under the Christian dispensation,
although in the sacrifice of our blessed Lord there is a great and precious
atonement for presumptuous sins whereby sinners who have sinned in this
manner are made clean, yet without doubt, presumptuous sinners, dying
without pardon, must expect to receive a double portion of the wrath of
God, and a more wonderful manifestation of the unutterable anguish of the
torment of eternal punishment in the pit that is digged for the wicked.
I shall this morning first of all endeavor to describe presumptuous sins,
then secondly, I shall try, if I can, to show by some illustrations why the
presumptuous sin is more heinous than any other, and then thirdly, I shall
try to press this prayer upon your notice — the prayer, mark you, of the
holy man — the prayer of David. “Keep back thy servant also from
presumptuous sins.”

I. First, then, WHAT IS A PRESUMPTOUS SIN? Now, I think there must be
one of four things in a sin in order to make it presumptuous. It must either
be a sill against light and knowledge, or a sin committed with deliberation,
or a sin committed with a design of sinning, merely for sinning’s sake, or
else it must be a sin committed through hardihood, from a man’s rash
confidence in his own strength. We will mark these points one by one.

1. A sin that is committed wilfully against manifest light and knowledge, is
a presumptuous sin. A sin of ignorance is not presumptuous, unless that
ignorance also be wilful, in which case the ignorance is itself a
presumptuous sin. But when a man sins for want of knowing better — for
want of knowing the law, for want of instruction, reproof, advice and
admonition, we say that his sin, so committed, does not partake to any
great extent of the nature of a presumptuous sin. But when a man knows
better, and sins in the very teeth and face of his increased light and
knowledge, then his sin deserves to be branded with this ignonimous title
of a presumptuous sin. Let me just dwell on this thought a moment
conscience is often an inner light to men, whereby they are warned of
forbidden acts as being sinful. Then if I sin against conscience, though I
have no greater light than conscience affords me, still my sin is
presumptuous, if I have presumed to go against that voice of God in my
heart, an enlightened conscience. You, young men, were once tempted,
(and perhaps it was but yesterday,) to commit a certain act.

The very moment you were tempted, conscience said, “It is wrong, it is
wrong” — it shouted murder in your heart, and told you the deed you
were about to commit was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Your
fellow apprentice committed the same sin without the yearning of
conscience; in him it was guilt — guilt which needs to be washed away
with the Saviour’s blood. But it was not such guilt in him as it was in you,
because your conscience checked you; your conscience told you of the
danger, warned you of the punishment, and yet you dared to go astray
against God, and therefore you sinned presumptuously. You have sinned
very grievously in having done so. When a man shall trespass on my
ground, he shall be a trespasser though he have no warning, but if straight
before his face there stands a warning, and if he knowingly and willingly
trespasses then he is guilty of a presumptuous trespass, and is to be so far
punished accordingly. So you, if you had not known better; if your
conscience had been less enlightened, you might have committed the deed
with far less of the criminality which now attaches to you, because you
sinned against conscience, and consequently sinned presumptuously.
But, oh I how much greater is the sin, when man not only has the light of
conscience, but has also the admonition of friends, the advice of those who
are wise and esteemed by him. If I have but one cheek, the cheek of my
enlightened conscience, and I transgress against it, I am presumptuous; but
if a mother with tearful eye warns me of the consequence of my guilt, and
if a father with steady look, and with affectionate determined earnestness,
tells me what will be the fact of my transgression — if friends who are dear
to me counsel me to avoid the way of the wicked, and warn me what must
be the inevitable result of continuing in it, then I am presumptuous, and my
act in that very proportion becomes more guilty. I should have been
presumptuous for having sinned against the light of nature, but I am more
presumptuous, when added to that, I have the light of affectionate counsel
and of kind advice, and therein I bring upon my head a double amount of
divine wrath. And how much more is this the case, when the transgressor
has been gifted with what is usually called a religious education; in
childhood he has been lighted to his bed by the lamps of the sanctuary, the
name of Jesus was mingled with the hush of lullaby, the music of the
sanctuary woke him like a matin hymn at morning, he has been dandled on
the knee of piety and has sucked the breasts of godliness; he has been
tutored and trained in the way he should go; how much more fearful I say,
is the guilt of such a man than that of those who have never had such
training, but have been left to follow their own wayward lusts and
pleasures without the restraint of a holy education and the restraints of an
enlightened conscience!

But, my friends, even this may become worse still. A man sins yet more
presumptuously, when he has had most special warning from the voice of
God against the sin. What mean you? say you. Why, I mean this. You saw
but yesterday a strong man in your neighborhood brought to the grave by
sudden death; it is but a month ago that you heard the bell toll for one
whom once you knew and loved, who procrastinated and procrastinated
until he perished in procrastination. You have had strange things happen in
your very street, and the voice of God has been spoken loudly through the
lip of Death to you. Ay, and you have had warnings too in your own body,
you have been sick with fever, you have been brought to the jaws of the
grave, and you have looked down into the bottomless vault of destruction.
It is not long ago since you were given up; all said they might prepare a
coffin for you, for your breath could not long be in your body. Then you
turned your face to the wall and prayed, you vowed that if God would
spare you you would live a goodly life, that you would repent of your sins;
but to your own confusion you are now just what you were. Ah I let me
tell you, your guilt is more grievous than that of any other man, for you
have sinned presumptuously, in the very highest sense in which you could
have done so. You have sinned against reproofs, but what is worse still,
you have sinned against your own solemn oaths and covenants, and against
the promises that you made to God. He who plays with fire must be
condemned as careless, but he who has been burned out once, and
afterwards plays with the destroying element, is worse than careless; and
he who has himself been scorched in the flame, and has had his locks all hot
and crisp with the burning, if he again should rush headlong into fire, I say
he is worse than careless, he is worse than presumptuous, he is mad. But I
have some such here. They have had warnings so terrible that they might
have known better; they have gone into lusts which have brought their
bodies into darkness, and perhaps this day they have crept up to this house,
and they dare not tell to their neighbor who stands by their side what is the
loathsomeness that even now doth breed upon their frame. And yet they
will go back to the same lusts; the fool will go again to the stocks, the
sheep will lick the knife that is to slay him. You will go on in your lust and
in your sins, despite warnings, despite advice, until you perish in your guilt.
How worse than children are grown-up men! The child who goes for a
merry slide upon a pond, if he be told that the ice will not bear him, starteth
back affrighted, or if he daringly creepeth upon it how soon he leaves it, if
he hears but a crack upon the slender covering of the water! But you men
have conscience, which tells you that your sins are vile, and that they will
be your ruin; you hear the crack of sin, as its thin sheet of pleasure gives
way beneath your feet; ay, and some of you have seen your comrades sink
in the flood, and lost; and yet ye go sliding on, worse than childish, worse
than mad are you, thus presumptuously to play with your own everlasting
state. O my God, how terrible is the presumption of some! How fearful is
presumption in any! Oh! that we might be enabled to cry, “Keep back thy
servant also from presumptuous sins.”

2. I said again, that another characteristic of a presumptuous sin was
deliberation. A man perhaps may have a passionate spirit, and in a moment
of hot haste he may utter an angry word of which in a few short minutes he
will sincerely repent. A man may have a temper so hot that the least
provocation causes him at once to be full of wrath. But he may also have a
temperament which has this benefit to balance it, that he very soon learns
to forgive and cools in a moment. Now, such a man does not sin
presumptuously, when suddenly overcome by anger, though without doubt
there is presumption in his sin, unless he strives to correct that passion and
keep it down. A man, again, who is suddenly tempted and surprised into a
sin, which is not his habit, but which he commits through the force of some
strong temptation, is guilty, but not guilty of presumption, because he was
taken unawares in the net and caught in the snare. But there are other men
who sin deliberately; there are some who can think of a lust for weeks
beforehand, and dote upon their darling crime with pleasure. They do, as it
were, water the young seedling of lust until it grows to the maturity of
desire, and then they go and commit the crime. There are some to whom
lust is not a passer by, but a lodger at home. They receive it, they house it,
they feast it, and when they sin they sin deliberately, walk coolly to their
lusts, and in cold blood commit the act which another might haply do in
hot and furious haste. Now, such a sin has in it a great extent of sinfulness,
it is a sin of high presumption. To be carried away as by a whirlwind of
passion in a moment is wrong, but to sit down and deliberately resolve
upon revenge is cursed and diabolical. To sit down and deliberately fashion
schemes of wickedness is heinous, and I can find no other word fitly to
express it. To deliberate carefully how the crime is to be done, and Hamanlike
to build the gallows, and set to work to destroy one’s neighbor, to get
the pit digged that the friend may fall into it and be destroyed, to lay snares
in secret, to plot wickedness upon one’s bed — this is a high pitch of
presumptuous sin. May God forgive any of us, if we have been so far
guilty!

Again, when a man continues long in sin, and has time to deliberate about
it, that also is a proof that it is a presumptuous sin. He that sins once, being
overtaken in a fault, and then abhors the sin, has not sinned
presumptuously; but he who transgresses to day, to-morrow and the next
day, week after week and year after year until he has piled up a heap of sins
that are high as a mountain, such a man, I say sins presumptuously,
because in a continued habit of sin there must be a deliberation to sin; there
must be at least such a force and strength of mind as could not have come
upon any man if his sin were but the hasty effect of sudden passion. Ah!
take heed, ye that are sodden in sin, ye that drink it down as the greedy ox
drinketh down water, ye who run to your lust as the rivers run to the sea,
and ye who go to your passions as the sow to her wallowing in the mire.
Take heed! your crimes are grievous, and the hand of God shall soon fall
terribly on your heads, unless by divine grace it be granted to you to repent
and turn unto him. Fearful must be your doom, if unpardoned, God should
condemn you for presumptuous sin. Oh! Lord, keep back thy servant also
from presumptuous sins.”

3. Again: I said that a presumptuous sin must be a matter of design, and
have been committed with the intention of sin. If at your leisure at home
you will turn to that passage in the Book of Numbers, where it says there is
no pardon for a presumptuous sin under the Jewish dispensation, you will
find immediately afterward, a case recorded. A man went out on the
Sabbath-day to gather sticks; he was taken in the act of Sabbath-breaking,
and the law being very stringent under the Jewish dispensation, he was
ordered at once to be put to death. Now, the reason why he was put to
death was not because he gathered sticks on the Sabbath merely, but
because the law had just then been proclaimed, “In it thou shalt do no
manner of work.” This man wilfully, out of design, in order, as it were, to
show that he despised God — to show that he did not care for God —
without any necessity, without any hope of advantage, went straight out, in
the very teeth of the law, to perform not an act which he kept in his own
house, which might perhaps have been overlooked, but an act which
brought shame upon the whole congregation, because infidel-like, he dared
to brazen it out before God; as much as to say, “I care not for God.” Has
God just commanded, “Ye shall do no manner of work?” Here am I. I do
not want sticks to-day; I do not want to work; not for the sake of sticks,
but with the design of showing that I despise God, I go out this day and
gather sticks. “Now,” says one, “surely there are no people in the world
that have ever done such a thing as this.” Yes, there are, and there are such
in the Surrey Music Hall this day. They have sinned against God, not
merely for the pleasure of it, but because they would show their want of
reverence to God. That young man burned his Bible in the midst of his
wicked companions — not because he hated his Bible, for he quivered and
looked pale as the ashes on the hearth when he was doing it, but he did it
out of pure bravado, in order to shew them, as he thought, that he really
was far gone from anything like a profession of religion. That other man is
accustomed sometimes to stand by the wayside, when the people are-going
to the house of God, and he swears at them, not because he delights in
swearing, but because he will show that he is irreligious, that he is ungodly.
How many an infidel has done the same — not because he had any
pleasure in the thing itself, but because out of the wickedness of his heart
he would spite at God, if it were possible, having a design to let men know
that though the sin itself was cheap enough, he was determined to do
something which would be like spitting in the face of his Maker, and
despising God who created him! Now, such a sin is a master-piece of
iniquity. There is pardon for such an one — there is full pardon to those
who are brought to repentance, but few of such men ever receive it; for
when they are so far gone as to sin presumptuously, because they will do it
— to sin merely for the sake of showing their disregard of God and of
God’s law, we say of such, there is pardon for them, but it is wondrous
grace which brings them into such a condition that they are willing to
accept it. Oh that God would keep back his servants here from
presumptuous sins! And if any of us here have committed them, may he
bring us back, to the praise of the glory of his grace!

4. But one more point, and I think I shall have explained these
presumptuous sins. A presumptuous sin also is one that is committed
through a hardihood of fancied strength of mind. Says one, “I intend tomorrow
to go into such-and-such a society, because I believe, though it
hurts other people, it does me no hurt.” You turn round and say to some
young man, “I could not advise you to frequent the Casino — it would be
your ruin.” But you go yourself, sir? “Yes.” But how do you justify
yourself? Because I have such strength of principle that I know just how
far to go, and no farther. Thou liest, sir, against thyself thou liest; thou liest
presumptuously in so doing. Thou art playing with bombshells that shall
burst and destroy thee; thou art sitting over the mouth of hell, with a fancy
that thou shalt not be burned. Because thou hast gone to haunts of vice and
come back, tainted, much tainted, but because thou art so blind as not to
see the taint, thou thinkest thyself secure. Thou art not so. Thy sin, in
daring to think that thou art proof against sin, is a sin of presumption. “No,
no,” says one, “but I know that I can go just so far in such-and-such a sin,
and there I can stop.” Presumption, Sir; nothing but presumption. It would
be presumption for any man to climb to the top of the spire of a church,
and stand upon his head. ‘Well, but he might come down safe, if he were
skilled in it.’ Yes, but it is presumptuous. I would no more think of
subscribing a farthing to a man’s ascent in a balloon, than I would to a
poor wretch cutting his own throat. I would no more think of standing and
gazing at any man who puts his life in a position of peril, than I would of
paying a man to blow his brains out. I think such things, if not murders, are
murderous. There is suicide in men risking themselves in that way; and if
there be suicide in the risk of the body, how much more in the case of a
man who puts his own soul in jeopardy just because he thinks he has
strength of mind enough to prevent its being ruined and destroyed. Sir,
your sin is a sin of presumption; it is a great and grievous one; it is one of
the master-pieces of iniquity.

Oh! how many people there are who are sinning presumptuously to-day!
You are sinning presumptuously in being to-day what you are. You are
saying, in a little time I will solemnly and seriously think of religion, in a
few years, when I am a little more settled in life, I intend to turn over a
new leaf, and think about the matters of Godliness. Sir, you are
presumptuous. You are presuming that you shall live, you are speculating
upon a thing which is as frail as the bubble on the breaker; you are staking
your everlasting soul on the deadly odds that you shall live for a few years,
whereas, the probabilities are that you may be cut down ere the sun shall
set: and it is possible, that ere another year shall have passed over your
head, you may be in the land where repentance is impossible, and useless
were it possible. Oh! dear friends, procrastination is a presumptuous sin.
The putting off a thing which should be done to day, because you hope to
live to-morrow, is a presumption. You have no right to do it — you are in
so doing sinning against God, and bringing on your heads the guilt of
presumptuous sin. I remember that striking passage in Jonathan Edward’s
wonderful sermon, which was the means of a great revival, where he says,
“Sinner, thou art this moment standing over the mouth of hell, upon a
single plank, and that plank is rotten, thou art hanging over the jaws of
perdition, by a solitary rope, and the strands of that rope are creaking
now.” It is a terrible thing to be in such a position as that, and yet to say,
“tomorrow,” and to procrastinate. You remind me, some of you, of that
story of Dionysius the tyrant, who, wishing to punish one who had
displeased him, invited him to a noble feast. Rich were the viands that were
spread upon the table, and rare the wines of which he was invited to drink.
A chair was placed at the head of the table, and the guest was seated within
it. Horror of horrors! The feast might be rich, but the guest was miserable,
dreadful beyond thought. However splendid might be the array of the
servants, and however rich the dainties, yet he who had been invited sat
there in agony. For what reason? Because over his head, immediately over
it, there hung a sword, a furbished sword, suspended by a single hair. He
had to sit all the time with this sword above him, with nothing but a hair
between him and death, you may conceive the poor man’s misery. He
could not escape, he must sit where he was. How could he feast? How
could he rejoice! But, oh my unconverted hearer, thou art there this
morning, man, with all thy riches and thy wealth before thee, with the
comforts of a home and the joys of a household; thou art there this day, in
a place from which thou canst not escape; the sword of death above thee,
prepared to descend, and woe unto thee, when it shall cleave thy soul from
thy body! Canst thou yet make mirth, and yet procrastinate? If thou canst,
then verily thy sin is presumptuous in a high degree. “Keep back thy
servant also from presumptuous sins.”

II. And now I come to the second part of the subject, with which I shall
deal very briefly. I am to try and show you IT IS THAT THERE IS GREAT
ENORMITY IN A PRESUMPTUOUS SIN.

Let me take any one of the sins: for instance, the sin against light and
knowledge. There is greater enormity in such a presumptuous sin than in
any other. In this our happy land it is just possible for a man to commit
treason. I think it must be rather difficult for him to do it, for we are
allowed to say words here which would have brought our necks beneath
the guillotine, if they had been spoken on the other side the channel; and
we are allowed to do deeds here which would have brought us long years
of imprisonment, if the deed had been done in any other land. We, despite
all that our American friends may say, are the freest people to speak and
think in all the world. Though we have not the freedom of beating our
slaves to death, or of shooting them if they choose to disobey — though
we have not the freedom of hunting men, or the freedom of sucking
another man’s blood out of him to make us rich — though we have not the
freedom of being worse than devils, which slave-catchers and many slaveholders
most certainly are — we have liberty greater than that, liberty
against the tyrant mob, as well as against the tyrant king. But I suppose it
is just possible to commit treason here. Now, if two men should commit
treason — if one of them should wantonly and wickedly raise the standard
of revolt to-morrow, should denounce the rightful sovereign of this lard in
the strongest and most abominable language, should seek to entice the
loyal subjects of this country from their allegiance, and should draw some
of them astray, to the hurt and injury of the common weal. He might have
in his rebellions ranks one who joined incautiously, not knowing whereunto
the matter might tend, who might come into the midst of the rebels, not
understanding the intention of their unlawful asssembling, not even
knowing the law which prohibited them from being banded together. I can
suppose these two men brought up upon a charge of high treason: they
have both, legally, been guilty of it; but I an suppose that the one man who
had sinned ignorantly would be acquitted, because there was no malignant
intent, and I can suppose that the other man, who had wilfully, knowingly,
maliciously and wickedly raised the standard of revolt, would receive the
highest punishment which the law could demand. And why? Because in the
one case it was a sin of presumption, and in the other case it was not so. In
the one case the man dared to defy the sovereign, and defy the law of the
land, wilfully, out of mere presumption. In the other case not so. Now,
every man sees that it would be just to make a distinction in the
punishment, because there is — conscience itself tells us — a distinction in
the guilt.

Again: some men, I have said, sin deliberately, and others do not do so.
Now, in order to show that there is a distinction here, let me take a case.
To-morrow the bench of magistrates are sitting. Two men are brought up.
They are each of them charged with stealing a loaf of bread. It is clearly
proved, in the one case that the man was hungry, and that he snatched the
loaf of bread to satisfy his necessities. He is sorry for his deed, he grieves
that he has done the act; but most manifestly he had a strong temptation to
it. In the other case the man was rich, and he wilfully went into the shop
merely because he would break the law and show that he was a lawbreaker.
He said to the policeman outside, “Now, I care neither for you nor
the law; I intend to go in there, just to see what you can do with me.” I can
suppose the magistrate would say to one man, “You are discharged; take
care not to do the like again, there is something for your present
necessities; seek to earn an honest living.” But to the other I can conceive
him saying, “You are an infamous wretch; you have committed the same
deed as the other, but from very different motives; I give you the longest
term of imprisonment which the law allows me, and I can only regret that I
cannot treat you worse than I have done.” The presumption of the sin
made the difference. So when you sin deliberately and knowingly, your sin
against Almighty God is a higher and a blacker sin than it would have been
if you had sinned ignorantly, or sinned in haste.

Now let us suppose one more case. In the heat of some little dispute some
one shall insult a man. You shall be insulted by a man of angry temper; you
have not provoked him, you gave him no just cause for it; but at the same
time he was of a hot and angry disposition, he was somewhat foiled in the
debate and he insulted you, calling you by some name which has left a stain
upon your character, so far as epithets can do it. I can suppose that you
would ask no reparation of him, if by to-morrow you saw that it was just a
rash word spoken in haste, of which he repented. But suppose another
person should waylay you in the street, should week after week seek to
meet you in the market place, and should after a great deal of toil and
trouble at last meet you, and there, in the center of a number of people,
unprovoked, just out of sheer, deliberate malice, come before you and call
you a liar in the street; I can suppose that Christian as you are, you might
find it necessary to chastise such insolence, not with your hand but with the
arm of that equitable law which protects us all from insulting violence. In
the other case I can suppose it would be no trouble to you to forgive. You
would say, “My dear fellow, I know we are all hasty sometimes — there,
now, I don’t care at all for it, you did not mean it.” But in this case, where
a man has dared and defied you without any provocation whatever, you
would say to him, “Sir, you have endeavored to injure me in respectable
society; I can forgive you as a Christian, but as a man and a citizen, I shall
demand that I am protected against your insolence.”

You see, therefore, in the cases that occur between man and man, how
there is an excess of guilt added to a sin by presumption. Oh! ye that have
sinned presumpuously — and who among us has not done so? — bow
your heads in silence, confess your guilt, and then open your mouths, and
cry, “Lord, have mercy upon me, a presumptuous sinner.”

III. And now I have nearly done — not to weary you by too long a
discourse we shall notice THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS PRAYER —

“Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins.”

Will you just note, that this prayer was the prayer of a saint, the prayer of
a holy man of God? Did David need to pray thus? Did the “man after
God’s own heart” need to cry, “Keep back thy servant?” Yes, he did. And
note the beauty of the prayer. If I might translate it into more metaphorical
style, it is like this “Curb thy servant from presumptuous sin.” “Keep him
back, or he will wander to the edge of the precipice of sin. Hold him in,
Lord he is apt to run away; curb him; put the bridle on him; do not let him
do it; let thine overpowering grace keep him holy; when he would do evil,
then do thou draw him to good, and when his evil propensities would lead
him astray, then do thou check him.” “Check thy servant from
presumptuous sins?”

What, then? Is it true that the best of men may sin presumptuously? Ah! it
is true. It is a solemn thing to find the apostle Paul warning saints against
the most loathsome of sins. He says, “Mortify therefore your members
which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, idolatry inordinate
affection,” and such like. What I do saints want warning against such sins
as these? Yes, they do. The highest saints may sin the lowest sins, unless
kept by divine grace. You old experienced Christians boars not in your
experience; you may trip yet, unless you cry, “Hold thou me up and I shall
be safe.” Ye whose love is fervent, whose faith is constant, whose hopes
are bright, say not, “I shall never sin,” but rather cry out, “Lord, lead me
not into temptation, and when there leave me not there, for unless thou
hold me fast I feel I must, I shall decline, and prove an apostate after all.”
There is enough tinder in the heart of the best men in the world to light a
fire that shall burn to the lowest hell, unless God should quench the sparks
as they fall. There is enough corruption, depravity, and wickedness in the
heart of the most holy man that is now alive to damn his soul to all eternity,
if free and sovereign grace does not prevent. O Christian, thou hast need to
pray this prayer. But I think I hear you crying, “Is thy servant a dog that I
should do this thing?” So said Hazael, when the prophet told him that he
would slay his master; but he went home, and took a wet cloth and spread
it over his master’s face and stifled him, and did the next day the sin which
he abhorred before. Think it not enough to abhor sin, you may yet fall into
it. Say not, “I never can be drunken, for I have such an abhorrence of
drunkenness;” thou mayest fall where thou art most secure. Say not, “I can
never blaspheme God, for I have never done so in my life;” take care; you
may yet swear most profanely. Job might have said, “I will never curse the
day of my birth;” but he lived to do it. He was a patient man, he might have
said, “I will never murmur; though he slay me yet will I trust in him;” and
yet he lived to wish that the day were darkness wherein he was brought
forth. Boast not, then, O Christian: by faith thou standest. “Let him that
thinketh he standth take heed lest he fall.”

But if this need to be the prayer of the best, how ought it to be the prayer
of you and me? If the highest saint must pray it, O mere moralist, thou hast
good need to utter it. And ye who have begun to sin, who make no
pretensions to piety, how much need is there for you to pray that you may
be kept from presumptuously rebelling against God.

Instead, however, of enlarging upon that point, I shall close my few
remarks this morning by just addressing myself most affectionately to such
of you as are now under a sense of guilt by reason of presumptuous sins.
God’s Spirit has found some of you out this morning. I thought when I was
describing presumptuous sin that I saw here and there an eye that was
suffused with tears; I thought I saw here and there a head that was bowed
down, as much as to say, “I am guilty there.” I thought there were some
hearts that palpitated with confession, when I described the guilt of
presumption. I hope it was so. If it was, I am glad of it. If I hit your
consciences, it was that I meant to do. Not to your ears do I speak, but to
your hearts. I would not give the snap of this my finger to gratify you with
mere words of oratory, with a mere flow of language. No, God is my
witness. I never sought Effect yet, except the effect of hitting your
consciences. I would use the words that would be most rough and vulgar
in all our language, if I could get at your heart better with them than with
any other; for I reckon that the chief matter with a minister is to touch the
conscience. If any of you feel then that you have presumed against God in
sinning, let me just bid you look at your sin, and weep over the blackness
of it; let me exhort you to go home and bow your heads with sorrow, and
confess your guilt, and weep over it with many tears and sighs. You have
greatly sinned, and if God should blast you into perdition now, he would be
just, if now his fiery thunderbolt of vengeance should pierce you through, if
the arrow that is now upon the string of the Almighty should find a target
in your heart, he would be just. Go home and confess that, confess it with
cries and sighs. And then what next wilt thou do? Why, I bid thee
remember that there was a man who was a God. That man suffered for
presumptuous sin. I would bid thee this day, sinner, if thou knowest thy
need of a Savior, go up to thy chamber, cast thyself upon thy face and
weep for sin; and when thou hast done that, turn to the Scriptures, and
read the story of that Man who suffered and died for sin. Think you see
him in all his unutterable agonies, and griefs, and woes, and say —

“My soul looks back to see
The burdens thou didst bear,
When hanging on th’ accursed tree,
And hopes her guilt was there.”

Lift up your hand, and put it on his head who bled, and say —

“My faith would lay its hand
On that dear head of thine,
While like a penitent I stand,
And there confess my sin.”

Sit down at the foot of his cross, and watch him till your heart is moved,
till the tears begin to flow again, until your heart breaks within you; and
then you will rise and say —

“Dissolved by his mercy I fall to the ground,
And weep to the praise of the mercy I’ve found.”

O sinner, thou canst never perish, if thou wilt cast thyself at the foot of the
cross. If thou seekest to save thyself thou shalt die, if thou wilt come, just
as thou art all black, all filthy, all hell-deserving, all ill-deserving, I am my
Master’s hostage, I will be answerable at the day of judgment for this
matter, if he does not save thee. I can preach on this subject now, for I
trust I have tried my Master myself. As a youth I sinned, as a child I
rebelled, as a young man I wandered into lusts and vanities: my Master
made me feel how great a sinner I was, and I sought to reform, to mend
the matter, but I grew worse. At last I heard it said, “Look unto me, and be
ye saved all the ends of the earth;” and I looked to Jesus. And oh! my
Savior, thou hast eased my aching conscience, thou hast given me peace,
thou hast enabled me to say —

“Now freed from sin I walk at large
My Saviour’s blood’s a full discharge;
At his dear feet my soul I lay,
A sinner saved, and homage pay.”

And oh! my heart pants for you. Oh that you who never knew him could
taste his love now. Oh that you who have never repented might now
receive the Holy Ghost who is able to melt the heart! And oh that you that
are penitents would look to him now! And I repeat that solemn assertion
— I am God’s hostage this morning, ye shall feed me on bread and water
to my life’s end, ay, and I will bear the blame for ever, it any of you seek
Christ, and Christ rejects you. It must not, it cannot be. “Whosoever
cometh,” he says, “I will in nowise cast out.” “He is able to save to the
uttermost them that come unto God by him.” May God Almighty bless you
and may we meet again in yonder paradise, and there will we sing more
sweetly of redeeming love and dying blood, and of Jesus’ power to save —

“When this poor lisping, stammering tongue,
Lies silent in the grave.”

Implications of the Lisbon Treaty – Europe is today a significant step closer than it was 24 hours ago to the Lisbon Treaty (aka the European Constitution) becoming law, a treaty that will create a European President and Foreign Minister

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

From the Jubilee Centre Blog

Europe is today a significant step closer than it was 24 hours ago to the Lisbon Treaty (aka the European Constitution) becoming law, a treaty that will create a European President and Foreign Minister (more technically, ‘President of the European Council’ and ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’) and introduce new powers for the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice, for example in the field of justice and home affairs.

The treaty must be ratified by all 27 member countries of the European Union and the Czech Republic is the only country that has not yet done so. Following a meeting with the Swedish Government, which currently holds the presidency of the Union, Mr Klaus has now said that his last objections have been overcome.

There are serious questions that still need answering about the democratic process by which Europe has reached this point. Specifically, the fact that citizens in just one of the 27 countries has ever had the opportunity to express their wishes through a referendum – the Irish, who rejected the treaty in 2008 and were therefore required to vote again earlier this month, when they accepted it after all – and the fact that the British Government promised its citizens a referendum on the treaty but chose to break its promise (see our 2007 Cambridge Paper, Promises, Promises).

Moving beyond the questions of process, however, it is now time to ask how we should respond to the treaty. In doing so, it is worth looking again at another of our Cambridge Papers, Should Christians support the euro? In that paper, we identified seven biblical principles. Eleven years on, I repeat some of the arguments that were expressed then and apply them to the circumstances we now face:

i) The identity of peoples and nation-states

Biblical teaching portrays national identities and diversity as ordained by God and something to be celebrated. Loss of national sovereignty through absorption into empire is regarded as a judgement, both for Israel (e.g. Deuteronomy 15:6) and her neighbours (e.g. Amos 1). God may use empires as instruments to achieve his purposes (e.g. Isaiah 40) but they are nowhere extolled as part of God’s social design. Rather, diversity of language is a means of restraining evil (Genesis 11).

The centralising forces that accompany the treaty will significantly diminish decision-making powers of existing nation-states. This increases the likelihood of internal conflict within Europe (see below) and weakens the ability of nation-states to resist pan-European dictatorship. Too often the states of Europe have been the focus of nationalistic idolatry, but at the same time their existence has repeatedly prevented the rise of lasting pan-Continental Empires as, for example, under Louis XIV, the Hapsburgs, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm III, Hitler or Stalin. If the EU bypasses nation-states by replacing them with a single executive and devolving administration to regional governments, the risk of continent-wide dictatorship increases.

ii) Solidarity of family and local community

Much of Old Testament law is designed to protect and give function to the family and local community. Although Jesus makes clear that the demands of his kingdom must take precedence over family loyalties, he nevertheless underlines family obligations for welfare in his teaching (e.g. Mark 7:9-13) and by example (e.g. John 19:26-7). Paul does the same (e.g. 1 Timothy 5:3-8).

Greater mobility is probably the only way that regional divergences of economic performance within the EU can be evened out. This runs counter to the need to reduce social isolation and welfare dependency, both of the elderly and of young families, which arises as a result of the disintegration of the extended family through spatial job mobility.

iii) Avoidance of concentration of political and economic power

If Israel’s political and social design was intended to teach general normative principles for social organisation, one of its most obvious lessons is the importance of diffusion of political and economic power. Decentralisation of power facilitates the widespread participation in political and economic decisions, which is a necessary expression of every person being made in God’s image. It is also important to ensure accountability in the exercise of power, given the reality of human fallenness, and prevents the state abrogating to itself the glory that rightly belongs to God (cf. Revelation 13).

With the establishment of a common EU defence and foreign policy, it will be much more difficult for concerned organisations or individuals to influence EU decisions than national decisions. In such an environment, only the largest and most highly resourced lobbying groups will influence policy.

iv) Effective stewardship of resources

Christians generally understand the command to ‘subdue the earth’ (Genesis 1:28) as a mandate for the effective stewardship of the earth’s economic and human resources. The same theme underpins the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). Stewardship is partly a matter of making the best possible use of the resources God has given us, so maximising economic growth and wealth creation. However, it is also concerned with the long-term sustainability of the growth process and the care we take of the environment. Since the natural world belongs to God rather than ourselves, we are under an obligation to use it both productively and responsibly.

The EU probably trades too much with itself anyway to be truly efficient in trade terms due to its tariff wall and agricultural protectionism. From an economic viewpoint, the ‘stewardship’ case for greater centralisation of powers in the EU is far from proven and runs the risk of major costs, especially for the UK.

v) Equity in distribution of wealth and income

Every person is made in the image of God. From this foundation stems the obligation to ensure the welfare of every person. This in turn raises concerns about both absolute and relative levels of wealth and poverty, in particular how the structures of political and economic organisation impact on the distribution of wealth and power.

There is a role for richer EU nations to help their poorer neighbours but this does not require a new treaty. Indeed, at a wider European level, the Lisbon Treaty will increase income disparities between countries inside and outside the EU, with those outside remaining discriminated against in their agricultural exports to the EU. Making EU markets more accessible to such countries would raise incomes and bolster democracy.

vi) Peaceful relationships between nations

It is almost a platitude to say that God is concerned that there should be peace between nations. The desire for peace, however, must be compatible with the demands of justice – God does not want ‘peace at any price’.

The original goal of the Christian founders of the EEC was to foster peace in Europe so as to make another war in Western Europe inconceivable. Although NATO must take most of the credit for the past sixty years of peace, the EU has played its part by fostering closer political and economic ties. Unfortunately, the Lisbon Treaty may well foster conflicts and increase nationalism among EU countries. Perhaps the whole debate this week over the rise of the BNP in British politics is but a taste of things to come.

vii) Acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty over political life

All Christian thinking about society must begin not with man but with God. Contrary to the ideas of Rousseau that political sovereignty lies with the ‘general will’ expressed through an autonomous state, a biblical understanding of government is that ultimate sovereignty lies with God (Romans 13:1). A fundamental Christian concern, therefore, is that the Word of God should be acknowledged, or at least taken into account, when laws are made and society structured, and that there should be a sense of submission to God in the making of law and policy. Although this becomes increasingly difficult in pluralistic European societies, as Christians we still have to ask whether closer European integration will help or hinder keeping God and his values as an influence on the political and economic system.

From a Christian viewpoint, political integration of the UK into the EU could be advantageous. In many cases, the constitution and legislation of other EU countries embody a stronger Christian Democratic or Christian Socialist outlook than those of the UK. However, of greater significance, in most of continental Europe the trend towards secularisation is even stronger than in Britain. While British Christians may have a strategic role in the re-evangelisation of the continent, closer integration of Britain into the EU is unlikely to bring about greater acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty in temporal affairs, particularly if it results in weaker ties with the US.

Conclusion

Assuming the Lisbon Treaty is now ratified by the Czech Republic and passes into European law, we should probably be sceptical of the impact it will have on our lives and communities. How we respond to the move towards greater centralisation, however, will very much be determined by our beliefs about the future and the direction we believe the world is heading: whether we think the state of the nations is destined to go from bad to worse or to improve over time, for instance. But that is a topic far too large for today – one for a future Cambridge Paper, perhaps…

Previous related posts:-

Will Polish president sign Lisbon Treaty? Opinions differ

Ireland Adopts Lisbon Treaty but Pro-life Guarantees Remain Suspect

Vatican urges Ireland to vote NO in Lisbon referendum

Lisbon Treaty Will Force Abortion into Ireland through EU Charter of Human Rights

Battle Lines Drawing up in Ireland’s Second Lisbon Treaty Referendum – With 43 days to the second Irish referendum on Lisbon, and with the government with almost unlimited public funds already campaigning heavily for a Yes, No campaigners on both sides of the political divide have launched a strong counter-offensive.

Fears about jobs and the recession intimidated the Irish electorate to vote Yes in Friday’s referendum on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty say pro-life No campaigners

The creation of a European Empire has moved a step closer: only Poland and the Czech Republic have yet to ratify the Constitution for Europe (known as the Lisbon Treaty) which will pave the way for a powerful new President of Europe.

We have just finished the production of a video entitled, “Life Will Triumph”. We have rushed the final stages of the production in order to get it out before the voting of the Irish Irish Lisbon Referendum tomorrow.

THE Catholic Church last night dealt a blow to Government hopes of its outright support for the Lisbon Treaty. The hierarchy has decided not to align themselves for or against the treaty, but assured Catholics that they are free in conscience to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

For some time, Euro-watchers have believed that, should the Irish voters say Yes to the Lisbon Treaty on Friday, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will take the job as first President of the newly constituted state of Europe. Now the Daily Mail newspaper reports today that Blair’s appointment “will be rushed through as quickly as possible,” according to government sources.

RELATED INTERNET LINK:-

Chris Bryant: Either David Cameron is incompetent or he’s ‘downright fibbing’

The head of an organization that supports persecuted Christians (Glenn Penner, chief executive officer at The Voice of the Martyrs Canada) blasted the World Council of Churches for claiming that the Church in North Korea has freedom.

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

Previous Related Post:-

World Council of Churches (WCC) delegation to visit North Korea – Responding to the invitation of the Korean Christian Federation of North Korea, the Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia will visit the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from Oct. 17 to Oct. 20

The head of the World Council of Churches (WCC – Dr. Samuel Kobia) preached to a North Korean congregation Sunday, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and unity in a country known for its reclusiveness and for having the most heavily militarized border in the world.

By Michelle A. Vu – Christian Post Reporter

Calling the WCC’s comments “unbelievable,” Glenn Penner, chief executive officer at The Voice of the Martyrs Canada, wrote on VOM’s persecuted church weblog: “Freedom? Some limitations? Challenge to do mission in a different societal system? Where do I begin to pick apart such a singularly silly statement?”

Penner’s stinging words were in response to comments made by Prawate Khid-arn, a leading WCC representative and general secretary of the Christian Conference of Asia, after his first visit to North Korea.

“The Church (in North Korea) still has the freedom to carry out its mission, but of course, still has some limitations. The challenge of the church is how to do its mission in a different societal system,” he said, according to the news agency Ecumenical News International.

Khid-arn was part of a WCC delegation that visited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Oct. 17-20. The delegation, which included General Secretary the Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia, visited churches in the capital, Pyongyang.

Kobia preached to a crowd of nearly 200 people at Bong Soo Church, then visited the smaller Chilgol Church, and lastly attended a supposed 12-member house church near Pyongyang, according to WCC.

During the visit, the WCC delegation also met with North Korean President Kim Yong-nam – who is under the power of Kim Jong-il, the Supreme Leader – to discuss the nuclear weapon stand-off in the region.

In its report, the WCC was seemingly sympathetic to North Korea’s argument that the Six Party Talks were unfair because all the members except for North Korea are nuclear powers or are under the nuclear protection of the United States.

Kim reportedly told the church delegation that the region needs to be denuclearized and the way to solve the problem is for North Korea and the United States to meet “face-to-face with each other.”

North Korea is perceived by the international community as a rogue and capricious nation with a tendency to engage in erratic and dangerous behaviors, such as the launching of missiles directed at Japan and the pursuit of building nuclear weapons.

The communist regime is also known for imposing laws that have given it the title of the world’s worst human rights violator.

North Korean defectors have testified before the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the U.S. Congress on the abuse they endured in prison camps.

“In a political prison camp in North Korea, one must forget that he or she is a human being,” said 49-year-old Kim Tae Jin Kim, who defected to China in 1986 to escape North Korea, at a U.N. Commission on Human Rights hearing in 2005. “I had to do many things to survive. I carefully watched a dog so that I could steal its food. I ate snakes, frogs, rats and anything that could be a source of nutrition.”

Kim, a Christian, was repatriated by Chinese authorities after they found a Bible among his belongings.

In prison, he said he had to swallow a nail and was beaten with a burning wooden log. Despite the abuse, he still had to carry out hard labor daily on minimal amounts of food.

He escaped and arrived in South Korea in 2001. He now serves as the director of missionary works at NKGulag and is chairman of the Special Committee for North Korean Gulag Dismantlement.

Human rights experts, through interviews with defectors, have long reported that there is no religious freedom in the reclusive country.

All citizens are expected to worship current dictator Kim Jong-il and his deceased father. Every house in North Korea has a framed photo of Kim Jong-il and his statues and photos are located in public spaces throughout the country.

Being found a Christian is one of the worst crimes in the country. There are an estimated 400,000 Christians in North Korea who live under the constant threat of imprisonment, torture or public execution if authorities discover their Christian faith. Of the some 200,000 people detained in North Korea, there are an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 Christians, according to Open Doors USA.

Open Doors, a group that works with persecuted Christians, has for seven straight years ranked North Korea as the worst persecutor of Christians in the world.

In his blog, VOM’s Penner denounced the WCC for showing “greater concern with supporting anti-western regimes than they are in uncovering and stating the entire truth and publicly standing together with their brothers and sisters who are paying the price for a faith they claim to believe in.”

The WCC delegation along with four North Korean church leaders, several dozen leaders from South Korea, and church leaders from 25 other countries are currently participating in a consultation held in Hong Kong on peace, reconciliation and the reunification of the Korean peninsula. The meeting ends Friday.

Pauline Howe, a 67-year-old grandmother, was questioned by police after council officials decided that her complaint about a gay pride march amounted to a “hate incident”.

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent

Mrs Howe, a committed Christian, said she had been frightened by the officers’ questioning and shocked at being informed she may have committed a crime.

“I’ve never been in any kind of trouble before so I was stunned to have two police officers knocking at my door,” she said.

“Their presence in my home made me feel threatened. It was a very unpleasant experience.”

Christian campaigners condemned the police action as “alarming” and warned that freedom of expression was under threat, while the homosexual equality group Stonewall said the officers’ visit had been “disproportionate”.

The pensioner had written to Norwich council complaining about its decision to allow the march in the city centre in July, at which she claims she was verbally abused.

In the letter, she wrote: “It is shameful that this small, but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals.”

Mrs Howe referred to homosexuals as “sodomites” and blamed “their perverted sexual practice” for sexually transmitting diseases as well as the “downfall of every Empire”.

She argues that she is not homophobic, but was expressing her deeply held religious beliefs.

However, Bridget Buttinger, deputy chief executive at the council, replied to Mrs Howe in September, warning that she could face being charged with a criminal offence for expressing such views.

“As a local authority we have a duty along with other public bodies to eliminate discrimination of all kinds,” she wrote.

“A hate incident is any incident that is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hatred. A hate crime is any hate incident that constitutes a criminal offence.

“The content of your letter has been assessed as potentially being hate related because of the views you expressed towards people of a certain sexual orientation.”

She added: “Your details and details of the content of your letter have been recorded as such and passed to the Police.”

The officers from Norfolk constabulary who questioned Mrs Howe in her home told her that her opinions were regarded as a hate incident and had caused offence. However, they decided that no crime had been committed.

A spokesman for the force defended the decision to send officers to Mrs Howe’s home.

“If it has come into our intelligence and been reported to us as a crime then we have to investigate,” he said.

“Therefore it was part of a routine check-up. We went around and spoke to the individual.

“We talked about inappropriate comments and the effects they can have on people. We believe that this response is proportionate and the individual is aware of her actions.”

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, criticised the police’s action. “Clearly her views are pretty offensive, but nevertheless this is disproportionate. I’m glad Norfolk police didn’t take it any further,” he said.

Mrs Howe has sought advice from the Christian Institute, which is investigating whether the council and the police have breached Mrs Howe’s rights to free speech and religious liberty under the Human Rights Act.

Mike Judge, a spokesman for the Institute, said: “Whether people agree or disagree with Mrs Howe’s views, everyone who cares about freedom should be alarmed at the police action.

“For democracy to survive people must be free to express their beliefs – yes, even unpopular beliefs – to government bodies without fear of a knock at the door from the police. It’s not a crime to be a Christian, but it increasingly feels like it.”

In a similar case, a retired couple won damages in 2006 after being questioned by police regarding their views on homosexuality.

Wyre Borough Council regarded some of the wording in a letter of complaint as inappropriate and decided to consult with the police, who interviewed the couple but took no further action.

FURTHER INTERNET LINK TO THIS STORY

Hate crimes case in Britain should signal a warning to Christians in America

Channel 4 News last night equated a Christian grandmother who objected to a gay pride parade with the killers of a gay man in Trafalgar Square.

Anti-gay bigots only lend support to the tyranny of ‘hate crime’ laws

Hate crime, a batty old lady and freedom

The Death Throes of a Once Christian Nation

67 Year-Old Grandma Interrogated and Threatened by Police over Gay Pride Complaint

Big Brother Active In UK

Homophobia is a right too

Video: police quiz Christian pensioner over gay beliefs

‘Hate crime’ grandmother considers suing

Christian pensioner warned by police about ‘hate crime’ for complaining about homosexual pride parade

Christian woman may sue after police investigate ‘gay hate crime’ letter

US Previous Related Posts

The U.S. Senate sent a landmark bill Tuesday to President Obama that includes hate-crimes protections for homosexuals which critics say will infringe on the religious liberty of pastors and other faith leaders.

Supporters and opponents of legislation that will expand hate-crimes protections to homosexuals continue to wait on a Senate vote on a defense authorization bill that includes the controversial measure.

Despite objections that it would infringe on the religious liberty of pastors and other faith leaders, the U.S. House Thursday passed a defense bill that includes historic hate crimes protections for homosexuals.

UK Previous Related Post

Free speech is not hateful (Lord Waddington) – Civil liberty surely implies the freedom to express your own views, and with it a readiness to defend the right of others to express their views about you.

Petition and Prayer for Life and Free Speech

Miguel Hayworth a street preacher is at the centre of a row over freedom of speech after police threatened to arrest him for reading the Bible in public.

Victory on Euthanasia in the Coroners and Justice Bill

Bishops fight for right to criticise gay lifestyle

Coroners and Justice Bill will undermine both free speech and sanctity of life

Act Now for Free Speech: Coroners and Justice Bill in the Lords

Christian Response to Free Speech and Assisted Suicide: Bill Update

Christian councillor Alan Craig (leader of the Christian People’s Alliance) calls for free speech for Geert Wilders

As we all know, as numerous stacks of research have shown, only really stupid, illogical, fact-challenged people believe that God played some meaningful role in the creation of heaven and earth. Right?

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

Previous Related Post:-

The multi-billion-dollar super collider project in Switzerland, billed as the most exciting advance in science in centuries, has fallen flat. The giant Hadron Collider, located in a 16-mile tunnel near Geneva, is designed to accelerate subatomic particles to incredibly high speeds, slamming them together to reveal the structure of things like quarks deep inside the atom.

Posted by tmatt – Get Religion

God and the particles of doom

As we all know, as as numerous stacks of research have shown, only really stupid, illogical, fact-challenged people believe that God played some meaningful role in the creation of heaven and earth. Right?

I mean, facts are facts and journalism is all about the facts.

Still, I am happy to report that the New York Times ran an essay the other day that opened the currents of science just a bit and showed us the kind of things that linear, logical scientists think about when things go bump in the dark, or when they go bump in the light. This is especially true when things go a bit screwy inside one of the biggest, strangest, most expensive pieces of scientific machinery on this planet (or any other, as far as we know).

I am talking about the Large Hadron Collider over there near Geneva, that $9 billion-plus racetrack for protons buried deep under the border between France and Switzerland.

Strangely enough, I had a chance to visit that scientific shrine a few months ago (work linked to that “Angels & Demons” movie) and I was struck by the many, many examples of vaguely religious language that were posted all over the place. As several of the top researchers said, the more information they gather, the more they realize how much they don’t know. The mysteries keep getting bigger and bigger as they keep hunting for that infamous “God particle” that journalists love to write about.

So what’s the news these days? Well, the collider is broken — again — and inquiring minds want to know what’s up. So here is the top of Dennis Overbye’s essay, “The Collider, the Particle and a Theory About Fate.”

More than a year after an explosion of sparks, soot and frigid helium shut it down, the world’s biggest and most expensive physics experiment, known as the Large Hadron Collider, is poised to start up again. In December, if all goes well, protons will start smashing together in an underground racetrack outside Geneva in a search for forces and particles that reigned during the first trillionth of a second of the Big Bang.

Then it will be time to test one of the most bizarre and revolutionary theories in science. I’m not talking about extra dimensions of space-time, dark matter or even black holes that eat the Earth. No, I’m talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future. A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

That would be Holger Bech Nielsen, of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute, and Masao Ninomiya of Japan’s Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics.

And what’s the religion angle? Aliens? Angels? Time travelers?

No, think bigger.

“It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have bad luck,” Dr. Nielsen said in an e-mail message. In an unpublished essay, Dr. Nielson said of the theory, “Well, one could even almost say that we have a model for God.” It is their guess, he went on, “that He rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid them.”

This malign influence from the future, they argue, could explain why the United States Superconducting Supercollider, also designed to find the Higgs, was canceled in 1993 after billions of dollars had already been spent, an event so unlikely that Dr. Nielsen calls it an “anti-miracle.”

Gosh, I thought fundamentalist Christians who hated science and big government, or something like that, shot that one down.

Anyway, the essay takes some interesting twists and turns, because scientists often have to meditate on the disturbing fact that strange theories turn out to be true.

But here is the quote that really haunted me. You think there’s a ghost in here?

“For those of us who believe in physics,” Einstein once wrote to a friend, “this separation between past, present and future is only an illusion.”

Belief? Well, people gotta believe in something when asking questions about creation and eternity.

Security forces, who were already on high alert in Jerusalem on Sunday morning, didn’t have to wait long to be called into action, confronting Muslim rioters on the Temple Mount and arresting 12 people in and around the site.

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

By JPOST.COM STAFF AND ABE SELIG

12 arrested as police storm Temple Mount to face Arab rioters

Security forces, who were already on high alert in Jerusalem on Sunday morning, didn’t have to wait long to be called into action, confronting Muslim rioters on the Temple Mount and arresting 12 people in and around the site.

Police said that officers were accompanying a group of tourists up to the mount, and that several Muslim youngsters had been caught on video camera preparing to cause trouble, including pouring oil onto the ground to hinder the access of security forces and the visitors.

Following the discovery, police reinforcements stormed the mount and were pelted with stones and a fire bomb by the young rioters. The forces dispersed the riots using stun grenades, among other means at their disposal, and a tense calm was restored to the site.

Though police on Saturday had said they were bracing for the possibility of renewed clashes, no restrictions had been placed on Muslims entering the Temple Mount for Sunday prayers, or on visitors who arrived in the morning to tour the compound.

However, following the violence, worshipers who weren’t already in the site’s mosques were evacuated, and police closed the site to further access.

There were no reports of casualties on either side, and Jewish prayers at the Western Well went on undisturbed.

Following the clashes, a cleric called out from the Temple Mount loud speaker for Muslims to “come and defend” the site, and there were sporadic instances of rock-throwing in east Jerusalem

The already high alert level in the capital had come in response to what police said were previous calls by both Jewish and Islamic religious leaders to ascend the Temple Mount.

Tensions flared in the capital three weeks ago, when Muslim leaders summoned their followers to “come and defend the mount,” sparking demonstrations and riots in east Jerusalem throughout Succot.

Police on Saturday evening had said they would deal firmly and decisively with any attempts to disturb the peace.

“Jerusalem police will deploy around the Temple Mount, the alleyways of the Old City, and in east Jerusalem tomorrow, in light of calls from both [Jewish and Muslim leaders] to go up to the mount,” a police spokesman had said.

Calls to Muslim worshipers to come to Jerusalem Sunday largely came from clerics in east Jerusalem and their counterparts from the northern branch of the Islamic Movement

While the spokesman declined to specify where the Jewish calls had come from, Sunday had been publicized as the day to commemorate the visit by Maimonides to the Temple Mount 843 years ago.

To mark that anniversary, a conference was set to take place in Jerusalem, “calling Jews to properly arise to the Temple Mount,” according to an announcement by the group called Eretz Israel Shelanu. The announcement listed several right-wing MKs and rabbis as conference participants.

In the past, Jews have ascended the mount to mark the anniversary, 6 Heshvan, which was Saturday.

While there were no announcements of an organized visit to the Temple Mount on Sunday, a member of the Islamic Movement’s southern branch told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday evening that the renewed calls for Muslims to arrive in the capital on Sunday had been made after “extremist Jewish elements” had recently made clear their intention to go up to the mount.

“It seems like the extremists don’t want to have quiet in Jerusalem or on the Temple Mount,” the Islamic Movement member, who asked to remain unnamed, said. “These sorts of things used to happen once every year, or once every two years, but now the provocations have become more frequent.”

The member of the southern branch, which is independent of the northern branch and considered by some as more moderate, said “all sides were unified in their defense of Al-Aksa,” and that “any provocative visit to the site by extremist Jews would not pass peacefully.

“The police have to be the ones to stop this,” he said. “Because we don’t want to go back to the violence that occurred recently, or to the riots of October 2000.”

While a representative from the Temple Mount Institute was unavailable on Saturday night, the recent tensions over the Temple Mount have also seen an increase in calls by prominent rabbis forbidding Jews to access the Temple Mount, based on Jewish law.

Western Wall Chief Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitz recently reiterated that Halacha prohibits Jews from “even touching the Temple Mount,” much less entering it, based on laws of ritual purity.

During the heightened tensions in the capital over Succot, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, considered by many Ashkenazi haredim as the foremost decider of Jewish law, told President Shimon Peres, during a highly publicized visit to the rabbi’s home in Jerusalem, that Jewish ascent to the Temple Mount was expressly forbidden by Halacha.

Elyashiv also told Peres it was important to consider that any provocations on the part of Jews who were determined to ascend to the Temple Mount could lead to needless bloodshed and further condemnation of Israel by the nations of the world.

Greer Fay Cashman contributed to this report.

FURTHER INTERNET LINKS

Arrests at holy site in Jerusalem

3 policemen lightly wounded as Temple Mount clashes resume

Arab rioters attacked Israeli police officers with stones, firebombs and oil on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Muslims Stone Jews at Holiest Jewish Site

Shocker: Hamas inciting Jerusalem riots

Palestinian jihadists on Temple Mount throw stones at Israeli police; Israelis respond

Israeli police clashed Sunday with stone-throwing Palestinians at a site sacred to Muslims and Jews in the latest sign of tension in this volatile city.

Against the backdrop of heavy rioting on the Temple Mount and inside Jerusalem’s Old City on Sunday, a group of prominent rabbis and politicians on Sunday evening called upon the Jewish public to forge a stronger bond with the site, and to ascend the Temple Mount with increased vigor.

9 cops, reporter lightly hurt in J’lem

Rifqa Bary sent back to Ohio; still in the fight of her life

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

Previous Related Posts:-

The court ruling on Friday that allowed Rifqa Bary, the teenager who converted from Islam to Christianity and fled from her Muslim family in fear for her life, to stay in Florida rather than return to her parents, was unexpected. The media shills and Islamic machinery in the U.S. never expected that G-d, Rifqa and the people would prevail upon the powers that be in Florida. So now they are in overdrive.

Rifqa Bary to be returned to Ohio …no, wait……

Rifqa Bary and Amanda Kurowski – Two Christian girls. Two sets of distraught parents. And two state courts smack in the middle of it.

Rifqa Bary has been given a reprieve and will not be sent back to her family home in Ohio, at least not for now.

An Ohio teenager (Rifqa Bary, 17) says she ran away from home to Florida because her family threatened to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity, local media reported.

Rifqa Bary has been placed with a foster family of evangelical Christians and she is attending their church. Bary’s father, Muhammed, spoke to an Ohio television station, Thursday, and denied the allegations that he has threatened to perform an Islamic honour killing of his daughter for converting to Christianity

The court ruling on Friday that allowed Rifqa Bary, the teenager who converted from Islam to Christianity and fled from her Muslim family in fear for her life, to stay in Florida rather than return to her parents, was unexpected. The media shills and Islamic machinery in the U.S. never expected that G-d, Rifqa and the people would prevail upon the powers that be in Florida. So now they are in overdrive.

A judge ruled Monday that teenage Christian convert Rifqa Bary can stay in Florida until it’s made clear whether her case should be decided in Florida or in her homestate of Ohio.

The parents of an Rifqa Bary who claims her father threatened to kill her because she converted from Islam to Christianity denied Thursday all allegations against them.

Orlando Christian News Examiner – Lisa Folch

Rifqa Bary is being sent back to her home state of Ohio after Judge Daniel Dawson released her. The ruling was made earlier, pending immigration papers, which have been produced. At age seventeen, this brave girl is known the world over as the Muslim who converted to Christianity, then fled her home for fear of reprisal, even death. Those facts put her in danger of those who follow the Shariah law, calling for the death of “apostates” or those who have turned away from the Islamic faith (see previous article). Rifqa has stated she is not safe from her own father, who allegedly threatened to kill her. Reportedly, her father was laughing and “giddy” when the judge handed over the ruling.

According to a CBN article, had Rifqa been forced to go back to her native country of Sri Lanka, an arranged marriage would await her.

The Ohio Department of Children and Families will transfer her to a secret location, where she will continue to take classes via Florida Virtual School. Both Florida and Ohio jurisdictions have found no credible threat against this teenager.

Honor killings happen all over the world. Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs gives a sad report of brutal murders on behalf of Islam. Young women full of promise and future, lost forever. Many believe that Rifqa Bary is one step closer to that fate while being in proximity of her family.

Pray for the protection of Rifqa Bary, as she fearfully goes back to where this story began.

Switch to our mobile site