Archive for October, 2009

Chances of Tony Blair becoming the European Union’s first president dimmed Thursday when socialist leaders from the continent refused to back their Labour Party colleague.

Friday, October 30th, 2009

First the good news from the Jerusalem Post:-

Chances of Tony Blair becoming the European Union’s first president dimmed Thursday when socialist leaders from the continent refused to back their Labour Party colleague.

The “no” to Blair from continental socialists kept alive a race to fill the posts of EU president and foreign ministers, two jobs created by a hard-fought EU reform treaty due to take effect in January.

The French also leaned away from Blair over his role in the Iraq war and resistance to British use of the euro – and suggested a woman might make a better candidate.

Blair’s charisma and international cachet may be working against him, too. In a race where no one has formally declared candidacy and the job is still ill-defined, there are as many nations that want a low-key technocrat as those that want a towering figure who can go head to head with other global powers.

European socialists, meeting in the margin of an EU summit Thursday, said they want the new EU foreign affairs chief to be a left-wing politician, said Dutch Europe Minister Frans Timmermans.

That choice would effectively ban Blair from the president’s job, as leftists cannot fill both top EU jobs that become available next year.

Read More

And then the bad news, a rather depressing report from the JP on the ongoing global struggles and wars:-

The week in blood

It’s been another dreadful week in the war of civilizations. On Sunday, 153 people were killed and more than 500 wounded in back-to-back car bombings in Baghdad. On Tuesday in Kabul, five UN staffers and three Afghans were killed in an attack on a UN guesthouse. And on Wednesday in Pakistan, 100 people – mostly women and children – were killed and 160 wounded in a shopping district bombing in Peshawar. The week also saw 24 American service personnel killed in Afghanistan, making 58 fatalities for the month – the deadliest since 9/11.

This is a war of civilizations in the sense that Muslim extremists with imperial ambitions are engaged in a zero-sum struggle against the values associated with modernity – liberty, enlightenment and tolerance.

For now, the battle is being played out mostly in Muslim-majority lands, though New York, London, Madrid and Israel’s cities have also been killing fields. Western elites have tended to deny, downplay or reject outright the systemic nature of the Islamist menace. Under these circumstances, there has been no real will to mobilize Western publics for the sacrifices ahead.

Read More

Barrack Obama knew that in order to win the US Presidential election, he had to win over a large voting bloc: evangelical born-again Christians. So he put on a good act, tried to talk the talk, and managed to convince many gullible believers that he was one of them.

Friday, October 30th, 2009

Excellent and hard-hitting analysis as usual from Bill Muehlenberg

A Dark Day for American Christianity

Barrack Obama knew that in order to win the US Presidential election, he had to win over a large voting bloc: evangelical born-again Christians. So he put on a good act, tried to talk the talk, and managed to convince many gullible believers that he was one of them.

Of course now that he is firmly ensconced in the White House, he can leave all pretence behind, and pursue his real agenda – an agenda which is quite far removed from biblical Christianity. Each week he seems to implement more policies and practices which are diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview.

Many of these have to do with his radical pro-abortion position, and his relentless attempts to placate and promote homosexual activism. His most recent slap in the face of Christianity was his signing into law of the notorious “hate crimes” bill.

Yesterday he enacted the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. The worrying hate crimes law was actually just one segment of a larger bill, so he in effect had to sneak it through, albeit sadly with the support of many federal politicians.

Many voices had been raised expressing disquiet over such a bill over the past months, and now that it is law, they continue to share their concerns about such a bad bit of legislation. Here is a sampling of their commentary.

Chelsea Schilling explains what has transpired: “The Senate approved the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a vote of 68-29 on Oct. 22 after Democrats strategically attached it to a ‘must-pass’ $680 billion defense appropriations plan. Most Republicans, although normally strong supporters of the U.S. military, opposed the bill because it hands out federal money to states and local governments in pursuit of ‘preventing’ hate crimes. The bill creates federal protections and privileges for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles but denies those protections to other groups of citizens.”

Erik Stanley of the Alliance Defense Fund points out the foolishness and danger of “hate crimes” legislation: “These types of crimes are already punishable under existing federal, state, and local laws.  Violent crimes should be punished regardless of the characteristics of the victim. Bills of this sort are designed to forward a political agenda and silence critics, not combat actual crime.  The bottom line is that we do not need a law that creates second-class victims in America and that gives the government the opportunity to ignore the First Amendment.”

He continues, “All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice. This law is a grave threat to the First Amendment because it provides special penalties based on what people think, feel, or believe.  ADF has clearly seen the evidence of where ‘hate crimes’ legislation leads when it has been tried around the world:  It paves the way for the criminalization of speech that is not deemed ‘politically correct’. ‘Hate crimes’ laws fly in the face of the underlying purpose of the First Amendment, which was designed specifically to protect unpopular speech.”

Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association said that the new law “creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in non-normative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American.”

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said this: “It is fundamentally unjust for the government to treat some crime victims more favorably than others, just because they are homosexual or transsexual. This bill is an unnecessary federal intrusion into state law enforcement authority, and it is an unwise step toward silencing religious and moral viewpoints.”

Dr. Gary L. Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission offered these strong words: “In other nations, like Canada, where hate crime laws have been enacted, it is Christians, specifically conservative Christians who hold to the historic Christian faith and it’s values, that become the object of institutionalized, governmental hate. Christians who dare to tell the truth about the social, moral, spiritual and health consequences of illicit homosexual acts are accused of hate speech and intimidated into silence with threats of fines or jail.

“The fact the hate bill had to be passed in such an unscrupulous and cynical manner (attaching it to the Defense Authorization Act) reveals the depth of President Obama’s commitment to a radical, anti- Christian agenda. He will stop at nothing to undermine the will of the majority of Americans to pay back militant homosexual activists who raised millions of dollars for his campaign and worked to get him elected. To sign the bill in the Rose Garden is another slap in the face and shows the level of contempt President Obama has for the majority of Americans who oppose the ‘homosexualization’ of marriage and public education.”

And as Peter J. Smith notes, “The bill has also been labeled the ‘pedophile protection act,’ in large part due to the refusal of House members to approve an amendment specifying that the bill would not penalize the free speech of those objecting to homosexual perversions such as pedophilia. The term ‘sexual orientation’ is not defined in the bill, an oversight that some legislators charged could lead to an overly broad interpretation – since the term is used by psychologists to encompass a variety of sexual deviancies (including pedophilia), and not just homosexuality.”

The US now joins nations like Canada and England with these fundamentally flawed and unjust hate crimes laws. We already know the grief Christians in particular have been put through in these other nations because of such wretched laws. Now believers in the US will have their turn.

And of course there are activists here in Australia working on the very same thing. The only sure way these laws will come to pass here is if no resistance is offered. Are we willing to stand up and be counted, or will we simply cave in yet again, and allow more Christian freedoms to be stripped away? The choice is ours.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102806.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114305
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/6213811949.html
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8625811951.html
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=5106

RELATED LINKS

As Sen. John McCain recently remarked, “elections have consequences.” President Barack Obama signed the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” into law on Thursday, fulfilling a campaign promise and handing the gay rights community one of its most sought-after achievements.

The homosexual movement gained a barrier-breaking victory Oct. 28 when President Obama signed into law a measure extending hate-crimes protections to homosexuals and transgender people.

Gay hate crimes bill and the assault on evangelical belief

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.

FURTHER INTERNET LINKS

Hard on the heels of the passage of Obama’s anti-Christian hate crimes law, we now find he is being aided and abetted by liberal churchians who also want to shut down free speech and silence conservative believers. Indeed, they have sided with the radicals in seeking to undermine the freedom of believers to speak out on the dangerous directions of our leftist leaders.

Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill into Law

The expanded hate crime legislation extends special protection to victims of crime who are targeted by perpetrators based on an actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

President Obama Signs “Hate Crimes” Bill into Law

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

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”.

Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill into Law

President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law this afternoon in the East Room of the White House. The law, which secured passage by being attached to a military spending bill, is being flagged by Christians as a possible vehicle for preventing them from teaching against homosexuality.

Hate Crimes Laws Encourage Anti-Christian Bigotry

As Sen. John McCain recently remarked, “elections have consequences.” President Barack Obama signed the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” into law on Thursday, fulfilling a campaign promise and handing the gay rights community one of its most sought-after achievements.

Friday, October 30th, 2009

Alber Mohler

As Sen. John McCain recently remarked, “elections have consequences.” President Barack Obama signed the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” into law on Thursday, fulfilling a campaign promise and handing the gay rights community one of its most sought-after achievements.

The bill, named for two men killed in vicious attacks, extends the definition of federal hates crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation, gender identity. Referring to Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, the President said:

It’s hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead. It’s hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who’d offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.

Those words are eloquent in exposing the deep evil that resides in far too many human hearts. If anything, the President spoke too cautiously.  It is not only “hard” for any morally sane person to imagine the mentality behind these attacks, it is and must be impossible.  Such crimes of violence against any human being should and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But defining these crimes as “hate crimes” shifts the legal issue from the criminally violent act itself to the thoughts and intentions of the criminal. This is a dangerous and unnecessary step, for the very idea of a hate crime requires the government to play the role of psychiatrist and also requires a list of those who deserve special protections. How can government stop the extension of that list?  If criminalizing hate is legally justifiable, should not every citizen be granted these same protections?

Even more ominously, the logic of hate crime laws inevitably leads to the idea of laws against what is defined as “hate speech.” It is not fair to suggest that this specific legislation includes a hate speech provision.  It is fair, however, to sound the alarm that very important rights involving the freedom to speak openly against homosexuality, for example, are now at far greater risk.

There was no surprise in the fact that President Obama signed the bill.  The shock came, not in the fact that he signed it, but in what the President said in his comments.  “This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade. Time and again, we faced opposition,” said the President. “Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. Time and again we’ve been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we’re all free to live and love as we see fit.”

Does President Obama actually mean what he said here?  Does he really call for a society “in which we’re all free to live and love as we see fit?” The hate crimes bill he signed into law covers gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation.  The courts will have to sort out all that is covered in those categories.

But the “free to live and love as we see fit” language was set in a context larger than the hate crimes bill.  President Obama is an intellectually serious man. He knows that words matter.  When he speaks of all citzens being “free to live and love as we see fit” he opens the door far beyond the categories of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual.  Does he mean to include polygamists in this vision?  The “polyamorous?” Incest?  The catalogue of sexual interests claimed by some as “loves” goes far beyond these.

We are living in an age increasingly marked by what Sigmund Freud called “polymorphous perversity.”  I do not believe that President Obama meant to include any and all sexual interests and lifestyles under his blanket category of living and loving “as we see fit.”  But words really do matter, and this President now bears responsibility for signing a dangerous bill into law and then for compounding that act by using language that was self-congratulatory, dishonest, and dangerous.

In another sense, the President’s language was revealing.  The logic that leads to the celebration of gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships cannot stop with those sexual categories.  In an age that elevates “consent” as the only meaningful moral and legal issue, any effort to refuse similar recognition to any consensual sexual relationship, lifestyle, or practice is doomed to eventual failure.  It is all just a matter of time.

Yes, Sen. McCain, elections have consequences. But words have consequences, too, President Obama. Do you really want to live with the consequences of your words spoken on Thursday?

Previous posts

The homosexual movement gained a barrier-breaking victory Oct. 28 when President Obama signed into law a measure extending hate-crimes protections to homosexuals and transgender people.

Gay hate crimes bill and the assault on evangelical belief

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.

FURTHER INTERNET LINKS

Hard on the heels of the passage of Obama’s anti-Christian hate crimes law, we now find he is being aided and abetted by liberal churchians who also want to shut down free speech and silence conservative believers. Indeed, they have sided with the radicals in seeking to undermine the freedom of believers to speak out on the dangerous directions of our leftist leaders.

Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill into Law

The expanded hate crime legislation extends special protection to victims of crime who are targeted by perpetrators based on an actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

President Obama Signs “Hate Crimes” Bill into Law

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

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”.

Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill into Law

President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law this afternoon in the East Room of the White House. The law, which secured passage by being attached to a military spending bill, is being flagged by Christians as a possible vehicle for preventing them from teaching against homosexuality.

Hate Crimes Laws Encourage Anti-Christian Bigotry

“It’s just a choice,” the respected pastor said to me confidently when I told him that God had led me to minister to people struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction.

Friday, October 30th, 2009

I really enjoyed this rather refreshing article from Bob Stith about homosexuality. I am myself a fairly ‘traditionalist’ Christian (Dare I say that nowadays?) and I do personally view homosexual desires and tendencies as a temptation to sin. I know that this is not popular in our our ‘politically correct’ society nowadays and there are even moves afoot to declare this kind of view when voiced as a ‘hate crime’.

The truth of the matter is, that I have never and will never hate persons either tempted by same-sex attraction or even practicing the same. The fact that I do view homosexuality as a sin and a temptation for folk (rather than an innate biological ‘hard wiring’ condition) causes me to be sympathetic, because like every other human, I also face powerful temptations.

This article is refreshing in that it doesn’t lurch between simply the condemnation of homosexuals or excusing the lifestyle as ‘hard wired’ and therefore impossible to resist or change.

I do have an issue with church leaders who promote the homosexual lifestyle as Biblically acceptable and want to elevate same-sex relationships to the same status as heterosexual marriages in the eyes of God, but I also have an issue with those who simply condemn gay folk outside of the church and do not exhibit love and empathy.

FIRST-PERSON: Same-sex attraction: Just a choice?

SOUTHLAKE, Texas (BP)–”It’s just a choice,” the respected pastor said to me confidently when I told him that God had led me to minister to people struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction.

While I was surprised and saddened to hear this from an experienced pastor, it also reminded me of the great need among our churches to be informed about ways to minister effectively and redemptively to those who struggle with an attraction they neither chose nor understand.

“It’s just a choice.” Few statements are more frustrating and painful for those who live with the reality of unwanted same-sex attraction. Many of them sit in our pews every Sunday. Some long to be able to talk about their struggle, but remarks such as this make them reluctant to open up.

The comments can be damaging to their friends and family members, as well. They may hear this from a trusted leader, assume it is true, and pass it on to the struggler. They also are more inclined to keep their own pain private because they now believe their loved one has simply “chosen” to disregard their advice.

There are also few things that can more negatively affect our credibility with a watching world than these words.

Some readers may be irritated at this point. You may be thinking “Well, it is a choice. No one is forcing them to live that way.” And therein lies the confusion.

While sin is always a choice, our temptations are not.

I’ve never been seriously tempted by alcohol — even as a student in my pre-Christian days — and I’ve always been extremely grateful for that.

On the other hand, I can remember struggling with anger from my early years. I did not choose this particular battle. After becoming a Christian I occasionally talked to people I respected about it. The advice I got often amounted to, “The Bible says you shouldn’t get angry.”

Which made me angry.

Far too often, people who struggle with same-sex attraction have been given that kind of simplistic advice by well-meaning family and friends. As with me and my anger, they were never aware of how or why the attraction started.

Many of the same-sex strugglers I’ve met through the years were sexually abused as children. Early on, their view of sexuality as a precious gift from God was marred. Confusion, guilt or outright threats often kept them from telling anyone.

One man told of being molested as a young boy by leaders in the church where his father was pastor. He said he thought maybe there was a sign on him saying “molest me.” Threats and fear kept him from telling anyone.

I’ve talked to women who were sexually abused by trusted family members. Again, shame and guilt often kept them from going to their parents. Sadly, some did go to adults who either didn’t believe them or chose simply to ignore the situation.

Others have been victims of physical and verbal abuse. Young women who saw their mothers abused came to two conclusions: 1) It isn’t safe to be a woman, so femininity must be rejected, and, 2) men aren’t safe and can’t be trusted in an intimate relationship.

In one support group I led, there was a man who did not fit into any of these categories. He was a slender young man who was much more interested in the arts than he was in sports. Other students began to harass him and call him gay. He didn’t think of himself that way and had never had homosexual temptations. But he began to wonder if his abusers were right. Eventually he decided to seek friendship in a gay bar. At the time I met him, he was a committed follower of Christ who still struggled to overcome the doubts brought on by his childhood antagonists.

Many who go through childhood traumas will at some point be tempted to justify or explain wrong attitudes or actions because of those traumas. But over and over again, I’ve heard men and women say, “I didn’t choose this struggle, but I did choose to act on the temptation.” They are well aware that freedom requires them to honestly face their own guilt. But too often they first have to sort through the confusion brought about by well-meaning people who have told them, “It’s a choice.”

These courageous people deserve more from us than “It’s just a choice.”

They need and deserve understanding, conveyed by both words and body language. They need and deserve to experience the love of Jesus Christ through people who honestly face our own struggles in areas of temptation we did not choose. They need and deserve encouragement to look to and trust in Jesus, just like every Christ-follower.

Think about the thing that tempts you most. Did you make a conscious decision to be tempted by it? If you confided this temptation to someone, I don’t imagine you’d appreciate it if you were confidently dismissed with “It’s just a choice.”

It’s more complicated than that, isn’t it?

Bob Stith is the SBC’s National Strategist for Gender Issues. For more information about the SBC’s outreach to homosexuals or to contact Bob about a speaking engagement or interview, visit www.sbcthewayout.com

Islam: at war within itself – Dr Patrick Sookhdeo International Director, Barnabas Fund

Friday, October 30th, 2009

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo (International Director, Barnabas Fund) has been asked by Barnabas supporters to give an analysis and write an article trying to make sense of what is currently happening in the Islamic world. This is how Melanie Philips introduces his encouraging article:

Spectator

The tireless Islam scholar and anti-Islamist Dr Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund has written a must-read article in the Fund’s current newsletter which, if his analysis is correct, provides a real chink of light in these dark times. He suggests that the Islamist orthodoxy which has had the Muslim world by the throat is beginning to crack under pressure from reformist Muslims around the world, particularly within Britain. He writes:

Recent months have seen a number of unexpected and extremely encouraging statements coming out of the Muslim world.  Respected, mainstream Muslim leaders in a variety of countries have voiced opinions which are at odds with traditional, conservative Islam.  They have challenged aspects of shari‘a and are calling for a liberal, modernist, enlightened Islam compatible with Western norms.  Perhaps the most significant of all is a comment by a group of British Muslims calling for an end to the apostasy law and for full freedom in all religious matters.

A small minority of marginalised Muslim progressives has been bravely defying traditional and Islamist pressures by reinterpreting Islam in a way compatible with modern concepts of secularity, individual human rights, religious freedom and gender equality.

However, recently some significant cracks seem to be forming within the mainstream Islam. Important mainstream leaders are coming out against long-held key traditional views and Wahhabi-Salafi doctrines and practices, openly supporting ideas compatible with modernity. It would seem that the reformist teachings of Ahmad Khan (1817 – 1898) and Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849 -1905), which had been suppressed, are now resurfacing within mainstream Islam. As some experts on Islam have always been saying, ‘the really decisive battle is taking place within Muslim civilization, where ultraconservatives compete against moderates and democrats for the soul of the Muslim public.’

Read Entire Article

Click here to read Dr Patrick Sookhdeo’s article ‘Islam: at war within itself’

The below link is a related article from the American Thinker today:-

Can Islam reform from within? – Is a movement to reform Islam from within already here and some of us don’t even know it?

The Goldstone Report: A Study in Duplicity – Much has been written about the 575-page anti-Israel tirade known as the Goldstone Report which charges that Israel intentionally targeted Palestinian civilians and likely committed “crimes against humanity.”

Friday, October 30th, 2009

I’m glad to say that folks are coming out fighting against the hopelessly biased ‘Goldstone Report’.

CAMERA have an excellent ‘Falsehood Report’ which is well worth a look:-

Much has been written about the 575-page anti-Israel tirade known as the Goldstone Report (formally known as the report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict), which charges that Israel intentionally targeted Palestinian civilians and likely committed “crimes against humanity.”

The UN investigation has been widely faulted for its lack of objectivity, duplicitous methodology and biased mandate predetermining its conclusions. (Following the article are links to an accumulating body of material on the subject.)

Falsehood List

The Report often exonerates Palestinian terror groups by claiming that “The Mission found no evidence” supporting particular allegations about their misconduct. In many cases, where there is indeed clear evidence supporting the allegations, such claims by the Goldstone Commission are simply not credible.

Also highly significant are false assertions in Palestnian testimony given to the commissioners, much of which was anecdotal evidence by residents of the Gaza Strip. The Commission’s determination that such evidence was “credible and reliable” is actually the reverse of the case;  the testimony was often clearly unreliable.

The Report also acknowledged that “those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups,” possibly due to “fear of reprisals.” (Perhaps the Mission should have explicitly asked the witnesses whether they feared Hamas might use their testimony against them. One Palestinian told Der Spiegel during a discussion about the war that “anyone who stands up to [Hamas] is killed.”) The Report’s acknowledgment that Palestinian testimony might be influenced by fear did not, however, prevent Goldstone from accepting most of the testimony as fact.

Read Entire Report

Professor Barry Rubin has been citing Israel’s response on his excellent Blog:-

Israel’s Response to the Goldstone Report: Exposing a Politically Motivated Fraud

If you’ve been following the Goldstone Report controversy, you might be interested in the response done by Israel to specific points raised by the report.

The Goldstone report bashes Israel regarding the Gaza war for alleged crimes and misdeeds based solely on the unchallenged testimony of almost totally pro-Hamas and universally anti-Israel Palestinians who live under an Islamist dictatorial regime. On close examination, a very large number of the accusations dissolve into nothingness.

Judge Goldstone keeps repeating in interviews–and the media lets him get away with it–that nobody has challenged the substance of his report. This is blatantly untrue as this response shows. He and the commission have not even attempted to respond to any part of these critiques.

Equally, much of the Western media has not reported on any of these detailed critiques, for example the demolition of the number of civilian casualties claimed, achieved by reclassifying Hamas gunmen as civilians.

Meanwhile, the report passed the UN Human Rights Council and is now being discussed in general debate. At some point, the UN will try to pass some sort of anti-Israel resolution–with or without material sanctions–and the United States and Europeans will have to decide how to vote or veto. The report will also be used in the coming years repeatedly to portray Israel as an evil and illegitimate state that should not be allowed to exist.

There are also broader implications, as the response shows. If the concepts used in the report are adopted, democratic countries facing terrorist attacks will be unable to respond without international political and perhaps legal condemnation. For example, the U.S. attack into Afghanistan after September 11 would be subjected to war crimes’ charges.

Here’s a sample from part of the response:

Selection of Incidents

Read Entire Article

I think what disgusts me most is that folks have been using the Goldstone Report to justify boycotting Israel, even here in the UK, most notable the TUC!

Related Recent Posts:-

TUC votes for ‘targeted boycott’ of Israeli goods

Goldstone Agonistes – The tough-on-Israel, easy-on-Hamas UN report on the Gaza war isn’t exactly playing out the way its author may have hoped.

Nearly 50,000 people have watched a video clip of Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, giving a pro-Israeli testimony at the UN Human Right Council’s special session on the Goldstone Commission’s Report on Operation Cast Lead.

“We, the undersigned, petition the Prime Minister to declare the UK’s opposition to the Goldstone Report and to ensure its rejection when a vote is taken in the UN Human Rights Council in March 2010.

Last week, the UN Human Rights Council published the findings of its investigation into alleged war crimes committed during the Gaza war. Headed by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, the four-person team concluded that there was strong evidence that war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity, had been committed by both Israel and Hamas.

So now we can see how Richard Goldstone thinks he has preserved his judicial reputation while perpetrating a blood libel against Israel.

Major Error in UN Goldstone Report Calls into Question Work’s Credibility

In the wake of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza at the turn of this year, the UN’s satirically named ‘Human Rights Council’ set up what purported to be an objective, fact-finding commission of inquiry under Richard Goldstone

Yesterday the United Nations’ fact-finding mission into the three weeks of fighting in the Gaza Strip published its scathing report, harshly condemning Israel for its “disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population

The UN Human Rights Council’s report into the Gaza conflict is a shamefully biased document – Ron Prosor the Israeli Ambassador to the UK

CHARLES SPURGEON PRAYER THE FORERUNNER OF MERCY

Friday, October 30th, 2009

“Thus saith the Lord God; I will yet for this be enquired of by the
house of Israel to do it for them; I will increase them with men like
a flock.” Ezekiel 36:37

IN reading the chapter we have seen the great and exceeding precious
promises which God had made to the favored nation of Israel. God in this
verse declares, that though the promise was made, and though he would
fulfill it, yet he would not fulfill it until his people asked him so to do. He
would give them a spirit of prayer, by which they should cry earnestly for
the blessing, and then when they should have cried aloud unto the living
God, he would be pleased to answer them from heaven, his dwelling-place.
The word used here to express the idea of prayer is a suggestive one. “I
will yet for this be enquired of by the house of Israel.” Prayer, then, is an
enquiry. No man can pray aright, unless he views prayer in that light. First,
I enquire what the promise is. I turn to my Bible and I seek to find the
promise whereby the thing which I desire to seek is certified to me as being
a thing which God is willing to give. Having enquired so far as that, I take
that promise, and on my bended knees I enquire of God whether he will
fulfill his own promise. I take to him his own word of covenant, and I say
to him, “O Lord, wilt thou not fulfill it, and wilt thou not fulfill it now?” So
that there, again, prayer is enquiry. After prayer I look out for the answer;
I expect to be heard, and if I am not answered I pray again, and my
repeated prayers are but fresh enquiries. I expect the blessing to arrive; I
go and enquire whether there is any tidings of its coming. I ask; and thus I
say “Wilt thou answer me, O Lord? Wilt thou keep thy promise? Or wilt
thou shut up thine ear, because I misunderstand my own wants and mistake
thy promise.” Brethren, we must use enquiry in prayer, and regard prayer
as being, first, an enquiry for the promise, and shell on the strength of that
promise an enquiry for the fulfillment. We expect something to come as a
present from a friend: we first have the note, whereby we are informed it is
upon the road. We enquire as to what the present is by the reading of the
note, and then, if it arrive not, we call at the accustomed place where the
parcel ought to have been left, and we ask or enquire for such and such a
thing. We have enquired about the promise, and then we go and enquire
again, until we get an answer that the promised gift has arrived and is ours.
So with prayer. We get the promise by enquiry, and we get the fulfillment
of it by again enquiring at God’s hands.

Now, this morning I shall try, as God shall help me, first to speak of prayer
as the prelude of blessing: next I shall try to show why prayer is thus
constituted by God the forerunner of his mercies, and then I shall close by
an exhortation, as earnest as I can make it, exhorting you to pray, if you
would obtain blessings.

I. Prayer is the FORERUNNER OF MERCIES. Many despise prayer: they
despise it, because they do not understand it. He who knoweth how to use
that sacred art of prayer will obtain so much thereby, that from its very
profitableness he will be led to speak of it with the highest reverence.
Prayer, we assert, is the prelude of all mercies. We bid you turn back to
sacred history, and you will find that never did a great mercy come to this
world, unheralded by prayer. The promise comes alone, with no preventing
merit to precede it, but the blessing promised always follows its herald,
prayer. You shall note that all the wonders that God did in the old times
were first of all sought at his hands by the earnest prayers of his believing
people. But the other Sabbath we beheld Pharaoh cast into the depths of
the Red Sea, and all his hosts “still as a stone” in the depths of the waters.
Was there a prayer that preceded that magnificent overthrow of the Lord’s
enemies? Turn ye to the Book of Exodus, and ye will read, “The children
of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry
came up unto God by reason of the bondage.” And mark ye not, that just
before the sea parted and made a highway for the Lord’s people through its
bosom, Moses had prayed unto the Lord, and cried earnestly unto him, so
that Jehovah said, “Why criest thou unto me?” A few Sabbaths ago, when
we preached on the subject of the rain which came down from heaven in
the days of Elijah, you will remember how we pictured the land of Judea as
an arid wilderness, a mass of dust, destitute of all vegetation. Rain had not
fallen for three years; the pastures were dried up; the brooks had ceased to
flow; poverty and distress stared the nation in the face. At an appointed
season a sound was heard of abundance of rain, and the torrents poured
from the skies, until the earth was deluged with the happy floods. Do you
ask me, whether prayer was the prelude to that? I point you to the top of
Carmel. Behold a man kneeling before his God, crying, “O my God! send
the rain;” lo! the majesty of his faith — he sends his servant Gehazi to look
seven times for the clouds, because he believes that they will come, in
answer to his prayer. And mark the fact, the torrents of rain were the
offspring of Elijah’s faith and prayer. Wherever in Holy Writ you shall find
the blessing you shall find the prayer that went before it. Our Lord Jesus
Christ was the greatest blessing that men ever had. He was God’s best
boon to a sorrowing world. And did prayer precede Christ’s advent? Was
there any prayer which went before the coming of the Lord, when he
appeared in the temple? Oh yes, the prayers of saints for many ages had
followed each other. Abraham saw his day, and when he died Isaac took up
the note, and when Isaac slept with his fathers, Jacob and the patriarchs
still continued to prey; yea, and in the very days of Christ, prayer was still
made for him continually: Anna the prophetess, and the venerable Simeon,
still looked for the coming of Christ; and day by day they prayed and
interceded with God, that he would suddenly come to his temple.

Ay, and mark you, as it has been in Sacred Writ, so it shall be with regard
to greater things that are yet to happen in the fulfillment of promise. I
believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will one day come in the clouds of
heaven. It is my firm belief, in common with all who read the Sacred
Scriptures aright, that the day is approaching when the Lord Jesus shall
stand a second time upon the earth, when he shall reign with illimitable
sway over all the habitable parts of the globe, when kings shall bow before
him, and queens shall be nursing mothers of his Church, But when shall
that time come? We shall know its coming by its prelude when prayer shall
become more loud and strong, when supplication shall become more
universal and more incessant, then even as when the tree putteth forth her
first green leaves we expect that the spring approacheth, even so when
prayer shall become more hearty and earnest, we may open our eyes, for
the day of our redemption draweth nigh. Great prayer is the preface of
great mercy, and in proportion to our prayer is the blessing that we may
expect.

It has been so in the history of the modern Church. Whenever she has been
roused to pray, it is then that God has awaked to her help. Jerusalem, when
thou hast shaken thyself from the dust, thy Lord hath taken his sword from
the scabbard. When thou hast suffered thy hands to hang down, and thy
knees to become feeble, he has left thee to become scattered by thine
enemies; thou hast become barren and thy children have been cut off, but
when thou hast learned to cry, when thou hast begun to pray, God hath
restored unto thee the joy of his salvation, he hath gladdened thine heart,
and multiplied thy children. The history of the Church up to this age has
been a series of waves, a succession of ebbs and flows. A strong wave of
religious prosperity has washed over the sands of sin, again it has receded,
and immorality has reigned. Ye shall read in English history: it has been the
same. Did the righteous prosper in the days of Edward VI? They shall
again be tormented under a bloody Mary. Did Puritanism become
omnipotent over the land, did the glorious Cromwell reign, and did the
saints triumph? Charles the second’s debancheries and wickedness became
the black receding wave. Again, Whitfield and Wesley poured throughout
the nation a mighty wave of religion, which like a torrent drove everything
before it. Again it receded, and there came the days of Payne, and of men
full of infidelity and wickedness. Again there came a strong impulse, and
again God glorified himself. And up to this date, again, there has been a
decline. Religion, though more fashionable than it once was, has lost much
of its vitality and power, much of the zeal and earnestness of the ancient
preachers has departed, and the wave has receded again. But, blessed be
God, flood tide has again set in: once more God hath aroused his Church.
We have seen in these days what our fathers never hoped to see: we have
seen the great men of a Church, not too noted for its activity, at last
coming forth — and God be with them in their coming forth! They have
come forth to preach unto the people the unsearchable riches of God. I do
hope we may have another great wave of religion rolling in upon us. Shall I
tell you what I conceive to be the moon that influences these waves? My
brethren, even as the moon influences the tides of the sea, even so doth
prayer, (which is the reflection of the sunlight of heaven, and is God’s
moon in the sky,) influence the tides of godliness; for when our prayers
become like the crescent moon, and when we stand not in conjunction with
the sun, then there is but a shallow tide of godliness, but when the full orb
shines upon the earth, and when God Almighty makes the prayers of his
people full of joy and gladness, it is then that the sea of grace returneth to
its strength. In proportion to the prayerfulness of the Church shall be its
present success, though its ultimate success is beyond the reach of hazard.
And now again, to come nearer home: this truth is true of each of you my
dearly beloved in the Lord in your own personal experience. God has
given you many an unsolicited favor, but still great prayer has always been
the great prelude of great mercy with you. When you first found peace
through the blood of the cross you had been praying much beforehand, and
earnestly interceding with God that he would remove your doubts, and
deliver you from your distresses. Your assurance was the result of prayer.
And when at any time you have had high and rapturous joys, you have
been obliged to look upon them as answers to your prayers, when you have
had great deliverances out of sore troubles, and mighty helps in great
dangers, you have been able to say, “I cried unto the Lord, and he heard
me, and delivered me out of all my fears.” Prayer, we say, in your case, as
well as in the case of the Church at large, is always the preface to blessing.
And now some will say to me, “In what way do you regard prayer, then, as
affecting the blessing? God, the Holy Ghost vouchsafes prayer before the
blessing; but in what way is prayer connected with the blessing?” I reply,
prayer goes before the blessing in several senses.

It goes before the blessing, as the blessing’s shadow. When the sunlight of
God’s mercy rises upon our necessities, it casts the shadow of prayer far
down upon the plain, or, to use another illustration, when God piles up a
hill of mercies, he himself shines behind them, and he casts on our spirits
the shadow of prayer, so that we may rest certain, if we are in prayer, our
prayers are the shadows of mercy. Prayer is the rustling of the wings of the
angels that are on their way bringing us the boons of heaven. Have you
heard prayer in your heart? You shall see the angel in your house. When
the chariots that bring us blessings do rumble, their wheels do sound with
prayer. We hear the prayer in our own spirits, and that prayer becomes the
token of the coming blessings. Even as the cloud foreshadoweth rain, so
prayer foreshadoweth the blessing; even as the green blade is the beginning
of the harvest, so is prayer the prophecy of the blessing that is about to
come.

Again: prayer goes before mercy, as the representative of it. Often times
the king, in his progress through his realms, sends one before him, who
blows a trumpet; and when the people see him they know that the king
cometh, because the trumpeter is there. But, perhaps, there is before him a
more important personage, who says, “I am sent before the king to prepare
for his reception, and I am this day to receive aught that you have to send
the king, for I am his representalive.” So prayer is the representative of the
blessing before the blessing comes. The prayer comes, and when I see the
prayer, I say, “Prayer, thou art the vice-gerent of the blessing, if the
blessing he the king, thou art the regent. I know and look upon thee as
being the representative of the blessing I am about to receive.”

But I do think also that sometimes, and generally, prayer goes before the
blessing, even as the cause goes before the effect. Some people say, when
they get anything, that they get it because they prayed for it, but if they are
people who are not spiritually minded, and who have no faith, let them
know, that whatever they may get it is not in answer to prayer, for we
know that God heareth not sinners, and the sacrifice of the wicked is an
abomination to the Lord.” “Well,” says one, “I asked God for such-andsuch
a thing the other day. I know I am no Christian, but I got it. Don’t
you consider that I had it through my prayers?” No, sir, no more than I
believe the reasoning of the old man who affirmed that the Goodwin Sands
had been caused by the building of Tenterden steeple, for the sands had not
been there before, and the sea did not come up till it was built, and
therefore, said he, the steeple must have caused the flood. Now, your
prayers have no more connection with your blessing than the sea with the
steeple, in the Christian’s case it is far different. Oft-times the blessing is
actually brought down from heaven by the prayer. An objector may reply,
“I believe that prayer may have much influence on yourself, sir, but I do
not believe that it has any effect on the Divine Being.” Well, sir, I shall not
try to convince you; because it is useless for me to try to convince you of
that, unless you believe the testimonies I bring, as it would be to convince
you of any historical fact by simply reasoning about it. I could bring out of
this congregation not one, nor twenty, but many hundreds, who are
rational, intelligent persons, and who would, each of them, most positively
declare, that some hundreds of times in their lives they have been led to
seek most earnestly deliverance out of trouble, or help in adversity, and
they have received the answers to their prayers in so marvellous a manner
that they themselves did no more doubt their being answers to their cries
than they could doubt the existence of a God. They felt sure that he heard
them; they were certain of it. Oh! the testimonies to the power of prayer
are so numberless, that the man who rejects them flies in the face of good
testimonies. We are not all enthusiasts; some of us are cool blooded
enough, we are not all fanatics; we are not all quite wild in our piety, some
of us in other things, we reckon, act in a tolerably common sense way.
But yet we all agree in this, that our prayers have been heard; and we could
tell many stories of our prayers, still fresh upon our memories, where we
have cried unto God, and he has heard us. But the man, who says he does
not believe God hears prayer, knows he does. I have no respect to his
scepticism, any more than I have any respect to a man’s doubt about the
existence of a God. The man does not doubt it; he has to choke his own
conscience before he dares to say he does. It is complimenting him too
much to argue with him. Will you argue with a liar? He affirms a lie, and
knows it is so. Will you condescend to argue with him, to prove that he is
untrue! The man is incapable of reasoning; he is beyond the pale of those
who ought to be treated as respectable persons. If a man rejects the
existence of a God, he does it desperately against his own conscience, and
if he is bad enough to stifle his own conscience so much as to believe that,
or pretend that he believes it, we think we shall demean ourselves if we
argue with so loose a character. He must be solemnly warned, for reason is
thrown away upon deliberate liars. But you know, sir, God hears prayer;
because if you do not, either way you must be a fool. You are a fool for
not believing so, and a worse fool for praying yourself; when you do not
believe he hears you. “But I do not pray sir.” Do not pray? Did I not hear a
whisper from your nurse when you were sick? She said you were a
wonderful saint when you had the fever. You do not pray! No, but when
things lo not go quite well in business you would to God that they would
go better, and you do sometimes cry out to him a kind of prayer which he
cannot accept, but which is still enough to show that there is an instinct in
man that teaches him to pray, I believe that even as birds build their nests
without any teaching, so men use prayer in the form of it (I do not mean
spiritual prayer): I say, men use prayer from the very instinct of nature.
There is something in man which makes him a praying animal. He cannot
help it; he is obliged to do it. He laughs at himself when he is on the dry
land; but he prays when he is on the sea and in a storm, he seeks at prayer
when he is well, but when he is sick he prays as fast as anybody. He — he
would not pray when he is rich; but when he is poor, he prays then strongly
enough. He knows God hears prayer, and he knows that men should pray.

There is no disputing with him. If he dares to deny his own conscience he
is incapable of reasoning, he is beyond the pale of morality, and therefore
we dare not try to influence him by reasoning. Other means we may and
hope we shall use with him, but not that which compliments him by
allowing him to answer. O saints of God! whatever ye can give up, ye can
never give up this truth, that God heareth prayer; for if ye did disbelieve it
to-day, ye would have to believe it again to-morrow; for ye would have
such another proof of it through some other trouble that would roll over
your head that ye would be obliged to feel, if ye were not obliged to say,
“Verily, God heareth and answereth prayer.”

Prayer, then, is the prelude of mercy, for very often it is the cause of the
blessing; that is to say, it is a part cause; the mercy of God being the great
first cause, prayer is often the secondary agency whereby the blessing is
brought down.

II. And now I am going to try to show you, in the second place, WHY IT
IS THAT GOD IS PLEASED TO MAKE PRAYER THE TRUMPETER OF MERCY,
OR THE FORERUNNER OF IT.

1. I think it is, in the first place, because God loves that man should have
some reason for having a connection with him. Saith God, “My creatures
will shun me, even my own people will too little seek me — they will flee
from me, instead of coming to me. What shall I do? I intend to bless them:
shall I lay the blessings at their doors so that when they open them in the
morning they may find them there, unasked and unsought?” “Yes,” saith
God, “many mercies I will so do with; I will give them much that they
need, without their seeking for it, but in order that they may not wholly
forget me, there are some mercies that I will not put at their doors but I
will make them come to my house after them. I love my children to visit
me,” says the heavenly Father; “I love to see them in my courts, I delight to
hear their voices and to see their faces; they will not come to see me if I
give them all they want; I will keep them sometimes without, and then they
will come to me and ask, and I shall have the pleasure of seeing them, and
they will have the profit of entering into fellowship with me.” It is as if
some father should say to his son who is entirely dependent upon him, “I
might give you a fortune at once, so that you might never have to come
upon me again; but, my son, it delights me, it affords me pleasure to supply
your wants. I like to know what it is you require, that I may oftentimes
have to give you, and so may frequently see your face. Now I shall give
you only enough to serve you for such a time, and if you want to have
anything you must come to my house for it. O, my son, I do this because I
desire to see thee often; I desire often to have opportunities of showing
how much I love thee.” So doth God say to his children, “I do not give you
all at once; I give all to you in the promise, but if you want to have it in the
detail, you must come to me to ask me for it: so shall you see my face, and
so shall you have a reason for often coming to my feet.”

2. But there is another reason. God would make prayer the preface to
mercy, because often prayer itself gives the mercy. You are full of fear and
sorrow, you want comfort, God says, pray, and you shall get it; and the
reason is because prayer is of itself a comforting exercise. We are all
aware, that when we have any heavy news upon our minds, it often relieves
us if we can tell a friend about it. Now there are some troubles we would
not tell to others, for perhaps many minds could not sympathize with us:
God has therefore provided prayer, as a channel for the flow of grief.
“Come,” saith he, “thy troubles may find vent here; come, put them into
my ear; pour out thine heart before me, and so wilt thou prevent its
bursting. If thou must weep, come and weep at my mercy-seat; if thou
must cry come and cry in the closet, and I will hear thee.” And how often
have you and I tried that! We have been on our knees overwhelmed with
sorrow, and we have risen up, and said, “Ah! I can meet it all now!”

“Now I can say my God is mine
Now I can all my joys resign,
Can tread the world beneath my feet,
And all that earth calls good or great.”

Prayer itself sometimes gives the mercy.

Take another case. You are in difficulty, you don’t know which way to go,
nor how to act. God has said that he will direct his people. You go forth in
prayer and pray to God to direct you. Are you aware that your very prayer
will frequently of itself furnish you with the answer? For while the mind is
absorbed in thinking over the matter, and in praying concerning the matter,
it is just in the likeliest state to suggest to itself the course which is proper,
for whilst in prayer I am spreading all the circumstances before God, I am
like a warrior surveying the battle-field, and when I rise I know the state of
affairs, and know how to act. Often, thus, you see, prayer gives the very
thing we ask for in itself. Often when I have had a passage of Scripture that
I cannot understand, am I in the habit of spreading the Bible before me,
and if I have looked at all the commentators, and they do not seem to
agree, I have spread the Bible on my chair, kneeled down, put my finger
upon the passage, and sought of God instruction. I have thought that when
I have risen from my knees I understood it far better than before; I believe
that the very exercise of prayer did of itself bring the answer, to a great
degree, for the mind being occupied upon it, and the heart being exercised
with it, the whole man was in the most excellent position for truly
understanding it. John Bunyan says, “The truths that I know best I have
learned on my knees;” and says he again, “I never know a thing well till it
is burned into my heart by prayer.” Now that is in a great measure through
the agency of God’s Holy Spirit; but I think that it may in some measure
also be accounted for by the fact that prayer exercises the mind upon the
thing, and then the mind is led by an insensible process to lay hold upon the
right result. Prayer, then is a suitable prelude to the blessing, because often
it carrieth the blessing in itself.

3. But again it seemeth but right, and just, and appropriate, that prayer
should go before the blessing, because in prayer there is a sense of need. I
cannot as a man distribute assistance to those who do not represent their
case to me as being destitute and sick. I cannot suppose that the physician
will trouble himself to leave his own house to go into the house of one that
is ill, unless the need has been specified to him, and unless he has been
informed that the case requires his assistance; nor can we expect of God,
that he will wait upon his own people, unless his own people should first
state their need to him, shall feel their need, and come before him crying
for a blessing. A sense of need is a divine gift; prayer fosters it, and is
therefore highly beneficial.

4. And yet again, prayer before the blessing serves to show us the value of
it. If we had the blessings without asking for them, we should think them
common things; but prayer makes the common pebbles of God’s temporal
bounties more precious then diamonds; and in spiritual prayer, cuts the
diamond, and makes it glisten more. The thing was precious, but I did not
know its preciousness till I had sought for it, and sought it long. After a
long chase the hunter prizes the animal because he has set his heart upon it
and is determined to have it; and yet more truly, after a long hunger he that
eateth findeth more relish in his food. So prayer doth sweeten the mercy.
Prayer teaches us its preciousness. It is the reading over of the bill, the
schedule, the account, before the estate and the properties are themselves
transferred. We know the value of the purchase by reading over the will of
it in prayer, and when we have groaned out our own expression of its
peerless price, then it is that God bestows the benediction upon us. Prayer,
therefore, goes before the blessing, because it shows us the value of it.
But doubtless even reason itself suggests that it is but natural that God, the
all-good, should give his favors to those that ask. It seemeth but right that
he should expect of us, that we should first ask at his hands, and then he
will bestow. It is goodness great enough that his hand is ready to open:
surely it is but little that he should say to his people, “For this thing will I
be enquired of by the house of Israel to do it for them.”

III. Let me close BY STIRRING YOU UP TO USE THE HOLY ART OF
PRAYER AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING THE BLESSING. Do you demand of
me, and for what shall we pray? The answer is upon my tongue. Pray for
yourselves, pray for your families, pray for the Churches, pray for the one
great kingdom of our Lord on earth.

Pray for yourselves. Sure you will never lack some subject for intercession.
So broad are your wants, so deep are your necessities, that until you are in
heaven you will always find room for prayer. Dost thou need nothing?
Then I fear thou dost not know thyself. Hast thou no mercy to ask of God?
Then I fear thou hast never had mercies of him, and art yet “in the gall of
bitterness and in the bond of inquity.” If thou be a child of God, thy wants
will be as numerous as thy moments and thou wilt need to have as many
prayers as there are hours. Pray that thou mayest be holy, humble, zealous,
and patient; pray that thou mayest have communion with Christ, and enter
into the banqueting-house of his love. Pray for thyself, that thou mayest be
an example unto others, that thou mayest honor God here, and inherit his
kingdom hereafter.

In the next place, pray for your families; for your children. If they be pious,
you can still pray for them that their piety may be real, that they may be
upheld in their profession. And if they be ungodly, you have a whole
fountain of arguments for prayer. So long as thou hast a child unpardoned,
pray for it; so long as thou hast a child alive that is saved, pray for him, that
he may be kept. Thou hast enough reason to pray for those that have
proceeded from thine own loins. But if thou hast no cause to do that, pray
for thy servants. Wilt thou not stoop to that? Then surely thou hast not
stooped to be saved; for he that is saved knoweth how to pray for all. Pray
for thy servants, that they may serve God, that their life in thine house may
be of use to them. That is an ill house where the servants are unprayed for.
I should not like to be waited upon by one for whom I could not pray,
Perhaps the day when this world shall perish will be the day unbrightened
by a prayer; and perhaps the day when a great misdeed was done by some
man, was the day when his friends left off praying for him. Pray for your
households.

And then pray for the Church. Let the minister have a place in your heart.
Mention his name at your family altar, and in your closet. You expect him
to come before you day after day, to teach you the things of the kingdom,
and exhort and stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance. If he be a
true minister, there will be work to be done in this matter. He cannot write
his sermon and read it to you; he does not believe Christ said, “Go and
read the gospel to every creature.” Dost thou know the cares of a minister?
Dost thou know the trouble he has with his own church — how the erring
ones do grieve him, how even the right ones do vex his spirit by their
infirmities — how, when the church is large, there will always be some
great trouble in the hearts of some of his people? And he is the reservoir of
all: they come to him with all their grief; he is to “weep with them that
weep.” And in the pulpit what is his work? God is my witness, I scarcely
ever prepare for my pulpit with pleasure: study for the pulpit is to me the
most irksome work in the world I have never come into this house that I
know of with a smile upon mine heart; I may have sometimes gone out
with one; but never have I had one when I entered. Preach, preach, twice a
day I can and will do, but still there is a travailing in preparation for it, and
even the utterance is not always accompanied with joy and gladness, and
God knoweth that if it were not for the good that we trust is to be
accomplished by the preaching of the Word, it is no happiness to a man’s
life to be well known. It robs him of all comfort to be from morning to
night heated for labor, to have no rest for the sole of his foot or for his
brain — to be a great religious hack — to bear every burden — to have
people asking, as they do in the country, when they want to get into a cart,
“Will it hold it?” — never thinking whether the horse can drag it; to have
them asking, “Will you preach at such a place? you are preaching twice,
could’nt you manage to get to such a place, and preach again?” Every one
else has a constitution; the minister has none, until he kills himself and is
condemned as imprudent. If you are determined to do your duty in that
place to which God has called you, you need the prayers of your people,
that you may be able to do the work, and you will need their abundant
prayers that you may be sustained in it. I bless God that I have a valiant
corps of men, who day without night besiege God’s throne on my behalf. I
would speak to you, my brethren and sisters, again, and beseech you, by
our loving days that are past, by all the hard fighting that we have had side
by side with each other, not to cease to pray now. The time was when in
hours of trouble, you and I have bended our knees together in God’s house
and we have prayed to God that he would give us a blessing. You
remember how great and sore troubles did roll over our head — how men
did ride over us. We went through fire and through water, and now God
has brought us into a large place, and so multiplied us, let us not cease to
pray. Let us still cry out unto the living God, that he may give us a
blesssing. Oh! may God help me, if you cease to pray for me! Let me know
the day, and I must cease to preach. Let me know when you intend to
cease your prayers, and I shall cry, “O my God, give me this day my tomb,
and let me slumber in the dust.”

And lastly, let me bid you pray for the church at large. This is a happy time
we live in. A certain race of croaking souls, who are never pleased with
anything, are always crying out about the badness of the times. They cry,
“Oh! for the good old times!” Why, these are the good old times, time
never was so old as it is now. These are the best times. I do think that
many an old puritan would jump out of his grave if he knew what was
doing now. If they could have been told of the great movement at Exeter
Hall, there is many a man among them who once fought against the Church
of England, who would lift his hand to heaven, and cry, “My God, I bless
thee that I see such a day as this!” In these times there is a breaking down
of many of the barriers. The bigots are afraid; they are crying out most
desperately, because they think God’s people will soon love each other too
well. They are afraid that the trade of persecution will soon be done with, if
we begin to be more and more united. So they are making an outcry, and
saying, “These are not good times.” But true lovers of God will say they
have not lived in better days than these; and they all hopefully look for
greater things still. Unless you professors of religion are eminently in
earnest in prayer, you will disgrace yourselves by neglecting the finest
opportunity that ever men had. I do think that your fathers who lived in
days when great men were upon earth, who preached with much power —
I do think, if they had not prayed, they would have been as unfaithful as
you will be. For now the good ship floats upon a flood tide: sleep now, and
you will not cross the bar at the harbour’s mouth. Never did the sun of
prosperity seem to shine much more fully on the church during the last
hundred years than now. Now is your time, neglect now to sow your seed
in this good time of seed-sowing; neglect now to reap your harvest in these
good days when it is ripe, and darker days may come, and those of peril,
when God shall say, “Because they would not cry to me, when I stretched
out my hands to bless them, therefore will I put away my hand, and will no
more bless them, until again they shall seek me.”

And now to close. I have a young man here who has been lately converted.
His parents cannot bear him; they entertain the strongest opposition to him,
and they threaten him that if he does not leave off praying they will turn
him out of doors. Young man! I have a little story to tell you. There was
once a young man in your position: he had begun to pray, and his father
knew it. He said to him, “John, you know I am an enemy to religion, and
prayer is a thing that never shall be offered in my house.” Still the young
man continued earnest in supplication. “Well,” said the father one day, in a
hot passion, “you must give up either God or me. I solemnly swear that
you shall never darken the threshold of my door again, unless you decide
that you will give up praying. I give you till to-morrow morning to choose.
The night was spent in prayer by the young disciple. He rose in the
morning, sad to be cast away by his friends, but resolute in spirit, that come
what might he would serve his God. The father abruptly accosted him —
“Well, what is the answer?” “Father,” he said, “I cannot violate my
conscience, I cannot forsake my God.” “Leave immediately,” said he. And
the mother stood there; the father’s hard spirit had made hers hard too and
though she might have wept she concealed her tears. “Leave immediately”
said he. Stepping outside the threshold the young man said, “I wish you
would grant me one request before I go; and if you grant me that, I will
never trouble you again.” “Well,” said the father, “you shall have anything
you like, but mark me, you go after you have had that; you shall never have
anything again.” “It is,” said the son, “that you and my mother would kneel
down, and let me pray for you before I go.” Well, they could hardly object
to it; the young man was on his knees in a moment, and began to pray with
such unction and power, with such evident love to their souls, with such
true and divine earnestness, that they both fell flat on the ground, and when
the son rose there they were; and the father said, “You need not go, John;
come and stop, come and stop;” and it was not long before not only he, but
the whole of them began to pray and they were united to a Christian
Church. So do not give way. Persevere kindly but firmly. It may be that
God shall enable you not only to have your own souls saved, but to be the
means of bringing your persecuting parents to the foot of the cross. That
such may be the case is our earnest prayer.

Will an ignorant, but so-called racist, remark by a child of four be held against them for the rest of their life?

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

It really is George Orwell’s 1984:-

By Telegraph View

According to the Manifesto Club, a civil liberties organisation, an estimated 250,000 racist incidents have been reported in schools since 2002. The great majority of these involve playground exchanges, often among children so young that they have no concept of race. Nor, for the most part, does name-calling or joke-telling amount to “racist bullying”; it is rather a function of childlike ignorance that could be dealt with by any teacher with a modicum of common sense.

Yet in the bizarre culture we have created in this country, these “racist incidents” must be recorded and reported to local authorities under the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. To what purpose? Is it being suggested that the children who exhibit “racist tendencies” when they are four or five possess what are called “tolerance issues” that have to be corrected?

Read Entire Article

TWITTERING RELIGIOUS INQUISITION IN BRITAIN – The politically-correct dictatorship engulfing Britain is being fuelled by fundamentally religious impulses.

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

I really enjoyed this post (as I always do) from Cranmer’s Curate Blog, so am cross-posting in its entirety for you:-

The politically-correct dictatorship engulfing Britain is being fuelled by fundamentally religious impulses.

Religious zeal is the only explanation for the police questioning of a 67-year-old grandmother after she wrote to her local council objecting to a homosexual parade in Norwich. Mrs Howe represents no threat to public order – her offence is against the dogma of the politically-correct inquisition now underway in Britain, instigated by a twittering high priestly caste of homosexual rights activists and diversity enforcers.

Like all spiritually-motivated, idolatrous inquisitions in human history from Nero’s to the Spanish to Stalin’s, the current PC one makes an irrational connection between the expression of an opinion against its religious dogma and acts of criminality, such as the appalling assault on a gay police cadet in Liverpool.

Christians need to be spiritually and mentally prepared for the following:

· Infiltration of our churches and charities by police informers. Some of us may even face denunciation by family members and close friends, as our Lord Jesus Christ warned his disciples in the gospels (cf Mark 13v12-13 and Luke 21v16: ‘You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you will be put to death’ – RSV).

· The temptation to be disrespectful towards the secular authorities and/or withdraw from civic life. The fact that in faithfulness to the Bible’s teaching we will have to risk prosecution under their ‘hate speech’ laws in our churches and in the marketplace of ideas does not mean that we should dismiss the political authorities as totally godless or disengage from society. Intense religious persecution of Christians was the background for the apostolic exhortations to honour political leaders and participate rightly in civic society for the sake of Christian witness (cf Romans 13v1-7; 1 Peter 2v13-17).

· The emergence of a State-approved Church, with a Stonewall-nominated Archbishop, which will promote political correctness amongst the Christian community in exchange for privileges. There could well be financial and employment incentives for Christians to register with the State Church. Under such circumstances, the example of Moses who chose to suffer ill-treatment with the people of God needs to guide us: ‘He considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked to the reward’ (Hebrews 11v26).

· The pressure to form ill-judged and damaging alliances with right-wing or otherwise counter-cultural groups such as the BNP who purport to support Christianity and who are prepared to voice unpolitically-correct views on subjects such as Islam and homosexuality. It is vital that Christians firmly distance themselves from the BNP in particular both because its views on race are anti-Christian and also because it is evangelistically deleterious to be associated with such a nasty party. The Apostle Paul’s words need to be at the front of our minds: ‘Conduct yourselves wisely towards outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone’ (Colossians 4v5-6 – RSV).

By God’s grace, we can comfort ourselves with the thought that unlike biblical Christianity the new PC religion is irrational and incoherent. Like the darkly superstitious and credulous pagan cults that dominated the British Isles prior to their Christian evangelisation in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries AD, it is a twittering religion in more senses than one.

Stem Cell Breakthrough Could Create Babies Without Men, Women, or Sexual Relations

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

I had to smile just a tad when I read the above headline. I remember years ago studying for my ‘A’ Level Sociology and reading about feminism and Radical Feminism in particular and being shocked that they looked forward to the day when men wouldn’t even be needed in the reproduction process. Well it looks like your day has come Radical Feminists enjoy your freedom and liberation.

By Hilary White

October 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Researchers announced a scientific breakthrough yesterday in which the progenitor cells to human ova and sperm have been created out of embryonic stem cells. Pro-life commentators have responded to the news by highlighting the massive ethical pitfalls involved in the technology: not only does the process result in the death of embryos, but it potentially leaves both men and women, as well as natural sexual relations, out of the human reproductive picture.

The report, published in the journal Nature by Stanford University researchers, says that the primary aims of the researchers were to unlock the secrets of genetic malformation of ova and sperm by creating germ cells and eventually to treat infertility and genetic defects that are common in in vitro fertilisation treatments. In the experiments, embryonic stem cells taken from “spare” IVF embryos were treated with proteins to stimulate the growth of germ cells.

Germ cells are the progenitor cells of the gametes, ova and sperm, that combine in sexual reproduction to create an embryo. The report in Nature said that the research could be used to answer questions about genetic birth defects that start in the development of germ-cells and to “examine the unique developmental genetics of human germ-cell formation.”

The next phase, the report says, is to create the cells from human somatic or body cells, including possibly skin cells, bypassing the use of living embryos.

Rita Reijo Pera of Stanford’s Centre for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the senior author of the new study, said, “Figuring out the genetic ‘recipe’ needed to develop human germ cells in the laboratory will give us the tools we need to trace what’s going wrong” for infertile couples.

But Anthony Ozimic, a bioethics expert and spokesman for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said that the new research, as with cloning, results in the death of human beings at the embryonic stage and is unjustifiable, even by secular ethics standards, because of the low success rate and the high risk of the creation of “defective embryos and birth defects.”

Further, he said, the creation of gametes for artificial reproduction, as with regular IVF, artificial insemination and the use of donor gametes, “distort and damage relations between family members.”

Embryonic stem cell research, said Ozimic, is a “scientific dead end.” The bottom line is that “human embryos – innocent, equal members of the human family – were killed to extract the embryonic stem cells used in the research.”

But even without this, the technique will lead to the creation of more embryos outside the human body “to be killed and abused.”

“The researchers are destroying life in a scientifically dubious quest to manufacture new lives,” Ozimic added.

The announcement follows previous research at Newcastle upon Tyne University in the U.K., published in the New Scientist, that said similar work was being carried out in a “handful” of labs around the world.

But the new report said that such cells created in previous research, “did not develop beyond the earliest stages” and were genetically damaged. The new technique, they said, has created germ cells that could differentiate into fully functioning ova or sperm and potentially be used in IVF treatments.

Reports in the media have said that the breakthrough is step towards creating ova and sperm for IVF treatments without harvesting them directly from donors. This leads to the possibility of procedures to enable homosexuals to have children created from their own cells without the use of donated ova or sperm.

The Daily Mail’s Fiona Macrae wrote that the research “raises a number of moral and ethical concerns,” including “the possibility of children being born through entirely artificial means, and men and women being sidelined from the process of making babies.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Men No Longer Needed?: Scientists Use Female Adult Stem Cells to Create “Female Sperm”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020103.html

FURTHER INTERNET LINK

Babies Without Men, Women, or Sexual Relations? Sci Fi or Truth?

Switch to our mobile site