eChurch Blog

This so-called “defamation of religions” – or as they’re now calling it “vilification of religion” – U.N. resolution, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (a group of 56 Islamic nations), would create a global blasphemy law, which will ensure criticism of Islam is legally censored.

The efforts to ban criticism of Islam through human rights law at the UN is not yet legally binding, but is making progress.

Be warned, this is an Islamic assault on global freedom of speech.

Reuters

[.....]

Opponents noted that support had fallen and opposition increased since last year, when the Third Committee vote was 81-55 with 43 abstentions. The 192-nation General Assembly is expected to formally adopt the measure next month.

[.....]

U.S. envoy John Sammis told the Third Committee Washington believes the amendments are inadequate.

“We are disappointed to see that despite our efforts and discussions on this resolution, the text once again seems to take us farther apart, rather than helping to bridge the historical divides,” he said.

“The resolution still seeks to curtail and penalize speech,” he said. “The changes … unfortunately do not get to the heart of our concerns — the text’s negative implications for both freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”

He also said it was wrong to try to apply international human rights laws to religious beliefs, since human rights are intended to protect individuals, not governments or religions.

Islamic states say such resolutions do not aim to limit free speech but to stop publications like those of the Danish cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed, which sparked bloody protests by Muslims around the world in 2005.

….read all

There’s an excellent article on this over at the New American.

[.....]

Open Doors and its allies fear that the ultimate goal of the OIC is the inclusion of the text of this latest anti-defamation initiative in the greater anti-racism restrictions already in place. The amending of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to include religion would essentially criminalize the preaching of Christianity in Muslim nations. Proselytizing would be interpreted as an attempt to encourage one to change religions, thus representing an attack on Islam, which would be illegal as a form of racism.

A particularly fearful clause in the measure would “emphasize that States have an obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against persons belonging to religious minorities; failure to do so may constitute a human rights violation.” That is to say, the plain language of the initiative being proposed would grant the imprimatur of the United Nations to the official persecution by member states of those who profess religious beliefs contrary to those of the majority. In many Islamic nations, this would provide legal cover for the perpetuation of the assault on Christians and Christianity. In fact, any statement that could be interpreted as “blasphemous” to the dominant religion would be punishable as an attack on the civil rights of anyone hearing the statement and claiming oppression under the terms of the proposed measure.

….read all

From The Problem with Religion Blog:

…….I was rather angered that the [government funded Faith Based Organsiation - FBO] recently received a slap on the wrists from the main funding authority for knocking on the doors of its residents’ rooms to invite them to its weekly ‘church’ service it holds in the centre’s refectory. I find this so hard to accept that the local authority should get so uptight about something like this, when there is so much effort into imposing a liberal worldview on centre clients around inclusive language, racism, gender roles, homophobia etc. and then something as simple as just asking residents if they want to attend a service is seen as ‘forcing religion’ down someone’s throat – whatever events are taking place in the centre, staff knock on residents’ doors to invite them to attend, so it was hardly proselytising. I said to the manager, when he told me this, that what they should do is call the local authority’s bluff and ask it to find accommodation for a 125 homeless people if it does not like the excellent service the FBO provides! I think [this FBO] is really wondering if accepting 77% of its income from the government is really where they want to go.

I’ve been taking a bit of a breather from the Interweb – pretty good timing actually when you consider this is the top story – and getting out a bit more and had the joy of visiting nature in art, which is a gallery in Gloucestershire. I’m not really the ‘arty’ type but if you get the chance to visit, do so, it was fantastic.

Anyway, as regular readers will know, I have deviant sense of humour and I’m going to reproduce Dr Jim West’s blog post in full, as it had me laughing my socks off:

God Smites a Filthy Thief With a Saint’s Statue

As Antonio points out,

A thief who tried to break open the donation box in a church was hit on the head by a falling statue of a saint, police in Munich reported on Sunday. The man suffered a nasty cut to the head and fled the St Benno Church without the donation box, said Ludwig Sperrer, the church’s priest. He said it seemed that the near-life-size statue of Saint Antonius had fallen from its wooden plinth as the would-be thief was trying to break open the donation box which was situated in the same wooden structure. “He obviously did not want to let it go,” said Sperrer with a grin. But the thief was obviously not convinced to change his ways by the falling saint – he went to a nearby house to ask for help with his bleeding head and his lady accomplice stole a wallet left lying on a counter.

Good for God. Now if he would just smite the rest of the totally depraved thieves, molesters, and murderers as well as politicians, lawyers, and neer-do-wells the world might learn a lesson.

“Good for God“ 

In case you didn’t know, Tom Wright is considered a living legend in the biblical blogosphere, it would be no exaggeration to claim him as our greatest living theologian.

So imagine our dismay when Jonathan brought us this news:

Extraordinary!  Tom Wright actually takes the time to reply to a blogpost about his views on justification and gets completely ignored by those discussing him. And then he even comes back again, but only manages to inspire some guy to tell him to take up blogging. D’oh! I can’t help but feel we missed an opportunity to convert another scholar to the ranks of bibliobloggers, and what a trophy convert he would be. 

So to be clear, this was a blog post talking about Tom Wright’s views on justification, Tom Wright himself takes the time to interact and then gets practically ignored by the other commentators!

As Father Stephen notes:

Take note, Bishop Wright actually says in the comment:

I don’t normally look at, let alone respond to, blogsite comments,

Aaaarrrrggghhhh!

The interwb is awash with the Pope’s ‘new’ stance on condoms which has hit the headlines thanks to the L’Osservatore Romano leaking excerpts from a book due to be published next week.

Headlines such as:

Has Pope Benedict XVI changed Church teaching on condoms?

or

Pope Changes view on condom use

And

The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift

All such headlines are frankly bogus and as so many have already noted this fact, I shall simply link to them for our clarification.

FRZ – The Pope did not endorse the use of condoms

Catholic Herald – Has Benedict XVI changed Church teaching on condoms?

Get Religion – A Vatican condom conversion?

Pia de Solenni – Pope ok’s condoms.

NCRegister – The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms??

Catholic News Agency – Pope Benedict advocates right sexuality, not condom use, in fight against HIV

Protect the Pope – Pope Benedict on condoms – nuanced thinking in an age of soundbites

Protect the pope – Vatican issues clarification on Pope Benedict’s remarks about HIV/AIDS and condoms

Charlotte was Both – Well, that went well

Bishop Nick Baines – Don’t worry about the detail

The Pope’s leaked comments can be read here

The Vaitcan statement of response can be found here

Scary Christian Media – does this help?

John Richardson has set up a poll looking at our attitudes towards sex before marriage:

Ugley Vicar – Sex Before Marriage – Poll

Hop over and cast your vote, as the more that take part, the more valid and interesting the results.

I was asked to try to help answer a question from a ‘seeker’ whom whilst lamenting the hidden ‘tough’ side of the Christian walk, felt that acceptance of the Christian narrative should be likened to a legal contract spelling out the ‘down side’ in advance.

Here’s what she said:

…..like when you get married or buy a house or sign any contract you have to know what the down side is as well as exactly what the deal is on the table.

My thoughts generally went along these lines:

When we buy a house or sign a contract, the buyer always gives ‘consideration‘, without consideration, there is no legally binding contract.

However, as Christians, we cannot give God consideration, because we cannot place a value on the merchandise [Sacrifice of Jesus], therefore, it becomes a gift, freely given, gratis.

Now, when a buyer enters into a contract, the law of  ‘caveat emptor‘ – Let the buyer beware – comes into force.

Excluding warranty provisions this makes it the buyers responsibility to ensure the merchandise is “fit for purpose”, hence we have surveyors involved in property buying.

As all of this strictly speaking doesn’t come under contractual law, there is no obligation for the ‘seller’ to spell out the down side.

God is gracious however in that He takes on Himself the price or ‘consideration’ for this gift and then provides for the ‘running costs’ of this gift through grace. He has certified the Gift and it is most certainly fit for purpose.

The irony is this.

The gift of God demands all we have in return, and yet we are invited to buy from God with nothing in our hands to offer as consideration.

There’s much more could be said and probably many flaws in what I have proposed, so do let me know your thoughts.

This blog has never had so may visitors and commentators and yet I find myself once again in the powerful grip of a blogging despondency.

This is characterised by a sudden and inexplicable loss of confidence and loss of purpose in blogging. All of the potential blogging material seems vapid, negative and counterproductive, and fervid conflict seems to be the order of the day.

One must of course have the skin of a rhinoceros to blog, however, the weakness of the flesh demands at least some comfort and soothing words of encouragement from time to time.

To lose one’s way is the most painful of all. To wonder at the point or purpose is a dark place for a blogger to find himself.

To appraise oneself as devoid of the intellectual prowess, prerequisite for the fine art of Christian blogging, and to believe oneself utterly ineffectual is demotivating in the extreme.

By nature, to blog is to publicly air one’s personal transitions and changes, and the most perilous of all blog posts is the one  from the heart, which is unavoidably peppered with the hidden errors of that heart, but cathartically imperative for honesty to one’s self and to the reader.

Do any other fine bloggers go through similar phases from time to time, or am I truly alone in this oddity?