eChurch Christian Blog

I confess that sometimes I’m not a huge fan of the police for differing reasons, but I really do like Matt Baggott.

He is the president of the Christian Police Association and last last August was unveiled as Northern Ireland’s new chief constable, which let’s face it, is not the easiest job in the world.

This guy is so refreshingly open and honest about his faith, which is a real breath of fresh air for someone in such a high profile public position.

Anyway, just noticed this from the Press Association a couple of minutes ago:-

Northern Ireland’s chief constable claims that God had called him to the region’s top policing job.

Matt Baggott, who is a born-again Christian, said he felt his entire 33-year career in the police had been mapped out for him by a higher power.

In a candid interview about his deeply held beliefs, the 51-year-old father of three explained how much his faith had influenced he and his wife’s joint decision that he should apply to take over from the outgoing Sir Hugh Orde last year.

And this from the BBC

Talking about his decision to take the PSNI job, the chief constable said he felt he had been “very strongly pulled” to Northern Ireland.

“I have a very strong Christian faith where I have never planned anything in my 33 years of policing.

“When I’m more open to what I believe is meant to happen, the circumstances have always worked around me.

“When I’ve tried to push the pace myself then sometimes the door is shut.”

He denied he saw the job as a stepping stone to a more prestigious job.

“I don’t see this as a career move. I believe that as chief constable I’m meant to be here at this moment – how that works out is a question for others to shape and work with me on.

“But yes my faith has been a determining factor in me coming here as chief constable.”

He added: “My ambition is to do the best job I can here as chief constable of the people of Northern Ireland.”

Mr Baggott said that despite the difficulties of policing in Northern Ireland, he was enjoying the job.

“It’s a massive privilege to be here. We’ve settled really well here, we’ve made lots of friends already.

“I wouldn’t describe it as a quagmire… I would describe it as a place that I’ve found to be hungry for change.”

Read All

Top man!

If you haven’t come across the Rev Fred Phelps of the US Westboro Baptist Church, then your life is all the better. To give you a hint, his website is called “GodHatesFags”.

Anyway, for those who do know about these despicable folk, you may be interested to know that the US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the father of a fallen Marine can collect damages ($5m), from the Westboro Baptist Church, who picketed his son’s funeral with vulgar placards celebrating the death of American soldiers.

The predicament of course, is around the issue of freedom of speech. What implications on this freedom would a judgement in favour of the father have?

The issue of freedom of speech is such a double edged sword as always, and Heresy Corner articulates this issue more lucidly than I’m able:-

Heresy Corner:-

Interesting legal news from the US, where the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case of Snyder v Phelps. The Phelps in question is the Rev Fred Phelps, of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church whose USP is picketing military funerals with signs reading “God damn America”, “God Hates Fags”, and the like. Last year, you may remember, Jacqui Smith gave them some much-needed publicity by banning Phelps and other members of his family/congregation (the two are more or less the same) from Britain – after the Westies had expressed a desire to call down God’s wrath on the sinful people of Basingstoke.

Back in 2007, the Westies were sued by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq who had been offended by the sight of the placards at his son’s funeral. He told the court that he “became angry and tearful when he thought about the protest and that the memory of it had caused him to vomit.” The jury awarded him $10 million in damages for “intentionally inflicting emotional distress” – which makes you wonder about the low level of libel awards in Britain, doesn’t it? – a sum reduced by the judge to a mere five million. The Westies appealed – and won, on the grounds that they have a constitutional right to proclaim their hatred of gays, celebrities and US soldiers as loudly as they want.

Continue Reading

More absolute madness from Harriet Harman’s “Equality” drive:-

Mail:-

Vegans, teetotallers and atheists are to be given the same protection against discrimination as religious groups, under Harriet Harman’s controversial new equality laws.

People who do not eat products and refuse to wear leather have been singled out for inclusion under the new legislation by Labour’s super-quango – the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Official guidance issued by the body points out that the ‘ethical commitment’ of vegan’s to animal welfare is ‘central to who they are’.

The code of practice explains the legal implications of the equality bill states that religions need not be mainstream or well known for their adherents to gain protection.

The Equality Bill, masterminded by Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, is due to come into force this Autumn.

It makes it a legal requirement for public authorities, including schools, to consider the impact of all their policies on minority groups.

But the guidance explains: “A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.”

Singling out vegans as meriting protection from religious discrimination, it says: ‘A person who is a vegan chooses not to use or consume animal products of any kind.

‘That person eschews the exploitation of animals for food, clothing, accessories or any other purpose and does so out of an ethical commitment to animal welfare.’

A spokesman from the commission explained: ‘This is about someone for whom being vegan or vegetarian is central to who they are. This is not something ‘thought up by the commission’.

‘Parliament makes the law, the courts interpret it and the commission offers factual and proportionate guidance to organisations where necessary. We are providing guidance on the implications of the equality bill.’

The legislation also covers ‘any religious belief or philosophical belief’ and even ‘a lack of belief’.

This means that members of cults and “new religions” such as Scientology, whose supporters include the film stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, would also be offered protection, as would atheists.

The official guidance has already caused controversy after warning that schools which force girls to wear skirts may be breaking the law – because the policy apparently discriminates against transsexuals.

It claims the dress code may breach the rights of girls who feel compelled to live as boys.

Religious leaders have condemned Miss Harman’s equality laws for sideling religion to promote a false idea of ‘tolerance’.

The Archbishop of York has warned that Christianity risks being wiped out from public life in the name of equality.

The Pope has also described the Bill as ‘unjust’, restricting religious freedom and violating ‘the natural law’.

Under the legislation, people with philosophical views such as pacificism and humanism could also seek protection from discrimination.

However, the Commission has insisted that scientific or political beliefs such as Marxism and fascism would not be covered. People for whom abstention from alcohol was a way of life would also be protected.

The watchdog also warns that advertisements giving preferential treatment to men or women could be illegal.

This could mean the end of “ladies’ nights” at clubs, when women receive cut-price drinks or free entrance but men pay full price.

Archbishop Cranmer has put together an excellent piece on this today, which cuts straight to the heart of the matter and exposes this “equality” folly:-

That is the only logical conclusion of Harpy Hormone’s Equality Bill, and one which Cranmer not only foresaw but was sufficiently prescient to sound the trumpet about years ago.

The moment the state begins to define ‘religion’, and then attempts to apportion rights and liberties under the guise of an enlightened tolerance of relativist equality, there is no logical end to the official recognition of all manner of weird cults, strange sects, spurious beliefs and pseudo-religions, all of which have to be equal under the law irrespective of the common good and irrelative to the inherent counterknowledge believed or propagated.

If you wish to believe that a carpenter from Nazareth can rise from the dead, you are free to do so. But in the age of ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’, this is no different from believing that a middle-eastern illiterate warmonger had a direct line to Allah; a man can walk around with the head of an elephant; you should never cut your hair; you can be cremated in the open air; you believe that a mortal man may speak infallibly; and if you walk around Tesco in a hoodie carrying a light sabre you are in harmony with ‘The Force’.

And if you want to worship Satan, that is perfectly cool. If you want to take Pagan holidays, that is accommodated. And if you want to believe in man-made global warming, the courts have already decreed that your devotion to such a philosophy is indeed the same as religious faith.

And now we learn that vegans are to enjoy the same protection against discrimination as religious groups.

And if they, why not vegetarians, non-dairy consumers, wheat-eschewers and teetotallers?

Oh, and Atheists are to be given the same protection as well.

Professor Dawkins will be very happy.

Now, this is going to get very interesting indeed.

An atheist in the House of Commons who presents himself in the chamber during parliamentary prayers will have the right in law to object to the affront. Those of all faiths and none will have the right in law to object to the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, which is a manifest discrimination against not only Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, but also the Nonconformists and Roman Catholics.

Continue Reading

Do you remember the shameful episode last December when it looked as though an arrest warrant would be issued against former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for “war crimes” on visiting the UK? Or do you remember the shameful episode last September when a London judge had to reject a call to issue an arrest warrant against Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak? Well we had some good news today, or so I thought.

The Telegraph carried this story today:-

Britain must protect foreign leaders from private arrest warrants

In recent years the world has made huge progress in the way it acts against those suspected of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Significantly, the United Nations has embraced our responsibility to intervene in countries where such atrocities are being committed.

And the complement to this is the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows for prosecution in any country of certain serious offences wherever and by whoever they were committed.

It is our moral duty to ensure that there is no hiding place for those suspected of the most serious international crimes.

Britain will continue to take action to prosecute or extradite suspected war criminals – regardless of their status or power.

This is why the UK was among the first countries in the world to put in place legislation providing for universal jurisdiction over torture, hostage taking and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Without universal jurisdiction the Afghan warlord Faryadi Zardad, who had fled to London on a fake passport, would not have been brought to justice for a merciless campaign of terror in his homeland.

Britain will always honour its commitment to international justice. The police here remain ready to investigate cases; the Crown Prosecution Service to bring them; the courts to hear them.

But the process by which we take action must guarantee the best results.

The only question for me is whether our purpose is best served by a process where an arrest warrant for the gravest crimes can be issued on the slightest of evidence.

As we have seen, there is now significant danger of such a provision being exploited by politically-motivated organisations or individuals who set out only to grab headlines knowing their case has no realistic chance of a successful prosecution.

Continue Reading

After reading this I had similar thoughts to Calvin L Smith:-

About Time

According to this morning’s Daily Telegraph Gordon Brown at last is going to put a stop to the politically-motivated abuse of our court system. About time! How can Britain ever be taken seriously as a peace broker if every time an Israeli official or politician comes to Britain they’re threatened with arrest because a campaign group seeking publicity approached a magistrate? As usual, it’s one rule for Israel and another for everyone else.

However, my bubble has been burst by a far shrewder Melanie Phillips:-

Smoke and Mirrors

The Israeli paper Ha’aretz , along with the Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, appear to have been taken in by Gordon Brown’s noisy but misleading announcement in today’s Daily Telegraph that he will change the law to prevent the abuse of ‘universal jurisdiction’ through threats to arrest visiting Israeli dignatories for ‘war crimes’, an abuse which has caused the cancellation of a number of high-profile visits by Israelis to the UK of which the latest was the planned visit by Livni. Brown wrote:

There is a case now, therefore, for the evidential basis on which arrest warrants can be allowed to be tougher and for restricting the right to prosecute the narrow range of crimes falling under universal jurisdiction to the Crown Prosecution Service alone.

Livni and Ha’aretz naively take this at face value to assume that the UK is to change the law. But this is not so. Brown has merely said he intends to change the law and will consult on the best way to do this. But with a general election to be held by June at the very latest, and with no legislation actually being tabled, there is clearly no time for any such change in the law to occur.

It is actually very easy to end this abuse, as Brown suggests; all that has to happen is for the consent of the Attorney-General or Director of Public Prosecutions to be required before any arrest warrant can be issued, just as is now required for any prosecution. This should be introduced not just in respect of visiting Israelis but to cover any other such vexatious and oppressive arrest stunts. But the reason Brown will not do this is that more than 100 Labour MPs have given notice they will revolt against any such infringement of ‘ancient English liberties’ – a cover for their actual motivation which is their hatred of Israel.

Brown’s announcement today, and the fact that he personally associated himself with the case for a change in the law, are merely designed to camouflage the diplomatically embarrassing fact that he is in fact unable to take measures to prevent ‘lawfare’ in the UK against Britain’s ally by extremist activists determined to delegitimise Israel over its defence against genocidal attack — because so many of his own MPs share that same despicable objective.

The JTA has picked up on this and make a similar point to Melanie Phillips:-

Brown vows to change universal jurisdiction law

LONDON (JTA) — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he will change legislation enabling Palestinian organizations to obtain arrest warrants against Israeli political leaders on suspicion of war crimes.

However, in practice, the legislation is likely to wait until after the general elections in the United Kingdom.

[.....]

However, since the UK is in the midst of an election campaign, and the prime minister might announce the election date before the date the committee has to present its conclusion, it might be too late to enact the law before the election.

Israeli officials and military officers, unwilling to risk having an arrest warrant issued against them, have been avoiding the UK.

Britain wants to continue to be involved in the Middle East peace process, and the British government is aware that it would be marginalized if Israeli politicians refuse to visit Britain.

[.....]

The Conservative Party’s spokesman on Justice, Dominic Grieve, said: “This morning Gordon Brown wrote in the Daily Telegraph that ‘Britain cannot afford to have its standing in the world compromised’ by spurious and politicized war crimes prosecutions. This afternoon he kicked the whole issue into the long grass. The Conservatives would have supported him in resolving the problem, but he has chosen to duck it instead.”

Read All

The telegraph is covering the news of “militant atheist” Harry Taylor who left leaflets mocking Jesus Christ, the Pope and the Koran in the prayer room of an international airport, and has now gone on trial charged with religious harassment.

Telegraph:-

The materials dumped by Harry Taylor at Liverpool’s John Lennon airport included “sexually abusive and sexually unpleasant cartoons”, a jury heard yesterday.

One image showed a smiling Christ on the cross next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue. In another, Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise are told: ” Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins.”

A further cartoon showed two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.”

Mr Taylor, 59, a self-styled philosophy tutor, denied bearing a grudge against people of faith and said he was only trying to “convert” believers to atheism.

Liverpool Crown Court heard that he left the materials in John Lennon airport as a tribute to the former Beatle, whose most acclaimed solo work Imagine referenced “a world with no religion”.

He said: “The airport is named after John Lennon and his views on religion were pretty much the same as mine. I thought that it was an insult to his memory to have a prayer room in the airport.”

Continue Reading

Now before I go any further, I want to make clear that I would probably find the material left by Harry Taylor a mix between humorous and distasteful, however, I do accept that I have a somewhat warped and deviant sense of humour.

This material was found by chaplain Nicky Lees and here is a snippet of her reaction as reported in the Liverpool Daily Post:-

She said: “I was insulted, deeply offended and I was alarmed. I was so concerned that I rang the duty manager and the airport police. I was alarmed other people could come in and see these items and also feel offended and affronted and I was responsible for the prayer room.”

So, this material so alarmed chaplain Nicky Lees, that she felt prompted to involve the airport police.

To be frank with you it is astounding that some Christians can muster the courage to leave their homes. Would you not have simply chucked the crap in the bin? OK, so the police did become involved, but is it not astonishing that they charged Harry Taylor with three counts of religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress under the Crime and Disorder Act?

Am I missing something perhaps?

MediaWatchWatch, probably have the sanest take on the whole matter.

There is some consolation for hyper-sensitive Christians however, as they are not alone:-

Scottish Sun:-

Muslims’ fury at ‘holy city’ boozer

A MUSLIM leader has blasted a pub for using the name of holy city Medina – branding it an insult to his religion.

The boozer in Dundee changed its name from Bar Rio to Medina Bar and Grill after a renovation.

But this has sparked outrage – as Saudi Arabian city Medina is the second-holiest site in Islam behind Mecca.

Medina is also a term used for a market or trading centre in north African cities.

But Mohammed Bashir Chohan, chairman of the Dundee Islamic Society, last night said: “People are upset about it because Medina is a holy city. It does hurt when somebody misuses the name, especially if they are going to sell liquor.”

Continue Reading

Perhaps Muslims and Christians can band together to protect themselves from “alarm”, “outrage” and “offence”, oh hold on, they just did:-

Christian Institute – Muslims help lift library ban on Christian poster

Of course the irony is that maybe the library and council staff felt alarmed, offended and affronted at the poster advertising the Women’s World Day of Prayer

I can already predict the responses from both sides of the camp on this news that the House of Lords has voted in favour of allowing civil partnership ceremonies to take place in “religious” buildings such as churches. I’m sure you can too.

As a result, I’m going to post a few links reporting this news, and then post in full, the only sane, sober, sensible comments I have read on this issue, written by our Christian Libertarian friend, the Young Mr Brown.

Here are the news links:-

Press Association – Civil partnership church ban lifted

Times – Peers vote for church civil partnership ceremonies

Mail – Gay couples now able to marry in church after House of Lords lifts ban

Telegraph – Peers vote to allow homosexuals to marry in church

Ekklesia – Parliament votes to recognise religious same-sex partnerships

And here are the thoughts of Young Mr Brown from Marmalade Sandwich:-

Civil Partnerships and Religious Premises

In a letter to the Times this morning, a group of gentlemen have argued that the current law which prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain should be repealed, and they write in support of an amendment which would do just that. They argue on two grounds – the spiritual independence of churches, and the principle of non-discrimination. Indeed the way they end their letter (“We urge every peer who believes in spiritual independence, or in non-discrimination, to support it.”) indicates that they are aware that there are people who may support one of their arguments but not the other.

I personally am not convinced by their argument concerning non-discrimination, and agree with the Bishop of Winchester that “churches of all sorts really should not reduce or fudge, let alone deny, the distinction” between marriage and civil partnership.

(On the other hand, I am not convinced by the argument of the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester that changing the law would put unacceptable pressure on the Church of England. As long as the law does not compel the Church of England, then the Church has the ability to decide what it believes is correct, and the duty to withstand pressures from society.)

I do, however, believe that the argument concerning spiritual independence is valid – and that the law as it stands is very strange. If the Quakers and the Unitarians want to register civil partnerships in their places of worship, then that is a matter for them, and not for the state. Traditional Christians will be horrified at such things happening, but their horror should be directed not at the state for permitting these things, but at the Quakers and Unitarians for wishing to do them. If traditional Christians want freedom to proclaim that homosexual activity is wrong, and to exclude practising homosexuals from their membership, then they should be willing to allow freedom to religious bodies which think otherwise.

This beggars belief, Cross-post MediaWatchWatch:-

Brazil Catholics sue Hollywood for crumbling Redeemer image

The Catholic Church of Brazil seems to be under the impression that it owns any image of the famous Christ the Redeemer sculpture which stands high above Rio de Janeiro, and is suing Columbia Pictures for using it in last year’s blockbuster 2012.

The apocalyptic film shows Rio being destroyed by a tidal wave, and the 40-metre statue crumbling under the water.

The Archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro, who commissioned the sculpture in 1931, refused permission to Columbia when they asked to use the image in their film, but Columbia went ahead anyway. The Archdiocese’s laweyer, Claudine Dutra, explained:

many faithful have said they are shocked and offended by the images of the destruction of this sanctuary that the archdiocese wanted to preserve.

We want Columbia Pictures to publicly declare that it did not intend to cause offense.

They are also seeking undisclosed damages.

Funnily enough, director Roland Emmerich wanted to include a scene which showed the destruction of the Kaaba – the holy rock-in-a-box towards which devout Muslims point the crown of their head five times a day. But he feared a fatwa.

As the Director of Public Prosecutions has just released the long anticipated new guidelines on assisted suicide, I anticipate quite a bit of interesting analysis, so I’ll post links here.

As I was musing over the the stark differences between the Christian community’s view of euthanasia and many non-believers, I suddenly realised that many non-believers tend to view humans as no different than animals. On this blog we frequently receive pro-euthanasia comments from non-believers, that simply ask why should we not have “mercy” on humans as we do dogs and “put them out of their misery”.

Anyway, here are the first of the Internet links:-

I’m putting George Pitcher from the Telegraph first, because he has been on particularly fine form.

Geroge Pitcher Telegraph – Rejoice! DPP deals severe blow to Dignity in Dying’s hopes for assisted suicide

Church of England – Response to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide

Telegraph – Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, set out a list of factors for prosecutors to consider when deciding whether to charge someone who had assisted a suicide. There are six that will sway decision against prosecution.

Lee Rayfield Guardian – Let’s not take the path of assisted dying – Arguments in favour of assisted dying play on our sense of compassion – but they should be resisted

The Christian Institute – Pro-lifers have voiced their concern over new assisted suicide guidelines, published today, which say prosecutions are unlikely if the act was “motivated by compassion”.

CPS – Assisted Suidce Guidelines

Telegraph – Relatives who profit from assisted suicide may not be charged – People who assist another person commit suicide and then make a financial gain from the death can still escape charges under new prosecution guidelines.

Telegraph – The new policy on prosecuting assisted suicides, published yesterday by Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, might make those who campaign for legalised euthanasia in Britain wish they had been more careful about what they asked for.

CCFON – The Department of Public Prosecutions must uphold Parliament’s view that assisting suicide is a serious crime and not necessarily an act of mercy, says Professor John Keown.

Church Times – THE CHURCH of England has commended changes to policy for prosecutors on assisted suicide, published on Thursday by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Keir Starmer QC.

LifeSite – Despite urgent warnings from the British pro-life movement and shouts of triumph from euthanasia campaigners, a statement from the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales has “welcomed” newly published legal guidelines on the prosecution of assisted suicide cases, saying they have given “greater protection” to vulnerable people.

Catholic News Agency – Vulnerable better protected by new assisted suicide prosecution policy, says Archbishop Smith

Two quite depressingly realistic posts on “sex education”:-

Cranmer – Teaching abortion in an ‘enlightened’ and ‘non-judgmental’ way

Aunti Joanna – Much discussion today, at a pro-life working group which tackles such matters, about latest developments on the Govt’s sex education scheme.

Whilst I’m linking, Ruth Gledhill has been the first to comment on the new guidelines on assisted suicide, which have just been released by the DPP:-

Ruth Gledhill Times – Assisted suicide guidelines ‘blunt’ the law, warn faith groups

I can’t help myself, I think that George Pitcher over at the Telegraph is on sizzling form:-

Telegraph:-

Prime Minister Gordon Brown writes in the Telegraph today that assisted suicide must never be legalised. And he makes the very strong point that the Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidelines on when someone assisting a suicide may expect not to be prosecuted, published tomorrow, make the case for a change in the law on euthanasia becomes much weaker, because all the acceptable compassionate circumstances surrounding an assisted death will be clear and accountable – and those not meeting them can expect up to 14 years in jail under the Suicide Act if they don’t satisfy all of them.

I bet the pro-euthanasia lobbyists at Dignity in Dying didn’t think of that – it has always been their intention to progress to legalised euthanasia by increments.

Continue Reading

How is this for sober balance on an issue that most seem to be getting drunk on:-

Marmalde Sandwich

In a letter to the Times this morning, a group of gentlemen have argued that the current law which prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain should be repealed, and they write in support of an amendment which would do just that. They argue on two grounds – the spiritual independence of churches, and the principle of non-discrimination. Indeed the way they end their letter (“We urge every peer who believes in spiritual independence, or in non-discrimination, to support it.”) indicates that they are aware that there are people who may support one of their arguments but not the other.

I personally am not convinced by their argument concerning non-discrimination, and agree with the Bishop of Winchester that “churches of all sorts really should not reduce or fudge, let alone deny, the distinction” between marriage and civil partnership.

(On the other hand, I am not convinced by the argument of the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester that changing the law would put unacceptable pressure on the Church of England. As long as the law does not compel the Church of England, then the Church has the ability to decide what it believes is correct, and the duty to withstand pressures from society.)

I do, however, believe that the argument concerning spiritual independence is valid – and that the law as it stands is very strange. If the Quakers and the Unitarians want to register civil partnerships in their places of worship, then that is a matter for them, and not for the state. Traditional Christians will be horrified at such things happening, but their horror should be directed not at the state for permitting these things, but at the Quakers and Unitarians for wishing to do them. If traditional Christians want freedom to proclaim that homosexual activity is wrong, and to exclude practising homosexuals from their membership, then they should be willing to allow freedom to religious bodies which think otherwise.

This one made me smile….for once:-

Daily Mail:-

As an experienced police officer Inspector Roger Bartlett knows all about fighting crime.

But when he realised the crime detection rate in his district was one of the lowest in the force area, he decided the long arm of the law might need a bit of help.

He asked churchgoers to pool their efforts in calling on a higher power. God.

Now three years after encouraging locals to say their prayers to help the boys in blue – detection rates have soared, road accidents have fallen and Insp Bartlett is convinced it is evidence that God really does move in mysterious ways.

The 44-year-old policeman decided conventional policing could benefit from a little bit of help when he saw that the crime detection rate in his force area of Banstaple was one of the lowest in the Devon and Cornwall Police area.

The policeman who has 23 years experience, asked Christians to pray for the crime detection rate in 2007 – which at 26 per cent was one of the poorest in the region.

Every quarter since the detection rate has risen, so that now at more than 40 per cent it is one of the highest in the country.

Insp Bartlett asked for prayers for a reduction in the number of serious or fatal road accidents – and it fell from 97 in 2007/8 to 32 in 2008/9.

Last night the policeman said he was ‘convinced’ that people’s faith has had a positive impact on policing in Barnstaple.

The policeman, part of the leadership team of the local Christian Policing Team, began reporting at quarterly meetings of Christians from different churches in the town who want to pray for policing issues six years ago.

He said he has seen his prayers answered ‘on a number of occasions’.

There was the ‘unprecedented’ Halloween night when police did not have to attend a single incident of disorder.

Continue Reading

Perhaps CoAct, who are a Christian policing group, and believe that the power of prayer can catch criminals and keep officers safe, were right.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Telegraph:-

Assisted suicide: law to be decriminalised ‘by back door’ from next week – Assisted suicide will be effectively decriminalised by the back door in landmark guidance to be published next week.

Final rules set out by the Crown Prosecution Service will make it clear that those who help others end their lives are unlikely to face court if they acted out of compassion.

However the factors against prosecution are likely to be altered from existing draft guidance, after it was claimed that they would leave the most vulnerable members of society at greater risk while providing immunity to spouses regardless of their motives.

It marks a legal milestone as the law against assisting suicide is in effect being changed without the involvement of Parliament, on the orders of the Law Lords.

It is also unprecedented for prosecutors to set out in such detail the ways in which people can commit a particular crime yet avoid being charged.

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Dying Well said the guidelines “could have the unintended effect of leading potential law-breakers to believe they will secure immunity from prosecution if they assist suicides in certain prescribed ways or circumstances”.

Aiding or abetting another to end their life is punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment under the 1961 Suicide Act.

Continue Reading

And this from Bish Naz today.

Telegraph:-

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali: Promoting life rather than death – It is absolutely right for us to feel compassion for those who have a terminal or an incurable illness and for their near and dear ones who wish to relieve them of this burden, even if this means the death of the one who is ill.

Hard cases, however, make bad law. We should be very wary of changing the legal tradition of the Western world, based as it is on the Judaeo-Christian view of the human person, because of extreme situations which have been given massive media publicity and because there may be a few people in a coma from which a return to conscious life seems impossible.

It is natural for a person to feel helpless and hopeless when a terminal or incurable condition is first diagnosed but, given the right support by family, friends and the medical community, it is quite possible lto come through this phase and to enjoy some quality of life and even its enrichment. As Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the Hospice movement, has said, ” Our last days are not necessarily lost days “. Not only can they be used to recapture the past and to strengthen relationships but also for contemplation and preparation. Again and again, people have told me how much they have learned about themselves and others at this time in their lives.

It is simply a mistake to emphasise the autonomy of the individual, especially at this point. It is relatedness that matters. Rather than seeing themselves as unwanted and alone, people, at this stage of life, should feel themselves drawn into a circle of love and care where they will be made as comfortable as possible and valued for who they are. It is not necessary always to be independent. Human beings depend upon one another at every stage of life and this one is no different. “Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ”, says St.Paul and this is exactly what the Hospice movement has shown us can be done in the care of the terminally and incurably ill. Thank God for all the wonderful people involved in this work.

Another valuable lesson which this movement has taught us is that it is nearly always possible to manage pain and to make sure that patients do not suffer unnecessarily. Palliative medicine is now highly developed and, whether in hospices or in pain clinics in hospitals, it tries to make sure that science is made to serve the care of people who are seriously ill and relieve them of as much pain as possible. Such relief may, in fact, lengthen the life-span but even if it has the effect of hastening death, this is quite different from an intervention that intends the death of the patient.

One fear that people often have is that they will be ‘officiously kept alive’ rather than allowed to die peacefully. It should be clear that opposition to assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia is not about keeping people alive at all costs. It is right to respect people’s wishes about not wanting medical treatment the outcomes of which may be uncertain and which may be highly intrusive and uncomfortable. Indeed, in certain cases, competent medical authorities may decide that it is inappropriate to provide medical treatment, though, I believe, that hydration and feeding should continue unless the means of doing this are judged to be disproportioniate to any outcome.

We need to remember that those seeking assisted suicide are very few compared to the hundreds of thousands who die each year cared for by their loved ones, with the help of hospices, pain clinics and others in the caring professions. There is, indeed, a slippery slope. It has been found, for instance, that the withdrawal of treatment in even the most extreme cases of coma, where the prospect of recovery is very remote, has led to such withdrawal when the situation is not so extreme. The Netherlands has not been notable for its success in confining the category of so-called ‘eligible’ cases for voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

In other words, there is ‘creep’ from terminal and incurable illness to serious disease and, then, perhaps, to ennui or depression, when a person no longer wants to live.

Continue Reading

I personally found this article from Jonathan Chaplin over at the Guardian, – which challenges Jonathan Bartley’s (Ekklesia) stance on churches and the so called “equality bill” – very compelling indeed.

Guardian:-

At the beginning of the week Jonathan Bartley argued here – as he routinely does via his Christian think-tank Ekklesia – against recognising churches’ legal right to hire staff according to their own beliefs. He didn’t frame it in that unflattering way, of course. Instead he tried to justify the significant curtailment of corporate religious freedom his view implies by appealing to an unanswerable claim: that Christian love mandates treating people inclusively, with equal regard.

Well he’s right about that. But he simply bypasses the question of what equal regard actually means in practice. A moment’s thought reveals that equal regard can’t possibly mean treating every individual identically. Jesus certainly wasn’t being very “inclusive” in castigating the oppressive religious leaders of his time as “whitewashed sepulchres”, or turfing out the corrupt money-changers from the temple. Acts of justice are acts of discrimination and exclusion. Anti-racist laws rightly exclude racist behaviour: that’s their particular way of showing equal regard – love – to people of colour.

A coherent idea of discrimination requires a substantive account of justice, and that includes defining what legitimate rights individuals and organisations actually possess. All British citizens properly possess the prima facie individual right not to be discriminated against – in matters like employment, housing and social services – on grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation. This is because these involuntary markers of identity are completely irrelevant to such matters. I said “prima facie” because even here there exist widely recognised and uncontroversial exceptions, often arising from the rights of organisations. A rape crisis centre surely has the right to discriminate against men when hiring its counselling staff (perhaps any staff). An African-Caribbean community centre obviously can’t be compelled by law to hire a white guy like me as its director. The Labour party is evidently entitled to discriminate on ideological grounds in hiring its research staff.

These are all examples of what the law calls a “genuine occupational requirement” (GOR). The idea is simple and compelling: every independent civil society organisation has a prima facie right to maintain its identity and mission by hiring staff who will support the distinctive purposes of the organisation and uphold its raison d’être. This isn’t a “privilege”, as is often tendentiously suggested, but merely a condition of meaningful self-government. Why then cry foul when religious organisations exercise their right to invoke the GOR provision? Why single them out and deny them the same rights enjoyed by others? Yet when they claim such a right, critics like Bartley routinely accuse them of seeking to claim “the right to discriminate”. But this is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy concealing a conceptual sleight of hand. Of course churches are defending their right to discriminate in hiring, but this is nothing other than the right his own organisation would claim if a militant atheist sued Ekklesia for refusing to hire her.

Bartley is fully entitled to argue that, from a Christian point of view, churches should not restrict staff positions to those who, for example, maintain traditional views of sexual ethics. That’s an argument to be conducted within (or at least addressed to) the churches. But he is not entitled to call upon coercive law to force churches to conform to his views of sexual ethics – getting the state to succeed where he has failed. It’s incredible that such a position should be advanced in pursuit of the principle of equal regard.

Continue Reading

Oh dear. Previous posts here and here.

BBC

Christian airline employee loses cross ban appeal

A Christian British Airways (BA) employee has lost her appeal against a ruling which allowed the airline to stop her wearing a cross at work.

Nadia Eweida, 58, wanted the Court of Appeal to overturn the ruling that she had not faced discrimination.

In 2006 she went home after failing to reach a compromise with managers over the visible display of the plain silver cross on a chain around her neck.

The following year the airline changed its uniform policy.

Lord Justice Sedley, giving the ruling of the court, said her case of indirect discrimination was defeated by BA’s case on justification.

‘Disappointing judgement’

He said: “This case has perhaps illustrated some of the problems which can arise when an individual asserts that a provision, criterion or practice adopted by an employer conflicts with beliefs which they hold but which may not only not be shared but may be opposed by others in the workforce.

“It is not unthinkable that a blanket ban may sometimes be the only fair solution.”

Corinna Ferguson, from Liberty, who represented Ms Eweida, said: “This is a disappointing judgment that will do little to build public confidence in equality laws protecting everyone.

“But this is just the sort of case that a Supreme Court is for and we have every hope that the highest court in the land will put Britain’s long tradition of religious tolerance into modern legal practice.”

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, said the failure of the appeal would lead to further cases of religious discrimination.

He said: “I believe it is not an exaggeration to say that people of faith are facing particular hardship in a period where different freedoms and rights are being tested against each other.”

Here’s some more on this one from the Guardian, and I think there may be a lot more analysis to come on this, which I’ll post here, if I think it’s interesting:-

It’s unfair that Nadia Eweida’s right to wear a cross won’t be protected, given concessions made to others on matters of belief

Disgusting.

These “blasphemy” laws are used to control and terrify non-Muslims and spurious accusations have even been used as excuses for violence and to settle disputes over land and money.

Thank the Lord (literally) that there is so much opposition to the “defamation of religions” U.N. resolution proposal by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which would usher in a “global blasphemy law” and would only benefit Islam of course.

Jihad Watch:-

I don’t think this will be well received in general. I understand the argument relating to the freedom of religious expression, but where do you draw the line?

Nadia Eweida is back in court against British Airways in the dispute over BA asking her to stop wearing a necklace cross at work. Originally an appeal tribunal found that no religious discrimination had been committed, because “Christians generally” do not consider wearing a cross as a religious “requirement”. I believe this is the crux of the issue for Sir Mota Singh QC, as he would argue that wearing the Kirpan is a religious “requirement” and to deny this ‘right’ is tantamount to religious discrimination.

What happens if I believe that carrying a sword is a religious requirement for me personally, or if the Jedi Church decide that wielding a Lightsaber is a ‘religious requirement’? We’d all be in trouble then

Telegraph:-

Sir Mota Singh QC spoke out after a number of Sikhs were refused entry to schools and other venues because they were wearing the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.

Sir Mota, who received a knighthood in the 2010 New Year Honours list, said he had worn his Kirpan without problems for up to 40 years, in public buildings including Buckingham Palace.

“Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right,” Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.

The sheathed scimitar, which is attached to a cloth belt and normally worn discreetly under clothes, is one of five “articles of faith” that baptised Sikhs must be carried at all times. The others are Kara (a steel bangle), Kesh (unshorn hair), Kanga (a comb) and Kacha (special underwear).

Last year, a 14-year-old Sikh boy was refused entry to the Compton School in Barnet after governors ruled his Kirpan was a health and safety risk.

The same year, a Sikh police officer won his case for discrimination against Greater Manchester Police after he was told to remove his turban during riot training.

And in 2008, 14-year-old Sarika Singh won a High Court case against Aberdare Girls’ School in south Wales after it excluded her for breaking its “no jewellery” rule for wearing a Kara. The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

Read More

BBC

Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers – known as Kirpans – to school and other public places, Britain’s first Asian judge has said.

There have been a number of cases of Sikhs being refused entry to venues because they wear the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.

Sir Mota Singh QC has now criticised schools, in particular, over the issue.

“Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right,” Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.

‘No objection’

Last year, a Sikh police officer, who had been told to remove his turban during riot training, won a discrimination case against Greater Manchester Police.

A schoolboy was also banned from wearing his Kirpan at a school in Barnet, London.

And, in 2008, 14-year-old Sarika Singh won a High Court case against her school after it excluded her for breaking its “no jewellery” rule for wearing a Kara (steel bangle), which is another symbol of Sikh faith.

The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

“I see no objection to a young Sikh girl or boy, who’s been baptised, being allowed to wear their Kirpan if that’s what they want to do,” said Sir Mota, who received a knighthood in the 2010 New Year Honours list.

Read More

From Zenit – H/T Anglican Mainstream:-

Benedict XVI has been under fire this past week for supposedly condemning equality legislation in the United Kingdom that seeks to protect gays and women in the workplace. His comments, however, were misunderstood, says a Vatican spokesman.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press service, noted in the most recent installment of the Vatican Television program “Octava Dies” that “assuring equal opportunity to all members of society is a noble objective.”

“Nevertheless,” he added, “in certain cases one tries to achieve it with laws that impose unjust limits on the freedom of religious communities to act according to their own convictions.”

“If then these laws contradict the natural law, one undermines the foundation that guarantees equality and therefore the right to enjoy equal opportunity,” the priest explained.

Last Monday, the Holy Father addressed the bishops of England and Wales on the occasion of their five-yearly “ad limina” visit to Rome. In his address he noted: “Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society.

“Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

“In some respects, it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”

The Pope’s words, according to Father Lombardi, “touch on a critical point in the debates over equality and rights that are much in focus in many countries of the world; debates that involve fundamental aspects of the understanding of man: right to life, sexuality, the family.”

“It is not at all a matter of the Church’s interference in the social and political arena,” he said, “but of a right and proper — and thus courageous — manifestation of her positions at the service of the common good.”

Father Lombardi then cited Sir Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, who cautioned against an ideological use of the theme of equality of rights in the U.K. daily The Times.

He wrote: “Rather than regard the Pope’s remarks as an inappropriate intervention, we should use them to launch an honest debate on where to draw the line between our freedom as individuals and our freedom as members of communities of faith. One should not be purchased at the cost of the other.”

“So it is not only the Catholics who see a problem,” the Vatican spokesman concluded, “it is a problem for everyone to honestly confront if they truly want to build a better society together.”

Bill Muehlenberg has also written about the so called equality legislation in a piece entitled: “Heterosexuality: A New Hate Crime”

It is not just in the futurist, dystopian novels such as Brave New World and 1984 that the totalist state seeks to punish thoughts as well as actions. In real world dictatorships and totalitarian states the same attempt has been made. Certain thoughts and ideas are declared to be verboten with corresponding punishments for those daring to think them.

The tyrannical state determines what is acceptable thought, and woe to those who wish to remain a free thinker. Any recalcitrants are swiftly dealt with, and the full weight of the state apparatus is brought to bear on any offenders. Correct Speak and Correct Think are maintained by various measures, including re-education camps.

The really scary thing is that the free West is not all that far away from what we find in these novels and these police states. Increasingly Western nations are passing their own totalitarian ‘hate speech’ laws, vilification legislation, and so-called equal opportunity bills.

All these laws may seem like they were enacted with good intentions, and perhaps some were. But the outcome remains the same: a radical diminution of freedom of speech, increased powers of the State, and encroaching government-enforced Correct Think

The number one expression of this in the West concerns the radical homosexual agenda. All over the West coercive legislation is being passed by activist governments to enforce the homosexual agenda. And there is good reason for this: the majority of the population simply do not accept the normalisation of homosexuality, nor see things like same-sex marriage as being in any way on a par with heterosexual marriage.

Therefore the only way complete submission on this matter can be achieved is by the heavy hand of the law and the threat of punishment for those who do not comply. The majority will simply be forced by increasingly hostile states to kowtow to the homosexual agenda or face the music.

Consider just two more examples of this, both of which appeared recently in the media. Add these two to the many dozens of other cases, and things are not looking very good for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.

The two examples should not come as a surprise, given where they originated. Canada and the UK have been world leaders in pushing a politically correct, pro-homosexual agenda, complete with government sanction. The first case has to do with a government proposal in Quebec to stamp out politically incorrect thinking on the issue of homosexuality.

It comes in the form of the “Quebec Policy Against Homophobia” released by Quebec’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Kathleen Weil. Journalist Drew Zahn explains. The policy is aimed at “eliminating all forms of ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexism’ – including the belief that homosexuality is immoral – from society as a whole.

“The text and specifics of the policy are steeped in vague bureaucratic language about ‘coordination’ and ‘synergy,’ but the goal is spelled out clearly: to enlist the government to normalize homosexuality in society and to quell common criticisms levied against ‘sexual minorities,’ a term the policy uses to inclusively describe ‘lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgenders.’

“‘An inclusive society such as ours must take the necessary steps to combat homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns and move towards full acceptance of sexual diversity,’ states the Premier of Quebec Jean Charest in a letter that serves as the policy’s introduction. ‘The policy sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles to full recognition of the social equality of the sexual minorities, at all levels of society.’ The policy further defines the heterosexism that must be stomped out as ‘affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm or the highest form of sexual orientation.’

“Furthermore, the policy laments, ‘It is still possible to hear people say that homosexuality is an illness, morally wrong or a form of deviant behavior, and that people choose their sexual orientation. These beliefs, often instilled in the past, tend to marginalize sexual minority groups and prevent full recognition of their social equality.’ Such ‘prejudice,’ the policy affirms, must be combated.”

Wow! Even if only a fraction of this is true, this is scary as all get out. This matches anything envisaged by Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and other fiction writers warning of future totalistic regimes. This is mind moulding at its worst.

Imagine that! Anyone who even affirms that homosexuality is in anyway other than absolutory hunky dory must be punished and re-educated. This is Big Brother at its worst. And get this: even to suggest that homosexuality is a choice will bring on the wrath of the state thought police. But what about the many homosexuals themselves who have suggested that choice plays an important role in their lifestyle? Will they be punished as well?

But wait, there’s more. In the UK an MP has actually said that his party would ensure that faith-based schools would be forced to comply with PC views on homosexuality. This is how one article describes this:

“UK Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg says his party (the third largest in the UK) would legislate to legally oblige faith schools to teach that homosexuality is normal and without risk to health. In a magazine interview, Clegg outlined proposals to advance ‘gay rights’, including forcing all schools to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and to teach that homosexuality is ‘normal and harmless.’ He also proposed to end the ban on homosexual men being allowed to give blood, and to allow same-sex couples to marry with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.”

There you go: more coercive social utopianism. If the masses will not bend the knee to the extreme secular-left vision, then the totalist state will simply force all those unwilling scum to embrace the homosexual agenda. Using the force of the law to impose unpopular and draconian social engineering policies is always the stuff of ruthless dictatorships – it is never the stuff of genuinely free democracies.

But our coercive utopians really don’t give a rip about freedom, democracy and other hallmarks of civilised society. They are only interested in implementing their radical social engineering – at any cost. All opposition will swiftly and stiffly be dealt with.

Today the affirmation of heterosexuality is seen by many social engineers to be a hate crime. One can only speculate as to just how long it will be before heterosexuality itself becomes a punishable offence. Don’t laugh – who just a few short decades ago would ever have dreamed that to champion heterosexuality and criticise homosexuality would become a criminal offence?

The Western world is well on the way to complete self-immolation. The only thing that stands in the way of Big Brother dictatorship is an informed and concerned citizenry. And as Edmund Bourke so rightly warned, the only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122113
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011307.html

BBC

A secularist group has lodged an official complaint against Cherie Booth QC after she spared a man from prison because he was religious.

Shamso Miah, 25, of Redbridge, east London, broke a man’s jaw following a row in a bank queue.

Sitting as a judge, Ms Booth – wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair – said she would suspend his sentence on the basis of his religious belief.

The National Secular Society claims her attitude was discriminatory and unjust.

Read More

Sadly the National Secular Society are dead right. Cherie Booth’s (Blair) comments make it sound as though she would have sentenced Shamso Miah to prison if he were not a “religious” man. What the heck does “religiosity” have to do with sentencing in a criminal case? I wonder how the victim feels after his attacker is effectively let off for breaking his jaw, because he is a “religious” man and should know better?

I still find it amazing that official Egyptian documents, such as the national ID card, will not allow ‘a change of religion’ from Islam. It would seem that in Egypt you are officially Muslim, even if you’re not. Also will the UN Human Rights Commission dare to interfere? I won’t hold my breath.

Hat-tip elderofziyon

Daily News Egypt:

CAIRO: The lawyer of a man who converted from Islam to Christianity sent a memo to the United Nation’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in a bid to urge the Egyptian government to allow him to change his religious affiliation on official documents.

Ashraf Edward Kirolos called on the OHCHR to intervene in the case of Mohamed Ahmed Hegazy, who converted to Christianity and sought legal action to have his religious affiliation recognized on his national ID card and other official documents.

Kirolos’ memo urged the organization to pressure the Egyptian government into honoring its pledges and international commitments with regards to religious freedom, namely when it comes to converts to Christianity.

“While the government facilitates the conversion from Christianity to Islam, it refuses to recognize citizens who choose to convert from Islam to Christianity, which is a double standard and a violation of citizens’ rights and religious freedom,” the memo read.

Kirolos will hold a press conference on Tuesday to explain the reasons behind escalating the case. He told Daily News Egypt that he will also reveal other pathways through which he will escalate the case on an international level.

“We escalated the case in coordination with international human rights organizations and consultation offices because there wasn’t any progress on the local level,” Kirolos said.

Hegazy, 26, who changed his name to Bishoy Armia Boules, filed a lawsuit demanding that his religious affiliation be changed on his national ID card and other official documents, causing a stir among human rights and religious organizations.

He married a Muslim girl who also converted and changed her name from Zeinab to Christine.

In a phone interview with Daily News Egypt, Hegazy said that they decided to escalate the case after he lost hope in getting a court verdict in his favor.

“I cannot lead a double life anymore. While I practice Christianity and go to church, I am still a Muslim on official documents,” he said, adding that he has not been able to lead a normal life because constant death threats force him and his wife to remain in hiding.