Category Archives: Culture

The End is Near!

Well, the end of the Episcopal Church’s relationship with Anglicans is near… N.T. Wright recently published a very clear rebuke and warning about the Episcopal Church on the Times Online the 15th of this month. Read the whole article, but here is an excerpt:

In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.

Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

[HT: James Grant]

Biblical Romance: Protecting the Seed and Refuting the Culture

     If there is one thing I have learned from movies about true love (and there isn’t), it is that true love is a feeling that comes upon a person unexpectedly, irregardless of the character of the one loved.  Additionally, love is only really real when it leads one to defy one’s parent’s advice.  Dads (unless they are hippies) are entirely too rational and bigoted to understand their child’s affections.  This cliche is not just in movies but is repeated in countless sitcoms and popular songs.

She’s in love with the boy
And even if they have to run away
She’s gonna marry that boy someday

Unfortunately, this silly understanding of love does not simply exist in the broader culture but is often present among the children of Christians.

     Aside from being stupid, the popular understanding of love, dating, and romance is a dangerous manifestation of dragon venom.  From the beginning, Satan, that powerful serpent, has attacked mankind with poisonous words.  Jesus tells us that the devil was a liar from the beginning (John 8:44).  When Adam and Eve believed his words instead of God’s, they died.  God promised a savior, a dragon-slayer, through the seed of Eve (Genesis 3:15).  One of the themes throughout Scripture is the struggle between the offspring of Eve, God’s people, and the offspring of the dragon.  The offspring of the dragon seek to conquer God’s people by destroying their offspring.  The dragon is presented as a beast who loves to eat babies (Revelation 12:4,17). So, when Cain kills Abel, when Pharaoh kills Hebrew boys, or when Herod does the same thing, we see this struggle play out.

     One might wonder, whether or not making babies is really a concern for Christians, after all childbirth is so earthy and dirty and the messiah has already been born so we do not need to worry about the Dragon keeping us from salvation.  The truth is that our salvation is still linked to childbirth (1 Timothy 2:15).  Salvation is not only personal, but has to do with a renewed creation.  Jesus is reigning until He puts all his enemies under his feet and then comes the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:25,6).  The command (and blessing!) given to Adam and Eve to be fruitful was given as part of their Great Commission to subdue the creation (Genesis 1:28).  As we try to conquer, convert, and disciple a world filled with all sorts of unbelievers it makes a difference whether or not we have more offspring than the Muslims.

Problem #1: Selfish Concerns Blind Young People to Real Consequences

     What I am trying to say is that the World’s understanding of romance (in this case the American form of it) comes to the Christian as an attack on their offspring.  This is done, first and foremost by convincing all of us that our marriages are created primarily for our personal fulfillment.  While, all Christians should find fulfillment in his or her spouse, to my knowledge, it is never given as the purpose of marriage.  On the contrary, God gives us at least one of the purposes of marriage in Malachi 2:15, “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring.”  One thing God says He intended to get out of giving men and women in  marriage is godly offspring.

     The problem is, that young men and women in our culture find someone they think is cute and fulfills some insecurity in them and give no thought to the effect this person will have the future of their children and their grandchildren.

     Let’s say a woman marries a man who is shiftless.  She can look forward to lazy, irreverent children who are not discipled and to having to work rather than raising her children.  She can look forward to children who do not want to expend the energy to go to church, and grandchildren that may have no concern for or knowledge of Jesus Christ.

     Let’s say a man marries a complaining woman who cannot shut her mouth.  Not only can he look forward to an existence that is a living hell, (Solomon says living with her is about as bad as Chinese water torture in Prov 27:15,6.  See also 21:9, 19.) but such a woman rips down her household around her with her wicked tongue (Prov 14:1).  You will reach the end of your life, and instead of looking upon the increase of your family, you will feel like you are standing in a heap of ruins, with contentious children who can barely even pretend they like one another.

     Let’s say a woman dates a man who loves perversion.  Trying to not loose his attention, she tells him she does not like the posters of nearly-naked women on his wall, but she ignores the fact that he is an unrepentant fornicator.  Or perhaps, she allows him to have his way with her so that she does not loose him.  She does not consider that this man, who does not treat sex as alone reserved for his future wife, will have no qualms with committing adultery, leaving her without a husband, her future children without a father, and their children without a grandfather.  She does not consider that pornography often leads to child pornography.  Although she might not let her children go on a Boy Scout trip with someone who wants to fondle them, she will allow this man unrestricted access to her future children.

Problem #2 Parents Do Not Exercise their Authority

     The other area where Christians give in to the lies of the dragon is that most fathers think they do not play a role in helping their children marry a good person.  In the movies, when a father sees the error of his ways at the end, he often tells his daughter, “I just want you to be happy.”  Somehow, these words come out of his mouth as she is about to run off to a motel with the laziest, stupid, and disrespectful young man in the whole town!  While, the average Christian father is not that bad (he will try to make sure his daughters marries the bum first), it is shocking how many fathers will not guide their children or try to forbid them from marrying certain people.  It is not that they are not wise enough to give helpful advice; they just do not believe it is their place.  I know a man who saw exactly what was wrong with his son’s wife-to-be before he was married, but did not say anything until after the divorce!  Numbers 30:3-5 tells us that the Father has the right to annul an oath made by his daughter, and when he is giving her his approval and will be held responsible.  No place is this authority exercised more appropriately than in making sure that one’s daughter marries a godly man.

     Of course, sometimes dads are bigots or do not emphasize the most important things to their children.  Unfortunately, many times the things that fathers are willing to tell their children can sometimes be wrong or just not the most important things.  This does not mean there is nothing to be gleamed from their years of experience.  If he thinks all white people are conceited and greedy, one should at least have other trustworthy people that can help one judge if this is true about one’s love interest.  A father may have unreasonable expectations about money, and, while you may be able to live on less than he would like, it is a good idea to have people who can thoroughly and objectively examine these things (especially if this person handles money irresponsibly).  It is important to have many wise adults who can help correct some errors, but a father’s advice should not be shoved aside lightly.

Correction #1: Teach Your Children Early and Often

     The obvious problem with a father vetoing his children’s decisions regarding potential spouses is that most young people do not care what their father thinks.  What we must realize is that this response did not come out of thin air (although it did in a way; see Ephesians 2:2), but is culturally conditioned.  This reminds me of the whiny Mary from The Nativity Story.  For some reason the scriptwriters believed that she would have been as dejected and pouty as if a modern teenager was told to marry an older Joseph.  The fact is that our children only accept the culture’s approach to dating and romance if we raise them to.

     For this reason, a father must start presenting the Christian understanding of dating, marriage, and offspring from an early age.  Of course, the father must first know what the Biblical understanding is.  So, he should read Elisabeth Elliot’s Passion and Purity, Joshua Harris’s I Kissed Dating Goodbye, and Douglas Wilson’s Her Hand in Marriage.  If he is humble, he will learn to at least see major flaws in the current dating system and to want to give his son or daughter guidance in his or her future decision-making.

     Then he must work his new understanding into his daily discipleship (Deuteronomy 6:7).  As he goes about his day discipling his child, part of that must involve instruction regarding his or her future marriage.  Communicate what kinds of qualities make a good spouse and about gender roles. Tell him or her not to be like the children around them who waste their time chasing children of the opposite sex before they could conceivably marry.  Teach them that they are going to one day be fruitful to God and that they have been given a stewardship that will affect generations.  Describe to your daughters how they will one day direct suitors to you so that they can make a wise decisions together and so that pushy young men cannot take advantage of them.  Teach your sons how to be a defender of their sisters, how to respect all women, and how to one day pursue a young woman in a way that honors her purity.

     Then, contradict every stupid thing you hear in the culture.  Instead of asking your sons how many girlfriends they have, teach them to not get ahead of themselves.  When you watch a movie, listen to a song, or read a book with a stupid view of romance make sure your children know why it is stupid.  When your daughter’s friends are swooning over androgynous young men in a boy-band, teach your daughters not to make fools of themselves.  Tell them stories of godly romance.  They will have to learn Romeo and Juliet, but make sure they know by heart the story of Isaac and Rebekah, Christ and the Church, and Westley and Buttercup (maybe), etc.

Correction #2: Shape Your Children’s Values

     Our affections are emotional responses to what we value.  If a child values the romance they see in the movies, it will be nearly impossible to bring them to reality.  A girl who just wants a young man to show her attention will not listen even if a hundred people tell her that her boyfriend is worthless.  If a child values the romance they see in the Bible, they will make wise decisions. Teach your daughters to value hard workers so that when the lazy boy in the youth group starts trying to flirt with her, she has already started shuddering before he even opened his mouth.  Teach your sons to fear contentious women so that when “miss thing” at the college starts looking at him, all he sees is a gold ring in a pig’s snout (Proverbs 11:22).

     The father of proverbs is always working to make sure his children properly view the world around them.  Reality is deceptive, and what seems good can often be deadly (Genesis 3:6).  Part of growing up is (or should be) learning to judge things as they really are and not as they look.  So, it is not enough just to try to keep your sons away from pictures of loose women, but to teach him how to think about women who might want to allure him (whether in person or the representative of some business on a commercial).  She may look good, but she is a man-eater and those who fool around with her get swallowed down to hell (Proverbs 9:13-8).  Years of reminding a boy of this might be enough for him to really think twice about the touchy-feely girl in the low-cut dress.

     It may seem rude, but the book of Proverbs gives parents example after example of how to explain to your children the type of people they do not want to be or associate (Prov 13:20).  (This must be accompanied by clear instruction regarding the difference between instruction and gossip and what is and is not supposed to be repeated.)  So, when you see a man who sends his wife to work so he can afford a vacation you say, “A greedy man stirs up strife, but the one who trusts in the LORD will be enriched. (Prov 28:25)”  Let your children know, “You have seen how uncle Bill has discouraged your aunt and cousins, now don’t you marry a scoffer like him.”  “Did you hear how that young girl was talking to her father in Walmart?  If you marry a disrespectful woman like that, you will want to kill yourself.  Stay away from people like her.”


     There are serious matters involved in whom a man or woman decides to marry.  They are not just deciding who their life-partner will be, but they are deciding who will be the father or mother of their children, the grandparent of their children’s children, and so on and so forth.  Marrying the wrong person has far-reaching consequences.  The point here is not to be hyper critical of people’s faults.  We all marry imperfect people, but young folks need to know the difference between who is marriage-worthy and who is not for the sake of bearing children for God.  Our goal is to see God’s faithfulness from generation to generation as we bear many children and raise them to know Jesus Christ (Deuteronomy 7:9).

Perspective & Proportion: Abortion, Islam and Radical Leftists

Well, for too long in recent days the Liberal Left has been crying about how we need to be kinder to Islam and harder on the U.S. for its past foreign policies. Islam is a “peaceful religion” and its those extremists that are not true Muslims… Right? Don’t think about it… just say, “yes!”

Well, after 10 years and no abortion doctors being murdered… An abortion doctor is murdered at his church and now the Liberal Left are screaming that all anti-abortionists are extremists and spreading hatred with their speech!

OH! Pardon me… I didn’t realize that a small number of extremists meant that all anti-abortionists were extremists! (Let’s play the “double standard” card. That will make us feel better and help us force more people under our thumbs.)

Well, now that I’ve had my say… I mainly wanted to point you over to the St. Johnny blog to encourage you to read an article on the recent Tiller murder. Anthony Horvath has some great insights into what is taking place in the political sphere regarding the Liberal Left and their extreme hypocrisy and fear mongering.

Here is an excerpt from his article:

I indicated that the reason why proportion and a sense of perspective were necessary regarding the Tiller killing was because in the liberal mind, referring to abortion as murder, etc, is inflammatory language that really is ‘hate speech.’

The current hate speech legislation coming through Congress (Matthew Shepherd Act) aims to draw exactly this kind of connection, though of course this legislation is related more to homosexuality.  The idea is the same, though:  if anyone person commits a crime and it can be tracked back to someone who can be perceived to have ‘instigated it’ the person who did the ‘instigation’ is equally guilty and consequently should be punished under the law.

In today’s perusal of the web I found more evidence of this attempt to condemn the entire pro-life movement because of this single event.  The irony is that the day after Tiller was killed, an American soldier was gunned down at a recruitment center by someone we now know was acting on Islamicist principles.

Besides there being little media attention about that, it should be noted that the Left does not apparently have an interest to condemn all Muslims because of this single event.   There is clearly a lack of perspective here:  in ten years one abortionist was killed but in that same ten years thousands of Americans died at the hands of Islamicists and numerous attacks have been thwarted.  But let’s not make any unwarranted generalizations, shall we?  Unless it’s pro-lifers.

But about that evidence I was referencing.  This article on Newsmax describes how the Left is attempting to link the Tiller killing to Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the pro-life movement.   This article on LifeSiteNews illustrates some of the same.

[Continue Reading…]

Obama declares June ‘LGBT Pride Month’

Just another example of the sad and perverse thinking of the current Presidential Administration leading the White House today. This is one more testimony to the judgment of God that has fallen and continues to fall on the United States of America:

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:21-32)

Culture News: No more home Bible studies?

UPDATE: San Diego withdraws Bible study warning
‘The weekly activity is within the scope of the residential use’


Home: No place for Bible study

County demands pastor spend thousands

on ‘Major Use’ permit to host friends

Posted: May 22, 2009, 5:13 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn at

A San Diego pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a county official and warned they will face escalating fines if they continue to hold Bible studies in their home.

The couple, whose names are being withheld until a demand letter can be filed on their behalf, told their attorney a county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, which are attended by approximately 15 people.

“Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say ‘amen’?” the official reportedly asked. “Do you say, ‘Praise the Lord’?”

The pastor’s wife answered yes.

She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding “religious assemblies” until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.

And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, “and then it will get ugly.”

Remind the world who’s really in charge with the “Worship GOD, not GOV” magnetic bumper sticker from WND.

Dean Broyles of the Western Center for Law & Policy, which has been retained to represent the couple, told WND the county’s action not only violates religious land-use laws but also assaults both the First Amendment’s freedom of assembly and freedom of religion.

“The First Amendment, in part, reads, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'” Broyles said. “And that’s the key part: ‘prohibiting the free exercise.’ We believe this is a substantial government burden on the free exercise of religion.”

He continued, “If one’s home is one’s castle, certainly you would the think the free exercise of religion, of all places, could occur in the home.”

[Continue Reading…]

Homosexuality and the Church

James Grant says:

In the previous post regarding the Church of Scotland and the appointment of a practicing homosexual to a particular ministerial post, someone left a comment stating that this is a healthy move for the Church of Scotland, and American Christians should follow their lead, referencing this article by Walter Wink: “Homosexuality and the Bible.” In this article, Wink provides several arguments as to why the church should not condemn homosexuality, but at the heart of his article and argument is this statement: “The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic.” Indeed…that is a crucial matter on several levels (not to mention an significance difference of opinion on the nature of Biblical revelation).

I do hope Christians can have open and civil discussions, even about this controversial matter, but it is important to realize that Wink’s arguments will not persuade Christians who oppose the practice of homosexuality and have thought through the textual, biblical, and historical issues. It is not as if Christian’s haven’t dealt with Wink’s arguments both throughout church history and in our more recent cultural situation.  Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is one of those books that helps Christians get the right perspective on this issue. It is the most comprehensive book-length response to the interpretive assumptions that go into this type of discussion.

Robert A. J. Gagnon

I would also encourage you to check out Robert Gagnon’s website. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and his credentials are superb: a B.A. from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also an ordained elder in a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. His website is a comprehensive response to the homosexual movement within the church, which he faces in the PCUSA. You can view some of his specific responses to particular articles and reviews here. This includes a response to Walter Wink’s arguments from Christian Century. Scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see links to the pdfs. If you prefer to hear Gagnon, Issues, Etc., has a two part interview with him (Part 1 & Part 2).

Let’s all laugh and wish President Obama’s kidneys fail!

Now, obviously I don’t mean that and you should know that I’m simply substituting President Obama’s name into that sentence, if you’ve watched the recent news media coverage of the White House Correspondents Dinner. But what does this have to do with President Obama? Everything.

Recently, at the White House Correspondents Dinner the President hosted, a celebrity (Wanda Sykes) made the same statement about Rush Limbaugh and, once she made it, President Obama and many others in the room all continued to laugh and smile at the joke, even though it caused viewers substantial discomfort. Here is the story and some good commentary by Michael Gerson:

The Rhetoric of the Rant
by Michael Gerson at

The first response to the performer on a public stage wishing the death of a stranger for political reasons was discomfort. Wanda Sykes had “crossed a line” at the White House Correspondents Dinner in accusing Rush Limbaugh of terrorism and treason, mocking his past drug addiction and wishing his kidneys would fail. But a counterreaction soon developed: Humor is often transgressive, and if you can’t take it, don’t dish it, and let’s everyone lighten up a bit, and can’t anyone take a joke anymore?

The initial reaction was more human.

Sykes’ defenders found her pungency unexceptional, which is true. It represents a whole genre of political discourse: the rhetoric of the rant. This approach recently introduced the “c” word into the national debate on gay marriage. It leads some spotlight-chasing conservatives to attack opponents as “traitors” and to employ racist epithets. It is the dominant form of public comment on the Internet, where the pithy, personal, scatological attack has become a minor art form, rather like sculpting in excrement.

What I’m describing is not the blunt earthiness of the farmer or the unguarded political overstatement among friends. It is a practiced form of verbal aggression, combining harshness and coarseness to shock and intimidate.

The practitioners of the rant have their own television shows, radio programs and Web sites. And now it seems they will have their own elected representative, the author of “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot.” Al Franken has made a career of such rants, asking “Isn’t Cardinal O’Connor an a..hole?” calling opponents “human filth” and suggesting that his next book might bear the title: “I F…ing Hate Those Right-Wing Mother F……!” Which many Minnesotans apparently found refreshing.

The advocates of this approach often describe it (and themselves) as courageous. Franken explains, “My dad did say, ‘If you stand up to bullies they usually back down.'” But those who make their living beating up others for their lunch money must eventually be categorized as bullies themselves. They take perhaps the commonest human vice — self-indulgent anger — and cloak it as a rare virtue. But it is a strange moral inversion to talk of the “courage” of the upraised middle finger. Perhaps adolescent rudeness. Maybe boorishness. Not courage, which involves standing up for a belief, not dehumanizing those who don’t share it.

America doesn’t need another scolding lecture on the importance of civility. Well, apparently it does. So here goes.

[Continue Reading…]

Obama to Notre Dame Grads: Babel is our goal, not God


Yesterday, I watched President Obama address thousands of attendees at the Notre Dame graduation day as he received his honorary doctorate. Now, I was not surprised by anything he said, except for a couple of references he made to the Bible and God in order to “connect” with the Catholic School’s traditional theology… but what disturbed me MOST was the apparent ECHO of the Tower of Babel episode in the Genesis account. Notice, from the online transcript, the wording of the Presidents comments in one section of his speech:

“And when that happens — when people set aside their differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another — then all things are possible.”

Now, notice the Tower of Babel incident from Genesis 11:4-7:

“Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.’ 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.'”

Now, please hear me correctly, I understand and affirm that the great commission and the spread of the Gospel is God’s divine plan to gradually (and finally at the return of Christ) reverse what He did at the Babel by confusing mankind with various languages. But understand this:

President Obama DID NOT even talk about the Gospel or the Great Commission in his entire speech. Thus presenting the dilemma: What was he talking about?

He was talking about compromise. And this compromise was not merely between different cultures, but between different religions and faiths! This was not about the Church and the Gospel, it was about uniting together as humanity and working to find “common ground” in our OWN strength, doing it without God!

So, my conclusion about President Obama’s speech is this: It was the most practically atheistic speech a “Christian” could ever give. And to top it off, the people at Notre Dame cheered him on in doing it!

For myself and hopefully many other Christians, yesterday was a sad, sad day, having seen that so many “Christian” people are now willing to say ‘YES’ to the offer of Satan that Jesus Christ so powerfully said ‘NO’ to on that high mountain (Matt. 4:8-10):

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,

“‘You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.’”

President Obama has already said yes to Satan’s temptation by rejecting the Gospel and he’s looking to promote it to EVERYONE ELSE. But, as Christians, are we willing to COMPROMISE on the Gospel for the sake of “progress” and making  “all things possible”?

I pray that those students at Notre Dame will reconsider the offer President Obama gave to them yesterday and that they will look to Christ for their help and not rely on themselves to get things done and to find “common ground” in our common humanity. If our common humanity is not rooting in the Gospel of Jesus Christ saving a people for himself from every nation and toungue, then it is only rooted in our fallenness and our hatred of God and His glory.

Please pray for our President and ask God to keep this atheism from spreading further into the hearts of Christians in this country and around the world.

Britain: The First “Modern Soft Totalitarian State”

By Hilary White – May 6, 2009

A deliberate campaign to enforce “diversity” and political correctness by “unelected or quasi-governmental bodies” is turning Britain into the “the first modern soft totalitarian state”, an Australian political science expert and author says.

Hal Gibson Pateshall Colebatch, an Australian historian, author, poet, lecturer, journalist, editor, and lawyer, has warned in an editorial in the Australian that while there may as yet be no concentration camps or gulags in Britain, “there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.” He points to the dozens of cases over the last ten years in which Christians and others who hold traditional moral views, have been targeted by police and other governmental agencies for their beliefs.

Colebatch warned of legislation that is currently being pushed through Parliament that will outlaw the telling of racist, “homophobic” or politically incorrect jokes, with a potential sentence upon conviction of seven years in prison. An attempt in the House of Lords to insert a freedom of speech clause was shot down by Labour Justice Minister Jack Straw.

Colebatch cited “innumerable cases” over the last decade in which public employees such as nurses, policemen, teachers, marriage commissioners and others have been threatened with the sack or suspension or disciplinary measures for sharing, or even privately revealing, their religious beliefs. Colebatch also mentioned arrests of school children for allegedly uttering racist remarks, and police warnings to a bishop who had failed sufficiently to “celebrate diversity” in his ministry.

In an editorial last week in the Church of England Newspaper, [Martin] Beckford wrote that the public sector in Britain is engaging in an all-out campaign against Christianity. It is “no coincidence that most of these cases are occurring in the public sector, where it is easier for political leaders to spread their ideas of what is not culturally acceptable,” he wrote.

The operating principle, he said, is government suppression of freedom of speech and religion, and once the legal mechanisms exist, even those groups, such as the National Secular Society that have been used to promote the government’s agenda, will not be safe. Once the laws are in place, he writes, “there will be little to stop future governments or local authorities interpreting ‘equality and diversity’ in different ways to silence other groups – atheists, perhaps, or climate change skeptics.”

Read Colebatch’s editorial in the Australian

Read Martin Beckford’s Article in the Church of England Newspaper