Thursday 11 June 2015

All Christians are saddened and horrified at the treatment being faced, and endured, by our Christian brothers and sisters in Islamic countries, just because they are of a different faith. Some of the scenes shown on television of those people in Iraq who have lost their homes and all their possessions, in addition to the loss of family members, is heartbreaking to watch.

But do not let us be complacent in Britain under the rule of David Cameron’s government. Every day there are pleas for help from a range of charities, and we are shown children (especially) suffering from malnutrition, failing eyesight, shortage of water, etc.
Enshrined in our nation’s law is a commitment to donate 7% of the national budget to foreign aid. In the light of such scenes one wonders where this aid is going.

Then I read that Cameron has stated one of the things that will determine Britain’s aid to African countries will be their gay rights policies. So, if a country does not meet up to ‘gay rights policies’, does that mean all sort of suffering can be ignored?

What happens to the men and women who are being sentenced to death in Pakistan for being Christians? Are their lives not as important as gay rights policies?

However, let us look at the creeping persecution moving inexorably in Britain. I have quoted some cases before, but for those who missed out, and also to re-enforce the situation for those who may have read, just read what is happening in this ‘tolerant, liberal, freedom loving country’. (provided you are not expressing your (Christian) faith)

Christians are facing opposition whenever they speak for Jesus; street preachers are told which parts of the Bible they can and can't use in public; NHS workers are disciplined for talking to their colleagues about Jesus; magistrates who seek to stand for God's pattern for family; Christian parents bringing their children up in line with Biblical principles are just a fraction of the restrictions being placed.

Cameron has refused to consider having a conscience clause to accommodate Christians. Indeed, he sent a government lawyer to the European Court to argue that a Cross was not an essential symbol of Christianity.

A Christian woman spoke of her faith to Muslim colleagues, some of whom were open about their support for Islamist terrorism, and was dismissed from her employment despite a petition from other staff. The Supreme Court has refused her right to appeal.

A foster couple had two young brothers removed from their care by social workers who were hostile to the couple because of their commitment to Christian faith.

The Mayor of London allows a homosexual lobby group to advertise on London buses, but denies a Christian group the same opportunity.

Having received an agreement from her employers that she need not work on Sundays because of her faith, a woman was eventually sacked, yet members of other faiths are allowed to do so on their holy day.

A Christian children’s worker was sacked after a Muslim colleague initiated a discussion on faith with her, and then complained to the management, who sacked the Christian.

A street preacher was arrested for quoting verses from the Bible, convicted in Court, and ordered to pay a total of £1,200 in costs and £250 in compensation to a homosexual man for ‘emotional pain’. The complainant was not in such emotional pain to prevent him running to the police.

A long serving Magistrate was reprimanded and sent on a course in equality training, just because he stated in a private discussion that a child was better brought up by a man and a woman.

And we have the well publicised case of the Belfast bakery set up by a gay activist who ordered a cake with the slogan ‘support gay marriage’, to be placed on top of the cake with models of two men. In view of their deep Christian beliefs the bakery could not agree to put those words on a cake. Although such marriage is illegal in Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission could not wait to get the bakery to Court, where they were made to pay £500 to the man for, again, ‘emotional pain’. This was an outrageous decision; there was no discrimination being made against the man, nor was a cake declined to be made, only the offending words wee objected to. The bakery was entitled to promote their faith as the man was his cause.

How people live and act is entirely a decision for them, and few would challenge their right to do so; but that does not mean other people are forced to act against their faith and conscience.

In to-day’s Britain the only persons excluded from exercising their rights, faith and belief are Christians. Who would ever have once believed the Conservative Party would be led by someone with such non Conservative values.

Since writing the above, I listened to an interview on Sky News between Andrea Williams from Christian Concern, and someone calling herself Julia Hartley-Brewer regarding the Belfast cake case. (I always wonder why people want hyphenated names)

I have never heard such total banality and complete stupidity as that uttered by Julia Brewer.

This case was brought by a campaigning activist who could have gone to any Belfast bakery, but chose the well known Christian one. They in turn would have baked a chocolate cake, a sandwich cake, any sort of cake, but just wouldn’t put a slogan on which was grossly offensive to their Christian beliefs. It had nothing to do with his own personal sexuality.

This silly woman immediately starting referring to discrimination and comparing black people, and when outsmarted by the much more senseable and articulate Andrea Williams, said traditional marriage permitted a man to rape and beat his wife, and probably realising the fragile state she had got into, added according to the Bible. Did you ever hear such nonsense?

No comments:

Post a Comment