Tuesday, April 05, 2011

It has come to this . . . "who will stand on either hand, And keep the bridge with me?"

This, from Macaulay's Horatius:
     . . .  the Consul's brow was sad,
          And the Consul's speech was low,
     And darkly looked he at the wall,
          And darkly at the foe.
     "Their van will be upon us

          Before the bridge goes down;

     And if they once may win the bridge,

          What hope to save the town?"


     Then out spake brave Horatius,

          The Captain of the Gate:

     "To every man upon this earth
          Death cometh soon or late.
     And how can man die better
          Than facing fearful odds,
     For the ashes of his fathers,
          And the temples of his gods,


     "And for the tender mother
          Who dandled him to rest,
     And for the wife who nurses
          His baby at her breast,

     And for the holy maidens
          Who feed the eternal flame,
     To save them from false Sextus
          That wrought the deed of shame?


     "Haul down the bridge, Sir Consul,
          With all the speed ye may;
     I, with two more to help me,

          Will hold the foe in play.

     In yon strait path a thousand
          May well be stopped by three.
     Now who will stand on either hand,
          And keep the bridge with me?"
And so the call goes out, "who will stand on either hand, And keep the bridge with me?"

Why not now, why not here, why not us? END

Monday, April 04, 2011

Matt 24 watch, 123: The Eunice and Owen Johns "Bible-believing Christians are not fit to be foster parents" case in the UK High Courts

Christian Concern of the UK has a short video on the highly disturbing Eunice and Owen Johns "Bible-believing Christians are disqualified from foster parenting" case that we all need to watch, and reflect on very, very carefully indeed:

Plainly, if one is not fit to be a foster parent because one is a Bible believing Christian, one will not be fit to be an adoptive parent, and even a natural parent.  Never mind, that the Johns have raised four children of their own, and have already fostered fifteen other children between five and ten years of age, with great success.

Remember, the language of the UK Government's Taxpayer funded Equality and Human Rights Commission, is that Christianity is so inimical to children that it spoke of such being "INFECTED" with Christian beliefs. 


As though the Christian Faith is a disease to be suppressed by force of law, and got rid of.

So, we can safely extend the implications far beyond family law. For instance, since teachers stand in the place of parents, in the eyes of such unjust judges and the parliamentarians who passed the underlying law, if one is a Christian, one is now to be disqualified from being an educator too. 

Going on, if one is dangerously unfit for positions of trust and responsibility such as parenthood or education because -- on taking the Word of God seriously and at the weight of what it says plainly -- one will not promote homosexual behaviour, then that suggests a disqualification from the Police Force, the Magistracy, from the Bar and more.

In the name of anti-discrimination law, discrimination is being imposed under false colour of law and justice; and, in the interests of sexual practices and agendas that are clearly and objectively disordered and often seriously unhealthy and damaging.

More broadly, this is a question of injecting a thought crime into the law, so we see the state in the dangerous business of policing our thoughts; especially on rights and justice. 

Freedom is under attack.

It so happens that the Johns are British, Pentecostal Christians of Jamaican roots, but we in the Caribbean need to also think about the implications for Caribbean Overseas Territories of the UK, which are under the direct jurisdiction of the UK, and where through a wave of draft and/or new Constitutions it promotes, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office have sought to promote very similar "anti-discrimination" provisions inclusive of that very vague term, "sexual orientation." 

That is very worrying, e.g. for Montserrat, where September 1, 2011 is the "appointed day" for putting into force a new constitution with such a provision. 

And, we must note that concerns and suggestions to balance the anti-discrimination terms with specific protection of freedom of conscience, and religion were brushed aside by not only the UK but the local Government under the leadership of Mr Reuben T Meade.

But also, we need to be concerned given the recent push by 82 countries led by the United States under the Obama Administration, to insert similar provisions into the body of international Human Rights law and practice.  Similarly, it is not at all far-fetched that similar provisions will now begin to be written into terms of development aid projects and the like.

In short, as Plato warned against 2,300 years ago, we are now beginning to enter an era where radical secular humanism driven by evolutionary materialism in the name of science is driving amorality into the heart of law, and powerful factions are seizing opportunities to crush people of conscience guided by scripture.

We have been there before, many times in history [Antiochus Epiphanes, Nero, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and ever so many others come to mind . . . ], and the result is predictable: rivers of blood as the arrogant think to demand of others that which belongs only to God, the loyalty of conscience; crushing freedom under a tyrannical boot heel.

It is time to wake up, and act decisively to repudiate and correct such unjust manipulation of law to -- in the name of anti-discrimination measures -- discriminate against Bible-believing Christians. END

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Matt 24 watch, 122: The Craig-Krauss debate on "Is there evidence for God?"

Last month, Dr William Lane Craig debated physicist Professor Lawrence Krauss (who recently wrote on the physics of Star Trek) on the topic, is there evidence for God:

Worth watching, to see where the balance of evidence and reasoned argument now is on the merits; in the context of the aggressive rhetoric of the so-called New Atheists.

Hint: why is it that Dr Krauss reportedly felt compelled to question logic and the mathematical theory of probability?

A serious, sobering sign of our times.  END