Defender of the Faith

Which leading British identity said the following:

‘We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so.

'The Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend.

‘Whether you look at the riots last summer, the financial crash and the expenses scandal or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world, one thing is clear, moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it any more.

‘Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. “Live and let live” has too often become “do what you please”.

‘Bad choices have too often been defended as just different lifestyles. To be confident in saying something is wrong is not a sign of weakness, it’s a strength.’

Your choices are:

• Head of the Anglican Church Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury
• British Prime Minister David Cameron
  

Bonus question:

Which of the above leading British public figures ought to have spoken out in defence of Christianity?

-- Nora

Fall For Anything

Quick! Bring out the smelling salts!

A Hervey Bay mother swoons when she discovers that her Year 8 daughter has brought home... a 32 year old boyfriend?... Drugs?... A busload of OWS protestors?... Syphillis?

Quelle horreur, what could possibly cause her to go on a "crusade" right up to Education Queensland's head office?

Birgette Linding said she was mortified when her daughter came home earlier this year and recounted how Gideons Bibles had been handed out to students at the end of a Year 8 assembly at Urangan State High School.

How shocking.

And how quickly the anti-religious haters come out in comments, but also adhering to the law of unintended consequences John of Townsville's comment is a revelation: "Good, religion and the bible have no place in Queensland schools." So it would seem.

"Religion (by which they mean Christianity) is unscientific," they cry - ignoring the fact that modern science owes a significant debt to Christianity which provided most of the founding principles of science with the acknowledgement that a rational God created the world rationally and that those rational principles could be observed, repeated and understood.

These anti-Christian bigots are equally as sanctimonious as the religiousfolk they decry, smug as they are in their rigid belief system that all life evolved from nothing and that the reason we're here is because 'gravity did it'.

"We're far to logical, smart, clever, rational to believe in a sky fairy," they argue.

And yet, unmoored by the Christian belief system to use as a framework for rationality or as a foundation for ethics, these same people become easy prey for other gods - particularly Gaia The Earth Fairy who got a shout out this week at the United Nations Climate Change conference in Durbin, South Africa at which our own Climate Change Minister Greg Combet attended (carbon-neutrally, of course).

From the conference manifesto:

Rights of mother earth
74. Ensure respect for the intrinsic laws of nature.
75. The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony
between humanity and nature, and that their will be no commodification of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose.

Compare this to the instruction given to man in Genesis to have dominion over the earth.

That not is to say that we trash the planet, anymore than a logical, rational human being would trash their own house. But what it does mean, as generations of people before us knew, we are to use the resources it contains to improve our lives and the lives of those around us.

This Gaia-mad, quasi-scientific, pseudo-religion demands the opposite. And if you're poor, and life is a today-to-today struggle keeping body and soul together, you're less likely to consider helping others or have the resources to do so even if you were inclined.

And any propensity to charity (particularly one which cannot be reciprocated) makes no sense within a Darwinian framework in which survival of the fittest is the only law.

So what purpose does it serve to condemn humanity to a hell it can avoid? There's a question for another day.

Such a world governed as the Gaian adherents would have it would not be a nice place to live - but get used to it folks, without the Christian world view and the compassion and grace it teaches, your world is about to get even uglier.

Oh, and a final comment to Our Lady of the Perpetually Offended, Birgette Linding - you are under no obligation to read the Bible yourself, neither is your daughter. If you don't like it, don't look.

And a few questions: Why are you so afraid of the Bible? Are you afraid that if your daughter reads it that she will find something wonderful and life changing? Are you usually so narrow minded?

-- Nora

If God Did Not Exist, We Would Have To Invent Him

How cute, News.com.au's contrarian blogger Jack Marx wants to ban Jesus.

Okay, lets say society had expunged everything to do with Christendom.

What might that society look like? In some respects not a lot different to secular society today. The pagans are gaining the lions share of publicity (like AGW believers) along with Islam which has spread aggressively to the four corners of the world.

There's widespread slavery across all of the world because there was no William Wilberforce.

There would be no hospitals because they were developed by the Hospitaliers of the Crusades. There are no orphanages, no social welfare.

Many of the finest works of art by the likes of Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Mozart, Handel, Tolkein, Dostoevsky do not exist. Lamentably there is no champagne because there is no Dom Perignon.

The world of science is all the poorer for the non-existence of Christians: the research of Bede the Venerable, Roger Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Charles Babbage, Gregor Mendel, Sir Robert Boyd and Michal Heller.

In Australia, because there are no 'God botherers', you can say goodbye to the Salvation Army, Lifeline, The RFDS, Blue Nurses, World Vision.

How's the world looking now?

-- Nora

UPDATE: One might have left the subject above alone, however Jack Marx writes an extracurricular column on Friday to rather ham-fistedly explain that he likes Christians - just not Christ and one of Jack's acolytes writes in comments on this post.

Ya see, Jack likes all the good stuff that Christians do - like the charity and stuff - but he doesn't like the reason why they do it.

He'd rather religious people and Christians in particular keep their trap shut and not disturb his self-indulgent and self-righteous cocoon, so you can see why the joyous public celebration World Youth Day offends him no end.

Jack, having to grudgingly acknowledge the benefit Christians have brought to society, tries a different tack and fares no better.

He picks up on the Michael Newton/Christopher Hitchens/Richard Dawkins meme - the Bible is horrible because it's full of violence. Well, yes, unredeemed human history has been ever thus.

As Sam Shamoun, the Christian apologist points out: "First, the wars and violence found within the OT are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are describing events as they occurred, commandments God had given a specific people for a specific purpose."

In other words, they're historical not instructive.

Jack fires up his Google and goes hunting, picking the oft cited command to kill the Amalekites decribed in the book of Joshua.

The mindless slaughter continues verse after verse, chapter after chapter, book after revolting book, with God’s blessing when not his help.

For me, the only historical text that comes close to it for sheer murderous outrage is William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, a book we read today as something of a warning, a parable on how humanity must always be on guard against organised fanaticism.

Well, I'm glad Jack brought up the Third Reich because there is a parallel, but one he is obviously unaware.

The problem with cherrypicking is you tend to miss some of the facts.

The Amalekites were savage, violent and opportunistic. Like others during that time, they engaged in child sacrifice. They also attacked Israel first.

It is the equivalent to hating the Allies for bombing Dresden and marching through Germany without acknowledging that Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland or loathing the United States for dropping the bomb on Nagasake and Hiroshima without acknowledging that the Imperial forces bombed Pearl Harbour.

To describe the act of the Israelites (and by extension the command by God) as immoral, hateful, irrational and genocidal is as emotive as it is inaccurate.

Jack, having done this intellectually dishonest exercise about the Old Testament, turns his attention to Jesus:

Of course, Jesus Christ was a “new improved” God, the Christian New Testament considerably more mellow than its prequel. Christ was no warlord – he spoke of love and turning the other cheek. Nevertheless, he walked in the name of his father, the occasional fit of punchy conceit loitering in his blood

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:34-37).

Subtlety is not Jack's strong suit, so it's no surprise that he fails to understand the meaning of this passage. But ask anyone who has left Islam for Christianity, whether Jesus' words hold truth.

Indeed, what if one of Jack's children turned around one day to say they had become a Christian? What would venom-filled invective would dear ole dad spew?

Whether I believe in God or not I won’t say, but I will say that I despise him. I call him “Super***t”

Ah yes, that would be right.

Not With A Bang

Is it any wonder attendance is falling off?

The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a 'legend'. Dr Rowan Williams has claimed there was little evidence that the Magi even existed and there was certainly nothing to prove there were three of them or that they were kings.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

In a final blow to the traditional nativity story, Dr Williams concluded that Jesus was probably not born in December at all. He said: "Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival."

Well d'uh, Rowan.

Y'know, pal, an apologist argues in defence of something. He doesn't say sorry.

-- Nick

A Conceited Affair

Jealousy is such a curse isn't it?

The latest outrage filled episode of the reality TV series A Current Affair was heavily promoted as "Australia's Richest Religions - And How They're Targeting Your Kids".

But the real agenda was revealed in the "report" and confirmed on A Current Affair's own web site - "Hillsong Expose".

For those not in the know, Hillsong is what the Americans would describe as a "megachurch" based in Sydney, filled with that most terrifying demographic - young evangelical Christians.

Worse than that, they've done the unthinkable - filled stadiums with people - when everyone knows that churches are supposed to virtually empty on Sunday because we're enlightened folk who know the real 'truth' is in Sunday trading hours and hangover recovery time.

Not only that, they've also embraced 'teh interweb' and multimedia thingie to the point they do their own TV and music stuff - including more than 30 gold and platinum album sales worldwide.

John Lennon may have famously said The Beatles were more popular than Jesus, but on the strength of those sales numbers Hillsong appears to be making Jesus more popular than The Beatles.

Awful isn't it.

And that's just the beginning of shocks as the church leadership says quite openly that it needs money to carry on its work which includes bulkbilling medical centres in poor local communities, micro-enterprise development funding, counselling services for victims of sexual assault and drug/alcohol abuse.

And why not, research has proved time and again that regular church-goers are far more generous with their time and money than the irreligious.

A Current Affair thinks all of this is a bad thing - bad religious people: how dare they do good things in the community, have fun and earn a quid?

These nutters should be more like them. You know, like Ray Martin who earns $2million a year for... well, who knows what he does for the money or maybe like the Big Brother slappers who are willing to strip for a quid.

Just like all reality TV shows, A Current Affair can't do anything original. The story concept used footage ripped off from the little watched, taxpayer funded sheltered workshop known as Andrew Denton's Enough Rope in which the ABC breaks its own taboo of spruiking commercial product in order to interview a disaffected former Hillsong member.

Gee, no agenda to see here, is there?

-- Nora

Does My Carbon Footprint Look Big In This?

Since eco-something is all the rage this season, Nicky and I join the in-crowd:

-- Low flow restrictors on our taps
-- Shower together
-- Work together and therefore travel to together
-- Compost kitchen waste
-- Use grey water from showers and cooking on the garden
-- Have a drought resistant, largely native garden
-- Do the cute little 'reduce, reuse, recycle' mantra where appropriate
-- Switch off unused appliances/lights
-- Replacing incandescent globes with compact fluoros
-- Cook with fresh in-season local ingredients
-- Buy antiques and funky retro pieces instead of buying new...

Well I thought with all this green stuff I must be positively verdant.

Alas, how wrong I was.

'Tho Nicky and I live modestly, we're environmental bigfoots according to this little game from the Powerhouse Museum.

Despite our best efforts, we 'hog' 6 hectares of resources for our lifestyle when in order to save the planet we need to be consuming less than 2 hectares.

As you might gather, I was very dismayed.

:-(

'What would I need to do to save the planet?' I pondered. So I did the test again.

What if I was an 'eat like a sparrow' vegetarian who lived alone in a solar powered caravan with energy-efficient appliances, who recycled and walked everywhere?

Could that appease the great goddess Gaia?

No.

It was three hectares.

I wept.

:'-(

What does she want with us?

And then I understood.

:-/

She wants us dead.

And Gaia's worshippers are misanthropists who use the environmental cause to manifest their own self-loathing.

-- Nora

On Your Marx, Get Set...

What's the difference between Mohammed and Karl Marx?

No, it's not the beginning of a joke but rather a very insightful piece by author Theodore Dalrymple.

Here's a taste:

Curiously, though, Qutb’s thought has many parallels with Marxism. Where Marx has Historical Inevitability, Qutb has God‘s Law. Marx, you remember, envisages a time when the state will wither away and history will end. In Marx’s vision, political power will have dissolved, and the exploitation of man by man will have ceased, to be replaced by the mere administration of things. (How anybody of minimal intelligence could have believed such a thing beats me.) In Qutb’s vision, all political power will have dissolved, replaced by man’s spontaneous obedience to God’s law. Just as the administration of things in Marx’s utopia will not confer power on the administrators, presumably because everything will be so plentiful that no one will be tempted to appropriate more than the next man, so in Qutb’s utopia no one will have to interpret the law and gain power from doing so. God’s law will be as evident as thing will be abundant in Marx’s classless society.

-- Nora

Mister (Mohamm)Ed

Straight from the horse's mouth:

"There is no such thing as a Muslim good guy," said Arzu Merali, co-author of a report by the Islamic Human Rights Commission...

-- Nick

Contradiction In Terms

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has caved to homosexual activists and nixed pleas by the Catholic Church to be allowed to refuse placing children with same-sex couples through their adoption agencies.

The Catholic Church says it may may now be forced to close its agencies in the UK, as did the US wing of the church.

Homosexual rights groups, predictably:

protested that the Church was "blackmailing" the Government.

...while conveniently ignoring the fact that there are many other adoption agencies they could go to who take a much more politically correct and less morally principled stand on the issue.

Meanwhile, Blair comes out with this contradictory doozy:

"I have always personally been in favour of the right of gay couples to adopt. Our priority will always be the welfare of the child," he said.

If welfare of children is the priority, the last thing one should be doing is placing already traumatised children in homosexual households:

In 1999, homosexual activist Dan Savage published the book, The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Get Pregnant - An Adoption Story. The author comments:

"Having children is no longer about propagating the species... [it is] something for grownups to do, a pastime, a hobby. So why not kids? Gay men need hobbies, too. …. I've done drag. I did Barbie drag, dominatrix drag, nun drag, and glamour drag. Now I'm going to do dad drag."

American website the Child Welfare Information Gateway - an organisation with an apparently somewhat Nineteen Eighty-Four reverse meaning name - had its own Blair moment in 2000 when it stated:

The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, "If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay".

But surely logic would suggest that if the majority of heterosexual parents produce heterosexual children, then homosexual parents will produce homosexuals.

Just ask Ry and Cade, two unfortunate young women featured in:

...a recent article, "Growing Up With Mom and Mom," published in the October 24 issue of The New York Times Magazine, (in which) Susan Dominus tells the story of two girls, Ry and Cade, who were artificially conceived and raised by a lesbian couple.

The story of these girls could not be more poignant. Having reached adulthood, one daughter became a lesbian and the other, though heterosexual, lives in a continuous state of tension between her formation and her own feelings. Dominus writes:

"Sometimes when she's with her boyfriend, she [Ry] told me the first night we met, 'I feel guilty about how much privilege I feel as a straight couple, but I also love the privilege. …. At the same time, it's like this nightmare to be totally absorbed into this stupid straight world.' She made a face, half-sticking her tongue out. 'So at the same time, it's sad for me. I feel like I'm losing something else.''

She narrates her intimate struggle:

''It took me a lot of struggle to realize that I really was attracted to men, yet now it is really hard for me to deal with men as human beings, let alone sexually.'' Further on, Ry reports about how she was intrigued but ''repulsed'' by heterosexual relations, afraid of the 'sexist soul-losing domain of oppression.' Her parting thought: 'I cannot understand or relate to men because I am so immersed in gay culture and unfamiliar with what it is to have a healthy straight relationship.'"

Furthermore, there is no 'bulk of evidence' supporting the supposedly benign nature of homosexual households.

When Robert Lerner, Ph.D, and Althea Nagai, Ph.D. evaluated studies favouring adoption by homosexuals, they found them fatally flawed:

Completely misconstrue and thus blatantly misuse the standard logic of statistical hypothesis testing (e.g., they attempt to affirm the null hypothesis, which is wrong; one can only fail to reject the null hypothesis) - Fail to use proper or even any control groups - Use wildly unrepresentative nonrandom samples - Use far too few cases to draw any valid conclusions - Fail to control for essential variables when presenting their findings - misanalyses its own data, which in fact show that the daughters of lesbian couples are more likely to engage in lesbian sexual experimentation as adults than are the daughters of heterosexual couples.

The greatest irony of the growing Church versus State clash in the UK is that it finds some Anglicans and the majority of Catholics on common ground with an unexpected third group:

The Muslim Council of Britain said it fully supported the "principled stand" by the Church leaders.

The Muslim Council of Britain would also fully support stoning homosexuals to death.

The Catholics just want to stop state sponsored child abuse.

-- Nick