Christians loose right to refuse unmarried couples

There it is anybody who has strong Christian beliefs and happens to run a guest house cannot only not refuse to accommodate gay couples but is also not allowed to refuse abode to those who want to share a room without being married. story link

It’s this drive for equality that takes away the rights of individual to make their own decisions as to what or what not they want to happen under their own roofs.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull obviously are the good guys.

Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said: “Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation.” Out of the window goes the cautionary approach, which tells people to wait until married of course.

Advertisements

It’s the principle that counts

One country, two religion is the over-simplified formula, the Daily Mail published today. They talked about church attendance for Church of England or Muslim services in local East London Mosques.

For me, there is a simple scientific explanation for varying church attendances. Those churches with the biggest principles, whether right or wrong, attract the most worshippers. Those churches who are very tolerant and understanding just do not attract people to come in.

What is of course missing in the Daily Mail article, is a picture of the Our Lady of  Assumption church on Sunday masses, they fill 3 churches full each weekend. But then again, the Catholic church holds strong beliefs, the Muslims hold strong beliefs but those Liberal churches do not.

I do not just mean strong religious beliefs but strong worldly beliefs that reflect directly from the scripture.

Beliefs are definitely churches’ business or mind your own business, mind your believers.

A good read

I was disappointed with both Hilary Mantel books that won the booker prize. I was looking for something good to read and thought I order them because it is kind of a good idea to read what the nation reads but when I found a lot of gore and vulgar sexual fantasy in the books I was put off from finishing them.

Then of course the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI happened just at the time when I re-engaged with Catholicism. This pope’s shock resignation puts a kind of new dialectic on the worldly and divine nature of the church. This was the first papal resignation since 600 years.

I find this immensely interesting and hope I am going to have a good read with some of Joseph Ratzinger’s books.

I think lately Catholicism has made immense progress here in Britain. Not only are successors to the British throne now allowed to marry Catholics but also numbers who attend the many C.o.E. churches in my area are dwindling whilst my local Catholic church has to lay on 3 services each weekend to satisfy the requirements of the many worshippers.

If the English monarch marries a Catholic and then the monarch itself becomes Catholic the Church of England will become obsolete and unnecessary. That would be good because I consider many C.o.E. churches a waste of space because the attendance numbers are so low that they would be better off being used by Catholics who would appreciate the buildings more.

 

The best church to be

Anyone who wishes to follow the true gospel of Christ and opposes the latest fashion statements of various churches, which want to appoint gay ministers and bishops is to join the Catholic church, who are very adamantly against homosexuality. The Catholic church here in London even stopped church services for gay people.

So for the Scottish Dominic Smart, joining the Catholic church could be an option. It can be daunting to do so, especially when one has been brought up in an Anglican environment like myself, but it is the only sensible option I think. Strength is in numbers and the Catholic church has a very powerful voice around the world and can give a lot of support.

I joined the Catholic church several years ago and then swayed to and fro between Anglican and Catholic because it is not easy to get it out of the system but in the end the purest and clearest form of Christianity is preached by the Catholic church.

People who want to go it alone can be in danger of turning into sectarianism and being part of a larger Catholic community will give help and support. The nearest Catholic church near Gilcomston South in Scotland is surely not too far away. I am certain they are only too pleased to lend support for the locals in question.

Catholic churches also constantly run courses for people wanting to convert and priests are generally very understanding and sympathetic. Our local Catholic church also has lay people helping and we have got a very big congregation compared to the few people who worship in local Church of England churches, though C.o.E. has gotten more buildings than the Catholic church, who have gotten only 1 large church.

It can’t do any harm to speak to a Catholic priest about the issues and how support can be obtained for a whole community of people who are all in one mind and one heart about the issues.

But strictly speaking Jesus allows anyone to preach his Gospel, though taking into account that some schools are set up by large churches and require attendance there, the question of where to prey is somewhat determined by this for people with children.

We have a number of Evangelical church groups in my local area but they have no back-up for education.

Knowledge doesn’t spark off sensibility

The fact that people get told again and again that smoking is bad for them and gives them cancer, that too much eating is bad for them and gives them secondary diabetes at the least, the fact that too much drinking leads to liver failure and death, that unsafe sex leads to aids and other diseases, all that doesn’t matter to seemingly educated people who continue their bad practises but ask doctors to find better remedies, so that they can continue what we know now as deadly sins.

God has given us clear rules on what we can do to live safely on this earth but people just want to ignore his laws and think science will help to eradicate sin and make it a thing of the past; they think if we find medical remedies then it doesn’t matter any more if we live in sin. There then would be no more sin because science can solve all problems.

That is the work of the devil and that devilish thinking has crept into people’s minds and into the highest ranks of society these days.

Despite continued health campaign HIV in gay men has not become less but rises at a steady pace.

Buying cigarettes is made as least enjoyable and expensive as possible but what do I see every day? Yesterday I saw even a vicar smoking around a school when talking to parents. I see teachers standing outside their school to smoke in their breaks, I see severely obese doctors and health professionals all the time, the list is endless.

I ask myself why do people do not want to live? The answer can only be they are deeply unhappy with themselves, their marriage, their jobs. Yet society pays for this unhappiness.

Yet when our relationships are about to break up we have a trial separation to get a breather. But in jobs for example people who continue to smoke do not get relieved of their duties, people who are very obese, do not get suspended until their body is back to shape. The Community Secretary Mr Pickles would be my first contender for a suspension and diet plan, so that he fits into his Porsche better.

Leaders must ask themselves why are there more and more who break the law, why are there many who do not want to live healthy? They must ask themselves whether society requires some kind of re-organisation so that people can live fulfilling lives.

God shows no mercy to those who do not want to follow his rules, that has been shown in history, we cannot turn around what has been made without severely affecting the chain of creation.

Of course unhealthy lifestyles cause cancer but paying more for cancer research doesn’t help those living unhealthy lifestyles to change their habits, it encourages them to carry on.  Yet threatening people’s jobs will help them to give up or end up where they perhaps subconsciously ought to be on the dole, street, wherever rotten habits lead them.

There are plenty of health conscious people on the dole these days.

I would go as far as to say that its those with unhealthy lifestyles who are in the important jobs, that are the ones who repress the rest of us into sinful and wasteful lifestyles, those are the ones that demand more taxes so that the results of their sick lifestyles can be healed, they are the ones that cause our society to creek under the burden of too much taxes.

Yet our current laws only punish those who fail the worldly legalities to do with administrative processes and robbing possessions or murder, those who fail to adhere to laws of decency and healthy living, those are the ones that never get punished, they get preferential health treatment instead.

Obama accommodates the church

Obama is a man who has been rumoured to support birth terminations, which are gruesome killings of babies who are about to be born by literally sucking out their brains at the moment they enter our world from the birth canal, he had been severely criticised for that prior to being elected.

But now he seems to have made a u-turn on abortions and this break-through is the first time that a western leader lately made concessions to religious concerns over conception and the right to abort and admits that there is a religious concerns over birth control.

Here in the UK political leaders want to make us all the same constantly and births of children are to be strictly rationed by harsh benefit controls. We are practically being forced into a situation where nobody can have more than 2.4 children whether working or not working.

Family size had been discussed previously a lot when those against abortion argued that many genius artists for example came from large poor families.

Here in the UK Cameron has abandoned his plans to force all single mothers to work 16 hours per week at least. I previously posted that it is impossible and not practicable to force employers to make 16 hour working slots available and now Cameron has changed it to at least 24 hours per week before one is entitled to working tax credits.

The churches have long objected to making contraception a general knowledge subject as it implies so much more than just the fact that an unwanted pregnancy is terminated. It includes the whole lifestyle of free sex for all and then get rid of the unwanted babies after. And I am glad that the Americans at least see sense.

The western world is very busy making those who do not work but do have children feel outsiders from the usual productive earners who live in wonderful families and earn lots of money and who can afford to have children as compared to those who just bring them up on benefits.

Ideally politicians want to make us all go to school, get a job or degree, then get married and have a family but there are so many stumbling blocks that prevent this from happening. Shortage of housing is one of them. There are now so many other laws, which allow same-sex relationships and forbid the discrimination against those who do not chose the heterosexual path.

I am glad that at lest a small step has been taken to defend those who do not wish to abort, regardless of employment status and that churches in the US are no longer required to provide birth control as part of their insurance package.

There is a distinct difference in he delivery of health insurance, if we compare the US to the UK. But the muddle that has been created by the latest UK NHS changes are incomprehensible for me. I just think that the German health model is quite good whereby you are always privately insured whether you are employed or not but if you are not employed the state pays your insurance contributions, which allows choice of doctor and gives equal treatment to all.

What bothers me here in the UK with the dual treatment of paying and non paying patients is that you actually pay cash at the doctor and the receptionist deal with paying and not paying patients whereby some have to pay and some have to sign when treated. In Germany that is not so because all patients get the same vouchers and give them to the doctor and they don’t see whether you pay or not so that there is no discrimination possible. It is all dealt with when the doctors then claim payment from the insurance companies and there is no money being exchanged at the time of treatment but the patients pay via their insurance companies and not directly.

It is often more than embarrassing here in the UK to stand next to a cash paying patient at the dentist when one just has to sign a piece of paper and that leads to discrimination of those who do not have to pay especially also as doctors can charge higher rates to private patients.

I am not quite sure how the American system works but here in the UK, we are in a bit of a muddle.

An important moment in history

We all remember from our school days, how teachers manage to make us remember those important dates in history because something had happened that turned it around. I think we have reached such a moment and Archbishop Dr. Sentamu, is sure to have a place in history books for daring to point out that the bible is not some type of subversive text but the book of god and in it is says, that marriage has to be between man and woman.

That of course is politically totally incorrect because recently established legislature from the European Court of Human Rights makes any discrimination between sexual orientations illegal. Will we be able to openly read the bible in future or will it become illegal to be a Christian, will we enter a phase of Christian persecution, along with Muslim persecution I may add, at least with those part of the Islam that also condemns homosexuality.

Dr Sentamu said in the Daily Telegraph:

“I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is.

“It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just (change it) overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

“We’ve seen dictators do it, by the way, in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.”

Very interesting, when we think of all those eras that ended like the Inkas, where people were publicly sacrificed to gods and slaughtered in the square. The Egyptians where the servants were buried alive with their rulers when they died. The Greeks and Romans who believed in all types of mythical creatures.

Christianity is quite old now, we live with it since 2000 years and society has gotten used to it and now somebody is having a change of heart and we all are supposed to follow and throw overboard what we thought is the right thing to do, what it says in the holy scriptures is the right thing to do and suddenly it is supposed to be wrong. Shock, shriek, horror.

But it is not only the Christian bible it is also Islam that preaches heterosexual marriage and nothing else.

Will the new laws now rule religious thinking illegal? What will happen with religion, will followers have to go underground and be afraid of detection?

Big problem is that the bible makes perfect sense and it does make perfect sense that a man and a woman make a child and raise it until adulthood. Of course some gay people say we can be equally good parents, but they could never make a child because it is not naturally possible. I just wonder what the law will come up with in that case, will the law try to overrule nature? Nature is a God given thing, and even if you do not belief in God, nature is the way things are and we cannot change the fundamental rule that it, for humans, that it needs a couple consisting of a man and a woman to create a child.

How can we condemn immoral lifestyles if we at the same time tolerate the bearing of children and then promote the adoption of children by others because the mother is unable to care for the child or there is no natural father who cares. If we do not worry about this, then we do not worry about it that a child needs a stable family to grow up in. We cannot expect stable families and at the same time advocate same sex adoption for example.

In the workplace, if we give jobs to childless people, then the people who do want to raise children and live in families are discriminated against because they cannot get the work to earn a living and only those who have no intention of getting married in a male and female marriage, will be able to earn enough to theoretically raise a family but just that they do not like to do it. If we look at the extreme, it is possible that all high paid jobs go to gay people and all low paid jobs to heterosexuals and then all the people who want to have kids cannot do so as they do not earn a lot.

We will eradicate the traditional large family with lots of kids and steer towards the Chinese model, where we see the one child per family only policy and that was thought to be Communist and unacceptable. But we do not even want to establish a one child per family rule just yet, we just want to restrict the income any benefit recipient can have, without defining that benefit recipient as to the status of children in the family. We are introducing child-restriction policies through the back door, making it unaffordable to have children for many heterosexual couples, whilst the non child producing individuals can get the work, earn the money but do not reproduce.

That of course is one way of reducing population numbers and of reducing population growth but is it ethical?

Jeremy Clarkson’s historic remarks

Just as I am watching the Queen’s birthday celebrations on TV and read in The Sun who has got which awards this year I eventually come across Jeremy Clarkson’s article in The Sun whereby he makes remarks about the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Having read first that many gotten jobs through the Sun’s employment fair, and being slightly disappointed not having gotten one myself, I wonder how anybody in employment can be as stern as Jeremy Clarkson. I think he is the epitome of British Freedom of Speech though it doesn’t surprise me that people tear down the fences around his estate.

I am starting to wonder whether there is some kind of revolution going on in British society because that the Archbishop of Canterbury tears into the government, who then retaliate against him and that a leading show personality then calls him a hypocrite, sinister, a communist, weird beard. I have read remarks like bearded lefte on Facebook yesterday and now assume that relates to Dr Williams. I thought I am wacky and outspoken but that definitely beats any contribution I ever made and I wonder what those lefties who always attack me make of something like Clarkson who drives all the cars the lefties always fancy driving but can’t.

Of course it is easy to whack me because I don’t even have a driving license but something as admirable as Clarkson, I don’t think the left can touch. I wonder whether the Queen has a chuckle when she reads that later on today or even gets told about the article.

I do of course agree to the comments about opening churches at night to give the homeless somewhere to sleep. It makes me think about the concept of charity a lot and whether churches could register as charities if they let the homeless sleep overnight and bolster their coffers with tax payer’s money.

My church has a big sign outside saying “This is not a Social Security Office”, so the concept of alms has gone far away from churches who want alms from the congregation instead of given them out to the needy. Well perhaps they give some parcels at Christmas time but that comes from the congregation as well.

PS: Just as well for Clarkson Eady J ruled that one cannot sue on religious grounds for defamation.

Revenge for Bin Laden’s death is threatened

I think whichever way Bin Laden would have been treated, either as prisoner or killed outright, there would always be a backlash of those wanting to revenge him. Captured prisoners evoke those who want to free them or do activities to obtain their release and dead warriors get their death revenged by their followers. I do not think that the US could avoid some kind of backlash from whatever they do.

The threat has already been made towards soft targets because president Obama is protected by an army. So what can we civilians do to protect ourselves? There is very little we can do against cowardly attacks at all. Al Qaeda has sunk so low as to even use child suicide bombers. I already get scared if I walk next to someone Asian with a rucksack. We should look out for danger where we expect it least I should say.

The best defence is to destroy the terrorist network. Obviously the call for revenge was made to individuals who may or may not wish to form their own terror group independently; that is how the organisation works. The point is to disturb any such groups and the police have had many successes through intelligence.

The biggest danger are individuals and a recent initiative of a county council to disturb those who rent out accommodation from unregistered dwellings, e.g. empty garages and out-buildings will reduce the risk of dangerous individuals being able to settle and plan attacks.

The question is how much material does a terror group really need to cause damage? We have been warned of large amounts of chemicals being stored but the 9/11 attack took us all by surprise as it was totally unpredicted and unexpected that something like that could happen. But the 9/11 bandits took example on existing software and violent fantasies are most often to be found on computer games.

One doesn’t expect them to terrorise our schools but that is a real possibility I would say. Disturbed white and western individual are also a real danger.  I think large cities, with dense population are in the biggest danger but then there are so many ways to terrorise an open country, that has many ways to travel and communicate the possibilities are endless. The only way to prevent damage is to carry out strict security rituals and not let up on them.

One of the biggest helps that can be given are shops and businesses that notice unusual sales or customers that concern them. The authorities should be more aware that monies can be transferred these days using internet businesses in that fake items are sold and then the monies being transferred using internet banking methods for goods that never change hands.

Of course in the past foreign government officials were targeted abroad. But knowing those cowardly Al Qaeda types they just want to cause damage to weak civilians, the most helpless, which is really against the Koran, especially the Surat al-Fajr, which is incidentally also the name of the Al Qaeda front organisation Al-Fajr. I quote from Wikipedia:

Sūrat al-Fajr (Arabic: سورة الفجر‎ Sūrat ul-Faǧr, The Dawn, Daybreak) is the 89th sura of the Qur’an with 30 ayat.

The sura describes destruction of disbelieving peoples, such as Ancient Egyptians and the people of Iram of the Pillars. It condemns those who love wealth and look with disdain upon the poor and orphans. Righteous people are promised Paradise – the final verse says “Enter thou My Heaven”.

I would like to emphasize the part of the part that says ….”and look with disdain upon the poor and orphans”. Because those Al Qaeda victims are often the poor not only in money terms but also poor in ability to defend themselves. And of course those indecisive attacks on all folks also endanger orphans as much as poor and other people.

The fact of the matter is, that the vast majority of people killed in Al Qaeda terror attacks are poor people. So Al Qaeda, you are just plain and simple terrorists, that carry out violence against poor people indiscriminately.

Attacks on Egyptian Christians

It sounds more than a reason to attack someone than a genuine problem when groups of people allege that someone is held against their will and attack a Christian church and congregation.

To look at this rationally, see the BBC history of events here. It does not need a crowd of people outside of a church to see if someone is held there against their will. It takes only a visit to the local police station and the filing of an official report and allow the police to investigate the matter. If a crowd embarks upon a church and sets it alight then they have set out to do this in the first place and any reason for that attack to progress is simply that, a reason.

Nobody has the right to interrupt the religious ceremony of another religion. It remains to be seen whether those military trials are going to be objective or just another way of asserting Islam in Egypt that has seen many troubles since President Mubarak fell. However the promise that all property damaged and places of worship damaged will also be restored to its original condition is a good one as this ensures that all Christian church damages will be made good.

The Egyptian government must do more to prevent such outbreaks of attacks on Christians and if necessary place extra police patrols near Christian churches to observe the situation and deploy immediate law enforcement if trouble flares up. There are also measures available that forbid the congregating. Because that was a protest or demonstration the Salafi should  have had to apply for a licence to hold that protest.

Obviously it will be interesting to see the developments in whether the new Egyptian government has any real intention to allow the free exercising of the Christian faith in Egypt or whether such incidents are being ignored or played down by allowing this to continue.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits