Abortion contravenes the very values our society cherishes most

This Friday marks fifty years since the abortion act. During that time 8.7 million abortions have taken place within the UK – around 200,000 a year. To get some perspective, if all those babies had lived, that’s the equivalent to the combined population of Scotland and Wales.

Of course whether or not a woman can have an abortion is deeply significant for her. It’s her future that will be impacted if a baby is born. The choice to abort is therefore seen as critical to gender equality – to the woman maintaining her rights over her own body and her freedom to fulfil her potential. Moreover, if she is unable to have an abortion legally, she may seek out an illegal and potential dangerous one.

But when one considers it, this defence of abortion is filled with tragic irony.

Abortion undermines equality.
It is profoundly discriminatory. Many still baulk at the sex-selective abortion, but you cannot consistently deny the woman’s right to abort according to the gender of the child if you have just affirmed her rights over her body and her freedom to fulfil her potential as she wishes. Yet sex-selective abortion usually is one that discriminates against girls and so against women.

However, abortion doesn’t only discriminate according to gender. Abortion discriminates against those with disability, downs syndrome and even a cleft palate, as babies with these conditions are aborted and so unable to contribute to society.

Abortion breaches rights.
A free society is one that always has to balance what it calls "rights," with some curtailed so that others are upheld. Yet abortion is deeply individualistic, disregarding the communal aspects of having children. The rights of wider society to benefit from the child even if he or she suffers from a disability is rarely considered. But many have experienced how enriching it can be to learn how to accept and care for those who struggle because of disability. And what of the rights of wider family to the child that has been conceived?

Of course the major right to be considered is the right of the baby itself - it’s right to life and to protection from harm. It is not simply a part of the women’s body. Whether one is ready to accept the foetus as a person or not, it is certainly an individual entity being readied for independent life and personhood. From conception it has its full 46 chromosomes and entire genetic makeup. Its sex is therefore determined, as is its future growth to some extent. The mother may not want a baby, and the pregnancy may even have arisen from abuse, but the fact is that from the beginning this developing individual is at his or her most vulnerable, entirely dependent on the mother for protection. There is nothing “pro-women” in a woman’s choice to abort such dependents. Pregnancy brings responsibility. And where a mother chooses to continue the pregnancy despite the potential harm or difficulty it might bring her, she is doing something extremely noble. To love is to give up one’s rights for the good of others, especially those in need.

Abortion does harm.
One in three women will have an abortion during their lifetime. Yet many who have, speak of profound regret, guilt and despair at what they’ve done. We might also consider the harm the acceptance of abortion does to our cultural mindset – to how we view children or life, and to how it encourages sexual promiscuity with all the psychological and emotional fallout that can accompany it. But the greatest harm is surely done to the babies themselves. By eight weeks they can respond to touch, implying sensitivity and possibly pain. At twenty weeks they can experience pain more intensely than adults as their pain system is established but its modifying component isn’t. It is in the light of this that we must consider how exactly abortions are carried out.

Medication is used for those early in pregnancy. Pills are taken to end the life of the baby and cause the uterus to expel it. However, 90% of abortions of up to twelve weeks into the pregnancy are not conducted in this way. Rather, they involve a suction tube that may be used to first kill and dismember the baby, before sucking its various parts out for disposal. And what of the 42,000 babies aborted each year after twelve weeks? They can’t come out as easily, and so have to be crushed to death and broken apart with medical tools in order to be extracted. If still later in the pregnancy, contractions have to be induced to expel the baby which will either die in the process or be given a drug to ensure it does. Sometimes it is extracted by surgery.

Pro-abortion websites sanitise all this. They speak of the “pregnancy” being removed not the “baby,” and with little detail about what that involves. But the facts speak for themselves. Abortion wreaks great harm at every level.

A better way.
Debates will no doubt continue as to the appropriateness of abortion when the mother’s life is in danger or the baby could end up severely handicapped. These are currently the only legal grounds for abortion beyond 24 weeks in the UK, although there is much controversy over how these requirements are interpreted. Nevertheless, the vast majority of abortions are not carried out for those reasons. And so even before one considers biblical wisdom on specific cases, we can see that abortion in general is harmful, discriminatory and oppressive.

The sexual revolution is not delivering on its promises. Unrestrained sexual freedom is leading us down a dark path. We need a better way. We need to acknowledge that the inconsistency of our society over abortion reveals just how wanting the secular worldview is. If God is removed and the individual is the final arbiter of right and wrong, there is no ultimate restraint on the strong over the weak. And whilst the strong may self-righteously affirm their opposition to inequality, oppression and the denial of rights, they are quite prepared to turn a blind eye to such things when their personal comfort and freedom is in jeopardy.

Jesus displayed real outrage at this sort of hypocrisy, at those who thought themselves moral whilst trampling on the weak. And the apostle Paul's words are particularly apt: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” (Romans 2v1).

This is serious indeed. Though state-sponsored and generally accepted, abortion is something our society’s own standards judge is wrong. Yet it could be argued that there is more legal protection and anger over the destruction of property and wildflowers in our culture than there is over this mass destruction of human life.

One cannot but think that history will judge our generation terribly for its complacency over abortion. But we must remember the greater judge, turning to him in Christ for his mercy.

_____

[ This article has not been written to address the sensitivities surrounding abortion. If you have had an abortion or been party to one, please be assured that if you seek God’s forgiveness in Christ you have it – and with it peace and healing with respect to the past. Know too that within his church you will find welcome, acceptance and support as you seek to live the new life he calls us into. ]

Read More

Ten Reflections on BREXIT

Obviously the issues are highly complex - and we should guard against being armchair experts. My knowledge of politics and economics is extremely limited, but as a minister I do have responsibility to try to bring some more biblical reflection. So, for what they're worth, these are some of my thoughts.

(1) Where people live, and the nature of nations that result, is fluid and determined ultimately by God. Strikingly, a reason Paul gives for this is the access it gives people to God through the gospel (Acts 17v26-27). So we should reject any hard nationalism that simply wants to maintain the status quo or return to some past era. There is much to learn from and maintain from British history, but it has always developed through the influx of immigrants and its relationship to Europe. Our heritage is important, and we should call those with that heritage to re-embrace Christ as we should call everyone to him. We should also seek to bring Biblical truth to bear on our culture and government. But today's UK is a temporary entity as all nations are. And as its population becomes more diverse and its influence expanded within the EU, rather than battening down the hatches to protect what vestiges of Christianity remain, a missionary heart sees a God-given opportunity to impact more peoples and nations for Christ - just as the Roman Empire benefited the spread of the early church. This is a significant argument for remaining in, and although it may have some negative consequences in tolerating the EU’s faults, prioritising mission always has its costs. Having said this, although exit will lessen missionary opportunity, in our global village much would still remain.

(2) God's original and ultimate intent for humanity was to fill the world under the one government of the Lord Jesus. There is therefore no a priori reason for rejecting closer union. Indeed, one might say that just as a more Christianized nation would seek to better conform its laws to this universal rule of Christ, so it would seek to conform its structures in greater unity with other nations. Any vote to exit should not therefore be seen as a vote to essentially withdraw from Europe, but a vote to redefine the terms of our relationship.

(3) Sin has, however, corrupted this ultimate intent, causing humanity to unite in doing evil, whether self-glorifying and idolatrous projects as at Babel (Gen 11v1-9) or self-serving and hostile alliances as against Abraham (Gen 14). This should make us especially nervous of trans-national politics. God explicitly confused language so that humanity would scatter and be limited in the evil they could do, whereas the EU would seem to undermine this. Striking too is how the Bible ends with God judging the city of “Babylon.” She is considered great because of her wealth and trade, which cast a sort of spell over the rulers of the nations who trade with her. Wanting to benefit from her prosperity, they are drawn to share in her idolatry, sin and persecution of God’s people. And it is at this point that God calls his people to “come out” from her, so they are rescued from the humiliation and destruction God is about to bring (Rev 18). To simply equate the EU with Babylon would be a naïve and simplistic interpretation of the Bible. She represents wicked society in the service of Satan just as Jerusalem in the book represents the church in service of Christ. One could actually argue that the UK displays her traits in how it leads other nations to share its secular humanism and redefined morality. However, Revelation 18 surely warns us against allowing a desire for prosperity through trade to place us under the influence of others. Indeed, I can think of nowhere in scripture that the uniting of different nations is actually encouraged, but for in the gospel itself. Rather, what is commended is the principle of rejecting powerful alliances in order to do what is right even if one stands alone. Israel were to trust God and not compromise with surrounding nations for the sake of a security or prosperity that they should have looked to God to give. Each nation is responsible for shaping its own life before God and placing that before other concerns. And if a political union of nations leads to oppression, independence means a nation can provide sanctuary for those fleeing it. To my mind all this is a significant argument for exit, but makes it a step of faith in God to protect and provide. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that in already being part of the EU we should leave at this point. There is a biblical principle of remaining as one is until one has to change (1 Cor 7v17-20). The utopian vision of the EU is idolatrous, but so is the presumption of the UK government in redefining morality. If idolatrous or self-serving government required Christians to withdraw from involvement, Joseph would never have served in Egypt nor Daniel in the original Babylon.

(4) The British heritage of democratically accountable and limited government is, however, one of proved wisdom in checking these tendencies and flows from the democratic governance of ancient Israel. Sin means that no-one is entirely trustworthy to govern, and especially those who lack biblical wisdom or the renewing work of the Holy Spirit. Democracy should therefore be a key concern in the EU, and is I think the biggest reason to leave. More than anything else it enables us to check bad policy, change legislation or oust leaders, and so better ensure our own government fulfils the role God has granted it – something that is to some extent beyond our control whilst we belong to the EU. Influencing laws on the environment, trade and industry is one thing. But the EU also has some influence in areas of criminal justice, which is the sphere God is most concerned aligns with his will as to what is truly good and evil. However, I do feel claims that the EU is undemocratic have been overstated. What they express is the limit of having to agree EU policy with the democratically elected leaders of other countries. The council that comprises these leaders agrees the direction for the EU. And laws drafted by commissioners are only agreed after negotiation with this council and the elected European parliament. Because of Britain’s size and economy, alongside France, Germany and Italy, we have the greatest influence on the council with a substantial 29 of the 352 votes (compared to Malta’s 3 for example). Moreover, if EU laws were passed that were considered wholly unacceptable in Britain, our parliament could still refuse to adopt them. The reality is that by remaining we could at least keep a concern for democracy to the fore as a particularly British contribution to the EU. We could also maintain our influence over its direction, which would continue to affect us if we withdrew but wanted to keep trading with it. The alternative is to be a small independent nation on the edge of an overbearing EU without such a democratic conscience. What is clear is that any vote to remain should not be an acceptance of the EU's tendency towards centralization and integration, nor any lack of accountability and proneness to corruption.

(5) Trans-national political bodies can, however, be used for good or evil, as with the varied experiences of Judah under the Persian Empire recorded in Ezra-Nehemiah. Ultimately it is God who governs this. And in our day there could be benefits to the EU providing a check on the rapidly secularising UK, as nations with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox influence add to the EU mix. Romans 13v1 should lead us to see God's providential hand in this, causing us to consider whether he intends it for our benefit. However, we should not be naive. The EU’s constitution acknowledges Europe’s “cultural, religious and humanist” heritage, but glaringly omits the huge influence of Christianity. And its member states include those of numerous worldviews, including Islam and communism. Moreover, the EU has already shown itself ready to curtail freedom of speech and reject a commissioner because of his Christian views on sexuality. If an overtly secular consensus was gained within the EU, it could become very oppressive. At such a time exit would be essential, but it doesn't follow that we should exit now in anticipation of it. Only God knows the future, and he’s the one who determines it.

(6) The Persian attitude to the nation of Judah depended much on who was king, displaying how rule by a few is more prone to descend into tyranny than rule by many. This argues for the slow check of coalition government in more godless societies, and implies that the snail’s pace of change within the EU because of its many members could provide a check against localized tyranny where one party usually dominates as in the UK. It also means that a consensus that could oppress Christians is unlikely to form within the EU as it stands. Indeed, the idea of ever-closer political union itself seems rather a pipe-dream when considering the increasing and diverse member nations involved.

(7) Believers exiled in this world are to seek the prosperity and peace of where they live, and reject a rebellious hostility to the ungodly culture they live in (Jer 29v4-9). The focus is on the city in Jeremiah 29 because it was the geographical unit one benefited from. But the principle applies more broadly in justifying a concern for prosperity and peace if one can ascertain what would most promote it. Although there has been huge exaggeration on both sides of the debate, the consensus on these particular issues seems to be for remaining in - and not just for the benefits this would bring the UK, but the benefits our remaining in can bring to other nations. I find this the most significant argument for remaining in the EU for the Christian. We should not be driven by the self-centeredness that has marked so many of the arguments we’ve been hearing, but display a concern for others. And the principle of faithfulness should give us pause before withdrawing from a commitment we currently have to other nations. There is of course worry about the impact on our peace from the influx of Muslims and those not sharing our values. But none are advocating keeping out people on the basis of their faith or culture. Indeed, Muslims come from all over the world, whilst many European immigrants have a latent Christian worldview. One issue with regard to prosperity, however, is the impact of the EU's tariffs on those in the developing world outside the EU. These would seem to be unjust and unjustifiable. There is something deeply distasteful about favouring the European club when one considers the poverty elsewhere.

(8) God seems more concerned in scripture with the role of government than its form. Christians should therefore hold a particular concern for promoting government what will best punish evil, commend good, and enable them to live out and share their faith in peace (Rom 13v3-5, 1 Tim 2v1-4). My understanding is that there are significant concerns here about the compatibility of the EU and British legal systems, and the authority the EU has to override British laws. However we should not idealize British culture which is deeply broken and immoral. The influence of more conservative countries in Europe may actually provide a check to liberal humanist tendencies in the UK and their increasing expression in our legal system. Moreover, there could be real benefits for the influence of the gospel on our society's values from the sort of cultural mix resulting from European immigration and involvement. Churches report a much greater openness to Christ amongst immigrants. And the freedom of travel can only aid the spread of the gospel within Europe.

(9) Immigration is a key issue in the debate. It is mentioned throughout the Bible, enabling God's people to gain their land, but also leading to their corruption from others. It cannot be resisted on the grounds of owning any country as God is the one who determines where people live. Indeed, we are encouraged to welcome and care for the stranger. Nor can immigration be resisted because it might corrupt. England is not called to maintain its purity by exclusion in the way Israel was as God’s chosen nation. Rather, the primary reasons for prohibiting immigration would seem to be to protect prosperity and peace or the wellbeing of the weak and needy. Here we might support the idea of open borders so those in real need might face less barriers in seeking the help they need, whilst questioning a policy that gives preference to European immigrants over those from elsewhere. In particular this has led to it being harder for church leaders or missionaries from outside the EU to come here to train or serve. Against supporting such easy immigration is the fact that it drives down wages, drives up house prices, and puts pressure on infrastructure - all of which causes our country's poor to suffer and social strife to result. Unlimited immigration cannot therefore be supported. But these problems could and should be lessened by using the increase in taxes immigrants bring to ensure wages are sufficient and infrastructure is developed. Moreover, the Christian should at least be ready in principle to share the good God has blessed our nation with, and even if that means things aren't quite as good as they once were for us. However, the immigration issue is not, to my mind, critical for deciding the referendum. Any trade relationship that is maintained with the EU is likely to require the free movement of peoples. And even if not, immigration would continue to some extent from inside and outside the EU. Moreover, inside the EU, we can already reduce those coming from other continents if we really want to. We should also consider that as the EU itself benefits eastern European countries, migration to England may become less attractive. And it could be argued that as more scantly populated parts of the country increase in their population through immigration, so their quality of life could increase too. The problems of immigration are felt quickly. Its benefits take longer to become evident.

(10) Given all the above we must end noting how consistently God in scripture urges the wise to heed good advice. "Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed" (Prov 15v22). "For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers" (Prov 11v14). "The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice" (Prof 12v15). It is possible the majority of politicians, business leaders and economists who favour remaining in are blinkered and self-serving. But scripture would urge us to great caution in rejecting what they have to say. At the very least, it encourages us not to make a decision on the basis of instinct, but because we have properly considered the arguments of such "advisers" on both sides of the debate.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the question of in or out is between how “in” might benefit prosperity and peace and how “out” would uphold sovereignty and democracy. Staying in is a more pragmatic choice and would almost certainly benefit the UK and the gospel more in the foreseeable future. Coming out is a more principled choice, but less certain in its benefits, which would be to protect us in the long term against possible bad lawmaking and government from the EU.

Read More

The rise of Christophopbia

What about the basic rights of Christians?

Ann WIDDECOMBE
12 July 2006
The Daily Express
(c) 2006 Express Newspapers

IT IS supposed to be a crime to stir up religious hatred but the Gay Police Association either doesn't know this or doesn't care. It has recently run an advertising campaign for which it is difficult to find any description other than Christophobia.

There is a picture of the Bible and the headline is: In The Name Of The Father. It then goes on to claim that in the past 12 months, the Gay Police Association has recorded a 74 per cent increase in homophobic incidents, where the sole or primary motivating factor was the religious belief of the perpetrator.

It would be interesting to know the nature of the homophobic incidents. Christianity specifically forbids hatred, not just acts of hatred or expressions of hatred but the feeling itself. No Christian can abuse or assault a homosexual "in the name of the Father". Yet, by choosing that very famous line of Christian worship the advertisement suggests that Christianity almost uniquely is responsible for hate crime.

Can anyone imagine the Koran rather than the Bible being featured? Yet the teaching of both faiths (and, indeed, others) is against homosexual acts. Why pick on Christianity?

Perhaps this increase in "homophobic incidents" includes the response of Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, to an interviewer's question about the Muslim view of the issue.

Or the opinions of Lynette Burrows, the respected children's author, who said she did not believe the adoption of children by gay couples to be normally advisable. Or the action of a Christian couple from Lancashire who asked their local council if they could display Christian literature in register offices carrying out civil partnership ceremonies.

The reason I cite these three cases is that we know the police became involved in all of them but none of them would fulfil a reasonable person's view of the definition of abuse or assault.

What we are now faced with is not equality but a hierarchy of equalities.

When any human right comes up against homosexual rights the latter must always win.

The human right to express a religious or conscientious view or to hear religious teaching must give way to a homosexual's right never to feel offended. There is a set of proposed regulations, coming before Parliament in the autumn, which takes this to extremes. It will almost certainly be railroaded through.

Under its provisions someone who supplies bed and breakfast in his own home will be able to refuse a double room to an unmarried heterosexual couple but not to a homosexual couple.

A church will not be able to refuse to hire out its own hall for civil partnership celebrations. You can bet your last penny that it will be Christians rather than other faiths who will be picked on for test cases.

What, other than Christophobia, determines that Christmas must be renamed? That Christmas lights must be called festival lights? That nativity displays must be forbidden?

That hot cross buns are banned from some schools? That it is acceptable to mock Christ in shows such as Jerry Springer – The Opera in a way that would cause riots if done to the Prophet Mohammed? That inspired this Government, which made such a parade of Christian socialism before 1997, to try to eliminate prayers from the millennium celebrations?

It is an offshoot of exactly the same political correctness which allows an artist to be seen eating a foetus on television but imprisons an octogenarian for circulating pictures of aborted foetuses.

And the same PC madness which forbids teachers to dispense aspirins or Elastoplast but encourages them to refer underage girls for abortions unbeknown to their parents.

Hitherto, Christians have fought with argument and protest and the powers that be, including government, the BBC and police, have brushed us off.

The time has come to use the very weapons which have been so successfully used against us.

We should complain formally of hate crimes and the stirring up of religious hatred and demand our human rights to religious freedom and to freedom of conscience.

The Gay Police Association advert might be a very good place to start.

Read More

Christianity becoming a hate crime

How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime

by Melanie Phillips
THE DAILY MAIL
9/11/2006

How long will it be before Christianity becomes illegal in Britain? This is no longer the utterly absurd and offensive question that on first blush it would appear to be.

An evangelical Christian campaigner, Stephen Green was arrested and charged last weekend with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

So what was this behaviour? Merely trying peacefully to hand out leaflets at a gay rally in Cardiff.

So what was printed on those leaflets that was so threatening, abusive or insulting that it attracted the full force of the law?

Why, none other than the majestic words of the 1611 King James Bible.

The problem was that they were those bits of the Bible which forbid homosexuality. The leaflets also urged homosexuals to "turn from your sins and you will be saved".

But to the secular priests of the human rights culture, the only sin is to say that homosexuality is a sin.

Admittedly, Mr Green is not everyone's cup of tea; other Christians regard him as extreme. But our society is now so upside-down that, by doing nothing more than upholding a fundamental tenet of Christianity, he was treated like a criminal.

And yet at the same time, the police are still studiously refusing to act against Islamic zealots abusing British freedom to preach hatred and incitement against the West.

Prejudice

The Bible is the moral code that underpins our civilisation. Yet the logic of the police action against Mr Green surely leads ultimately to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible itself is "hate speech" and must be banned.

This bizarre state of affairs has arisen thanks to our human rights culture which automatically champions minorities against the majority.

As a result, no one can say anything disobliging about a minority without being accused of prejudice or discrimination.

The problem for Christianity is that it holds that homosexuality is wrong. This, however, it is no longer allowed to say because it treats a minority practice as sinful.

So it can no longer uphold a central tenet of its own faith without being accused of prejudice.

This dilemma is currently tearing apart the Church of England itself. But it is also turning our whole notion of justice on its head.

Author Lynette Burrows received a warning from the Metropolitan Police merely for suggesting that gay people did not make ideal adoptive parents.

The former leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, also had his collar felt by police after he said that homosexuality was harmful.

Notably, in his case the matter was swiftly dropped. If there's one thing that terrifies our PC police even more than being called homophobic, it's being called Islamophobic - even though Islamic fundamentalism poses a real threat to the human rights of gay people.

If this wasn't all so frightening, it would be hilarious. Christians, by contrast, get very different treatment.

An elderly evangelical preacher, Harry Hammond, was convicted of a public order offence after he held up a poster calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and immorality.

Although he had been the victim of a physical attack when a crowd poured soil and water over him, he alone was prosecuted.

And Lancashire pensioners Joe and Helen Roberts were interrogated by police for 80 minutes about their 'homophobic' views after they had merely asked their local council to display Christian literature alongside gay rights leaflets in civic buildings.

Bullying Christianity is fast becoming the creed that dare not speak its name. It is being written out of the national script by ideologues seeking to hasten its disappearance.

Yesterday, the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said in a radio interview that Britain was "no longer a Christian country" because people no longer went to church.

Local authorities and government bodies are systematically bullying Christianity out of existence by refusing to fund Christian voluntary groups on the grounds that to be Christian means that they are not committed to 'diversity'.

Thus local and central government refused to replicate the vocational training provided by the Highfields Happy Hens Centre in Derbyshire for young offenders and pupils excluded from school despite its impressive record of success, simply because it was run with a clear Christian ethos.

Norfolk council objected to the inclusion of the word 'Christian' in the constitution of Barnabas House in King's Lynn, Norfolk, which houses homeless young men.

And the Housing Corporation, the major funder of Romford YMCA in Essex which looks after hundreds of needy young people, objected to the fact that only Christians were board members - which meant, it said, that the YMCA was not capable of 'diversity', even though it was open to all faiths and none.

The 'diversity' agenda, in other words, is a fig-leaf for an attack on Christianity.

And to cap it all, we can no longer rely on our future monarch to hold the line, since Prince Charles has said that when he becomes King he will no longer be Defender of the Faith but "defender of faith".

But Christianity is still the official religion of this country. All its institutions, its history and its culture are suffused with it; Britain would lose its identity, its values and its cohesion without it.

But minority rights are now being wielded against it like a wrecking ball.

What started as a commendable desire to ban hatred of the gay minority has morphed into a hatred of the Christian majority.

Behaviour which was previously considered to transgress the moral norms of the Bible has now instead become the norm - and it is biblical values that are treated as beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour. This is no accident.

The sacred doctrine of human rights - which explicitly sets itself up as the religion for a godless age - is the means by which secularism is steadily attacking the Christian roots of our civilisation, on the basis that religion is inherently unenlightened, prejudiced and divisive.

Christianity has been dethroned as this country's governing creed on the basis that equality demands equal status for minority faiths and secularism. As a result, it is being marginalised as no more than a quaint cultural curiosity.

Offensive

It is a process before which the Church of England has long been on its knees, going with the flow of moral and cultural collapse in accordance with the doctrine of multiculturalism - and then wondering why its churches are so empty, while those of uncompromising evangelicals such as Stephen Green are packed to the rafters.

As a result, Christianity is being steadily removed from the public sphere.

Various councils have banned Christmas on the grounds that it is "too Christian" and therefore "offensive" to people of other faiths, and are replacing it with meaningless "winter festivals".

This attack on Christianity is not merely something that seems straight out of Alice In Wonderland.

It is not merely a threat to freedom of speech and religious expression. It is a fundamental onslaught on the national identity and bedrock values of this country - and as such will destroy those freedoms which Christianity itself first created.

Read More