No genocide, says Britain

In Iraq, Christians, who totalled 1.4 million, are down to about 30,000. In Syria, where there were 1.25 million Christians, figures are down to about 500,000. 

Pictures may no longer appear regularly in the newspapers, who have other themes to take their interest. But the rape and the butchery at the hands of ISIS continue. Even children are crucified and beheaded. One Iraqi Christian woman reported last week how she saw her husband crucified on their front door.

Last month the European Union decided unanimously that the persecution of Christians by ISIS in Syria was genocide - an attempt to exterminate an entire group of people. Two weeks ago the US House of Representatives voted by 393 to nil to call on the Obama administration to declare ISIS guilty of genocide.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has described ISIS actions as genocide. (Although  President Obama has not yet managed to do the same.)

A UN decision that ISIS activities constituted genocide would demand action from signatories to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and require prosecution of perpetrators when hostilities were over.

Last week Lord David Alton proposed an amendment to the Immigration Bill in the House of Lords which would have led to a High Court ruling on whether ISIS' actions amounted to genocide. The decision would have had implications on priority for asylum seekers.

The Lords voted against the amendment 148 to 111. The Government is said to have imposed a whip on Conservative peers to vote against the amendment. Lord Carlile described Labour's refusal to support the amendment as "supine" and "chickening out." 

"Surely parliaments such as this should recognise the suffering of victims of genocide, and not merely by wringing our hands with rhetoric about those victims. Where else have they to turn to if not to parliaments and governments such as ours?"

Many of the Lords were said to be furious over lack of support for the amendment. 

Lord Alton said  "This was a day when Britain neither salved its conscience or offered practical help, but chose to look the other way. When historians come to consider the lamentable failure of both Parliament and Government to speak and act they will surely conclude that we failed to recognise the crime above all crimes."

A Home Office spokesman said the amendment would have created a dangerous loophole. The presumption of status could have made it more difficult to exclude those that were a threat to our communities.

Pray for Christians who are still suffering in the Middle East. Please sign Barnabas Fund's petition for the genocide of Christians and other minorities in Syria and Iraq to be recognised. You will find it here.    
        

Few answers as chaos increases

A fair number of European countries closed their borders yesterday as Europe's "open borders" policy collapsed under the weight of thousands of migrants. Politicians warned that millions are set to follow them.

Political leaders appear to be saying what they find politically acceptable. British Prime Minister David Cameron was saying that Britain had enough immigrants. Then Britons were moved by a photograph of a dead Syrian child lying in the surf. He announced that Britain would take 20,000 immigrants over a period of five years.

Giles Fraser says we should take them all. Dig up the green belt, create new cities, turn Downton Abbeys into flats and church halls into temporary dormitories. Peter Hitchens says we can't do what we like with the country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents, and have a duty to pass it on to our children and grandchildren. We can't just give it away to complete strangers because it makes us feel good.

Serbian police say 90 per cent of the migrants say they are Syrian, but they have no documents to prove it. Discarded documents are found in bushes yards from the border. While many have suffered the ravages of war, a good proportion are believed to be economic migrants, fleeing not war, but poverty, attracted by talk of free housing, welfare benefits and a better standard of living. Almost all are Muslim. No one knows how many of them are fanatical Islamists.

One commentator says political Islam is the cause of their problems, and it is unfair to blame the West or to project themselves on to the West. Another has a good idea: let those fleeing war in Syria migrate to Muslim countries around them, and leave Europe with its Christian heritage. There is one problem with that. Oil-rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain refuse to accept any migrants.

So chaos increases as the world gets darker.

A Christian minister used to say that one of the things that kept him going was the sure knowledge that he belonged to an unshakeable kingdom. Since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, says Hebrews, let us have grace by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.

Kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall. But there's something to hold on to.
       

Christian? 'Intolerant, superstitious and backward'

Christians are the sort of people who built our civilisation, founded our democracies, developed our modern ideas of rights and justice, ended slavery, established universal education and who are now in the forefront of the fight against poverty, prejudice and ignorance.

Yet Christians have been swamped with such a tidal wave of prejudice and negativity that to call yourself a Christian in contemporary Britain is to declare yourself intolerant, naive, superstitious and backward. And invite pity, condescension or cool dismissal.

So says former Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove.

How did it come to this?

"The contrast between the Christianity I see our culture belittle nightly and the Christianity I see our country benefit from daily could not be greater," writes Gove in the Spectator.

"The reality of Christian mission in today's churches is a story of thousands of quiet kindnesses. In many of our most disadvantaged communities it is the churches that provide warmth, food, friendship and support for individuals who have fallen on the worst of times. The homeless, those in the grip of alcoholism or drug addiction, individuals with undiagnosed mental health problems and those overwhelmed by multiple crises are all helped - in innumerable ways - by Christians.

"Churches provide debt counselling, marriage guidance, childcare, English language lessons, after-school clubs, food banks, emergency accommodation and sometimes most importantly of all, someone to listen. . .

"Belief in the unique and valuable nature of every individual should make us angry at oppression, at the racism which divides and the prejudice which demeans humanity. And it was deep, radical Christian faith which inspired many of our greatest political heroes - Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, Lincoln, Gladstone, Pope John Paul II and Martin Luther King. There should be nothing to be ashamed of in finding their example inspirational, the words and beliefs that moved them beautiful and true."

Parliament may have its share of black sheep. But thank God, say I, for someone who is a Christian and is not afraid to say so.
     

A remarkable change of opinion

Fiona Bruce, a former lawyer, entered the House of Commons as a Conservative MP in 2010. She is pro-life. In November last year she proposed abortion law should be clarified to make it clear that abortion purely on the ground of the child's sex is illegal.

The Abortion Act did not specify this, because scans to determine sex were not available when the law was passed. The Government insisted that sex-selective abortions were illegal, but the British Medical Association and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service said such abortions were sometimes justified. Sex-selective abortions were happening.

Ms Bruce's bill was passed by 181 votes to 1. Quite a majority. The BBC said it was unlikely to become law because of a lack of time.

On February 23 this year, Ms Bruce proposed the measure as an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill. The amendment was defeated by 292 votes to 201. A review of sex-selective abortion was agreed on instead.

What happened in the meantime?

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper wrote to Labour MPs saying new legislation was not needed, and attempts to outlaw abortion on grounds of gender could have "troubling consequences."

Labour MP Robert Fiello said "It is concerning that an amendment that clarified what should be the law anyway is meeting with such vehement opposition. The reasons they have given are scaremongering nonsense."

 "Given how modest the amendment was, the sudden defeat was very strange indeed," wrote Dr Tim Stanley in the Telegraph. A number of charges had been made by MPs against the amendment that were based on either misunderstandings or outright falsehoods. "On the day of the vote, according to sources present, Ms Cooper stood by the entrance to the lobby telling MPs that 'We are voting no on this one.'"

Her office claimed she had not said this, but confirmed that she was strongly opposed to the amendment, and also favours putting "buffer zones" around clinics to stop people protesting outside them. (A campaign named "Back Off" has been organised to prevent people offering help to women approaching clinics. Not all women want abortions. Some do not see any other option.)

In the two weeks since the vote, I have pondered the change of mind. The abortion lobby generally favours abortion at any time for any reason. I am forced to the opinion that those in favour of abortion consider any attempt to change the law an attack on their efforts to achieve that goal. .
       

Believe me, marriage is worth it

The Marriage Foundation has produced a 2015 election manifesto for all political parties.

(The Marriage Foundation is a UK-based think tank established by Sir Paul Coleridge, then a High Court judge, to champion long-lasting stable marriage relationships and help children by reducing marriage break-up.

Says Sir Paul: "Despite the glossy magazine image of a so-called happy marriage, it does not fall from the sky ready made on to beautiful people in white linen suits. It is hewn out of the rock of human stubbornness and selfishness with cold chisels, and day by day, over the lifetime of the relationship, it involves endless hard work, compromise, forgiveness and love. It is often held together with string and rusty nails but it is, in the end, beautiful and, like everything which is really worthwhile, is worth the investment.")

The manifesto says family breakdown lies at the heart of most of society's social problems, and all political parties should unequivocally support marriage and families. Skills can be learned, support provided, ignorance dispelled and responsibility encouraged.

It suggests five policies which are urgently needed:

A cabinet-level minister for families and family breakdown should be provided.

 A tax and benefits system that supports marriage should be introduced. Britain is almost alone in failing significantly to reward couples who stay together.

Relationships education for both children and adults should be funded and promoted.

Family law should be modernised. The next Government should completely overhaul laws relating to divorce and financial arrangements.

Marriage should be unashamedly championed as the gold standard for all, and entrenched myths, like "marriage is just a piece of paper" and "cohabitation is as stable as marriage" should be eradicated.

Harry Benson, founder of Bristol Community Family Trust and research director of the Marriage Foundation, has it all worked out.

He says that the new tax marriage allowance has finally come into force two months before the end of a five-year Government. The Prime Minister has been very vocal in his support for marriage. Our politicians should be shouting out about this new policy from the housetops.

"But they are not. That deafening silence you hear is the sound of embarrassment about the feebleness of a policy they know is a belated and half-hearted attempt to fulfil a long-standing pledge. . . 

"The scale of the problem is breathtaking. Nearly half of all our teenagers are not living with both natural parents. Picking up the pieces now costs the taxpayer £47 billion per year. That's more than the defence budget, half of the education budget, and up £1 billion on the previous year.

"We desperately need a political consensus that backs marriage without reservation. In order to avoid being in any way judgmental or dogmatic, it must be based on evidence. Successful marriages are the norm. Success outside of marriage is the exception.

"All of the main party leaders are married. They know it's important for them personally. And yet for some of them - no prizes for guessing Nick Clegg - supporting marriage remains 'patronising drivel that belongs to the Edwardian era.'"

The marriage allowance, Benson says, will affect only a quarter of married couples, who will be only £4 a week better off. Any family on low to mid income is receiving tax credits - which means that couples with one child can be up to £7,295 better off apart - or pretending to live apart - up to £9,417 better off if they have two children, and up to £11,059 better off if they have three.

I applaud the Marriage Foundation for their principles. I agree with Harry Benson's remarks quoted above. If I may add a word of advice of my own: Don't let financial differences worry you. Marriage is worth it.
    

A 'to-the-death' struggle?

Israel goes to the polls to vote for Israel's parliament, the Knesset, on March 17. One of the big questions is whether Benjamin Netanyahu will be elected for a further term as Prime Minister. Many believe he is God's man for the job; others believe he will be unsuccessful. But all his opponents are not Israelis.

US President Obama has been widely criticised for all the apologies he makes for Islam, the criticisms he makes of Christianity, the fact that he has no time for the Israeli administration, and the fact that he has no time whatsoever for Benjamin Netanyahu.

They are known to disagree over one major issue. Iran is going to have nuclear bombs, and it has sworn to destroy Israel. Obama is negotiating with Iran, and is going to leave Iran free to develop nuclear weapons. Obama refuses to meet Netanyahu. 

House SpeakerJohn Boehner has invited Netanyahu to speak to the joint houses of Congress in the US on March 3 about Iran's nuclear programme and the threat to international security posed by radical Islam - it is said because Boehner considers these things a threat to US national security. "I am going to the Unites States not because I seek a confrontation with the President, but because I must fulfil my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country," says Netanyahu.

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports that a foreign-funded organisation was bankrolling a campaign to defeat Netanyahu's camp in the Israeli elections. An indication of its generous financing is that it has flown a team of five American campaign experts (including Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign's national field director), who will run the campaign from offices taking up the ground floor of a Tel Aviv office building. Because the campaign doesn't support a specific party - just not Netanyahu's team - foreign funds pouring in are not subject to Israel's campaign finance laws.

Writes repected commentator Caroline Glick: "Obama won't meet Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington when he addresses the joint houses of Congress in March because of Netanyahu's visit's proximity to the Israeli elections. And Obama, of course, believes in protocol and propriety, which is why he won't get involved. No, he's not getting involved at all. He's just sending his 2012 field campaign manager to Israel to start a campaign to defeat Netanyahu. That's all. No interference whatsoever."

Obama has now stopped updating Israel on progress of talks with Iran on Iran's nuclear programme because the Israeli government is using the information "in a manipulative and political way."

Ms Glick explains: "It is hard to understand either Israel's election or Obama's hysterical response to Netanyahu's scheduled speech without recognising that Obama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, Obama has never had to seriously explain policies regarding Iran, and Islamic terrorists in general. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.

"Today Obama believes he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu's speech is a success, Obama's policy will be indefensible. If Obama is able to delegitimise Netanyahu ahead of his arrival and bring about his electoral defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office."

I shall be praying for the result of the Israeli elections. Either way, I shall be grateful for the promises of God, the God of Israel, who neither slumbers nor sleeps. "He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock" (Jer 31:10 KJV). 
        

Suffering for their faith

The past 12 months have seen the highest level of persecution of Christians worldwide in living memory. One hundred million Christians are facing persecution.

Islamic extremists are the main persecutor. In some countries, Christians face imprisonment, torture, rape and death.

More than 70 per cent of Christians have fled Iraq since 2003. More than 700,000 Christians have left Syria since civil war began in 2011.

The organisation Open Doors has published its 2015 World Watch List of the 50 countries where it is most dangerous to be a Christian. North Korea tops the list for the 13th successive year. Meeting with other Christians there is virtually impossible. Anyone discovered in unauthorised religious activity is subject to arrest, arbitrary detention, disappearance, torture and/or execution.

Next countries on the list, in order, are Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Eritrea and Nigeria. You can see further details here.

Lisa Pearce, CEO of Open Doors in the UK and Ireland, says "I am convinced that what happens in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa in the next three years will define the future of Christianity as we know it. We can't afford to sleepwalk through these difficult days. Open Doors isn't saying there should be special treatment for Christians - of course there shouldn't. But there must be equal treatment - the fundamental right to follow any faith, or none."

Tomorrow will be the launch of the World Watch List and a report in Parliament on global persecution. It's not too late to e-mail your MP to invite him or her to attend the meeting.
        

2,484 killed in Nigeria. Who cares?

When 17 people were killed by Islamic terrorists in France, the leaders of something like 40 nations - with the notable exception of President Obama of the USA - gathered in Paris to protest Islamic terrorism.

Last year 2,484 were killed in Nigeria as a result of Islamic extremism, the highest total of any nation in the world. This year hundreds more have been killed already. Men, women and children, hunted down, shot, drowned or burned alive. Who cares about them?

Among politicians, a few individuals have expressed concern. Douglas Alexander, shadow foreign secretary - his father was a Church of Scotland minister - has expressed concern. He promised that a Labour Government would appoint a global ambassador for religious freedom to tackle the persecution of Christians worldwide.

But it seems that for the majority of politicians, Islamic extremists in Africa can do what they like. Words, perhaps. But actions?

Lisa Pearce, CEO of Open Doors in the UK and Ireland, says: "Responding to a question from MPs about whether in light of increasing persecution now was the time to appoint an ambassador for religious freedom to campaign for religious freedom internationally, the UK Deputy Prime Minister has just responded confirming that, 'while it is necessary to keep an open mind' about whether more should be done to protect Christians, the UK Government would not be making the appointment.

"Of course that appointment wouldn't have changed the world on its own, but it would have been a step.

"Meanwhile the church is experiencing persecution on an unprecedented scale. Time is running out. Surely we need to move beyond 'keeping an open mind' and do something?"

There are things that can be done. For instance, the UK pays £249 million in foreign aid to Nigeria each year.
        

Religious freedom and a secular Britain

The picture is of the flag of the new Islamist State. I don't know what its designers had in mind, but it's not black by accident. There are reports coming out of Iraq of rapes, beheadings and crucifixions. There are reports of joint suicides after women being raped. There are reports of women and children being buried alive.

Both Barack Obama and David Cameron did little when 200,000 Christians were displaced by IS (Islamist State, formerly ISIS) fighters. It was as though Christians didn't really matter. It was only when some 40,000 Yezidis were trapped on a mountain that they began to take action.

David Cameron said the Government will redouble its efforts to prevent Britons from travelling to join the 500 Britons said to be already with the world's best armed and fastest growing terrorist group. He said Islamist militants could bring terror to the streets of Britain unless urgent action were taken.

He said the terrorists have "murderous intent" and Britain must use its "military prowess" to stop them coming here. Britain had "no choice but to rise to the challenge," but he ruled out a war in Iraq. Britain is not going to get involved in another Iraq war.

Tim Montgomerie highlighted the problem in the Times yesterday.

"June’s mass persecution of Iraqi Christians in Mosul hardly moved any head of government. Barack Obama only acted when the ancient Yazidi sect was threatened with extinction. That, however, may have been only a pretext. The real trigger for action may have been US strategic interests in Arbil. Yet at least America acted. At least Germany and France are offering asylum to Iraqi Christians. Britain, with its proud heritage of providing refuge for those fleeing for their lives, has been almost comatose. . . 

"We’ve learnt in recent days that government inaction has brought some of the Church of England’s most senior clerics to the edge of despair. . . 

"I sent a round of texts to government contacts yesterday, asking whether the intervention of church leaders would spur action. Some replies left me profoundly depressed: “We can’t get bogged down in a another conflict in Iraq so close to an election.” “The public oppose granting large numbers of Iraqis asylum.” “Intervention could be a huge distraction from domestic concerns.” I did get one or two replies of high principle but most were soaked in the language of electoral calculation. I hope the Church of England has begun to realise that religious freedom is not a priority for this government or, for that matter, the opposition. . .

"Britain is becoming one of the most secular countries on earth. Growing hostility to faith schools is of a different order to what we see in the Middle East, but common to the secular mindset is a blindness to the importance of religious faith to people. It begins by wanting to push religion to the corners of the public square and then beyond it. . . 

"I hope the Baines letter [a letter to the Government from the Rt Rev Nick Baines, Bishop of Leeds] might be the moment when Church realises that, for all their worthy rhetoric at Christmas and Easter, British politicians will not fight for religious freedom. I hope its underlying mood was not, as one newspaper suggested, bitterness but resolve. Resolve to ensure the Christian voice is heard again in politics. Because religious freedom is a foundational freedom of conscience. If the political class isn’t willing to defend it, other freedoms are at risk in the years ahead."

What should we do in light of what's happening in Syria and Iraq? Pray, act and give, to help people in desperate need. Excuses might be found for election-minded politicians not to be interested, but there is no excuse for Christians to be unconcerned.
    

Mr Pickles takes the helm

After the resignation of Baroness Warsi as faith minister, Prime Minister David Cameron has handed her role to Eric Pickles, who will fill the faith brief in addition to his job as Communities Secretary.

A couple of years ago, after the National Secular Society obtained a High Court decision banning councils having prayers to open council meetings, Mr Pickles fast-tracked laws to override the decision. "The Government recognises and respects the role that faith communities play in our society," he said.

He complained in a speech last year: "In recent years long-standing British liberties of freedom of religion have been undermined by the intolerance of aggressive secularism."

And in April this year he told the Conservative Forum: "I've stopped an attempt by militant atheists to ban councils having prayers at the start of meetings if they wish. Heaven forbid. We're a Christian nation. We have an established church. Get over it. And don't impose your politically correct intolerance on others."

He explained: "The Government has backed British values. And we've stopped Whitehall appeasing extremism of any sort. Be it the EDL, be it extreme Islamists or be it thuggish far-left, they're all as bad as each other."

Says the New Statesman: "Eric Pickles's appointment as Faith Minister is bad news for secularists."

And in a blog post about the appointment, Stephen Evans, campaign manager for the National Secular Society, asks: "Rather than a 'minister for faith,' perhaps we need a minister for freedom of belief?"

Critics complain that Baroness Warsi produced nothing but words. So will Eric Pickles do a better job as faith minister?

Time will tell.

But if his appointment causes the secular humanists to draw in their horns a little, that can't be a bad thing, can it?
   

Flying here to say thank you

Ask Christian apologist Frank Turek if Christians should get involved in politics and he'll show you a satellite photograph of the Korean peninsula, taken at night. North Korea is in absolute darkness; South Korea is ablaze with lights. "South Korea is full of freedom, food and productivity. North Korea is a concentration camp." The reason for the difference, he says, is politics.

The difference between the two Koreas, certainly, is remarkable. North Korea is said to be the most dangerous country in the world to be a Christian. South Korea has an estimated 25 per cent of its population who identify with Christianity and has some of the largest Christian churches in the world. Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul had more than 800,000 members in 2007 and has continued to grow.

A thousand South Korean Christians will be visiting the UK this September as part of a nation-wide prayer mission. The National Day of Prayer and Worship is partnering with the Korean Word Prayer School in Seoul to bring the believers to Britain.

They hope to visit around 40 church communities around the UK, sharing in worship, joining in mission activities and issuing a prophetic call to the church in Britain to remain strong, and for Britain to remain faithful to its Christian heritage. Two large prayer gatherings will be held in London to conclude the trip.

Dr Jonathan Oloyede, convenor of the National Day of Prayer and Worship, says he is delighted. "I believe there is a call on the church in the British Isles to warmly respond in welcome as the Christians of South Korea thank these isles for sharing the gospel in times past," he says.

God bless them.
 

Democracy? Not from where I'm sitting

David Cameron, you will remember, is the man who, despite the fact that most people didn't want it, insisted on legalising same-sex marriage.

Now the Christian Institute says his Government has been responsible for what it calls the biggest liberalisation of abortion procedures since 1967.

The Abortion Act says that two doctors must certify that they are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the woman complies with a legal ground for abortion. Guidance from 1999 says doctors "must give their opinions on the reasons under the Act for the termination following consultation with the woman."

Former Health Secretary Andrew Lansley told Parliament in March 2012 that he would consult on new guidelines for abortion providers outside the NHS. The institute says new interim guidelines were sent to clinics in July 2012 - 17 months before the public consultation began. They said that doctors did not need to see women seeking an abortion.

The new rules were intended to address the problem of doctors pre-signing abortion forms and of sex-selection abortions. They did neither.

A poll taken for the institute shows almost 90 per cent of people thought that a woman considering an abortion should be seen by a doctor, and 76 per cent believed that not doing so would put the woman's health at risk

The Government is to allow a free vote for MPs and peers on Lord Falconer's controversial assisted suicide bill, and is said to have made it clear it will not stand in the way of a change in the law. Norman Lamb, the minister responsible for care for elderly and the disabled, was among the first at the weekend to say he would vote in favour.

Lord Falconer's bill is the fourth on assisted suicide to come before the House of Lords in the last decade. The other three were voted down. 

It's almost like someone has decided assisted suicide ought to be legal, and lawmakers are being given new chances to vote until they get it right.

If this is democracy, I don't care for it.

A turning to God in Ukraine

After disgraced Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev, leaving behind his palatial presidential palace and, allegedly, partially concealed evidence of money laundering, Oleksandr Turchynov was appointed interim president.

Turchynov is well known in the Ukraine. He is a successful novelist, has been head of one of the country's first independent news agencies, and is a Baptist pastor. Yulia Tymoshenko, released from prison after two years, announced her decision to run for president. Turchynov is said to be her right-hand man.

Ukraine is predominantly Orthodox and Catholic. It is only 2.4% Protestant, but the Baptist Church has grown in prominence since Soviet days, when evangelical churches were illegal.

According to the European Baptist Federation, the appointment of Turchynov as interim president is not only a good thing for believers in Ukraine, but an answer to fervent prayer.

"During all these days of protests and confrontation, the Christian community has been the light and the salt for both parties. The doctors, nurses, cooks, students and other Christian groups have been helping wherever there was a need," the federation said.

"The situation caused the churches and even denominations get united in prayers and fasting for the peace and God's intervention. People started crying out to God and the TV media spoke about the role of the church and quoted Scriptures. 

"What Ukraine needs is not just a change of people in authority but a change of the system and the relationship of the authorities to ordinary citizens. Ukraine needs love, mercy and forgiveness. Ukraine needs Christ."

Watch out for 'a genderless mush'

When the Government legalised same-sex marriage, some supposed that the divorce rate in same-sex marriages would be similar to the divorce rate in traditional marriage. Others supposed that divorces in same-sex marriages would be much higher. We may never know.

The Office for National Statistics, which keeps records of marriage and divorce, is considering including marriage, same-sex marriage and civil partnerships without distinction in the same definition of "legally recognised partnerships." The break-up of relationships in the three classes would then be listed in the same single figure.

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, says "It is vital that the ONS is completely open and transparent about the statistics it publishes on marriage, civil partnership and divorce. If we are going to be able to assess the impact of same-sex marriage on traditional marriage, the figures will need to be published separately and not merged into a genderless mush.

“Decades of research have demonstrated that a marriage between a man and a woman is considerably more stable than other types of relationship and produces better outcomes for children. The Prime Minister and some other supporters of the recent redefinition of marriage are assuming that same-sex unions will produce identical results, but without separate figures the argument cannot be settled one way or the other.

"To adopt a gender-blind approach to marriage and divorce would severely limit the ability of researchers to assess the relative benefits of different types of registered relationships and stifle healthy debate in a key area of public policy.
 
“If the Government is serious about pursuing family policy based on sound evidence, it is of the utmost importance that all the relevant statistics should be readily available and not hidden from view.”

William Oddie, of the Catholic Herald, produces figures from somewhere where same-sex marriage has been available for some time. After eight years, he says, 82 per cent of marriages of a man and a woman are still intact, 60 per cent of opposite-sex cohabiting couples are still together, but only 25 per cent of same-sex couples are still together. 

It is vital that the ONS doesn't muddy the waters, he says. "It's something we HAVE to know about." 

The ONS quietly launched a consultation on the matter on the same day it issued a report showing that female couples were almost twice as likely to end a civil partnership as male couples.

To take part in the consultation, click here, then under the heading Downloads, click on "Consultation document." Your response to the consultation can be sent by e-mail. The consultation closes on December 17.

Homosexuality and 'jackboot thuggery'

Twenty-five years ago, almost two-thirds of the British public opposed same-sex relationships because they believed they were morally wrong. Today, according to the new British Social Attitudes Survey, only one person in five disapproves of homosexual relationships in principle.

How could there be so major a change in attitude in so short a space of time?

For one thing, homosexual activists have taken patently false facts - like people are born homosexual and cannot be changed - and shouted down anyone who dares to oppose them. Oppose them, and you are automatically "homophobic" and "a bigot."

They have campaigned vociferously for their human rights as a persecuted minority. And they have created a politically-correct worldview which people have not cared to contradict.

Here's Bill Muehlenberg again:

The militant homosexual lobby has long ago stopped pretending it is about achieving “equality” and “tolerance”. They have instead made it clear that they will settle for nothing less than the complete homosexualisation of society. All resistance will be ruthlessly opposed, and everyone will be expected to embrace, promote and even favour the homosexual agenda.

It is no longer a question of the normalisation of homosexuality, but the glamourisation and forced exaltation of the lifestyle. Our coercive utopian leaders are now telling us, ‘You will love and embrace homosexuality. You have no other option. All resistance will be punished.’

I have of course already documented case after case of this state-enforced promotion of homosexuality, with recalcitrants facing the music. Every time I think I should get my new book off to the printers, a whole new bunch of cases arise.

Last year the state of California for example led the way by banning reparative therapy for homosexuals. So even though a person may desperately want to get out of this lifestyle and change his ways, the Californian tyrants have declared that to be verboten.

It does not matter if you have a strong longing to get out of homosexual bondage. The state has decided that this desire is wrong, and anyone daring to help such a person will feel the full force of the law. And now New Jersey has just become the second state to pass such a draconian and totalitarian law. . .

So the forcible prevention of changing one’s lifestyle and sexual preferences has now become the business of the Totalist State. Simply add this bit of jackboot thuggery to the never-ending list of other outrages perpetrated by the homosexual militants and their state supporters, and you have a recipe for a genuine Police State rivalling anything Huxley or Orwell might have dreamt up.

The real target of course is the church. The activists know that once they shut down Christianity for good, then their free rein to totally transform society will be complete. Silence all dissenting Christians, and the homonazi agenda can go through unimpeded.

As Matt Barber has correctly observed, “‘Gay pride’ necessitates anti-Christian hate. It must. ‘Gay marriage’ and other ‘sexual orientation’-based laws do violence to freedom and truth. They are the hammer with which the postmodern left intends to bludgeon bloody religious liberty and the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic”. . .

“Ken Hutcherson, an influential black pastor from the Seattle area, put it well: ‘It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that’s the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I’m here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community. Don’t compare your sin to my skin!’

“Some things never change. Other things do. Today’s liberals seek to ‘rehabilitate’ Christians to their way of thinking under penalty of law. Liberals of old just threw us to the lions. I guess that’s what they mean by ‘progress’.”

Britain holds fire - for now

Today a recalled British Parliament was to decide (or not) to take part in a military strike against Syria in a bid to prevent further use of chemical weapons. 

Until teatime yesterday, after Labour leader Ed Miliband had said his party would not support military intervention until UN inspectors had completed their work, and a significant number of Conservative back-benchers - and some ministers - were of a mind to vote against immediate intervention. The Government then decided today's debate would go ahead, but a further vote before military action would be required after the UN inspectors' report, probably next week.

The UK had pushed for permanent members of the UN Security Council to authorise measures to protect civilians in Syria. Russia refused to agree.

US President Obama said he had concluded that Syrian government troops were responsible for the chemical weapons attack last week, but he had not finally decided what action to take.

The situation is fraught with difficulty. If there is no action, chemical weapons may continue to be used and thousands more may die. If military action is taken, it may start a fire throughout the Middle East. Syrian officials warn the entire Middle East would be set ablaze if Western forces intervene.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned the US not to attack. The Syrian Government has said if it is attacked it will retaliate by attacking Israel.

Syria is believed to have one of the largest chemical weapon arsenals in the world. There is concern it will have no problem in using them against Israel. Demands for gas masks quadrupled in Israel this week.

It is probable there will be no invasion of Syria, but that an attack would come with missiles fired at selected targets from ships outside Syrian waters. It would not be an attempt to depose Syria's President Assad, but to warn that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.

More than 100,000 have already died in Syria in two years of conflict.

No clear evidence has yet been produced that Assad was responsible for last week's gas attack. Britain and the US (and the Arab League) hold him responsible.

Britain is not capable of being the world's peacekeeper, critics say - and what are Syria's Muslim neighbours doing? A YouGov poll this week showed 60 per cent against a missile strike and 25 per cent in favour.

United Nations inspectors say Syria is becoming increasingly radicalised, with only a minority fighting for democracy and a state for all Syrians. Some groups have an openly Islamist agenda. The leader of the al Nusra Front, a prominent opposition group, has declared allegiance to the leader of al Qaeda.

'Undemocratic first and last'

The British people have been betrayed by the parliamentary system. Same-sex marriage, though the majority of people do not want it, looks like becoming law.

The third reading in the Lords today appears to be a formality. It is suggested there will not be a vote.

When the bill was debated at report stage in the Lords on Monday and Wednesday last week, an amendment making clear distinctions between opposite-sex  marriage and same-sex marriage was defeated by 314 to 119. An amendment providing space for conscientious objection for a registrar was defeated by 278 to 103.

An amendment providing that no teacher would be obliged to endorse same-sex marriage was defeated by 163 to 32. An amendment that schools "of a religious character" would be able to teach marriage according to the tenets of their faith was withdrawn. An amendment providing for a referendum on same-sex marriage was rejected.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Justin Welby, and the bishops, noting the strength of the opposition, are said to have decided not to oppose the bill, but to concentrate on amendments. Some people believe they failed to take a Christian stand. Only two bishops were present when the bill was debated on Monday.

Said the Coalition for Marriage: "The bill was undemocratic from the start, introduced without a mandate from the voters and after a sham consultation which threw 500,000 legitimate responses in the bin. The bill has been undemocratic to the very end, with the parties using their power to apply exceptional pressure on MPs and peers. Whatever the parties may say, we know the votes on civil liberty protections were not truly free.

"There is a very good case for reasonable and necessary safeguards to protect the civil liberties of people like you - people that believe in traditional marriage. Several courageous peers tabled good civil liberty amendments, which we supported. But the bill's backers - including the leadership of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Labour - saw to it that none of them were voted into the bill."

Since marriage can only be between one man and one woman, marriage certificates issued by the Government for same-sex couples next year would be perfectly lawful, but actually fake. "We should also remember that the Government said, during debates, that fidelity was not important in marriage and same-sex couples make better parents."

The Maranatha Community said while the bill was before those responsible for the government of the nation, it was vital that we continued to engage in the battle by praying and speaking out for truth, justice and righteousness.

"Our attitude should not be based on whether we think we can make a difference, but rather upon God's call to us to sound the alarm in the face of what is happening in the nation. We are answerable to Him. Remember the Lord said to Ezekiel, 'You must speak my words unto them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious' (Ezek 2.7)."

Petition: 'Stop undermining marriage'

If you haven't yet complained about the same-sex marriage bill, now would be a good time.

The Lords will debate the bill on Monday, next Wednesday, and finally on Monday,July 15. MPs are likely to consider the Lords' amendments to the bill on July 16 or 17. SPUC is asking people to write to or e-mail Lords and their MP, asking them to stop efforts to undermine marriage.

It's been a right old week for pro-lifers. 

Four politicians in the ruling Fine Gael Party have reportedly been sacked from the party and told to clear their offices after opposing a bill to ease abortion law in Ireland.

Pro-abortion campaigners chanted "Hail Satan" to drown out pro-life demonstrators singing Amazing Grace at the Texas State Capitol.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue said it would be unfair to say that all pro-abortion supporters would support giving glory to Satan. "Among hardcore activists, though, there are no doubt more than just a few who feel comfortable invoking Satan's name on behalf of their cause."

 In Germany, six 11 and 12-year-old students fainted during a graphic sex education lesson and had to be taken to hospital.

And SPUC is asking for signatures on a petition opposing pornography lessons in school. They are proposed by the Sex Education Forum, which advises the Government. The SEF explains: "The rationale is that if young people choose to look at pornography or if they come across it by accident, they would know how to interpret it."

It's like giving illicit drugs to young children so they'll know how to say no when they're older.

Truth stood on its head

David Cameron's bill to redefine marriage and legalise same-sex marriage passed its second reading in the House of Commons last night with 400 voting for and 175 voting against.

Some 135 Conservative MPs voted against the bill, with 126 voting for and many more abstaining. It has been described as the biggest Tory rebellion in history.

The most common word among proponents of same-sex marriage in the six-hour debate appeared to be "equality."

Marriage between a man and a woman and a homosexual relationship cannot be equal because they are different. According to the bill, homosexuals would have a choice between marriage and civil partnership while a man and a woman would have the choice of marriage only; adultery would be grounds for divorce in a heterosexual marriage but not in exclusively same-sex relationships; and it would certainly not be equal for the children of the two types of relationship.

Truth has been stood on its head. Unfortunately, supporters of same-sex marriage have presented themselves as champions of equality and fairness, while people with Christian principles are portrayed as haters of homosexuals, bigots and religious fanatics.

 Cranmer described it the other day: "Everyone knows that the Bill is a dog's breakfast of 'quadruple locks,' random exemptions, religious straitjackets and false assertions of equality. Anyone with half a brain will understand that its religious assurances are provisional and its locks are eminently pickable. Equality is the new state orthodoxy: there can be no lasting exemptions, no conscience considerations and no organisational opt-outs. All must conform, or face the consequences of inquisition and suffer the same historic fate of heretics."

The bill will now be considered by a committee and have its third reading before going to the House of Lords.

Same-sex marriage: the battle intensifies

David Cameron and Nick Clegg appear determined to push through legislation redefining marriage in order to allow same-sex marriage. ("David just won't be told," the Prime Minister's mother, Mary Cameron, is reported as saying.)

The bill outlining the change had its first reading on Thursday and was published yesterday. MPs will have a debate and vote on it for the first time on Tuesday, February 5.

The Government says there will be adequate protection for religious bodies who do not want to hold same-sex marriages and for teachers who do not want to teach homosexual marriage as part of sex education. Opponents deny this; they say such protection or lack of it will be in the hands of European judges, who have already shown that people with a conscientious objection to homosexual marriage can lose their jobs.

It is not certain that the bill will be passed. Considerable numbers of MPs say they are ready to vote against it, and if the House of Commons passes it, it is said to be likely to have a hard time in the Lords.

Christians say marriage has been between one man and one woman throughout history, and is the basis of a stable society. They suggest the proposed change will not give homosexuals rights they do not already have with civil partnerships, and will have the effect of destroying traditional marriage.

It is remarkable how Christians came together to fight the proposed change. They quickly formed the Coalition for Marriage, which organised a petition that gained a record-breaking 600,000 signatures, which the Government is now trying to ignore.

Organisations including the Christian Institute, CARE, Christian Concern and the Christian Medical Fellowship have now called a national day of prayer on the issue for Sunday, February 3 - a week tomorrow. Suggested prayer topics can be seen here. Voice for Justice UK says that although the Government will place all its resources behind the bill, the result is not yet sure. "If something is right, it remains worth fighting for."

The organisations continue to ask people to write to their MP, asking him or her to vote against the bill. A CARE briefing, Twelve compelling reasons for rejecting same-sex marriage, can be downloaded here.

The World Prayer Centre in Birmingham calls the bill "an attack on the social and spiritual life of our nation." It points out that the following prayer has been said every day that Parliament has been in session since the 17th century:

Lord, the God of righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her Government, to members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of Your Spirit.

May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals; but laying aside all private interests and prejudices, keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind.

So may Your Kingdom come and Your name be hallowed.

Amen.