What would have happened to Beethoven?

American bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, for whom I once had the privilege of hosting meetings in Manchester, points out that a maternal blood test now being perfected will enable technologists to map the entire genome of the developing foetus. Which means parents will have plenty of notice of undeveloped flaws in the unborn child to enable them to arrange abortion.

He writes on his blog:

Unlike amniocentesis, which requires the insertion of a needle into the womb to obtain amniotic fluid, the test would come earlier in the pregnancy and put the fetus at no risk - unless that is, it reveals unwanted genetic conditions or propensities. In such cases, the fetus's very life would suddenly be at material and immediate risk.

In a culture in which all people are valued equally regardless of their health or capacities, fetal genetic testing would be a splendid way to reveal the need for prenatal treatments or to allow parents time to prepare for a child with special needs. That's precisely how Todd and Sarah Palin reacted when they learned their youngest child Trig has Down syndrome. Long before he was born, they absorbed the emotional shock and then joyfully welcomed their son with open arms. But such unconditional love cuts against the current cultural zeitgeist. Consider: About 90 per cent of fetuses testing for genetic conditions such as Down and dwarfism are terminated to the moral support, if not outright cheering, of much of society. It may seem harsh to say, but it is true nonetheless: We are in the midst of a great eugenic cleansing in which diagnosed imperfection often favors abortion.

Can anyone deny it?. . . Increasingly people not only believe they have a right to a baby but to the baby they want.

But our quest for perfection, had the technology come a few hundred years earlier, could have come at a terrible cost. . . 

Beethoven might never have been born, considering his destined deafness. If Lincoln was bi-polar or had the genetic condition known as Marfan's syndrome, as some have speculated, he might well have been "selected out" in the hope that Tom and Nancy Lincoln's next baby would have a less troubled nature. For that matter, the embryonic Winston Churchill might have been terminated when his genetic screeners warned his parents that he would have a predisposition for alcoholism. Similarly, Mother Teresa might have never been born had her parents known she would be diminutive and plain. Ditto Toulouse-Lautrec. . .  

If I were to pick one human attribute to extol above all others, it wouldn't be high intelligence, good looks or athletic prowess - the usual targets for human improvement. Rather, I believe the most crucial human attribute is our capacity to love.

Nearly 2000 years ago, St Paul wrote, "And now abide faith, hope, and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." Who among us exhibit a greater unconditional love capacity than our brothers and sisters with Down syndrome? To the extent that they and other "defectives" are unwelcome among us can be measured our own deficiency as a society.

Technology isn't the problem. We are.

Here you can find the answers

I was just reading of someone complaining that the Bible is full of contradictions. That's a common excuse for people who don't want anything to do with the Bible.

The next time someone tells you that the Bible is full of contradictions, ask him to quote one. He may have difficulty. If he does come up with an apparent contradiction and you're not familiar with it, look it up.

The Bible is the most remarkable book. It's the only book that has clear, specific prophecies of events made hundreds of years in advance and fulfilled in exact detail.

The book of Daniel, for example, tells when Christ would appear. The book of Micah tells where He would be born. The book of Isaiah says He would be born of a virgin.

Isaiah 53, written 700 years before Christ's birth, says He would be despised and rejected. He would be a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. He would have a life of suffering. He would be smitten and afflicted. He would go like a lamb to the slaughter. He would die with the wicked, and He would be buried in a rich man's grave.

The book of Zechariah tells how He would be sold for 30 pieces of silver.

One psalm, Psalm 22, tells how His hands and His feet would be pierced; how His bones would be out of joint but none of His bones would be broken; how His heart would be ruptured within Him; how they would cast lots for His garments.

The Bible also tells where you can find the answers for your problems, how you can find abundant life for now and how you can have an assurance regarding your future.

The Bible changed my life - very much for the better. It could change yours too.

But you would need to read it.

Rules to make marriage last

Despite the fact that two-thirds of the Scottish population is opposed to legalising same-sex marriage and despite the fact that it has been discovered that legalising it would cause chaos in a whole raft of laws, the Scottish Government has decided to go ahead with legislation.

Despite the fact that half-a-million people have petitioned against change south of the border and despite the fact that the Conservative Party has lost a vast number of members, largely because of the Prime Minister's fixation with legalising same-sex marriage, David Cameron has said that he is absolutely determined to do it.

I notice that Labour's Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has been speaking of marriage as "a long-term relationship." Not a lifelong relationship, but a long-term relationship.

Does this mean that couples being married will not have to promise "till death do us part," or that having made a promise "till death do us part" they can then ignore it?

Harry Benson, of the Marriage Foundation, mentioned a couple of interesting facts.

Almost half of all new babies in the UK will not grow up with both of their parents.

And the 2001 census showed that of couples with children of 16 who were still together, 97 per cent were married. Only three per cent were not married.

He shared with supporters of the Family Education Trust four rules he had devised for his own children. Adhering to the four rules, he said, could halve family breakdown.

First, no boyfriends or girlfriends before the age of 18. It was almost inevitable that relationships before that age would not last. This would take away sexual pressures from children who may lack the maturity to handle them.

Second, don't form an exclusive romantic relationship with someone unless you can see yourself marrying them. If at any point you can't, end the relationship.

Third, look for someone who can make a decision and stick to it, not a drifter.

Fourth, "Girls, say no to moving in until he says yes to your future."

Rules to be recommended?

Anti-Israel? The BBC? I should say so

Another blatant example of the BBC's shameful anti-Israel bias.

Archbishop Cranmer writes:

One is used to this sort of thing from The Guardian: its Israel-loathing anti-Semitism has long been a matter of public record. But The Guardian is a privately-run, commercial enterprise with the right in law to believe as its proprietor wishes and speak as its editor wills.

The same rights do not extend to the BBC, which is publicly owned and financed by the British taxpayer, with a commitment to broadcast impartiality and factual accuracy.

His Grace has been following this story closely for the past week: The Commentator blog drew attention to the fact that the BBC's online coverage was manifestly anti-Israel and pro-Palestine: every participating nation had its capital city listed, bar the state of Israel, which was left blank.  Yet the non-state of Palestine had its capital listed as 'East Jerusalem.' Despite Israel's seat of government- the Knesset - being in Jerusalem, and despite a plethora of foreign embassies being located in Tel Aviv, the BBC opted to identify neither as Israel's capital city. And yet, despite the Palestinian seat of government being in Ramallah, and despite Jerusalem not being divided, the BBC opted to carve the East away and hand it, lock, stock and barrel (Temple Mount, Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) to the self-proclaimed Palestinian Authority.

This was a blatant bias and factual inaccuracy. Even those who might defend the BBC with an appeal to UN declarations on the 'international' status of Jerusalem - contra Israel's own assertion about its capital - are left floundering in the knowledge that any part of Jerusalem claimed by the non-state of Palestine is nothing more than self-proclamation.

Yet the BBC summarily dismissed what Israel says of and claims for Jerusalem, while validating and authenticating what Palestine says and claims of the city.

Unsurprisingly, people wrote to the BBC to complain, including the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, which wrote:

. . . we were astounded by the decision of the BBC to discriminate against Israel in the network's Olympic page. For each country (and non-country) participating in the London Olympics, a special page was given on your internet site which included background information such as capital city. For each country (and non-country) apart from Israel. Jerusalem is the capital city of the state of Israel, and accordingly we request that you correct this matter immediately.

The BBC acknowledged:

Due to an error which was made at the time the information was added onto the website, incorrect details and mistakes appeared on the Israeli and Palestinian team pages. This has since been rectified in line with BBC policy.

And so the offending page was amended to read: 'Seat of government: Jerusalem, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv.'

Still no mention of a capital city.

The Israeli Prime Minister's Office sent a further letter of complaint, but the BBC made it clear that this was as far as they would go.

So the Prime Minister's Office launched a Facebook page to increase awareness and to pressure the BBC in this matter. The page description states: 'Following the BBC's decision to omit Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel from its Olympic Games website, this is your place to support Jerusalem - the one and only Capital of Israel.'

The Mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat wrote: "We will not accept those who deny our history, our sovereignty, and our right to determine our own capital. Irrespective of the BBC's political agenda, Jerusalem was, is and will always be the capital of Israel and the spiritual, political, and physical center of the Jewish people."

You can read the rest here.

The case of the flying cat

I came across an interesting story the other day. It's supposed to be true: it gave the name of the man whose church it was and all.

A Christian minister had a kitten at home. The kitten climbed a tree in the garden and was too scared to come down. All attempts to tempt it down failed. Then the minister had a brainwave.

The tree was too slender to climb, but if he tied one end of a rope to the tree and the other end to his car and moved his car, it might bend the tree sufficiently for him to reach up and grab the cat.

He moved the car little by little, getting out each time to see how he was doing. Just a little more, he thought, and we've done it.

As he moved the car for the last time, the rope broke, the tree snapped back into position and the kitten sailed through the air and disappeared.

The minister searched the area and asked if anyone had seen the kitten, without success. Eventually, he committed the cat into God's care and went back to work.

A few days later, he met a woman church member in the supermarket. He saw cat food in her trolley, and he knew she hated cats. "Why are you buying cat food?" he said.

Her young daughter had been begging for a cat, and she had refused her. Her daughter persisted. Finally, she said "Well, if God gives you a cat, I'll let you keep it."

She watched the child go out into the yard, get on her knees, and ask God for a cat.

"Pastor, you won't believe this, but I saw it with my own eyes. A kitten suddenly came flying out of the sky, paws outspread, and landed right in front of her."

There was a comment at the end of the story: Never underestimate God's sense of humour.

I felt I could have thought of a better comment.

Never underestimate the prayers of a child.

Never mind the parents, what about the children?

Two things happened in the past several days which give an insight into people's attitude towards children these days.

First, Sir Elton John said it would be "heartbreaking" when the boy born to him and his homosexual partner David Furnish, using the services of an American surrogate mother, discovered he had no mummy. But he wanted him to have a brother or sister to go to school with him and to play with him.

Bill Muehlenberg wrote:

Am I the only one absolutely staggered by all this? He has a flash of insight and honesty, realising that he is messing with his own child big time by denying him his right to have a biological mother (and father), and yet he says he wants to do it all over again!

Is this the height of selfishness or what? Is this the height of stupidity or what? Is this the height of arrogance and callousness or what? I repeat: Elton is a big fat selfish greedy pig. No question about it. So is every single adult boofhead who thinks he or she has a right to deliberately bring children into the world robbed of their own mother and father.

I do not resile from this statement for a moment. I am sick and tired of seeing poor defenseless and helpless children being treated as mere commodities or fashion statements for completely selfish adults who think they can buck biology, spurn morality, and defy logic.

Shame on Elton, and shame on all these other selfish social engineers who do not give a rap about the well-being of children and simply want to satisfy their own greedy wants. They are deliberately creating a new stolen generation - cavalierly denying children the two most important people they will ever need.

But we live in an age which is contemptuous of children and their basic human rights. All the attention is on the selfish whims and wants of immature adults who think the world owes them everything - including their own designer children.

Second, Peter Saunders reported that the number of babies created by IVF and subsequently aborted because of Down's syndrome is increasing - because, he says, society is increasingly taking the view that it is better if children with this condition are not born at all. 

His piece was prompted by a report in the Daily Mail. He notes readers' comments on the report at MailOnline - frighteningly indicative, he says, of growing intolerance of disability in our society.

(For the uninitiated, people visiting MailOnline can vote "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" in favour or otherwise of readers' comments.)

The most popular comment on the report, with 540 "thumbs up," read:

It is not selfish to prevent a lifetime of pain, misery and social rejection. Not to mention the psychological damage those with Down's Syndrome experience. It must be a very tough decision for the mothers so the added pressure and guilt-tripping does not help.

The comment with the most (246) "thumbs down" said:

These women are the result of the 'me me me' consumerist society - where nobody apparently should be forced to get outside of their comfort zone - in case it makes them 'feel bad.' It's an utterly disgraceful stat - and eugenics is not too harsh a word to use.

The idea that only God can give life and only God has the right to take it seems quite to have gone out of fashion. The general idea seems to be "I'll choose what I do, and whatever I decide to think about it is fine."

I think the most praiseworthy of the comments was one which said

My son has Down's Syndrome and Bladder Entrophy. We never knew until he was born as I refused screening for Down's. I was 21 and it made no difference to me. I also lost his twin at 5 weeks. If that's not the survival of the fittest, I don't know what is!!! I have been asked before that if I could, would I change him? The answer is no. My son is the light of my life and I would choose to have him again a million times over.

Talking about abortion, I saw a slogan on a poster on a pro-life website that said

Life is the right of every child. Not a special privilege for the fortunate, the planned, and the perfect.

I like that. 

How can I prove the existence of God?

The atheist says there is no God. But he can't prove it. And where the atheist really comes unstuck is when he can't explain how the entire universe came into existence out of nothing.

The agnostic concedes that there may be a God, but suggests that it's impossible to know for sure.

Is it possible to prove the existence of God?

Yes, it is. A preacher named Peter Grant has a good way of illustrating this.*

Suppose you decide to go to the office to see if your boss is in. You see his car in the car park. You ask his secretary if he's in. "Yes he is," she says. "I've just been talking to him." You see the light underneath his office door. As you get nearer, you hear what sounds like his voice talking to someone on the telephone. All this would be good grounds for concluding your boss is in his office.

But there's one more thing you could do. You could open the door and meet your boss face to face. At that point, the other things would still be valid, but would become secondary, because now you've met him face to face.

If you want to find out if God is real, you can consider stories of answered prayer; hear evidence of changed lives; read others' testimonies; study examples of fulfilled prophecy. All these things would be valid. But there's something more you can do. You can have something more personal than that.

Jesus said "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." "Born of water" is evidently a Hebrew expression for natural birth. In other words, if you want to enter the kingdom of God, it's not enough to be born naturally, you also need to have a spiritual birth. Jesus called it being "born again."

Don't laugh. Don't mock. Don't jeer. That would be allowing your prejudice to make the decision without putting it to the test.

Repent of your sins. (We're all sinners. We've all done things we shouldn't have done and not done things we should have done.)

Tell Jesus you're sorry for the things you've done. Tell Him if He's alive and He's who He says He is you will yield Him your life and follow Him. Ask Him into your life. 

As He comes in He'll do a work in your life by His Spirit. You will enter into a personal relationship, and you will know that you know that you know that you know that God is real.

Jesus said "The one who comes to me I will by no means cast out." He keeps His promises.

* Described by Lee Strobel in The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2000, p85.

Not all doom and gloom

People who imagine that churches in Britain are three-parts empty, populated by old ladies and doomed to be converted into carpet warehouses could be in for a shock.

The church in Britain is growing.

A new survey, Church Growth in Britain from 1980 to the Present, published by an international team of researchers at Cranmer Hall, home of an Anglican theological college in Durham, shows that

* There are 500,000 Christians in black majority churches in Britain. Sixty years ago there were hardly any. 

* At least 5,000 churches have been started in Britain since 1980.

* There are one million Christians in Britain from black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities.

* The adult membership of Anglican churches in the London diocese has risen by over 70 per cent since 1990.

Roughly the same number of churches have closed as have opened. Some denominations - notably 'mainline' denominations like Anglican, Methodist, URC and Catholic - have seen serious decline. But some churches, especially churches rooted in ethnic minority communities and newer denominations, have seen major growth.

David Goodhew, writing in the Church of England Newspaper, says church growth happens most often where there is population growth, immigration and economic dynamism. Church planting is the most effective single strategy for growing the church. A theology of church growth is needed.

The idea that countries in the West are getting more secular and nothing can be done about it flies in the face of the evidence.

"Jesus remains as magnetic as he was 2,000 years ago. The Holy Spirit is just as widely at work - if we have eyes to see him. Research into church growth in contemporary Britain shows that when people step out in faith God uses that faith to grow churches and bless communities."

Christianity might not be growing as quickly in Britain as in some nations, but it's not dead yet.

The story of an awesome little girl

Eric and Janet Beatty knew before their daughter was born that she was going to be different. Prenatal screening showed facial deformities. Baby Clara had Treacher Collins syndrome, caused by a genetic fault.

It was unusual for Treacher Collins babies to be born in Belgium, where the Beattys lived, because parents almost always decided to abort.

For the Beattys, there was no question of abortion - despite the looks of disapproval from medical staff both before and after the birth. "It was kind of strange sometimes with the doctors," said Eric, "some of whom I think really, really questioned why we had this baby."

The Beattys moved to the United States where Clara could get the nursing care she needed. Cosmetic surgery, if she had it, would need to be repeated as she grew, so Clara - she's nine now - is waiting until her teens.

When people stare, she just smiles and says "Hi." But "I want to try to make myself as much like the other kids," she says, "so I can stop having everyone asking me questions, because it gets so annoying."

When Clara finishes her homework, she helps classmates with theirs. She volunteers as a mentor for an acting troupe for children with special needs. When she grows up, she wants to be a doctor. "It's fun," she says, "to help someone and give them a better chance at life."

Some classmates at school couldn't understand why a reporter would want to write a story about her (you can read the story here).

"Why?" said one.

"Because Clara is awesome," said another.

Nebuchadnezzar's dream

About 2,700 years ago, Nebuchadnezzar, ruler of the Babylonian Empire, had a dream.

In the dream, he saw a great image. The image's head was of gold, his chest and arms of silver, his stomach and thighs of brass, his legs of iron and his feet part of iron and part of clay. As Nebuchadnezzar watched, a stone cut out without hands hit the image's feet. The image was broken to pieces, while the stone became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

Daniel the prophet, who had been taken as a captive to Babylon from Israel, interpreted the dream for Nebuchadnezzar. (You can read the story in Daniel, chapter two.)

God, Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, wants to show you what will happen in the days to come. You, he said to Nebuchadnezzar, are the head of gold. After you will come an inferior kingdom of silver, then a third kingdom of brass. The fourth kingdom of iron will break and bruise others. Then will come a divided kingdom, symbolised by the feet part of iron and part of clay. At that time God will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, but which will stand for ever.

 The kingdom which followed Nebuchadnezzar was the empire of the Medes and Persians. The third kingdom was the Greek empire of Alexander the Great. The fourth kingdom was the Roman Empire. In this historical timeline, we are now in the days of the feet of iron and clay.

The stone cut out without hands is the Lord Jesus Christ. In these days He will return, destroy His enemies and set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. His return will be the most momentous event since the crucifixion and resurrection 2,000 years ago.

Are you prepared?

Just in case you needed to know

I understand from the news tonight that scientists may have found the God particle.

I don't know much about the God particle, but I do know that God exists.

I've just been talking to Him.

Battling on for the right to die

There has been a concerted effort in the battle to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia in recent days.

The British Medical Journal had three articles in a recent issue aimed at neutralising medical opposition to euthanasia.

Of 45 motions tabled for the 95-minute session on medical ethics at the annual representative meeting of the British Medical Association, 20 dealt with euthanasia or assisted suicide, 14 of them supporting a relaxation of the BMA's current opposition to assisted suicide legalisation.

Nine of the 14 used almost identical wording, suggesting they emanated from the small minority group Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying, which is supported by Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society).

In the event, only one motion on the subject was debated. It called for the BMA to adopt a neutral position on change in law on assisted dying. Had it succeeded, it would likely have led to a further attempt to change the law in Parliament. It was defeated.

The motion also suggested that "assisted dying is a matter for society and not for the medical profession" - but, said Dr Hamish Meldrum, the BMA's outgoing chairman, "the medical profession is not only part of society, but it would be members of the medical profession that would have to carry out the wishes of society were there to be a change in the law."

Dignity in Dying is planning a mass lobby of Parliament on July 4.

A number of organisations opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide have organised a rally at Emmanuel Centre, Westminster, tomorrow, July 3. Speakers include Anne Widdecombe, Lord Alton, MPs Jim Dobbin and Fiona Bruce, Dr Peter Saunders, Brian Iddon and Lord McColl of Dulwich. The rally will include an opportunity for people to visit with their MP at the Houses of Parliament. 

Tony Nicklinson, a 58-year-old from Melksham in Wiltshire, took his case to the High Court. He has locked-in syndrome. His mind is in perfect working order, but he is paralysed from the neck down, and he wants permission for a doctor to end his life. If permission were given, it would have the effect of legalising euthanasia.

The majority of people with locked-in syndrome want to live. Because Tony Nicklinson is unable to take a lethal dose himself, his request challenges not so much the law on assisted suicide as the law on murder. Few would fail to have sympathy for him in his condition, but to grant his request would set a dangerous precedent indeed.

As Baroness Campbell, herself disabled with spinal muscular atrophy, has said, disabled people need help to live, not help to die.

'Help me!' he cried - and then. . .

Mechanic Bruce Van Natta was lying underneath a massive truck when the jack gave way and the truck fell on his stomach with the loudest noise he had ever heard.

Blood shot into his throat. He coughed and spat out a large blob. He was bleeding internally from major arteries severed in five places.

"Lord, help me!" he shouted out, twice. He saw that the left hand side of his body was only one inch thick, thinner than the thickness of his spine. The right hand side of his body was two inches thick.

The driver of the truck looked at Bruce and went into shock. The driver managed to call the emergency services and replace the jack, but only in an unstable position under one of the truck's springs.

Bruce pulled as hard as he could on the truck's bumper to pull himself clear, but passed out. "My spirit left my body," he said, "and went up in the roof of the garage. My spirit was up there looking down, at perfect peace."

Then he saw, he said, a huge angel on either side of his body, dressed in white. Their arms were underneath the bumper.

An air ambulance arrived, but could not winch his body up because there was no ambulance equipment below.

A woman knelt next to him and began slapping his face. "Bruce Van Natta, open your eyes," she said. "Bruce Van Natta, open your eyes." His spirit shot back into his body and he felt excruciating pain. Every time he closed his eyes, his spirit left his body and began to travel down a tunnel. Then the woman slapped his face and his spirit returned.

"Do you want to live?" she said. "Do you have a wife and kids?" He remembered his wife and four children. I can't die, he thought. I've got to be here for my wife and family. He decided he had to keep his eyes open.

It was more than two hours before he was in hospital. Three doctors attending to him got into a disagreement. The CT scan showed he should be dead, but his heart was still beating. "We couldn't make sense of it," said one. "We didn't know what to make of it."

They repaired the major arteries but attempted nothing more, convinced he would die within hours. Twelve hours later, his heart was still beating.

Bruce had five operations in the next 12 months, then 18 months of rehab. But there was still a problem. The average adult has 20 feet of small intestine. All but three feet of Bruce's small intestine had been destroyed, and that three feet wasn't working properly. The doctors could feed him intravenously for only a year and then he would die.

A man named Bruce Carlson heard of the problem from a prayer chain and woke up two mornings in a row feeling he had to go to the hospital to pray for Bruce.

When he arrived, he laid his hand on Bruce's forehead and prayed for the small intestine to grow. Bruce said he felt an "electric shock" and heard a snap. He could feel his intestines rolling around.

X-rays and CT scans showed his small intestine had grown an additional seven feet in answer to prayer.

Bruce left his business and is now engaged in full-time Christian ministry.

You can read the full story here.

'Terrible' threat to Britain's children

It seems to me that the Government has talked a lot about pornography on the internet and done precious little about it.

Sue Berelowitz, England's Deputy Children's Commissioner, who has been conducting research for a report due out in September, told MPs that sexual exploitation of children is happening all over the country, much of it fuelled by children accessing extreme pornography on the internet.

There were parts of London where children from the age of 11 expected to have to indulge in sexual activity with line-ups of boys for up to two hours at a time. It was "quite common" for girls to be lured via internet chat rooms to meet a friend, only to be met by a group of boys and gang raped in a park.

"What is being done is so terrible that people need to lay aside their denial."

She said children could get anything they liked on their mobile phones, which was affecting children's thresholds of what they think is normal behaviour.

A parliamentary inquiry revealed that almost one in three children aged 10 or under had seen sexual images online, and suggested that four out of five children from 14 to 16 access online pornography.

According to the Daily Mail website, hundreds of millions of pages on the web have sexual content, and British teenagers spend an average of 87 hours a year looking at internet pornography.

Only 37 per cent of families in the UK had set up any sort of parental controls on their teenagers' computers.

For the children's sake, something needs to be done about internet pornography. Now.

This 'mad, terrifying obsession'

Melanie Phillips complains in the Daily Mail that the BBC is now "peddling the ancient racial libel that the Jews exercise a unique control over the levers of power," which she calls "unvarnished Judeophobia." You can read the details here.

She continues by pointing out that actors including Emma Thompson, Richard Wilson and Alexei Sayle have called for a boycott of Israel's Habima theatre which has been performing Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice - "oh the irony of it!" - in Hebrew at the Globe in London. This, she says,

. . . was on account of what they described as Israel's 'policies of exclusion' against the Palestinians and its 'human rights violations and the illegal colonisation of occupied land.'

Dear oh dear - does one laugh or cry at such mindless parroting of demonstrable untruths? Quite apart from the fact that Habima is totally apolitical and a call for such a cultural boycott is, as the author Howard Jacobson put it, Kafkaesque, have these high-minded souls called for a boycott of Lebanon where Palestinians are excluded from citizenship? Have they called for a boycott of Syria where countless thousands have been slaughtered? Have they called for a boycott of Iran for threatening a second genocide of the Jews and jailing, torturing, stoning and hanging its own dissidents, women and gays?

Have they indeed called for a boycott of the Palestinian Authority for censoring and intimidating Palestinian and western journalists, and for brainwashing Palestinian children with Nazi-style propaganda in order to raise them to hate and murder Jews and Israelis?

No, of course not. The only country they want to boycott is the one country in the whole of the Middle East that is a true democracy, that affords human rights to all its citizens, that allows freedom of worship to all religions, that treats women as equals and safeguards the welfare and liberties of gay people - and treats in its own hospitals, alongside its own citizens, Palestinians from these 'excluded' territories including those who are trying to murder as many Israeli citizens as possible.

This irrational obsession is madness. It is terrifying. And no one in the wider community is saying anything about it.

Just a few days left

The UK Government decided it would change the law in order to redefine marriage, thus allowing same-sex marriage in England and Wales (Scotland will make its own decision). It said there would be a consultation, but it would not be about whether or not it would happen, only about how it would work.

The Government was taken aback at the response, as a petition objecting to the proposed change gathered half a million signatures in a matter of weeks.

Despite what the Government had said, when the consultation document was published, it contained Question 1:

Do you agree or disagree with enabling all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony? (In law, there is not civil marriage and religious marriage, only marriage.)

And Question 2:

Please explain the reasons for your answer.

The consultation closes this Thursday, June 14. Homosexual activists and their supporters are pushing for all those in favour of same-sex marriage to take part in the consultation. It is important that people who believe the law on traditional marriage should remain unchanged should also have their say in the consultation, so that the Government should be aware of the strength of feeling on the issue.

Those who do not want the law to change can reply to just Question 1 and Question 2, which can be done in a couple of minutes. You can access the full document here, or a short reply form, with some suggestions for answers to Question 2, here.

A morality tale for our day

Once same-sex unions have been sanctified with the word "marriage," some homosexual couples will have children, writes Michael Cook at MercatorNet.com. But where will they get their children?

All lesbian couples need is a sperm donor and possibly an IVF clinic. Male homosexual couples wanting children with some of their genes need a surrogate mother.

Surrogacy brokers are springing up wherever in the world there is poverty as well as sympathetic government regulation. Surrogatemothers.biz advertise surrogate mothers from the Ukraine. Advocates for Surrogacy advertise the services of women in Guatemala. Affordablesurrogates.com market surrogates in Greece, Panama and India.

Premila Vaghela, a 30-year-old Indian woman with two children of her own, died in the eighth month of pregnancy of unexplained complications after collapsing in her IVF clinic. Doctors there did an emergency caesarean and gave the  child to the American woman who commissioned it. "Premila paid the price of offering herself as surrogate with her life," said the Indian media.

(A Sunday Telegraph investigation claimed there are already up to 1,000 surrogacy clinics in India, all unregulated. There were an estimated 2,000 births to surrogate mothers in India last year, with up to 1,000 of the babies going to Britain. Couples and single people pay an average of £25,000 a time; the surrogate mothers are paid up to £6,000 to donate eggs and carry babies.)

The contracts the women sign are incredibly exploitative. They must agree to the most intrusive limitation of their lifestyle and to accept reduction of the number of foetuses in the womb (three embryos are transferred at a time) if necessary.

Reproductive tourism, says one Indian magazine, is immensely valuable, not only empowering the surrogates, but bringing a lot of revenue for the state. "Where the storks dare to fly. . . Bringing smiles to couples across the world."

Says Michael Cook: "Supporters of same-sex marriage have to face the stark fact that legislation  will mean misery for women in developing countries. Perhaps death will be rare. But it will certainly happen. Are gay couples ready to force women to have selective abortions? Are they ready to accept that some women will die bearing a child they paid for? Are they ready to accept the degradation and exploitation that are inherent in their dream of being married?"

A very present help in trouble

William MacDonald tells* how during the First World War young men in an island community in the Scottish Highlands were being called up for military service in increasing numbers. Each time contingents of them gathered at the pier to sail to the mainland, friends and relatives assembled there and sang:

God is our refuge and our strength,

in straits a present aid;

Therefore, although the earth remove,

we will not be afraid:

Though hills amidst the seas be cast;

though waters roaring make,

And troubled be; yea, though the

hills by swelling seas do shake.

A river is, whose streams make glad

the city of our God;

The holy place, wherein the Lord

most high hath his abode.

God in the midst of her doth dwell;

nothing shall her remove:

The Lord to her a helper will,

and that right early prove. . .

That is, of course, the Scottish metric version of Psalm 46 - the psalm that begins "God is our refuge and strength." Psalm 46 prompted Katharina von Schlegel to write the hymn Be still, my soul, and Martin Luther to write the famous hymn A mighty fortress is our God. When discouraging news came - and Luther had his share of discouraging news - he would say to his friends "Come, let us sing the 46th psalm."

The days of the First World War were a more godly age. Nowadays many have turned away from God, and society is descending into chaos and disorder. But God is unchanging.

Psalm 46 continues: "There is a river whose streams shall make glad the city of God." That river speaks of God's peace, God's love and God's provision. These things are not pie in the sky, but real. Not everyone has them - but they are the daily experience of those who walk with Him.

God forces Himself on no one. But He is available for those who seek Him.

"If you seek him, he will be found by you."

"Seek, and you will find."

* Believer's Bible Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995, p620f.

Britain's (almost unnoticed) record of shame

According to Government figures published this week, 196,082 officially sanctioned abortions were performed in England and Wales last year. There were a further 12,471 abortions in Scotland, making a total of 208,553 in England, Scotland and Wales. That's 17,000 a month; 4,000 a week; something like 600 a day.

Of the 196,082 abortions in England and Wales, 189,931 were on England and Wales residents. Of these, 98 per cent were carried out on the ground that the continuation of pregnancy would involve risk to the physical or mental health of the woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. Of these, 99.96 per cent were on mental health grounds - despite the fact that there is no evidence that continuing with an unplanned pregnancy poses any greater risk to a mother's mental health than having an abortion.

Only one per cent of abortions were carried out because of the risk of the baby's being born handicapped.

Ninety-six per cent of abortions were funded by the NHS. Sixty-one per cent of abortions took place in private clinics under NHS contract.

Thirty-six per cent of women having an abortion last year had had one or more abortions previously.

When 49 children were massacred in Syria the other day, European countries expelled Syrian diplomats in protest. Yet when 208,553 unborn children were massacred in Britain last year, as some commentators are pointing out, scarcely anyone turns a hair.

Don't misunderstand what I am saying. The stabbing and shooting to death of innocent children in Syria deserves all the condemnation there is - but the deliberate killing of 208,553 unborn children in Britain while the authorities stand idly by?

The story of Kasim Hafeez

Kasim Hafeez is a brave man. Not because his investigation caused him to discover something to be true, but because, having discovered it to be true, he decided to stand up for it.

Kasim is a British Muslim. Once a radical Islamist, a Jew-hater and an anti-Israel activist, he is now a Zionist - and proud of it.

He runs a website, www.theisraelcampaign.org (and writes a blog on the same site), whose aim is "to fight the hate, the lies and try to prevent more young minds being poisoned. . . 

"We want to stem the tide of Anti-Israel vitriol spewing from the many facets of society," it says. "We believe in peace in the Middle East for both the Jewish people and the Arab people, but this can not be achieved by the demonisation and vilification of the State of Israel."

In an article on another website, Kasim tells how the change in his life came about.

Growing up in the Muslim community in the UK, I was exposed to materials and opinions at best condemning Israel, painting Jews as usurpers and murderers, and at worse calling for the wholesale destruction of the "Zionist Entity" and all Jews. In short, there was no accommodating a Jewish State in the Middle East.

To grow up around this constant barrage of hatred directed at Israel has a massive effect on an individual's own opinions. More disturbingly, many of these people weren't radical or extreme, but when it was about Israel the most vicious of rhetoric poured out. . .

My father, however, was much more brazen in his hatred, boasting of how Adolf Hitler was a hero, his only failing being that he didn't kill enough Jews.

By the time I had reached 18 I was completely indoctrinated to the fold of radical Islamism. My hate for Israel and for the Jews was fuelled by images of death and destruction, set to the backdrop of Arabic melodies about Jihad and speeches of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah or Osama Bin Laden.

These views were reinforced when I attended Nakba Day rallies, where speakers predicted Israel's demise as Hezbollah flags were waved proudly in the centre of London.

Was there a case for Israel? In my mind, of course not, there was no shadow of doubt. Even the most moderate clerics I came across refused to condemn terrorism against Israel as unjustified; the Jews must obviously deserve it, I believed.

So what changed? How could I go from all this hatred to the great love for and affinity with Israel and the Jewish people? I found myself in the Israel and Palestine section of a local bookstore and picked up a copy of Alan Dershowitz's The Case For Israel. Given my worldview, the Jews and Americans controlled the media, so after a brief look at the back, I scoffed thinking "vile Zionist propaganda."

I did, however, decide to buy it, content that I would shortly be deconstructing this propaganda piece, showing that Israel had no case and claiming my findings as a personal victory for the Palestinian cause.

As I read Dershowitz's arguments and deconstruction of many lies I saw as unquestionable truths, I searched despairingly for counter arguments, but found more hollow rhetoric that I'd believed for many years. I felt a real crisis of conscience, and thus began a period of unbiased research. Up to that point I had not been exposed to anything remotely positive about Israel.

Now, I didn't know what to believe. I'd blindly followed others for so long, yet here I was questioning whether I had been wrong. I reached a point where I felt I had no other choice but to see Israel for myself; only that way I'd really know the truth. . .

I did not encounter an apartheid fascist state, but rather, quite the opposite. I was confronted by synagogues, mosques and churches, by Jews and Arabs living together, by minorities playing huge parts in all areas of Israeli life, from the military to the judiciary. It was shocking and eye-opening. This wasn't the evil Zionist Israel that I had been told about.

After much soul searching, I knew what I had once believed was wrong. I had been confronted with the truth and had to accept it. But I had a bigger question to confront, what now? I'd for years campaigned against Israel, but now I knew the truth.

The choice was obvious. I had to stand with Israel, with this tiny nation, free, democratic, making huge strides in medicine, research and development, yet the victim of the same lies and hatred that nearly consumed me.

Doing this is not easy and that's something that has become very obvious. I have faced hostility from my own community and even some within the Jewish community in the UK, but that's the reality in standing up for Israel in Europe today. It is not easy, and that's what makes it so necessary.

This isn't about religion and politics; it's about the truth.

When it comes to Israel, the truth is not being heard, the ranks of those filled with blind hatred continue to swell, yet many have not been exposed to the reality, away from the empty rhetoric and politically charged slogans they are so fond of.

We can change this situation but we need to be strong and united. Israel is not just a Jewish issue - it's about freedom, human rights and democracy, all the values that Western nations cherish. It's also about trying to be a light among nations.
  

Israel's international humanitarian aid work speaks for itself, but if we don't get the message out there, no one will. We don't have to be head-bowed apologists leading with "Israel's not perfect. . ." - we should never be afraid to say: I am a Zionist and I'm proud. I stand with Israel. Now I ask, will you do that? 

From Jew-hater to Zionist

Britain was the world's top country for antisemitic attacks in 2010. It fell to second place last year. But while major antisemitic attacks generally are less common, harassment of Jews, such as shouting abuse in the street, is on the increase.

That's according to an annual antisemitism report by Tel Aviv University.

An investigation by the Jewish Chronicle showed that British MPs who have spoken in support of Israel have had to take security precautions after receiving death threats by post, phone or online. One MP had to be accompanied by police officers during the last election campaign. Another was forced to seek police protection.

A number of MPs were targeted by a Muslim group. Members of the now-banned Muslims Against Crusades stormed the constituency surgery of the Finchley and Golders Green MP, shouting that he was a "Jewish homosexual pig."

Last Thursday an elderly lady in Brighton had to be taken to hospital with shock after discovering her car had had its tyres slashed and been spray-painted with Nazi slogans and anti-Jewish graffiti.

Antisemitism has been around for a long time. It's a shame there's so much of it in Britain.

Which is why in my next blog post I intend to tell the story of a British Muslim - once a radical Islamist, a Jew-hater and an anti-Israel activist - who is now a Zionist and proud of it.

Imagine that.

GMC's advice to homosexuals

Two news items which ought to have a mention here:

The General Medical Council, the regulatory body for doctors in the UK, has published a leaflet in conjunction with the homosexual rights group Stonewall (as pointed out here) giving detailed advice about how to lodge a complaint against doctors who are felt to be discriminating against homosexual and bisexual patients.

The leaflet, entitled Protecting patients: your rights as lesbian, gay and bisexual people, has been part funded by the Department of Health and published following a survey by Stonewall into homosexual and bisexual men's health.

The leaflet says doctors must not unfairly discriminate against patients by allowing their personal views about sexual orientation adversely to affect their professional relationship or treatment. Doctors also must not express to their patients their personal beliefs in ways that exploit their vulnerability or are likely to cause them distress.

It asks patients who think their doctor is not fit to practise to  contact the GMC.

There is no doubt that doctors should treat patients without discrimination in any way.

But some homosexuals consider Christianity and the Bible "homophobic" and orthodox Christian views on sexuality offensive. Will this leaflet encourage vexatious complaints against doctors known to have orthodox Christian beliefs on sexual matters?

Moreover, the Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The GMC has published a leaflet for homosexuals, but not apparently for any of the other groups.

Is this discriminatory?

And the second news item:

The petition objecting to the intention to redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriage and asking for marriage law to remain unchanged (you can see it at c4m.org.uk) has reached half a million signatures. Surely a clear indication that the great majority of people in Britain do not want marriage law to be tampered with.

Changing society's attitude to marriage

Sir Paul Coleridge, a senior judge in the Family Division of the High Court, is a remarkable man. Appalled at the number of divorces and the effect family breakdown was having on children, he began some years ago to speak out in support of marriage.

Now, he says, it's no longer time to speak only, but time to act. This week he launched the Marriage Foundation, an independent charity whose aim is to champion marriage as the "gold standard of relationships," and by so doing to change attitudes towards marriage and divorce from the top to bottom of society.

Sir Paul, who once famously said that a divorce was easier to obtain than a driving licence, describes family breakdown as "one of the most destructive scourges of our time," and the impact family breakdown is having on society as "out of control."

"There are an estimated 3.8 million children currently caught up in the family justice system," he says. "I personally think that's a complete scandal."

The foundation's website says if you look at the facts and figures, the case for marriage becomes overwhelming. Its advice to married couples having problems will be where possible to "mend it, don't end it."

It is estimated, Sir Paul says, that the financial cost to the nation of family breakdown "exceeds £44 billion a year: greater than the entire defence budget."

When he was married in 1973, "we took the element of public commitment via our wedding vows seriously. Standing up in front of your family and friends to publicly commit to another person gives marriage a psychological stability or glue lacking in other relationships. . .

"The evidence I find overwhelming is that married relationships are more stable and the children of such relationships fare better. For example, a baby born to cohabiting parents is more than 10 times more likely to see its parents separate than one born to married parents."

It's good to see someone who, seeing a need, does something about it.

Leaving God out

You may remember that Bideford Town Council had been starting its meetings with a formal prayer since the days of Queen Elizabeth I. An atheist former town councillor objected to the practice. Aided and abetted by the National Secular Society, he took the council to court - and won his case.

The legislation that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles consequently rushed through to ensure councils could open their meetings in prayer if they wanted to evidently hasn't had the effect that was expected.

The Sunday Telegraph says 40 councils have recently decided either to drop or "water down" the practice of opening their meeting in prayer. More are considering following suit. Twenty-one authorities said they planned to continue with prayers without changes.

In order to accommodate several atheist or agnostic members of Glocestershire County Council, the council chairman has taken it upon himself to remove all mention of God and of Jesus from the council's traditional opening prayer.

The old prayer said

Let us pray for God's blessing on all those who serve the people of Gloucestershire, and especially on the work of this county council.

May He give us wisdom to carry out our duties; the humanity to listen to those we represent; the courage to do what is right; and the generosity to treat each other with respect. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The new prayer says

May we find the wisdom to carry out our duties, the humanity to listen to all, the courage to do what is right and the generosity to treat each other with respect. Amen.

Said the chairman, Brian Thornton: "I am very happy with it. There is now unity. I kept the words, but there is no longer a reference to calling for God's help. It does the trick."

Does the trick? How do they know now who they're praying to? And do they get an answer to the prayer?

In Cheltenham, where they used to open their meeting with prayer, the council chaplain now leads members in up to two minutes' silence.

Can someone tell us why it needs a chaplain to lead two minutes' silence?