One Born Every Minute

Looking at this evening’s television schedules I see that Channel 4 is offering One Born Every Minute in which “a man struggles with the knowledge that his partner is pregnant with someone else’s child”. I don’t know why anyone would want to advertise that let alone enter themselves in the minor celebrity stakes but that’s life these days.

I have to confess that I haven?T watched any of these programmes but I know a midwife who has, driven as she was by professional curiosity. One glance was enough, appalled by the sight of a woman in the agonies of her labour being laughed at by the husband/partner and their teenage son. How entertaining.

Nowadays of course even the news is classified as entertainment. As Gorgeous (to some) George says when he has finished conducting his Six O’clock News slot, “Stay with us for all the day’s entertainment on the BBC’s News Channel”! Where will it end? I see that the Church of England is moving increasingly with the times telling people that they are “welcome to marry in the Church of England whatever your beliefs, whether or not you are christened and regardless of whether you go to church or not”: http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/youre-welcome/you-can-marry-in-a-church.aspx

That had me thinking that with a little more imagination the C of E could have pandered to people?S curiosity even further by providing facilities for the congregation to witness the consummation as well but of course that would usually have occurred much earlier in our more enlightened society.

Read More

What people want to hear

Recently the shadow Home Secretary found himself in hot water for his secretly recorded anti-gay comments which were contrary to party policy. Similarly former notables oversold themselves in a Channel 4 Despatches sting while attempting to earn more than a few extra bucks for themselves. It is a tempting device.

The general election campaign provides a golden opportunity for telling people what they want to hear. But can the parties deliver so much? Giving “All things to all men” is an impossible task but no doubt we will be treated as idiots and expected to believe it to be possible. Much sadder though are those who hear only what they want to hear making a complete nonsense of the whole process.

Postscript: Gay “Marriage” (2)

In previous blogs on this subject I have suggested that describing Civil Partnerships as “marriage” struck the wrong note. Whether or not civil partners are ‘joined together’ is not a matter with which others need concern themselves so should not be implied.

However, it appears that following the shadow Home Secretary’s boo boo, the Tories are so desperate not to lose pink votes that they had a meeting with Pulpit-crasher Tatchell: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gjjrw_a-7904Aq0Cy8jE6I2g0xLQ

As Tatchell said afterwards, "The best he [George Osborne] could do on gay marriage was say he would consider it." Not quite what he wanted to hear and certainly not what I wanted to hear but clearly what Osborne thought they wanted to hear.

Read More

What They Won’t Tell Us

Unlike the previous ‘Leaders’ debates I found this evening’s Election Uncovered: What They Won’t Tell Us programme on Channel 4 very illuminating and didn’t drop off once this time. I was initially concerned about an unexplained empty chair and the absence of Shirley Williams, one of my long time favourite politicians regardless of party (she was one of the SDP’s ‘Gang of Four’). Seeing her name as a participant was one of my reasons for watching. The other being that, as usual, there was nothing else worth viewing despite the myriad channels we appear to have on NTL plus Freesat, but that is another story. Fortunately the Baroness turned up half way through the programme having been caught up in a traffic accident.

Unlike the personality contest that the ‘Leaders’ debates had become, this programme looked at the hard choices that have to be made by the next Government. Four polls were conducted for the programme: Economic Recovery where 58% thought that we were on the road to recovery; Honesty in Politics where 60% thought politicians less honest than they used to be. On the question of believing the Party leaders telling the truth about the tough decisions about cuts, 38% trusted Gordon Brown, 36% trusted David Cameron and 53% trusted Nick Clegg.

On Pensions people were offered the choice between working for longer or having a higher standard of living. Of those polled 61 % opted to work longer and 23 % lower standard of living.

In what was perhaps the most surprising poll, 70% thought it perfectly possible to make cuts without harming Front line services. This was the most illuminating part of the programme clearly demonstrating that tough choices have to be made and how the parties have been reluctant to be honest with the electorate, hence the high vote.

Some people, including the Governor of the Bank of England, have suggested that whoever forms the next government will be so unpopular that they will not be re-electable. That would serve the best interests of no-one. A possible solution, ironically mentioned by Shirley Williams after her late arrival, was that there should be an inter-party unity team to agree a consensus for dealing with the financial crisis. The final show of hands vote was for a hung parliament which could be the best chance of achieving such a consensus.

What is clear is that the ‘Something for nothing’ mentality of many Britons, ancient and modern, is unsustainable. Services have to be paid for. Even with the planned efficiency savings tax rises are inevitable. For the sake of unity these must applied equitably to avoid a greater burden on the poor.

Read More

Our 'multi-cultural' society

I missed the Channel 4 programme,Make Bradford British, but since it has been referred to so many times and debated on the BBC's Question Time I caught up with it on 4OD. There is a Telegraph review here. Reading the review, I see I was not alone in thinking that Rashid, a Muslim former Rugby League player made the biggest impact. The reason being that out of eight people from various backgrounds brought together in an integration experiment he was the least co-operative, not out of malice, but because his religion came first which was clearly disappointing for the others in the house. What put a different complexion on the proceedings was not that Rashid insisted on praying five times a day but that he had to go to the mosque to pray, delaying the dinner he had offered to cook (he eventually went to a take-away) and disrupting the experiment in the process. The reason? In his own words because he would get a lot more blessings and rewards, the reward being '27 to 25 times more' if he prayed in a congregation rather than at home.

For most Christians, buying one's way to paradise is an alien concept, a concept explained here in 'Gather Blessings in the Mosques'. This article stresses that 'praying in the mosque and being attached to the mosque is a very pious and rewardable action gathering rewards and good deeds for the hereafter. God loves and rewards those who find repose and comfort in the mosques. Whoever builds a mosque seeking the pleasure of God, God builds a similar one for him in paradise'.The following paragraph helps to explain the thinking of Muslims and to understand the pressure for more mosques to be built:'There are six places in which a person is guaranteed the safekeeping of God, the Most High, as long as he is in one of them. In a congregational mosque, with a sick person, at a funeral, in his house, with a just ruler whom he supports and treats with respect, or at a place where people are fighting jihad! [my emphasis - Ed].

With almost daily stories of Christian churches being burned to the ground in Islamic states and worshippers murdered or driven out of their homeland it is illuminating toread "Britain is among the safest places for people to worship freely and in peace, an Islamic leader has said at the opening of a new £900,000 mosque in Feltham, west London" despite the constant reports of supposed Islamophobia. There is an interesting juxtaposition between the 'Gather Blessings in the Mosques' article referred to above and anarticle in the Left Foot Forward Blog  under the headline 'Warsi’s call for the dominance of Christianity ignores that it’s Islam under threat'. In defence of mosque building, towards the end of the article there is a complaint about a statement in the Telegraph back in 2006:

   "the most prominent religious building in the camera  shot will not be one of the city’s iconic churches that have shaped the nation’s history, such as St Paul’s Cathedral or Westminster Abbey, but the mega mosque. Its arrival in London will be a significant coup for Islam and a major event for the country as a whole’. However, there was no complaint or even a mention about the introduction to the article where 'Abu Izzadeen, the firebrand Islamist militant, berated John Reid last week for "daring" to visit a Muslim area." Thisa concept that is spreading, a problem which was referred to in the CH4 programme where Bradford City centre was said to be now 95% Asian.

But these double standards are something to which we have become so accustomed that we hardly turn a hair. It was no surprise then that the head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, admitted that 'We’ll mock Jesus but not Mohammed'. Of course if anyone dared to offend Muslims there would be demonstrations and death threats from those who say they are British but Muslimfirst. Theybelieve that 'Mosques are special places filled with blessings and rewards, however, God has conferred a special blessing upon the nation of Muslims, the whole earth has been declared a mosque, so when the time for prayer comes and a believer is unable to pray in congregation in a building he may pray wherever he may be.' Hence the use of surrounding streets to justify more and bigger buildings.

We are surrounded by Islamic symbols be it mosque or Islamic dress and threatened with retribution against perceived threats while Christians are denied the opportunity to express their religion other than in their churches. The authorities pussyfoot around making endless excuses about unrepresentative extremists in apparent ignorance of fundamental Islamic teaching which regards non-Muslims as underdogs in a world that belongs to Allah. In the Question Time programme I referred to above, most speakers uttered the usual bland platitudes about living together apparently unconcerned about David Starkey's complaint that he was the one who would be arrested if he criticised the Quran because it prescribed the death sentence for his homosexuality, one of many Islamic 'sins' attracting the death penalty such as apostasy and blasphemy, often used to oppress Christians, particularly in Pakistan.

Unusual for the BBC, today's Breakfast News reported on the 'divided loyalties' of one million Pakistanis living in Great Britain out of 3.7 million expatriates who are to be given the vote in Pakistan in recognition that 5% of Pakistan's GDP had been sent back by overseas Pakistanis showing “solidarity and integrity of our motherland” despite their country's failure to protect minorities, something they insist on in Great Britain. On top of this comes therevelation that British war graves on the outskirts of Benghazi have been desecrated by Islamist militants and the symbol of Christ's redeeming love, the Cross, attacked with sledge hammers. This after Libyans had pleaded with the West to assist them in their struggle for freedom and theoutrage expressed after burning some copies of the Quran.

No doubt the CH4 experiment will show that multiculturalism can work in a house of eight people designed for the purpose but in the real world, Christianity is suppressed and only Islam is shown any respect, something that our children now pick up in school adding to the impression that in our multi-cultural society, Islam is holy when all the evidence is to the contrary. Apologists for a political ideology that seeks our demise should get their heads out of the sand, look around them and listen to someone with experience.

Read More

Jesus was a Muslim!

Much has been written recently about the cross and whether it is appropriate for Christians to wear it as an expression of their faith. At the same time in Afghanistan the cross has been publicly burned by Muslims who complain bitterly about any form of disrespect shown to their own faith.

It seems ironic then that Muslims claim Jesus as one of their own, a prophet referred to in the Quran as well as in the Bible. But that is only part of the story, a story which some years ago was the subject of an ITV programme,The Muslim Jesus. To the casual viewer I imagine the story would have been quite compelling without further evidence of the truth. Muslims deny that Christ died on the cross (some say another took His place) so they would have no objection to burning the cross as a Christian symbol. There is no dispute that Jesus is referred to in the Quran but the claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible is readilydisputed even by many Muslims.

Visitors to Birmingham will be familiar with Islam being freely promoted on the streets as illustrated in this video. Last year I heard complaints that similar operations had been extended. A stall had been set up opposite a well-known Anglo Catholic church in a Cardiff suburb where, in common with many other areas, Christians are becoming marginalised as parishes become dominated by Islamic influences and appearance. When a dispute arose over the claim that 'Jesus was a Muslim' the police intervened. On being told that exception was taken to people shouting outside the Church that Jesus was a Muslim, the police response was that the pamphlets were not offensive and that we live in a free country.  One wonders what would have been the reaction if Christians stood opposite one of the City's 32 mosques and made counter claims. The group still engages with passers by claiming: "Let us show you what the Bible really says about Islam - and how Jesus really was a Muslim"!

When Channel 4 broadcast a programme, 'UnderCover Mosques', to highlight what was being said inside rather than outside mosques, in this case the Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, the West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service ignored the hate allegations uncovered and investigated the programme makers instead. They were later forced to apologise after the programme makers were vindicated. The National Secular Society (no friend of Christianity) recently quoted this example in their evidence to the United Nations. Illustrating the extent to which Islamic influence is spreading around the world the NSS included this astonishing testimony:

"I am deeply saddened that in this Council of all places in the whole world, Sharia law has been ruled to be beyond discussion by distinguished delegates, unless they are "experts" and therefore presumably Muslim. If I have got that wrong and non-Muslim experts are acceptable, I will be quick to apologise.

For those of you who like solving simultaneous equations, or are logicians, I have a little exercise. If criticising Islam = Islamophobia, and Islamophobia = racism (as we are told), and racism = unacceptable (as we agree), does this therefore mean that criticising Islam is unacceptable? That is the very questionable algebra or dubious logic that is being increasingly employed to silence critics in the UK by guilt-tripping them. We must not allow criticism to be stifled in this manipulative way. I'm very much struck by Indian born UK writer Kenan Malik's opinion that: "The trouble with Islamophobia is that it is an irrational concept. It confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims, on the one hand, with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of 'Islamophobia' is all too often used not to highlight racism but to stifle criticism. And, in reality, discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often perceived - but criticism of Islam should be greater. All too often Islamophobia is used as an excuse in a way to kind of blackmail society."

I am not suggesting that restrictions to freedom of expression are the monopoly of any one religion. I therefore oppose all blasphemy laws, and helped in the abolition of the UK's remaining (Christian) blasphemy laws. We also know of censorship by Sikhs and Hindus. The worst example of countries operating a blasphemy law, however, is Pakistan where accusing a rival of blasphemy is a convenient way of removing them. Not only does this result in their removal to jail, but the survival prospects of those accused of blasphemy, far less convicted of it, is very poor. And the judiciary are wary of even trying such cases.

Looking at the categories of Muslim influence in What Islam Isn't, it is clear what is now happening in the UK and elsewhere around the world. Islamic street propaganda must be seen for what it is.

Jesus was NOT a Muslim. Hedied on the Cross and is the fulfilment of the prophecies.

Read More