News

UK Tory MP: use anti-terrorism laws against Christians who say gay marriage is wrong

1 Comment
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

This article appeared in the far left UK Telegraph. (H/T Dina)

It says:

New banning orders intended to clamp down on hate preachers and terrorist propagandists should be used against Christian teachers who teach children that gay marriage is “wrong”, a Tory MP has argued.

Mark Spencer called for those who use their position in the classroom to teach traditionalist views on marriage to be subject to “Extremism Disruption Orders” (EDOs), tough new restrictions planned by David Cameron and Theresa May to curb radicalisation by jihadists.

In a letter to a constituent, Mr Spencer, the MP for Sherwood in Nottinghamshire, insisted that Christian teachers were still “perfectly entitled” to express their views on same-sex marriage – but only “in some situations”.

Christian campaigners said Mr Spencer’s remarks confirmed what they had previously warned: that those who believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman would now be “branded extremists”.

[…]Ministers have signalled that the orders, expected to be a key plank of the Government planned new Counter-Extremism Bill, would be used not only curb the activities of radical Islamist clerics but those who promote other views deemed to go against “British values”.

According to the MP’s letter, the anti-terrorism laws would be used whenever teachers taught children that redefining marriage was wrong. This is the view of every Bible-believing Christian, by the way. Defending the standard definition of marriage is now the equivalent of advocating for Jihad, in British schools.

I did a quick search to see what really is going on in the UK with freedom of conscience, free speech, and so on, and I found this story:

A Christian registrar who claimed religious discrimination has today been denied an appeal by the European Court of Human Rights, in a move described as a “sad day for liberty of conscience”.

Lillian Ladele was claiming religious discrimination after being forced out of her Islington Council job over her conscientious objection to same-sex civil partnerships.

She was seeking to appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights after losing a 5-2 majority decision in January.

Two other Christians, Shirley Chaplin and Gary McFarlane, also had their applications for appeal turned down.

It’s a good idea, when deciding who to vote for, to look at other countries to see where the policies being put forward today have led. One policy that led to a terrible place, especially for men and children, was no-fault divorce. Today, we have same-sex marriage, which denies children access to their biological mother or father, or both, and makes relationships about the needs of selfish adults, instead about the needs of children. And in the UK, speaking against this second redefinition of marriage is now a crime.

News

Fifth video: Planned Parenthood selling intact 20-week baby cadavers for profit

2 Comments
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

Here’s the latest video:

WARNING: The video above contains graphic images of violence against unborn children, especially in the second half. Viewer discretion is advised.

Rachel Alexander writes about the fifth video from the Center for Medical Progress at The Stream.

She writes:

Posing as a research company interested in purchasing fetuses, the undercover buyers discuss the costs with Melissa Farrell, Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. Farrell, with her background in finance, makes it clear the transaction will be profitable — a felony since federal law prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal body parts — and that they can change the abortion procedures to ensure the fetuses come out intact (thus rendering them more marketable in the fetal body parts aftermarket), also a violation of law.

A particularly incriminating part of the video comes when Farrell turns to a technician and asks, “Any idea why the other affiliates in Texas think it’s illegal?”

The big new development in this video is that the abortion procedures are being modified in order to deliver intact unborn baby corpses.

More:

Farrell discusses how they’ll need to change their abortion procedures to make sure the fetuses come out intact: “We deviate from our standard, get creative … exploring how to make a higher chance of intact, talk directly to the doctor — they can make it happen.” This is further evidence that the abortionists, contrary to federal law, do often deviate from standard procedure to improve the marketability of the baby body parts. The standard procedures are standard, incidentally, because they are judged to be the best procedures for the life and health of the mothers, but apparently never mind about that when other considerations are on the table.

Amelia Hamilton comments in her article at The Stream:

When Melissa Farrell referred to fetuses as “a matter of line items,” she is talking about money, discussing how to charge to get the most out of each baby. Here are some other examples from this fifth video.

“My department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here.” (7:08 into the video)

“If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this — it’s all just a matter of line items.”  (7:58 into the video)

So they can add a line item (charge) to each order for specific parts because each specific part request requires dissection and shipping costs. They can add those line items to each order so that they can maximize revenue. So the abortion business is really not about recouping costs at all – it really is about making a profit. They are using unwanted human beings to make money. Much like slave owners did, except slave owners never treated their slaves this gruesomely.

Related posts

Polemics

Justin Bass fact-checks Dan Barker’s debate performance

3 Comments
Two Rams butting heads: may the best ram win!
Two Rams butting heads: may the best ram win!

I read this post from Justin Bass, PhD about his recent debate with Dan Barker on the historical Jesus. Bass takes a look at Barker’s arguments in his written work, as well as his performance in the debates.

First, Barker does not quote any mainstream historians, he only cites people like G.A. Wells (a professor of German language), Barbara G. Walker (an expert in knitting), and other people on the radical fringe:

In writing on Jesus and Christianity, Dan cites only these other sources: John Remsburg, J. M. Robertson, W. B. Smith, Barbara Walker, G. A. Wells, Randall Helms, John Allegro, Hugh Schonfield, Earl Doherty, Robert Price and Richard Carrier. A review of their credentials quickly reveal that the majority of them are inadequate sources for Jesus and early Christianity.

[…]That was very honest of Dan to admit that he erred in using Walker as a source, but why did Dan not cite anywhere in his books James Dunn, E. P. Sanders, John P. Meier, N. T. Wright, Paula Fredricksen, Dale Allison, Martin Hengel, Richard Bauckham, or really any of the other 6000+ scholars professionally teaching in relevant subjects of early Christianity?

One thing is for sure – with a list of clowns like that, Barker is not interested in truth, but just interested in believing whatever suits his emotional needs.

The rest of the Bass essay covers these topics:

  1. Did Nazareth Exist during the Lifetime of Jesus?
  2. Josephus and Tacitus on Jesus
  3. Did Paul Believe Jesus’ Resurrection was Physical or Spiritual?
  4. The 500 Eyewitnesses
  5. “Contradictions” in the Resurrection Accounts
  6. Dan’s One Alternative Explanation (for the minimal facts)
  7. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, Dan would still not accept Him as his Lord

You might remember that I already blogged about Dan Barker’s crazy view that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, and the archaeological discoveries that falsify his view.

Let’s just look at one of other ones in the list. I think this is the craziest one of all – Dan Barker’s explanation for the minimal facts:

Bass writes:

I presented 7 facts concerning the historical Jesus and the rise of the Christian movement in the first century in my opening statement that are agreed upon by all full-time teaching scholars in the Western world (6000+) whether in Classics, History, or in Early Christianity. And I argued that the best explanation of these 7 facts is that Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the dead and therefore is Lord of all.

Throughout the night, Dan only gave one possible alternative explanation that would, even if true, explain only one of my 7 facts. He admitted before he shared this explanation that the hallucination hypothesis (which is the leading alternative explanation among NT scholars today) is “weak.” Instead, Dan proposed a theory found first in the writings of Robert Price. You can watch the clip above, but Dan essentially argues that because Peter felt so bad about his denial of Jesus after his death, he had an experience that convinced him Jesus was still alive. But as I said in the debate this in no way answers why someone like Paul would become a follower of Jesus and I pressed Dan for evidence for this theory and he gave none.

Ultimately, this was just something Robert Price just made up out of thin air and Dan is carrying on Price’s imagination.

How the heck are you supposed to get Paul to exchange his comfortable life as a zealous, respected Pharisee for his life as a Christian missionary based on Peter feeling guilty? Paul was trying to kill Peter – he isn’t interested in Peter’s supposed feelings of guilt. No one – and I mean no one – doubts that Paul was a zealous Pharisee who thought that he saw a post-mortem appearance of Jesus. That is the only way to explain his complete change of mind. In fact, the Peter-grief theory does not explain the empty tomb. It does not explain the post-mortem appearances to Paul, James and others, and it does not explain the early belief in the resurrection that emerged in Jerusalem. It’s a ridiculous theory, and the only way to believe it is by insulating yourself from the evidence.