Tag Archives: Labour Party

News

UK Christians hammered by Harriet Harman’s anti-Christian laws

11 Comments
Map of the United Kingdom UK
Map of the United Kingdom UK

From the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Equality laws introduced by the last Labour Government have been attacked by a group of MPs for promoting ‘unacceptable’ discrimination against Christians.

In a strongly worded report out tomorrow, they say the legal system now places the freedom of believers to express their faith below the rights of other groups, such as the gay community.

The report, by an all-party committee of MPs and peers, criticises Government, the courts, employers and police for ignorance over religion and unfairly curbing expressions of faith.

Calling for changes in the law,  it says there are ‘significant problems’ with the controversial Equality Act 2010, steered though Parliament by deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman.

Interpretation of the Act, the committee says, has resulted in religious belief being ‘relegated’ below the rights of other groups.

Referring to a series of cases highlighted by The Mail on Sunday, it says: ‘Critically, early indications from court judgments are that sexual orientation takes precedence and religious belief is required to adapt.’

The report cites registrar Lillian Ladele who lost her job at Islington town hall, North London, after refusing to officiate at civil partnerships, and Roman Catholic adoption agencies banned from turning away gay couples.

The report also refers to bed and breakfast owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who were fined for refusing a bed to a gay couple, even though they also barred unmarried heterosexual couples.

The committee says it is ‘clearly unfair’ for the gay couple’s rights to overrule those of the owners of the B&B.

Similar problems were faced by those who expressed their faith at work by displaying a religious symbol, the report said.

Electrician Colin Atkinson faced the sack from Wakefield District Housing after refusing to remove a cross from his van. The report concludes: ‘It is hard to conceive how this common and ancient tradition could have caused any offence. The case became a symbol of the excesses of political correctness.’

MPs and peers were also critical of the treatment of Cumbrian street preacher Dale McAlpine, arrested and charged for saying homosexuality was a ‘sin’.

In another case, Adrian Smith was demoted and had his pay slashed by Trafford Housing Trust after he criticised gay marriage on his Facebook site.

The committee says: ‘The cases show it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christians to speak out about their views on sexuality without fear of recrimination.’

I am trying to convince many of my apologetics-enabled British friends to think a second time about how they vote. I could have told you back then that Harriet Harman was a snake. But many good-natured, slightly naive Christians voted for her. They thought that it is the government’s job to “spread the wealth around” and make people feel better about themselves – regardless of what they do. “Is it really such a bad thing for children to be fatherless?” they asked. “What is so wrong with passing laws to make sure that no one is ever offended by mean, hateful bigots?” they wondered.

Wake up, Christians! To the secular left, you are the bigots. Next time, pick up a book on economics and get yourself straightened out before you pull the leaver. Stop voting for bigger government. If poverty vexes you, get a job and give your own money away to people you want to help. That’s what I do. Big government means less liberty.

UPDATE: Pat wrote this in a comment below:

When I was living and working in England a Muslim doctor and I used to compare and contrast the differences in our religion as we wound down on a Friday afternoon. Not argueing, just discussing. He got a new secretary.

First week she was there, we started out usual banter it always used to start this way. She started shouting ‘Don’t keep rowing about religion.’ He looked at her in surprise and said ‘We’re not rowing, we’re discussing.’ She then shouted ‘People start wars over religion.’ Again, he said we’re not rowing, we’re discussing.’

We still carried on every Friday afternoon. next thing I know I was called down to my manager and told off in no uncertain terms for trying to convert him. When he found out he stormed down to my manager’s office and really had a go at her slaming her desk with his fist. He asked why I had been called down, when it could just as easily have been that he was trying to convert me to Islam. (Neither of us were actually trying to convert the other, but for months had been comparing the Q’ran and the Bible). The secretary was, by the way, an athiest.

We still carried on our discussions, but he used to ring me and call me into his office. It was good actually, because the other doctor he shared with was also Muslim and he also started joining in.

This was at least 10 years ago, so it had already started then.

She is in the UK.

News

25% of UK women under 16 admit they’ve engaged in premarital sex

1 Comment

From the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

More than a quarter of young women today lost their virginity when they were below the legal age of consent, NHS figures reveal.

Some 27 per cent of 16 to 24 year-olds admit they were 15 or under when they had sex for the first time.

One in eight of this age group have already had sex with at least ten different partners.

[…][J]ust 4 per cent of women now aged 55 to 64 first had sex when they were under-age. This rises to 10 per cent of 45 to 54 year-olds, and 14 per cent of 35 to 44 year-olds.

[…]Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust said: ‘Over recent years we have witnessed the systematic removal of every restraint which in previous generations served as a disincentive to underage sexual activity.

‘Sex education in many schools has had the effect of breaking down the natural inhibitions of children with regard to sexual conduct, and the age of consent is rarely enforced, so young people no longer have any fear of legal proceedings.

‘On top of that, the ready availability of contraception means that a girl’s fear of pregnancy is no longer considered a good enough reason for rejecting her boyfriend’s advances, and confidentiality policies mean that a girl need not worry about what her parents would think about her being sexually active, obtaining contraception, being treated for a sexually transmitted infection or even having an abortion, because they don’t have to be told.’

The figures have come from a survey of the sexual behaviours of 8,420 men and women aged 16 to 69, carried out by the NHS this year for the first time.

They also reveal that one in seven women aged 16 to 24 who had lost their virginity had caught a sexually transmitted infection at least once. Only four in ten said they always used contraception when having sex.

The UK Daily Mail reports on a new study that shows that women who lose their virginity as teenagers are more likely to divorce. (H/T Dina, Mysterious C)

Excerpt:

Women who lost their virginity as young teenagers are more likely to divorce – especially if it was unwanted, according to new research.

The University of Iowa study shows that 31 per cent of women who had sex for the first time as teens divorced within five years, and 47 per cent within 10 years.

Among women who delayed sex until adulthood, 15 per cent divorced at five years, compared to 27 per cent at 10 years.

The findings were published in the April issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family.

Author Anthony Paik, associate professor of sociology in the university’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, examined the responses of 3,793 married and divorced women to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.

The study showed, however, that if a young woman made the choice to lose her virginity as a teenager, there was no direct link to a marital split later in life.

If the sexual act took place before the age of 16 women were shown more likely to divorce, even if it was wanted.

So what caused this explosion of premarital sex?

Excerpt:

Planned Parenthood’s anointed sex missionaries received their first federal funding in the Lyndon Johnson administration. The sort of “sex education” now pushed in Santa Fe and elsewhere started in 1968 when the National Education Association Journal called for “sex education as an integral part of school curriculum beginning in early grades.”[3] Planned Parenthood, the NEA, and herds of shrill progressives were following a behavioral pattern characteristic of the 1960s left.

An early example of the pattern emerged in the reactions to Rachel Carson’s 1962 Silent Spring scare-book, which got DDT banned and still enables the malaria deaths of about 3,000 children a day. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 Population Bomb — turned dud — warned of mass starvations unless humanity curbs its reproductive enthusiasm. Then also in 1968, the NEA Journal demanded solutions to imagined problems.

Imagined, because calls for sex education were based on “problems” that lived only in the minds of anointed ones seeking to spread agendas. “Contraception education” would allegedly reduce unwanted pregnancies and illegitimate births.[4] A “crash educational program”[5] would arrest out-of-control venereal disease, while general sex education would address “the emotionally disastrous results of irresponsible sexual behavior.”[6] The claims shared a common thread: fictitious bases.

Not only were there no disease and illegitimacy crises, but indicators were solidly improving at the time of the alarmists’ claims. As Sowell documents in The Vision of the Anointed,[7] teenage pregnancies and venereal disease declined during the 1950s and 1960s. Yet over skeptics’ protests that sex education would increase sexual behavior, Planned Parenthood and public schools forged ahead to curtail behaviors that were already fading. Sex-ed was off and running.

And results followed.

During the 1970s, pregnancies among fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds jumped 41 percent.[8] Between 1970 and 1984, abortions among unwed fifteen- to seventeen-year-olds more than doubled and birth rates jumped 29 percent.[9] By 1976, five years of data showed unmarried girls fifteen to nineteen having sex at increasing rates.[10] And not only did venereal disease not subside, but teen gonorrhea rates tripled between 1956 and 1975.[11]

In the 1950s, 13 percent of teen girls had been sexually active. By the late 90s, the figure had tripled. Premarital intercourse, approved by less than a third of women in the 1950s, was acceptable to 91 percent by the late 80s. By 2005, over two-thirds of Blacks and half of Latino high-schoolers were having intercourse, while over half of all teens fifteen to nineteen were performing oral sex. By 2006, babies born to unmarried women accounted for 37 percent of all births, [12] 70 percent among Blacks. The Black illegitimacy rate reflected a 218 percent explosion over forty-five years.

Such realities have drawn dismissive responses from sex-ed advocates. Incredibly, the horrific trends of the 1970s and 1980s were offered as reason for more sex education.[13] Yet amid cover-ups and excuses, the sex-ed crowd’s true motives were exposed in 1978, in of all places, Congress. One committee report noted that despite sex education’s stated objective of reducing teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted disease, the real goal “of most sex educators appears to be encouragement of healthy attitudes about sex and sexuality.”

When I hear about things like this I think about the statistics that how that relationship stability is directly correlated to the number of pre-marital sexual partners. The more pre-marital sexual partners you have, the less like that your marriage will last. Those are the facts. And my concern is for the children who are being born from these women who will not have a stable development to grow up in, with a mother when they’re young, and a father as they grow older.

Why does the left push premarital sex even when we know that it undermines marriage? Two reasons. First, they oppose marriage because it traditionally implies different sex roles – men work, women stay home. Feminists on the left want women to work like men work. They don’t want women to aspire to marriage and family. Second, the left thinks that the best way to stop people from having feelings of shame and guilt when they have premarital sex is to encourage everyone to do it. They want to normalize it.

The way that the left deals with the skyrocketing numbers of teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted infections that result from this policy is to double down with more sex education, free abortions and more government spending on social programs, followed by tax hikes to pay for all the lifestyle-outcome-equalizing. And then, of course, fewer working men can afford to marry because of those tax rates, and fewer women can afford to stay home and raise their young children.

After all, the left things that there’s no social problem in the world that can’t be fixed by a little more government intervention and public school indoctrination. If worse comes to worse and the health care costs costs increase, we can just make health care “free” by nationalizing it to completely separate behaviors from consequences. That should get rid of the problem, because if you make getting sick free, people will stop getting sick. And if all of these broken homes create children who commit criminal acts, we can always ban guns. That should get rid of the crime problem, because if you make it impossible for law abiding people to defend themselves, then criminals will stop committing crimes. That’s how the left thinks. Or rather – that’s how the left feels.

News

Can you rely on government to defend your Christian values?

2 Comments

Here is a story from the UK, and appears in the UK Telegraph. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Last month, the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned that British courts had failed to safeguard the rights of Christians who wanted to wear the cross at work, and urged judges to be more sensitive to religious discrimination.

The watchdog said it would call on the European Court of Human Rights to support the principle that employers should make “reasonable adjustments” to accommodate the religious beliefs of their staff.

However, a document posted on the commission’s website disclosed that the watchdog, which is chaired by Trevor Phillips, had abandoned the plan.

Traditionalist Christians claimed that the commission had dropped its support for religious freedom in the face of criticism from secular campaigners and gay rights groups.

The controversy erupted after the watchdog was granted permission to intervene in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, in the cases of Nadia Eweida, Shirley Chaplin, Lillian Ladele, and Gary McFarlane.

All four are Christians who are bringing legal action against the United Kingdom because they believe that British laws have failed to protect their human rights, specifically the right to freedom of religion.

Mrs Eweida, a check-in clerk at BA, was barred from wearing a small crucifix at work while Mrs Chaplin, a nurse, was banned from working on wards after she failed to hide her cross.

Miss Ladele was a registrar who lost her job at Islington town hall, in north London, after saying her beliefs meant she could not officiate at civil partnership ceremonies. Mr McFarlane was sacked for refusing to give sex therapy counselling to gay couples.

Last month, the commission promised to argue in the European court that existing laws had been interpreted in ways that are “insufficient to protect freedom of religion”. It proposed that employers should be able to reach “reasonable accommodations” with their staff to “manage” how workers manifest their beliefs.

However, the watchdog has now launched a public “consultation” on the arguments it should make and has abandoned the plan to call for a new “reasonable accommodation” principle to be introduced, arguing that “this idea needs more careful consideration”.

Don Horrocks, from the Evangelical Alliance, said the Commission had been “successfully intimidated against proceeding as they initially announced”.

“Being forced to be morally complicit in activities which directly violate people’s religious conscience involves fundamental human rights principles,” he said. “There is likely to be a deep sense of injustice within religious communities.”

The gay rights organisation, Stonewall, said it was “deeply disturbed” by the commission’s original plan to support Christians “who have refused to provide public services to gay people”.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, said last night that it was “perfectly reasonable” for workers to be able to wear a “discreet” cross or other “symbols of identification” at work. “That is very different from saying ‘I wish to work in a public service but to exempt myself from delivering public services to people who have paid for them.’”

A spokeswoman for the Commission said: “Our job is not to take sides in political arguments between activist groups, it is to make sure people do not face unjustified discrimination.”

So what do we learn from this? The Equality and Human Rights Commission was created by the Labour Party, with arch-feminist Harriet Harman playing a key role in its administration. The goal of the commission was to fix unfair discrimination and other injustices. But apparently, they don’t mean discrimination against Christians. So we shouldn’t vote for parties on the left – they don’t stand up for Christians.