Diversity Can Be A Dangerous Concept.

On November 5, 2009, diversity killed fourteen people at Fort Hood, Texas.

Nadal Malik Hasan

You may say a “concept” cannot kill. But it is well documented that military brass knew that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was a warrior for Allah – a potential jihadist. He telegraphed the message but no one was listening. Hasan was, after all, Islamic, and that fact protected him.

Diversity was far more important to the U.S. Army than protecting the lives of soldiers. Lynn Woolley.

Birdie.

Odd, That. I Wonder What Conclusions May Be Drawn?

 London violence: Man killed in Ilford is fourth stabbing in the capital in eight hours. Aol.

When we had a death penalty we had three homicides per week across all of England & Wales. Moreover, hospital staff now save more violent crime victims than at any time in history!

May The Peace of The Christ Rule In Your Hearts.

England Win 4th ODI to Take A 2 - 1 Lead With One Match To Play.

Excitement finally arrived in this match as Adil Rashid claimed a 29 run victory for the away team with a phenomenal last over. Four wickets!

With England scoring two 50s batting first and a pair of centuries to boot, a huge total of 418 was posted. Tedious.

Naturally, Gale more than equalled the English batters and almost saw his side home.

BUT - I spent large portions of the game bored out of my skin. The six hit has now been utterly devalued. (England made the world record with 24 in their innings.) Once something to savour - sadly - that is no longer the case.

This is the outcome when bowlers are not allowed to bowl with a proper ball. Add to this the appalling tendency of groundsmen to prepare 'good wickets' wholly ruining this form of the game.

A genuinely good wicket gives as much aid to the bowlers as it does to the batsmen!

Brexit - No Good Can Come From May's Antics!

Despite countless commitments to leave on 29th March 2019, Theresa May today explicitly said she would give Parliament the power to delay Brexit beyond then. The timetable she set out is as follows:

• Tuesday 12th March: Meaningful Vote
• Wednesday 13th March: No Deal Vote
• Thursday 14th March: Extending Article 50 Vote

The UK will now only leave without a deal if the House of Commons votes again for that outcome. Despite having overwhelmingly voted to set it as the legal default in 2017… GUIDO Fawkes.

Birdie.

Labour LIARS!

Jonathan Arnott MEP‏Verified account @JonathanArnott  

Dear Voters, Remember that Manifesto thingy from 2017? You know, all those reasons we said you should vote for us? Our promises? We've decided we don't agree with it any more. You voted already, you can't stop us. So long, & thanks for all the fish! Regards, The Labour Party

Our God and Our Strength.

Smile And Pray For The Disgraceful Politicians Who Are Stabbing Democracy In The Back!

Kate Hoey.

Labour's second referendum won't go ahead, but it will destroy the credibility of my party.

• KATE HOEY MP.

Ignatius Theophors: Letters Stuff The Arguments of: Unitarians, Assorted Cults and Many In The Liberal Church!

 Ignatius Theophors was an early Christian writer, who was a church leader in the city of Antakya in southern Turkey.

 During his life, he is said to have encountered the Messiah and went on to write several letters about his experiences to churches across the nation. However, historians who uncovered the notes were left stunned when they did not refer to him as the son of God. 

Larry Hurtado, from Edinburgh University, revealed what he uncovered during Amazon Prime’s “Son of God?” series.

He said in 2015: “Ignatius is writing in the early part of the 2nd century, somewhere between 110 and 115AD. 

“We have seven authentic letters of Ignatius that survived. 

Larry Hurtado revealed the findings (Image: AMAZON PRIME)

This is a belief that is relatively uncontroversial for him and the churches he is writing to

Larry Hurtado

Mr Hurtado went on to reveal how the letters claimed Jesus was actually God.

He added: “One letter was to Smyrna, one to Ephesus, one to Trallians, one to Rome and so on.

“What is interesting about his letters is that he does use these exalted references to Jesus referring to him as ‘my God’ or ‘our God’.

“This is a belief that is relatively uncontroversial for him and the churches he is writing to.”

Presenter of the documentary Luke Waldock went on to explain the significance in the discovery. He revealed: “‘Jesus my God’ – this is not a discussion as to whether Jesus could be God or a man like God. 

“Ignatius states it clearly and knows his readers will agree with him. 

“Jesus - my God, Jesus – our God.

“When we look at the practices of the early church we find the same attitudes to Jesus.

“Early Christians were baptised in the name of Jesus and they prayed in the name of Jesus too.”

According to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Jesus means in Hebrew: ‘God saves.’

“At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.

“Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their sins”.

“In Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men.”

Blogger - GOD THE SON!

By CALLUM HOARE. Express.

PUBLISHED: 12:44, Tue, Feb 26, 2019 | UPDATED: 13:58, Tue, Feb 26, 2019

Abortion Attitudes Finally Becoming More Human In The US?

More than six in 10 Americans say they want the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade to be reinterpreted to allow additional restrictions on abortion, a new survey has found.

A new survey of over 1,066 adults aged 18 and older conducted last week and released on Tuesday asked participants what they would want to happen if the Supreme Court one day reconsiders the 1973 ruling, a possibility that some abortion advocates fear with the slight conservative majority of the bench. 

The question posed is one of the newest questions asked of respondents to an 11th-annual Marist Institute for Public Opinion poll conducted for the Catholic fraternal organization Knights of Columbus on abortion rights.

The survey found that 30 percent of respondents say they would like to see abortion kept “legal without restriction,” while 49 percent said they would like states to be allowed to make “certain restrictions” and 16 percent said they think abortion should be made entirely illegal.

“We ended up finding that almost two-thirds, 65 percent, would like the court to reinterpret Roe, revisit that decision in a way that would functionally overturn it,” Knights of Columbus Vice President Andrew Walther told reporters in a press call on Tuesday.

Walther notes the data indicates that nearly half of respondents favor a legal landscape similar to the days before the Roe v. Wade decision when states could decide abortion restrictions for themselves or favor tighter abortion restrictions.

“So you have 65 percent that is looking for something very much different for Roe v. Wade,” he stressed.

Walther added that most polling on Roe v. Wade only asks binary questions about whether a respondent supports the 1973 Supreme Court decision without doing much to go into detail about the individual views on how the ruling should be changed or upheld.

“It is a different set of answers when you ask [just] the brand name,” Walther explained.  “What we have found both with the [question on abortion restrictions] … and now with this question with the Supreme Court, when you ask people what they think, the answers you get taking away the labels [of pro-choice and pro-life] are really interesting in terms of policy prescriptions or desire for jurisprudence that would be very different from what a snapshot-label-type question would give you.”

In previous Marist/Knights of Columbus surveys, respondents have been asked where they stand on a six-point spectrum when it comes to the issue of abortion.

Just 15 percent of adults say they believe abortion should be “available to a woman at any point during the pregnancy,” a position more in line with that of 2016 Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the abortion industry. Only 9 percent of respondents said they think abortion should be legal during the first six months of pregnancy.

As the U.S. is one of seven countries in the world that allows abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, 27 percent said they think abortion should only be allowed during the first three months of pregnancy while 28 percent said that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Ten percent said abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother and another 10 percent said abortion should “never be permitted under any circumstance.”

Knights of Columbus and Marist maintain that the data indicates that 75 percent of respondents feel that abortion should at the very least be limited to the first three months of pregnancy.

When it comes to respondents who identified as “pro-choice,” 25 percent said they support abortion at any point in the pregnancy and 14 percent said they support abortion during the first six months.

Forty-two percent of self-identified pro-choice respondents said they think abortion should be legal only in the first three months of pregnancy while 17 percent said they think abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

“What this study has shown and we have shown over the past decade, is that it would be helpful for us to step back from the campaigning in the public square and have a serious discussion about what Americans’ policy preferences are on the issue of abortion,” Marist poll Director Barbara Carvalho told reporters. “Yes, this weekend you have the March for Life and the Women’s March and it is being characterized as one side versus the other side. What I am hoping we provide through this research it is not just about being on one side or the other side.”

Walther and Carvalho were asked about data compiled by Gallup, which has found that about six out of 10 Americans broadly support abortion rights in the first trimester.

“I think it is important to understand that the legal situation as it is now is not a strict three-month limit,” Walther said. “What you have is 75 percent support substantial restrictions. The Washington Post “Fact Checker” has confirmed that the U.S. is one of only seven countries that allows abortion after 20 weeks. We allow late-term abortions in a way that only six other countries allow it, including North Korea, Vietnam, and China.”

The survey also found that 75 percent of respondents oppose the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions in other countries, while 54 percent oppose the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a woman’s abortion.

Sixty-two percent of respondents oppose aborting babies diagnosed in utero as having Down syndrome.

The survey also found that 59 percent of respondents say they support banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy except to save the life of a mother, while 32 percent said they oppose such a rule.

The survey, which was conducted on Jan. 8  through Jan. 10, contained a 3.7-percentage-point margin of error.

Last year, the abortion rights group Center for Reproductive Rights argued in a report that if Roe was overturned, then 22 states would likely ban abortion in response.

But Pro-Life Action League Executive Director Eric J. Scheidler, told CP last July that claims like 22 states immediately banning abortion are exaggerated "fear mongering."

"At most, only a couple of states with extremely conservative legislatures might even attempt something like a total ban on abortion," Scheidler told CP.

"[It's] far more likely that states would seek to further restrict abortion, in line with the view of most Americans, with measures like banning late-term abortion and holding abortion facilities to the highest health and safety standards," he said. 

He added that the Supreme Court could uphold greater restrictions on abortion than we've seen so far, such as the bans on abortion after 20 weeks that have been passed in some states.

Follow Samuel Smith on Twitter: @IamSamSmith

Birdie.

Karen: Targeted For Her Faith.

Vice President Pence’s wife Karen has come under withering attack in recent days from many in the media. From this “reporting,” one might think she has transgressed some obvious social boundary of a civilized society. In reality, the big “scoop” is that this Christian wife and mother, whose Christian beliefs are important to her, is teaching at a Christian school, which being Christian, holds to Christian beliefs about marriage.

Yet you wouldn’t know that from reading the headlines about her, which lead the reader to believe that the driving force of Karen’s actions is the targeting of those who identify as LGBT. As we’ve seen over and over again, those perpetrating such claims negligently (and often willfully) mischaracterize our faith.

The truth is that Karen, along with other biblically-based Christians faithful to teaching which goes back to our Jewish forebears over 6,000 years ago, believe that sexual conduct outside of God’s plan of marriage is sinful (as are a myriad of things). Indeed, all of us—including myself—have fallen short of God’s standards, a reality which allows us to be so thankful that Jesus took the punishment of God’s wrath for us.

Should we really be surprised at this public hostility toward Christian beliefs? Increasingly, social elites don’t merely disagree with religion, but see it as irrelevant or even harmful for society. This is reflected in recent questioning of nominees for public office — Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) questioning Russell Vought (nominated to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget) about his theological beliefs, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) telling U.S. Circuit Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett that “the dogma lives loudly within you,” and most recently, Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) asking Brian Buescher about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus (questioning which was even rebuked by fellow Democrat Tulsi Gabbard). Indeed, just a few days ago, the Senate approved without objection a resolution introduced by Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.) rebuking such questions as violations of the “No Religious Test” Clause of the Constitution. And now, Karen Pence is being targeted for her faith. CP.

Politicking, Cowardice and Vile Beliefs Will Be The Judgement of History on Jeremy Corbyn.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1092334/brexit-news-jeremy-corbyn-eu-referendum-peoples-vote-labour-nigel-farage

True Peace.

The Dangers of Multiculturalism.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/3-reasons-why-multiculturalism-is-dangerous

We're Being Scammed Again!

Both Theresa May’s government and the Labour Party leadership are now being threatened with a haemorrhage of their MPs. Both groups poised to revolt are posing as the beleaguered custodians of the centre ground which has been taken over by extremists in both parties.

Seriously?

Let’s boil down to essentials just what they’re all saying. The Times (£) reports:

“About 100 members of the Brexit Delivery Group, which comprises Remain and Leave Tory MPs, warned the chief whip Julian Smith in a letter that they were prepared to force the government to delay Brexit if Mrs May could not reach a deal.”

These MPs include two ex-Cabinet ministers, former Education Secretary Justine Greening and the former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve, who are threatening to exit the Tory party if Mrs May fails to rule out leaving the EU with no deal.

Said Greening: “I don’t think I would be able to stay part of a party that was simply a Brexit party that had crashed us out of the European Union”. In similar vein, Grieve said he would “cease to take the whip” if he thought the government was “about to take us into a no-deal Brexit”.

So let’s get this right. Grieve, Greening and the rest of the Tory 100 are holding a political gun to the Prime Minister’s head – if she refuses to rule out adhering to the act of parliament for which Grieve, Greening and the rest of the Tory 100 all voted, under which Britain leaves the EU on March 29 regardless of whether or not a deal has been agreed. It is an act which enshrines in law the democratic decision taken by the British people in the 2016 referendum to leave the EU – the commitment to honour which was contained in the 2017 Conservative manifesto, on the basis on which Grieve, Greening and the rest of the Tory 100 were elected to parliament in the first place.

And these MPs call themselves “centrists” while those promising to honour the referendum result and their manifesto commitment are supposed to be “extremists”? Seriously?

Meanwhile the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been told that dozens of Labour MPs will join the Independent Group – currently consisting of eight Remainer Labour MPs who have left the party over extremism, antisemitism and Brexit, and three Remainer Tory MPs – unless he backs the demand for a second referendum. The Times (£) reports:

“They are demanding that he support a proposal by two of his backbench MPs in which Labour would agree to pass legislation underpinning Mrs May’s deal in return for a public vote. If the deal were rejected by the electorate, the government would be obliged to withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.”

Get that? Bad enough that these MPs want to ignore the actual people’s vote for Leave and try to reverse it by running another referendum. Worse, the second vote they would impose would not even be, as was the first, a choice between Leaving the EU and Remaining. It would be between Mrs May’s deal – which is Remain-by-stealth – and Remaining in the EU!

In other words, the “people’s vote” they are demanding is a choice between Remain and Remain. It’s thus an offer that, by definition, the British people simply couldn’t refuse.

These mafia-style tactics are being threatened against not the undoubtedly extremist, hard-left, institutionally antisemitic cabal that has seized control of the Labour party machine but against the British people.

And these Labour MPs call themselves “centrists”!

What’s becoming ever clearer is that the Independent Group is not a principled stand against Corbynista extremism or the party’s endemic antisemitism. It is a Remainer front, whose founding principle is to resist the democratic decision of the electorate.

If it does grow into a force which helps reconfigure British politics altogether, as some are now predicting, the most likely outcome will be this.

The Conservative party will end up standing for historic British national and cultural identity, democracy and independent self-government. The party formed from the Independent Group will stand for the end of historic British national and cultural identity, democracy and independent self-government. And the Labour Party will cater for the Marxist/nihilist crowd who aim to bring about the latter project through intimidation, bigotry and violence.

The Conservative party would thus become the only party upholding the spine of British centrism, democracy and decency. The real symmetry here is between the Corbynistas and their ostensible nemesis in the Independent Group – an unholy alliance against the values that made Britain the unique force for good that it once was in the world, and its last slim chance of becoming so again. Melanie Phillips.

Birdie.

Remember When We Were A Free Society?

This week, the High Court upheld the decision made by Bath Spa University to block psychotherapist James Caspian’s research into transgender regret, saying that the case had been brought too late. Carys Moseley looks at why the 
Court’s judgment matters and asks, what is the point of having departments of counselling and therapy in universities if you aren’t able to research the issues that clients are raising? For if you can’t research it in a university, then where can you?

This week, the hearing of James Caspian was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice. He was prevented by Bath Spa University from carrying out a project researching people who regret gender reassignment. This was despite having already been enrolled on the university’s MA in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The hearing was an application for a judicial review of the university’s decision and Mr Caspian was represented by Paul Diamond.
 

Gender transition therapist wanting to study regret

Mr Caspian is a qualified psychotherapist who has worked with patients who identify as transgendered, and he has in the past been a trustee of the Beaumont Trust, the oldest charity to work with transvestites and transgender people in the UK.

All this makes James Caspian’s case extremely significant, for having helped many people through the path of gender reassignment away from living as members of their biological sex, he later became aware that many regretted this. It is extremely rare for a therapist who has been active in supporting people through gender reassignment to be so open about this.
 

University too scared of attacks on social media

The hearing made it very clear that fear of incurring attacks on social media is what led the university’s sub-committee on ethics to decline Caspian’s research proposal which had been initially accepted, even though he had already been enrolled on the course. In fact, the risk was deemed too great for both the university and the researcher. The reason was that Caspian wanted to recruit more interviewees and considered posting on the online forum of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). WPATH is the global organisation that sets the Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People.

This begs questions about the university’s confidence in the abilities of its own staff, both academic and administrative, to handle highly controversial topics in research. Whilst several universities in the UK have been caught in the crosshairs of debates about ‘no-platforming’ of speakers who are critical of transgender politics, typically this has been due to censorship carried out by Student Unions meeting on university premises. This case is the first one where a student – and a student with a professional background in his chosen subject; essentially, someone who already had the right credentials to carry out the research – has been prevented from carrying out research on transgender issues due to its being too much of a perceived risk.
 

Judge acknowledged issues of academic freedom of expression

The judge, Michael Kent QC, did acknowledge that the case touched on major issues of academic freedom of expression. The problem in his view was that Caspian brought his case for a judicial review of the university’s decision too late after the university had made it.

He also said that Caspian should have gone against the Office for the Independent Adjudicator, not the university.
 

Fear leads to corporate academic self-censorship

The extraordinary thing about this case is not only that the university declined James Caspian’s research proposal having previously accepted it. It is also that the university feared risks of social media attacks upon itself. This means that the university as an institution is prepared to limit its corporate academic freedom in order not to face risks.

Given that transgender politics cuts to the heart of the importance of telling the truth about human nature, this should be viewed as a serious no-no for any university. This is not even like an incident where someone has said something that is highly critical of transgender politics and medical gender reassignment, and where that ‘something’ has been reported to the police as a ‘hate incident’. It is fear of that sort of thing happening. Did the university not consider that it should prepare to defend itself robustly against the risk of such vicious attacks?
 

Have universities lost track of their mission?

Acquisition of knowledge in counselling and therapy must come via free discussion between professionals and clients. This is then organised into various kinds of publications which are then peer-reviewed. Without this, students would be reduced to reading textbooks with a limited shelf-life, and not keeping abreast of developments in the field, let alone studying how clients and professionals are affected by their interaction with social trends.

What is the point of having university departments of counselling and therapy if it is not possible to study clients who have come forward of their own accord to discuss prior therapy which they now believe damaged their lives?
 

Need for more clinical research on transgender regret

Searching the database of Index to Theses, the database of dissertations completed in UK universities, one finds very many dissertations on transgender issues. However, hardly any are clinical studies. There are none specifically on regretting gender reassignment. This speaks volumes as to why research such as what was proposed by James Caspian is needed. When he spoke at the first parliamentary event organised by David TC Davies MP on the government’s proposal to make gender change easier in October 2017, James Caspian spoke of the problem that proper clinical research on transgender issues was not really being conducted to the same degree as in the past. The field had been progressively taken over by activists. The question is, if you cannot study this in a university, which is supposed to be an independent seat of learning and critical thinking, where can you raise the issues?  Christian Concern.

Hardly A Surprise - Mockery & Scorn Is Basic Leftist Politics!

Labour bullying row ESCALATES as Emily Thornberry MOCKS Chuka Umunna’s HAIR at rally. Express.

Let The Lord Be On Your Side.

Should We Have Even Talked To Junker?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1088498/brexit-news-theresa-may-jean-claude-juncker-eu-commission-irish-backstop-spt?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain

Progressives? - Don't Make Me Laugh!

I recently saw the Morning Star front page.

Remembering that this a communist rag, it did not take more than seconds to make me angry.

How dare these people describe the marxism they offer as being 'progressive'.

Incidentally, their claim to fight austerity is most interesting.

Does it mean ever more borrowing and mortgaging the future of generations yet to come? Adding to our £1.7 trillion in debts?

Or is it the brilliant plan to squeeze entrepreneurs until they take their businesses to a low tax economy?

So then - the ordinary taxpayer must be impoverished to catch the shortfall.

These nincompoops are economic pygmies!

(Yes. I am sure that this final remark will get me accused of racism.)

SIGH!

Press Freedom The Next To Go?

https://www.christianconcern.com/our-issues/freedom/press-freedom-and-journalistic-integrity-eroded-by-conversion-therapy-bans

Birdies.

EXACTLY THE POINT!

Taking no deal off the table could torpedo Brexit completely.

• JOHN PENROSe
  

Our Hope.

Oh, Dear. How Low Can Our Society Go Before God Judges The World?

Relaxing obscenity prosecution guidelines will normalise sado-masochism and extreme pornography

February 12th, 2019 | Family and Sexual Ethics

The Crown Prosecution Service has recently announced that it will no longer prosecute the depiction of ‘consensual’ sado-masochism. Carys Moseley discusses the effects this could have on society in the future, concluding that it could even lead to trivialising slavery. Christian Concern.

England Throw Away Second ODI In Barbados.

A 26 run defeat defeat in Barbados was slightly unlucky for Eoin Morgan's boys as his team bowled well and fielded magnificently.
Chasing a reasonable 290 to win, England did not start well as Roy was a little unlucky to play on and Bairstow was out first ball. Nonetheless, the middle order did its job adequately. 
It was as the game entered the latter stages where England lost the plot - aided by an umpire who bizarrely opted to give Tom Curran out for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

What we cannot complain about is the result as Cottrell  or if you prefer, the 'giant poser',  bowled magnificently to take a merited matchwinning fivefer.

Karen Pence.

How utterly brazen. How shameless. How bigoted. How inexcusable and unjustifiable. The wife of the Vice President of the United States is a committed Christian who – perish the thought – teaches at a Christian school. What has become of our nation?

Worse still, this Christian school actually holds to Christian principles.

Is there a more serious crime she could have committed?

Of course the nation is outraged. This is a frontal assault on one of today’s most sacred political cows. Religious faith (specifically, Bible-based, Christian faith) can have no connection with the public square. We must have freedom from religion – that is, from religion that has any real connection to the Bible.

Had Karen Pence been a liberal (or, “progressive”) Christian, there would be no problem.

So-called progressive Christianity has exchanged the values of the world for the values of the Word. That’s why the world – meaning, secular society, worldly society – loves progressive Christianity.

As Jesus said to His disciples, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

But because Mrs. Pence helps out at a school with biblically-Christian standards, there has been a near-hysterical breakdown in the media.

The FRC’s Tony Perkins cited these headlines in a January 17 email:

• "Karen Pence teaching art at school that bans gay students, parents" (CNN)
• "Vice-president's wife, Karen Pence to teach at anti-LGBT school" (BBC News)
• "Karen Pence Is Teaching at Christian School That Bars L.G.B.T. Students and Teachers" (NY Times)

In reality, as Perkins explains, “The truth is that Karen, like other Christians faithful to the Bible, believes sexual conduct outside of the marriage of a man and woman is contrary to God's plan. This attack on Mrs. Pence is more evidence of the growing intolerance, if not outright hostility toward biblical truth and those who live by that truth, especially those who hold positions in the public square. The message being sent is quite clear: (1) Biblical faith and adherence must be checked at the door of public service (which is a reverse religious test), and (2) Those who hold to these ‘antiquated’ views should be relegated to the margins of society.”

He is not exaggerating.

Writing from the perspective of an Orthodox Jew (and with typical sarcasm), Ben Shapiro tweeted, “BREAKING: Pence’s wife is working for a Christian school that requires that Christian students pledge to abide by Christian standards of sin that have not changed in 2,000 years.”

Oh, the horror!

Matt Walsh, the conservative Catholic blogger, said this: “The Left is once again shocked to learn that the Pences are Christian. It seems they learn this fact anew every few months or so and are freshly outraged every time it dawns on them. The epiphany happened again this week when Mike Pence's wife, Karen, got a job at a Christian private school. This has elicited many outraged headlines across the mainstream media, and many shocked and appalled tweets and so on.”

He continues, “Of course, the stated reason for the outrage is not that Karen Pence, a Christian, is working for Immanuel Christian School, a Christian school, but that the school bans openly gay teachers and does not admit openly gay students. It also prohibits all other forms of sexually immoral conduct, including premarital sex. Teachers are required to officially affirm the Biblical position on all of these subjects.”

In other words, in keeping with clear biblical principles, principles which have never been questioned until recently (in the aftermath of the sexual revolution), practicing homosexuals are considered immoral. As such, they are prohibited from teaching at a Christian school or studying at a Christian school. (As Walsh notes, the same holds true for other, willful forms of conduct that violate God’s standards.)

Is this really news? Is it that big of a shock? Just because the world has changed, does that mean God’s Word has changed? Just because many professing “Christians” have decided that they know better than the Scriptures, does that mean that the Lord now follows human opinion? Seriously?

And here’s another shocker. If this was a traditional Muslim school, non-Muslims would be banned. And heterosexual teens who were having sex would be banned.

And if this was a traditional Jewish school, Christian kids would not be permitted to study there, nor would kids who were getting drunk and doing drugs.

Or perhaps that’s not so shocking.

After all, we expect traditional Muslims to be, well, traditional Muslims.

And we expect traditional Jews to be, well, traditional. CP.

Birdie.

Somehow, I Had Missed This. A Sickening Disgrace of Under-sentencing.

Fiona Onasanya, the MP jailed for repeatedly lying about a speeding ticket, is to have her three-month prison sentence reviewed after a complaint that it is unduly lenient. The sentence follows her conviction in December for perverting the course of justice.

The attorney general’s office will re-examine the decision by a judge at the Old Bailey.

Onasanya, the MP for Peterborough and a former Labour whip, has faced widespread condemnation for continuing as an MP. Both her former party and the Conservatives have called for her to stand down. Guardian.

Not A Favourite Text But I Shall Hold To It.

Jussie Smollet.

It is absolutely *essential* that we believe Jussie Smollett. 

If we don’t, other people who haven’t been attacked might not have the courage to come forward.

#IBelieveJussie

Cultural Marxism's Background.

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/02/background-to-cultural-marxism-emerging-worldviews-2/

I Am Sickened! - And There Are So Many Incapable of Grasping Just How Evil Abortion Is!

A cash-strapped couple from Idaho, who traveled 700 miles to acquire the services of a Planned Parenthood in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is now suing the abortion giant for $765,000 and other damages because the abortion pill did not kill their son.

They are now worried that the boy, who is almost 3, “may carry a defect or injury into adulthood” as a result of the failed attempt to kill him.

The couple, Bianca Coons and Cristobal Ruiz, revealed in a lawsuit cited by the Albuquerque Journal that Coons was about six weeks pregnant in February 2016 when they traveled to New Mexico to get around Idaho’s mandatory waiting period for abortions.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/couple-sues-planned-parenthood-because-abortion-pill-did-not-kill-son.html

Doom-Mongers - Wrong Again!

Philip Bartey, Lower Wyke Green, Bradford. 
After all the rhetoric by doom-mongers claiming the UK economy would collapse as a consequence of Brexit preparations, where are we now? The UK economy is ahead of Spain, Italy and Germany. The EU and Italy are at loggerheads following Italy’s slide into recession. Spain has announced a snap general election.
Forecasters are predicting the collapse of the EU. The yellow jackets are threatening to bring down the French government. Italy and France are at loggerheads with each other. The EU is in disarray. Is this the European Union that some wish to remain a party to? The UK has already lined up several trading relationships outside the EU and President Trump has announced even greater trading arrangements will be swiftly set up between the UK and US benefitting manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and technology for starters worth some £12.8bn whilst some Brits are still crying about the threat posed by the import of bleached chickens.

Read more at: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/yp-letters-we-are-well-positioned-to-thrive-as-eu-only-faces-collapse-1-9607107

James 5:16.