Remembered, not celebrated!

Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the passing into UK law of the Abortion Act - that heralded the deaths of almost nine million (9,000,000) human beings in the place in which they should have been most protected: their mothers' wombs. In the space of those fifty years, almost nine million  unborn human lives have been deliberately destroyed, in England, Scotland, and Wales - the vast majority of them for no other reason than being an "inconvenience" to the mother!

I published a four-part series of posts on the subject of abortion in August 2014. If you missed it, or have forgotten what I shared, then you might wish to scroll down to the Blog Archive (right-hand-side); click on 2014; then click on August; then click on the four relevant posts. Alternatively, you may try clicking on this link

http://crazyrev.blogspot.fr/2014/08/

and scrolling down to the first of the four posts before reading the others in chronological order.

Of course, fifty years ago, when the UK Parliament debated the Abortion Bill, introduced by David Steel (Liberal) as a private members bill, there were all kinds of assurances given. This was merely to take abortion out of the hands of the infamous "back-street abortionists"; there would have to be agreement between two independent medical practitioners; there would never be "abortion on demand". So much for the assurances of politicians! Of course, in the intervening years we have seen the same kind of situation repeated with "civil partnerships" that would never become "marriages"; with the decriminalisation of homsexuality that would never become the condoning of deviant sexual acts; with "human rights" (that are not, genuinely, human 'rights' at all) that would never infringe on the freedom of others; with no intention of introducing a ban on smacking - that, just months later, becomes the introduction of a Scottish Parliament Bill to do just that. You get the picture?!

Of course, changes have been made to the law over a period of fifty years. And further changes would be made if some people were to have their way! There are efforts made to make abortion legal - right up until the time of birth! Imagine, just before a sound and healthy child is to be delivered, it is murdered in its mother's womb - and that would be legal!

Some of the reasons given for abortion requests are, quite frankly, ludicrous. So many tests are available today, during the pre-natal period. So a child may be murdered because it is the "wrong" gender! That, of course, is still officially illegal; but the recent case brought by Aisling Hubert against two doctors who confessed, and were recorded, to performing abortions on these terms, was taken over by the English Crown Prosecution Service - and dropped "for lack of evidence"! Others discover that their unborn child will have some form of physical disability - and decide that parental love simply doesn't stretch far enough to handle the anticipated "burden" of caring for such a child. Far easier just to have it "dealt with" now! There are even cases of children being aborted because it has been discovered that they will be born with nothing more serious than a "hare lip"!

However, by far the greatest number of abortions (I have read figures as high as 95%) are for personal and social convenience. A female indulges in unprotected sexual intercourse; discovers, a couple of months later, that she is pregnant, and decides that her career/social life/personal selfishness is unwilling to accept the responsibility for this unwanted intrusion to her life. No problem! Just "get rid of it"! The final post in that earlier series mentioned above, deal with some of the common methods of abortion as carried out in the UK. I would love to have every female who seeks such a procedure to be obliged to sit through a full video that explained, graphically, those methods, before being allowed to make a decision on whether, or not, she really wanted to go through with the abortion!

Of course, there will always be those who insist that "It's the woman's body." Wrong! The unborn child is a totally separate, unique, individual that is, for approximately nine months, dependent upon it's mother's body to provide it with protection and nutrition. Of course this dependence continues for a considerable time after the birth! Is infanticide, therefore, fully acceptable?! Others will ask: "What if the female has been raped?" Personally, I consider rape to be a worse crime than murder, as the victim has to live with the memory of the experience for the rest of her (and sometimes, his!) life. However, this is certainly a case in which two wrongs do not make a right! Does having an abortion make the memory and the trauma of the rape disappear? Of course not. It only adds to it - and it makes an unborn child pay the ultimate price for the crime of its biological father!

Today's Scotsman newspaper, in what some may interpret as somewhat cynical timing, reports that the Scottish Government, yesterday, gave women in Scotland the right to take the so-called “abortion pill” at home. So, while Nicola Sturgeon insists that Scotland needs immigrants, she is encouraging the deliberate murder of the indigenous population! http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-women-can-take-the-abortion-pill-at-home-1-4597661

There is, in my opinion, only one valid situation when an abortion may be the lesser of two regretful options, and that is when the life of the mother can be genuinely shown to be at risk. However, that would cover less than 1% of the abortions carried out in Great Britain in any given year!

Abortion! A glaring example of "man's inhumanity to man", and something that saddens the very heart of Almighty God. In a couple of weeks we will be saying "We will remember them" as we think of those who died in two world wars, and in many other conflicts. Let us also remember those who have died before they even had the opportunity to breathe. We certainly cannot 'celebrate'!

David Bowie – The Hysteria, the Sorrow, the Frustration and the Hope

The following is, with permission, from "The Wee Flea" - the blog of David Robertson, minister of St Peter's Free Church of Scotland, in Dundee; and, currently, Moderator of the Free Church General Assembly.   He is, in my opinion, one of the most gifted speakers/writers/debaters/apologists in modern Scotland - a worthy successor to Robert Murray McCheyne who was a former minister of St Peter's.  

The post is longer than my own usually are - but is well worth reading.

David Bowie’s death, grief, and the frustration of a society that has nothing to offer the lonely

It was a shock. Of course it was. Make your coffee, switch on the radio and you hear Life on Mars on Radio 4. What had happened? Had Bowie died? Indeed he had. An unconventional celebrity life, with an unconventional celebrity death. In this age of social media, gossip columns and photographers desperate for that one image, it is astonishing that David Bowie had cancer for 18 months and it never once got into the media. No one – apart from close friends and family – knew. He did something really unusual for a modern celebrity. He died privately.

Bowie Bingo

But now everyone wants to have their say. I played Twitter Bingo that morning. David Cameron – check. Nicola Sturgeon – check. Media stars – check. Church leaders – check. It wasn’t long before I had a full house. Even the Vatican got in on the act – its newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, paid tribute. “One might even say that, beyond the apparent excesses, the legacy of David Bowie… is enclosed in its own sort of personal sobriety, expressed even in the lean physique, almost threadlike.”

I’m sure that many people were genuine in their tributes and did feel a real sorrow. Others may just have been playing the game; saying something for the sake of being seen to say something and show that they ‘cared’. God alone knows. I suspect the wall-to-wall coverage combined with the political, religious and cultural leaders’ interest was largely because those who are now in charge grew up with David Bowie as part of the soundtrack of their life. And to lose that is a sorrow.

Heaven 

But what really interested and saddened me was the number of spokespeople who made comments about him being in heaven. I hadn’t realised that so many of the great and good believed in heaven – and surely they would not be lying to us? Or just using heaven as an excuse to make a corny pun about ‘starman’ now looking down on us? And that set me thinking – what do we really think about heaven? I thought that in this naturalistic, materialist world we could be all grown up and just say, “He’s gone, he had a good life, did a lot of daft things, did a lot of good things, we will miss him, but he’s gone”. I haven’t checked, but I almost expected Richard Dawkins to tweet, “He’s gone. There is nothing left of him but his music and family. He’s not in heaven”. But it appears that in popular culture, we still cannot face up to the nihilist existentialism of atheistic naturalism. It seems that the Bible was right about eternity being in our hearts. “I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end”(Ecclesiastes 3:10-11).

So those who were happily singing “Imagine there’s no heaven” a few months ago are now telling everyone that David Bowie is in this heaven that they imagine does not exist?! And those who want to say something nice and believe that everyone goes to heaven, think that Bowie is up there along with Lemmy, Hendrix and of course Stalin, Hitler and Jack the Ripper. That is, after all, the logic of their position. And again I have not looked, but I am sure that in the bloggersphere somewhere, there are some ‘Christians’ who are taking the opportunity to tell everyone he is in hell and how as a bisexual rock star drug addict he is a warning to us all. And there will be those who are writing about how he was converted on his deathbed and they can tell this because of a) something Bowie said, b) a dream they had or c) a very reliable source, a friend of a friend, who is ‘in the know’.

Sorrow

All I can say is that I feel a real and frustrating sorrow. Let me explain. Bowie, like most human beings was a complex man, who experienced many changes in his life. For example he moved from being gay/bisexual to being heterosexual. In an interview with Tony Parsons in Arena magazine in 1993 he said, “In the States, towards the end of the Seventies, I think the gay body was pretty hostile towards me because I didn’t seem to be supporting the gay movement in any kind of way. And I was sad about that. Because I had come to the realisation that I was pretty much heterosexual”.

He cannot just be simply pigeonholed according to what we want to be true. I didn’t know David Bowie and I am in no position to pass any judgement upon him. I do think he was a musical genius and much of his music was also part of the soundtrack of my early life. But the sorrow comes from what I heard him express, and the pathetic solutions offered to him by a society that he helped create.

Believer?

Firstly, there is no doubt that he was not an atheist. He said so. In that interview with Tony Parsons he explained why he had said the Lord’s Prayer at the Freddy Mercury tribute concert. “In rock music, especially in the performance arena, there is no room for prayer, but I think that so many of the songs people write are prayers. A lot of my songs seem to be prayers for unity within myself. On a personal level, I have an undying belief in God’s existence. For me it is unquestionable.”

Incidentally, I personally found that moment of saying the Lord’s Prayer absolutely extraordinary. It was so unexpected and somewhat surreal. Did Bowie not realise it was a public ‘secular’ event? How dare he bring religion into it! Did he not care how many people he would offend? Probably not.

Does this mean that we can claim him as a card-carrying Christian? Not at all. As far as I know he never professed to be one. But like all intelligent and creative people, he did show a great interest in the Bible, in Jesus Christ and in the great questions that Christ is the answer to. In his 1993 Album, The Buddha of Suburbia he wrote the following lines in the song, Sex and the Church:

Though the idea of compassion
Is said to be
The union of Christ
And his bride, the Christian
It’s all very puzzling.

All the Lonely People

The most poignant moment in the Parsons interview was when Bowie explained his collapse into drugs, sex and despair by saying, “I felt totally, absolutely alone. And I probably was alone because I pretty much had abandoned God.”

And that is where the frustration part of the sorrow comes. Because Bowie himself was clearly a seeker. He recognised that the ‘hole within’ would not be filled by ‘sex and drugs and rock ‘n’roll’. He needed to know that there is “a way back to God, from the dark paths of sin, there’s a door that is open and you may go in; at Calvary’s Cross is where you begin, when you come as a sinner to Jesus”. A society that has itself abandoned God has nothing to offer the person who is lonely because they feel they have abandoned God.

I mourn for David Bowie. As I mourn for ‘all the lonely people’, whose need for fulfilment, forgiveness, faith and a future can only be met by Christ.

Bowie’s last album, Blackstar, realised this month, has a poignancy about it that is painful. Especially this from the song Lazarus:

Look up here, I’m in heaven
I’ve got scars that can’t be seen
I’ve got drama, can’t be stolen
Everybody knows me now.

Life to the Living 

Bowie is gone. I know not where. Who knows what happened in the last years, months and moments of his life? We mourn his passing. Let the dead bury their dead. Meanwhile our task is to bring Life to the living. Let us bring the Good News to those who are lonely because they feel they have abandoned God, that He has not abandoned them.

May 7th - Why I won't be voting SNP.

This is my penultimate pre-election, political post.  I am not dealing with the specifically N.Irish and Welsh Parties as none of them are, for obvious reasons, standing in Scotland.  Nor am I dealing with the very minor Parties (could include the LibDems, next time around!!).

However, I have to make mention of

The Scottish National Party (The Scottish Nasty Party).

There is nothing unexpected in the SNP Manifesto.  This is the Party that, in its manifesto for the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary Election, pledged to consult on same-gender 'marriage'.  It did so - but pushed the legislation through even although some 64% of respondents opposed such a redefinition of marriage.  Ministers even denied that there was any need for amendments to the Bill that would have protected religious liberty and freedom of speech (something that, as many are aware, lost me my Strathclyde Police Chaplaincy!).

This is also the Party that has introduced the controversial 'Named Person' scheme that allows an outsider to interfere in the lives of ordinary families by having a "State representative" for every child, from birth until they have attained 18 years of age - a person who can, for example, ask questions of a Primary School child that relate to what happens within the home, and what level of sex education the child has been given!  This scheme - which is being challenged by a wide range of people and organisations - is planned to be rolled out by August of next year, although 'pilot schemes' have already operated in a number of areas.

Nicola Sturgeon, the current leader of the SNP, is in favour of a "rights envoy" for those who practice sexual deviance.  This person would promote their 'rights' "throughout the world, as an integral part of UK foreign policy"!  Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

In 2004, an SNP spokesman welcomed the introduction of the Civil Partnership Bill.  All of the contemporary SNP MPs supported the Bill at Westminster - and voted against the benefits of the Bill being provided to siblings, or a parent and carer 'child' who shared a home, but not a bed!

Last year, the SNP Government published revised guidance for sex education in Scottish schools.  The guidance emphasises the 'rights' of children at the expense of parental involvement, and says that a "named person" (as above) should be given confidential information that should be kept from parents!

In spite of the assurance, given by the previous Leader of the Party, after the referendum on Scottish separation from the rest of the UK, that such a referendum would not be held again "in his lifetime", his successor is already making noises as to the possibility of a second referendum during the lifetime of the next Scottish Parliament.  As one of the 55%, I find this a very dangerous move that could, so soon after the previous one, end up with the "yes" camp actually being successful!  This, I believe, would be simply because of the same - in my opinion - unthinking euphoria that will see a dramatic increase in the Westminster seats won by the SNP next week.  It would not be for the good of the country, or of its people.

These are some of the reasons why, next Thursday, my vote will not be cast in support of the SNP.

Thar's a referendum a-comin'!

Apologies for the headline!  Oh, and I know that, before the Referendum on Scottish Independence (or, better, Separation) there are elections to the somewhat impotent European Parliament.  However, it was the Referendum on which the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and N.Ireland was pontificating today.

I watched the report of his speech on the early-evening television news bulletin.  If Scotland's residents vote 'No', we were informed, the LibDems would guarantee greater devolution.  I was glad that it wasn't breakfast-time - I would have been in danger of choking on my porridge!

The current likelihood of the LibDums (no, that wasn't a typo!) having any say about anything after next year's General Election are slightly less than the likelihood of me succeeding Barack Obama (yes, I know that I might do a better job - but I wasn't born in the USoA, and that is a major requirement for candidates!).  However, even if they were leading in all of the polls, for Mr Clegg to make such a promise is about as helpful, and meaningful, as him guaranteeing that there will be two blue moons in the sky on every Wednesday night between now and the end of the century.  In other words, his guarantees aren't worth the paper on which his speech-writer had written the words.

However, if Mr Clegg's words were pointless, those of the Deputy First Minister were no better.  She, if I recall accurately, accused Mr Clegg of making promises he can't fulfil!  Sorry, Nicola, but what is the 'Yes' campaign doing?  "We will have the pound sterling, because Alex Salmond says it will be better for everyone if we do."  He may even be correct in that assessment.  The problem is that it's a UK ball, and the rest of the UK don't want us to share it!  "We will have an automatic entry to the EU."  Not according to most of the EU pundits, who insist that a separated Scotland will have to make a formal application - and, if successful, would be anything but independent! 

The only concrete thing that came out of the report was further confirmation, if any is needed, that one can tell that a politician is lying simply by noting that the lips are moving.

Of course, it is pre-election time!