A principled man!

Prior to the referendum on the United Kingdom's continuing membership of the European Union, I don't think that I had ever heard of the Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Member of Parliament (Conservative) for North-East Somerset. However, his obvious depth of knowledge; his razor-sharp wit; his debating prowess; his ability to make his point in a mature, gentlemanly manner; and his overall demeanour; caused me to look more closely at this man - whose name suggests that he lives in an élite bubble, unaware of the circumstances of "ordinary" people (although that is, quite obviously, not the case!).

I have continued to keep a close eye on "JRM" in the many months since the result of that referendum was announced - even although the government have not yet represented the will of the majority of UK voters. He has become, as many will be aware, the favourite to replace Theresa "Sharia" May(be, maybe not!) as Prime Minister, and has an enviable following in social networking - many of his followers being from the younger generation!

Of course, this has meant that he is suddenly the man every radio and television presenter wishes to interview. One such interview, was on Good Morning Britain, which aired yesterday morning, and in which Mr. Rees-Mogg, in answer to a question, told presenters Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid that he supported the teaching of the Catholic church and opposed gay marriage, adding: “The teaching of the Catholic Church is completely clear.” He was also asked if his opposition to abortion included cases of rape and incest, and replied: “I’m afraid so. Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception, and I think it is wrong.”

My first reaction to the reports of this interview was to be grateful for a modern MP who is not only a man of principle, but who is not going to hide his principles for the sake of "popularity". Of course, the usual leftie-liberal-luvvies went into a hyper-ventilated frenzy of opprobrium. "This homophobe wants to take us back to the 18th century" may not have been said, verbatim - but it sums up a fair number of the comments that I have since read by those who believe that they have the freedom to publicly disagree with JRM's personal beliefs - but who would deny him the right to publicly state them! As has often been said - the most intolerant people are often those who demand tolerance!

Now, let me state clearly that, with regard to matters of theology, I am opposed to certain matters of doctrine that JRM would presumably hold - even marriage is seen by him, as a member of the Church of Rome, as a sacrament. I do not agree with that. However, my mind goes back to when I was a student at the University of Glasgow. The former Trinity College had been "acquired" by the University, and was now the Faculty of Theology. In what was seen, by many, to be a bold move, a priest of the Church of Rome, from the nearby Cardross Seminary, was invited to speak to the new Faculty - staff and students - for the first time in some centuries. I was there, as a rabid evangelical, ready to denounce whatever this man might say that would be in any way opposed to my solid Protestant heritage. I left the lecture, somewhat chastened! I discovered that I had more agreement with this Roman priest than I had with some of my regular lecturers! Since those far-off days, I have counted a number of members, and clergy, of the Church of Rome to be among my friends - including a Prince-Cardinal of the church!

However, going back to JRM, I am - as those who know me well would expect me to be - in full agreement with him on these two specific issues. More than that, I firmly believe that, in speaking as he did, he was representing the views of many of the "silent majority" who recognise that the nation has not merely drifted away from its Judaeo-Christian roots, but has been deliberately led away by a succession of governments and others who have been under the influence - and, in some cases, have themselves been active participants - of militant atheists, secular humanists, sexual deviants, and devotees of the so-called New World Order. Certain newspapers have been quick to vilify him. There are those who claim that his views will have totally destroyed any possibility he may have had of becoming PM.

I have now added JRM to my personal daily prayer-list, and will be praying for him and his family that they may know divine protection from those whose metaphorical knives are being sharpened in order to metaphorically stab him in the back. Perhaps you will join with me in doing this!

As usual, my friend David Robertson has published an excellent post on his own blog. You may access it by clicking on this link:

http://theweeflea.com/2017/09/07/the-man-who-could-make-me-vote-tory/

If you have the time, do listen to the video-clips that David has provided. If short of time, then miss out the Ali-G one!

So - IS homosexual sexual activity a "sin"?

I do try to produce my own posts for this blog, and have, only occasionally, reposted material from someone else. However, in a departure from that, I am posting a second offering from David Robertson, minister of St.Peter's Free Church of Scotland, Dundee, as he writes much more eloquently than I. I have left the links that he provides as live links so that those who wish to follow up any of the points made may do so.

The post is, again, longer than those that I normally publish, but is well worth reading to the very end.

It's the burning question of the British General Election.   Our society is obsessed with sex, and especially homosexuality. Or at least that our journalists give that appearance. They seem to think that it is their responsibility and duty to ask any politician who is a Christian what they think of gay sex. Of course they don't ask Sadiq Khan, or any Muslim politician – but that’s another story!

This weekend they have been particularly busy. After the Tim Farron debacle, we have seen the resignation of the Conservative MP Andrew Turner, and Theresa May being asked by Andrew Marr "is gay sex sin?"

Tim Farron 

Andrew Turner, Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, expressed the view in a question-and-answer session in a local school that he thought homosexuality was wrong and dangerous for society. The Guardian  were quick to pounce.  This of course is to commit the unpardonable sin, the blasphemy against the Holy State. Our media are absolutely certain that to say gay sex is a sin, is itself the unforgiveable sin. Labour’s election chair immediately pontificated - “There is no place for bigotry and hatred like this in modern society and no one holding these views is fit for public office.”    Mr Turner has resigned. The thought police have done their job.

Amidst the general outcry and faux pas outrage as the shibboleth question of our culture is used to discriminate against anyone who dares to think differently, there have been occasional glimpses of sanity and light. Nick Cohen’s fascinating article in the Guardian on Tim Farron for example.  Defend Tim Farron, a True Liberal even if it makes us Quesy Amongst many other good points he pointed out the stunning hypocrisy of our politicians:

Jeremy Corbyn worked for Iranian state television and spoke at Khomeinist ralliesin London. Everywhere he went, he looked a willing collaborator with a regime that flogs and executes gay men, treats women as second-class citizens and imprisons trade unionists.

If Corbyn was questioned on this, which he never is, he might say he does not approve of every aspect of Shia theocracy. But he worked for it, and was paid by it, and never found the courage to speak out on Iranian television for the victims of its oppression. A liberal society that condemns one politician who bothers God, but gives a free pass to another who works for a queer-bashing, queer-killing regime is so lost that it may never find its way home again.

Teresa May was very clear on the Andrew Marr show. Is gay sex a sin? No.   She couldn’t answer why people use foodbanks but on that one issue she knew the answer. Pinknews, the Guardian and the Twitterati were waiting to pounce if she had got it wrong.

The "is gay sex a sin?" question is the shibboleth question of our culture. It is the equivalent to the “have you stopped beating your wife – yes or no?" question. You say yes and you admit to having previously beaten your wife. You say no and you admit to currently beating your wife.

How would I answer this question?   Let’s imagine…..

Journalist:   Is Gay sex a sin?

• What a fascinating question! In one sense I'm glad you asked it – because it appears as though you accept the whole idea of sin. Of course I'm not very sure what you mean by the question. Are you asking is gay sex harmful? Well you can go and do your own research and you will find that there are a considerable number of STDs and other harmful side-effects of gay sex. After all that's why we just had the Scottish government say they are going to fund the prep drug in order for it to prevent gay men who have multiple partners and engage in unsafe sexual health practices contracting HIV. But I suspect that's not what you're talking about.

I suspect that you are asking is gay sex wrong or immoral? And again that is a very interesting question. Because it presupposes that there is right and wrong. Before I answer that question I would need to ask you if you thought there was any sexual practice that was wrong?

Journalist: I'm the one asking the questions. Why can't you just give a straight yes or no answer?

• And because I'm the one actually answering, I'd like to know what you are actually asking!   I suspect you're not really asking a question at all – you're just making an accusation, looking for a cheap headline, trying to stir up some kind of fuss. But given that you're an intelligent man do you think it possible that we could have an intelligent discussion? So could you answer my question? Then I promise you I'll answer yours.

Journalist: Obviously there are some sexual practices that are harmful and abusive and therefore wrong.

• Thank you. Again that is very interesting. How do you know? Who determines what is harmful and abusive? Is being married to 3 women right or wrong? Should you ask Boris Johnson or Nick Clegg if adultery or having multiple partners is right or wrong? What does that have to do with their politics? Why should sex with a 17 year old be right but sex with a 15 year old be wrong? Is bestiality wrong? Incest? Or sex in the middle of the street? Who determines what is right and wrong?

Journalist: Society and the law.

• But who are society? And who makes the law? By definition it would appear that the rich, the elite and the powerful are those who make the law. What if society decides one day that homosexuality is wrong, would that make it wrong? What if society decides that the Jews need to be removed? Or the Chinese enslaved? Or babies in the womb killed? Who determines what is right and wrong?

Journalist: Now we are getting way off the subject! What is your answer?

• Actually no. Now we are getting to the very heart of the subject and so I will give you my answer.

I am a Christian. I am an IKEA Christian. What I mean is this. I'm not a very practical person and so when I go to IKEA and buy a chair, I come home and I'm the type of person who counts all the screws, reads all the instructions and follows them to a T. In other words I obey the maker's instructions. To me that's the same with life. My basic position on homosexuality is this:

• Homophobia in any form is wrong for any Christian. Why should we be afraid of a sexuality - or indeed of any person or group of people? As a Christian I fear only God. I regard all human beings as made in the image of God and all are to be treated with love and respect whatever their ‘sexuality’. I know that there are many people who struggle with issues of identity and sexuality and I don’t think the solutions are as simple as people often make out. But to discriminate, bully or abuse anyone because of perceived sexuality is wrong.

• God made us as sexual beings and gave us the gift of sex to be used within the context of marriage, and only within the context of marriage. Marriage of course being between a man and a woman. This was done for mutual benefit, the procreation and upbringing of children, and the good of society. Any sex, of whatever type, out with the sacred bond of marriage is wrong. You use the word ‘sin’. Sin is that which goes against what God desires. It is not living up to his standards, or deliberately going against them. In a confused and broken world we are all sinners, whatever our sexuality. That's why we need the Christian gospel, but is also why we should not throw away the laws of God, including the laws on marriage, which are given for human flourishing and benefit.

• You may disagree with this. But you need to remember that this is the foundation upon which our Judaeo-Christian Western civilisation has been built. Please don't call me a bigot, or imply that I am somehow backward because I don't accept your ill thought out and ultimately harmful view of human sexuality.

• Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have a fully thought out, through and worked out philosophy of human sexuality and what it means to be a human being? Maybe you have examples of societies where the Christian view has been rejected and those societies have flourished? Or maybe what you are proposing is some kind of liberal fantasy that is never actually been worked out in reality?

Journalist:   But what about Teresa May? She is a vicar’s daughter and a Christian. Are you saying she is wrong?

• She is completely wrong. And it’s not just me who says that. The orthodox Christian view is the view of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, Islam and most Protestant churches, including at least officially the Anglican church (although I grant you that in the latter case that doesn't mean all that much!). I'm not in a position to comment on Theresa May's Christianity. For all I know it could be the cultural type, or the therapeutic deistic type, she may even be a confused believer.   I cannot judge her, but I can judge her comments.

Let me explain it this way. In the early years of the Christian church there arose a severe persecution by the Roman Empire against the Christians. Why? The Romans were usually pretty tolerant about different religions, so why pick on the Christians? It is because Christianity challenged the sexual, societal and political views on which the Roman Empire was built. Christians didn't kill their own unwanted children, they didn't sleep with whoever they wanted, they didn't engage in temple prostitution or other forms of sexual immorality. And when they were asked to bow the knee not only to Jesus, but also to Caesar, they refused. And so they were slaughtered. They could so easily have said we will bow to Caesar in public, but in our own hearts and in our own gatherings we bow only to Jesus. But they refused to do that.   Today modern Western society is regressing, not progressing, to a Greco/Roman/Pagan view of the world. Sadly there are many ‘Christians’ who are just going along with the flow, and many who either don’t see it or have just given in to the bullying and pressures that come from that. But not all of us have bowed the knee to Baal.

Journalist: But what harm does it do? Why not just live and let live?

• Again what a fascinating question. Because that is precisely what you are not allowing us to do. If a Christian does not accept your view of human sex and sexuality you mock, intimidate and bully in order to exclude. You won’t let us have our views (the views on which this society was built) and be involved in public and civic life. Remember the quote above ““There is no place for bigotry and hatred like this in modern society and no one holding these views is fit for public office.”  You call us bigoted and hateful because we uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ!

• To be honest it's not so much that we are concerned about ourselves – we won't obey you, whatever you say! In a world of illiberal conformism, we are the real radicals! We are concerned about the victims of a sexual philosophy (and I’m not talking here particularly about homosexuality which is only a minor part of this) that causes so much harm.   Do you know what the biggest problem in our society is? It's not whether people think gay sex is or is not a sin. It's the destruction of the family. The state will never replace the family as the basic building block of society. But the shallow, selfish and superficial view of sex as a recreational pastime to be indulged in by whoever, with whomever and wherever you want, has created chaos - especially amongst the poor. That's why we have so much homelessness, broken families, STDs, and even in the 21st-century the return of slavery in Britain - the vast majority of which is sex slavery. When I look at the sex obsessed, disease ridden, pornography swamped, perverted, cheap and abusive society we have become, where prostitution is now termed ‘sex work’, I don’t see a great deal of positive fruit from this new sexual philosophy – do you?

Can you see why I'm upset? I find your line of questioning and the general mockery and smug superiority of our cultural elites really depressing. You don't debate. You don't discuss. You assume, and in your blindness you cannot see the harm you are doing to all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable. Your middle class bourgeois morality inherited from Bertrand Russell, the Bloomsbury group and the so called sixties sexual revolution, may be fine for the wealthy, but for the poor and our society as a whole it has been a disaster.

I guess you have to answer to your bosses (I’ve had many journalists who have said that they can see my point and even basically agree with it, but they would not dare write anything outwith the party line – as you say ‘it would be more than your job is worth’! So much for critical thinking and freedom of the press!). But one day you will have to answer to a greater than your editor, or even than your peers and family.   One day we will all stand before God and he will ask us what we have done with all the tremendous gifts he has given us - life, beauty, music, art, sex, food, science etc.   And, because we suppress the truth by our own wickedness and think we can make it on our own; we will have to admit – we’ve screwed it up. We’ve screwed up our lifes, we’ve screwed up God’s planet and we have created a hell on earth.   Unless of course there is another way – which there is….and that is the way of Christ.

So sorry for the length of this answer – but yes given all that is said above – gay sex, like heterosexual sex outwith marriage, is sin – but its just one of many many sins we all commit. Anything outwith the revealed will of our gracious and loving God is sin.  To ignore this is like buying a petrol car and deciding that you can’t see any harm in filling it with diesel.   I know there are a lot more questions that arise out of this but that will have to wait for another day.   Thanks for listening to me….lets see how you turn that into a 100-word soundbite!

Footnote:   Of course the above conversation would never happen – because our media generally operates in a circular vacuum with little thought given to the deeper issues of life. Some day, somewhere, someone is going to make a stand and challenge the current zeitgeist…meanwhile we just pray and watch Romans 1 being acted out in our midst.

Abortion - there's just no getting away from it!

Public pronouncements - albeit expressing personal points of view - by three Cabinet Ministers, have re-ignited the debate on abortion at a Parliamentary level.

Culture Secretary Maria Miller, who is also the minister for women, has stated that she would like a 20 week limit.  Speaking on this morning's Today programme on BBC4 radio, Home Secretary Theresa May said she, also, believed there was scope to reduce the limit on when a termination can take place, to 20 weeks into a pregnancy.  Earlier in the week the new Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, went even further, saying he believed the limit should be cut to 12 weeks - half the present maximum.

However, the most interesting comment came from Mr Hunt.  According to reports, he favours the 12-week limit as this is his view "... about that incredibly difficult question about the moment that we should deem life to start"  and that "... my view is that 12 weeks is the right point for it,".

To the best of my knowledge, the Health Secretary is neither a medical practitioner, nor a biologist (perhaps he should be; but that's another subject altogether!).  I certainly claim no professional expertise in either field.  What I know is that only that which is alive is capable of organic growth.

This leads me to ask what has been happening in the womb during the first 12 weeks of gestation?  The answer, surely, is that a process of growth has been taking place.  Indeed, that process commences as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg, and mitosis takes place.  The only difference between that moment and forty weeks later is development.

Many of us agree with Mr Hunt that abortion ought not to take place once life has begun.  We differ with him, however, in our understanding of when that happens! 

So-called "women's choice" is actually whether, or not, to murder the most indefensible, in the very place in which it should be safest.

Equality?

One of today's (Sunday's!) news items concerns the planned visit by Pastor Terry Jones - the Pentecostal pastor who gained a certain notoriety when he threatened to burn copies of the Qur'an on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.  It would appear that he has been invited by the EDL (English Defence League) - described in Wikipedia (their own web-site is, apparently, 'under construction') as "... a far-right group formed in 2009." whose "... stated aim is to oppose the spread of Islamism Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England. The description of "far-right" has been disputed by the Head of the UK Police Domestic Extremism Unit, who claims the EDL are "neither far-right, nor extremists".  Pastor Jones, it is reported, has been invited to speak about "the evils of Islam".

British Home Secretary, Theresa May, is considering banning this gentleman from the U.K. and, with the reputation for 'firebrand' preaching that he has acquired - particularly with respect to Islam - one can understand why she would wish to pre-empt any potential trouble.

However, if Pastor Jones is refused admission to this country on the basis that he would be likely to initiate a certain level of trouble, one is obliged to ask why it is that so many extremist Muslim preachers appear to not only be allowed to enter this country and spout their own venomous teaching, but to be permitted to claim various social benefits while they do so!  A certain Abu Hamza, the hook-handed former imam at Finsbury Park Mosque in North London, currently in jail for incitement to murder and stirring up racial hatred, and fighting extradition to the U.S.of A. (at taxpayers' expense?!), comes to mind!

By all means, let us endeavour to keep potential trouble-makers out of the country - but let's make sure that all groups are treated in the same way!   

^{PS  Thanks, Rick.  You're a star! :-)}