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

In this second part of this series of pre-election posts, I want to share why I will not be voting for the

Labour (LIEbour) Party.

First, and foremost, as with the Conservatives, Labour strongly supported the redefinition of marriage to include persons of the same gender.  The Party also 'whipped' both members and peers to oppose various amendments, introduced in both Houses, that sought to protect religious liberty and freedom of speech on the issue.  All of those amendments were, subsequently, defeated.

In the matter of abortion (aka the legalised murder of pre-born infants in the place in which they should be most protected - their mothers' wombs), the leadership of the Labour Party strongly opposed the recent amendment to the Abortion Act, proposed by Fiona Bruce MP (Con.; Congleton), that would have banned specifically gender-selective abortion.  Indeed, in spite of an allegedly "free vote", Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper (Balls) wrote to the Party's MPs urging them to vote against the amendment.  The vast majority yielded to this subtle persuasion!

The Labour Party is, as far as I understand, the only Party that has even suggested the appointment of an "International Envoy for the 'rights' of the homosexual/Lesbian/etc. 'community" (although Plaid Cymru would be supportive of such an idea!).  The task of this person would be to champion homosexual/transgender 'rights' globally!  At the same time, Labour has promised to "expand" the law on so-called 'homophobic' and 'transphobic' 'hate crime'.  This, of course, is the Party that has been in power in places such as Rotherham where the systematic abuse of vulnerable girls (mostly Caucasian) by Muslim men, has been covered up for years, if not decades.  It is also the Party that has, amongst its leadership, former active supporters of P.I.E. (Paedophile Information Exchange) - perhaps a reason for the fact that, during its long tenure in government, it pushed through a raft of legislation that was distinctly pro-homosexual (including reducing the homosexual 'age of consent' to 16), although attempts to scrap the law against homosexual activity in public lavatories were abandoned, but only because of serious opposition in the Upper House!

With regard to the economy, this is the Party that left the (in)famous note, in 2010, to inform the incoming, coalition, government that there was no money left!  Historically, Labour have been shown to be ineffective - if not disastrous! - at running the economy.   In spite of having started off as the Party that would support workers and their rights, its politicians are 'champagne socialists', with a good number of millionaires in the Shadow Cabinet alone.  I have nothing against millionaires - I've even met, and talked, with quite a few! - but there is, to me, an element of hypocrisy in the case of "Labour" politicians who have no idea as to how the ordinary 'man in the street' lives!  

Labour is, quite simply, a Party that I would not trust to run a stall at a Jumble Sale.  Hence, they will not be getting my vote on May 7th.

Hypocrisy!

There is a well-known story about a man who informed a local minister of the Gospel that he didn't attend church because it was so full of hypocrites.  "Well, then," responded the clergyman, "another one won't be noticed"!

It is always wise, when pointing out the hypocrisy of others, to remember that three time as many fingers are pointing at oneself as are pointing at the other person!

Having said all of that, I was struck by two items that I saw on Facebook earlier this evening.  The first one was from a dear Canadian friend who makes no secret of her humanist sympathies, and her opposition to (at least, organised) religion.  It deals with the well-known American tele-evangelist, Pat Robertson who, it is claimed, read out a letter on his TV show - a letter from an elderly couple. The link informs us that the letter read: "My husband and I are in our 80s and have been tithing for many years. We both love the Lord and give willingly and our tithe is over 10 percent…but we never have an extra penny after our monthly bills are paid. Our old car just broke down and we had to borrow money to fix it. We both need dental work, but we can’t afford it. I constantly have to use our credit card to pay for medical needs… What could we be doing wrong?"  Pat Robertson's response, we are informed, was to suggest that "they sell their belongings on eBay or go back to work. He also told them that God would grant them a blessing if they asked for one. The one thing he didn't tell them is to give a little less of their income to church so that they can take care of themselves."

Now, as an advocate of tithing, and of giving a freewill offering over and above, I am not about to criticise the practice.  In fact, I am convinced that it is at least part of the reason why my wife and I always seem to make ends meet, regardless of circumstances.  As I learned a long time ago, the Lord's mathematics work on a different principle than mine!  However, I have a great deal of sympathy for my friend's only comment: "REALLY!!!"   Mr Robertson's response to this couple might have been better as a cheque towards the expenses that they are encountering - having checked, of course, that the letter is genuine!

A little further on, I came across another post that has to do with 'giving to church'!  This one displays a picture of another well-known figure - Richard Dawkins, the 'high priest' of secular, humanist, atheism.  Across the top of the picture (which is as unflattering as is the one used of Pat Robertson!) are the words: "THINKS PEOPLE GIVING MONEY TO CHURCHES ARE GULLIBLE".  Across the bottom of the picture are the words: "CHARGES $85 A MONTH TO JOIN HIS ONLINE 'REASON CIRCLE'".  This is not the information that any of my humanist friends is likely to disseminate.  Yet why not?  Is not Mr Dawkins being every bit as much a hypocrite as Pat Robertson?  

When it comes to the Christian aspect, I well remember my former minister, spiritual mentor, and friend - and the man who married my dear wife and me to one another, 44 years ago yesterday - saying: "Don't judge the Christians - they will fail; don't judge the church; it will let you down; don't judge the clergy, they are much too fallible.  Judge the Christ - and see if you can justly criticise Him."  That statement still stands.  My personal faith does not depend on my personal achievements - however good they may sometimes be.  It depends wholly, and solely, on the finished work of God Incarnate, at the cross on Calvary, when He paid the punishment that I deserved to pay, in order that I might go free.  He died there for you as well.  Why don't you take Him at His word: "Whoever comes to Me I will never drive away" (Jn.6:37) - that's acceptance; "I will never leave you , nor forsake you." (Heb.13:5) - that's assurance; "... if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to Myself, that where I am, you may also be." (Jn.14:3) - that's anticipation.

Hypocrites!  Yes, Pat Robertson is one; Richard Dawkins is one; and you and I are in that same league!  Only One stands out in all of history as not having been of that ilk.  Come to Him; know the wonder and joy of sins forgiven; let Him rule in your life.  You'll still make mistakes (see I Jn.1:10), but you will no longer be under condemnation (Rom.8:1), and you will spend eternity in His nearer Presence.

Inconsistency - or total hypocrisy?

So 15-year-old Megan Stammers is back on British soil, with her mother and stepfather, and safely away from the fiend of a teacher who abducted her and took her to France!

Wait a minute!  I saw the CCTV images that were shown on the TV News programmes.  She certainly didn't appear to be under any compulsion - walking hand-in-hand with her teacher, who was being portrayed as probably having become somewhat more than a teacher!

Understandably, most thinking adults - certainly those of us who are the parents of daughters - have been up in arms over this affair, and the only complaint of which I am aware is that the British police took as long as they did to organise a European Arrest Warrant for 30-year-old Mr Jeremy Forrest.

But wait another minute!  What if these two people claim that they "love" each other?  This, after all, is the reason that is regularly trotted out in favour of the attempts to redefine marriage.  If two men, or two women, "love" one another, they should be given the right to be married.  And a pupil and teacher?  Why not?!

It's another example of the "can of worms" that would be opened if the legislation to redefine marriage is introduced at either Holyrood or Westminster.  Of course, someone may argue that Megan is under-age.  But if they wait even the three years that would be necessary for a pupil-teacher relationship to be legal, would her family (and his wife!) be happy to give their blessing to the union of the 18-year-old and the 33-year-old?  Possibly - but I suspect not.

So, is the difference in attitude merely inconsistent - or is it totally hypocritical?

Hypocrisy!

The past weeks have revealed the extent of the hypocrisy of the United States of America!

The extradition of both a 65-year-old retired businessman, and a 23-year-old computer science student, to the other side of "the pond", was in order that they be tried for alleged crimes in the country against which said crimes are alleged to have been committed.  Both Mr Christopher Tappin, and Richard O'Dwyer are accused of having committed offences that did not involve their direct taking of any human life (although, in Mr Tappin's case, he is alleged to have tried to buy five industrial batteries, which he claims he thought were for use in the car industry, but that were actually a key component of the US Army's Hawk Air Defence Missile, which were being sought by Iran).

Earlier this week, a soldier of the United States of America, deployed in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, went on what appears to have been a drunken rampage in which sixteen civilians - including women and children - were murdered, in cold blood.   As he was already in Afghanistan, all that the United States of America had to do was turn him over to the local Afghan officials.  That, after all, would have been the end result of any extradition (I confess to not knowing if any formal extradition treaty between the USA and Afghanistan actually exists!).  It is certainly what the Afghanistan authorities are reported as having wanted.

So, what to the USA authourities do?  They transport him out of the country, back to Kansas, via Kuwait.  He will, it is assured, be properly tried there, in his home country, under that country's legal and penal codes.

I have no doubt that he will.  Indeed, it has already been suggested that, if found guilty (and, as he has already confessed, there would appear to be little doubt about that!), he would face the death penalty.  But if only an American trial is good enough for an American citizen, one wonders why a British trial is not considered, by the Americans, as being good enough for a subject of H.M. the Queen!

And some Americans wonder why they are not universally loved and respected!!!!

Christian counsellor targeted by homosexual journalist

Lesley Pilkington, a Christian counsellor with over 20 years’ experience is facing a Professional Conduct Panel on Thursday 20 January after an extraordinary targeting and betrayal by an undercover homosexual activist falsely pretending to be a Christian in need of help.

Lesley is being represented by Standing Counsel to the Christian Legal Centre, Paul Diamond.  She has to defend herself against a formal complaint by Patrick Strudwick, a homosexual writer and activist who met her at a Christian conference. Acting undercover, he told Lesley that he wanted to leave his homosexual lifestyle and wanted help to change. Lesley confirmed that she would be happy to meet with Patrick but only within a Christian counselling context.

Throughout the two subsequent therapy sessions, Patrick repeatedly told Lesley that he wanted to leave his homosexual lifestyle and that he wanted to change.  However, after the sessions (which he secretly recorded), he then lodged a complaint to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy alleging that Lesley had tried to force her beliefs on him.

Those offering counselling for men and women wanting to change their homosexual behaviour have been increasingly targeted by the homosexual lobby, many of whom do not accept that people can change their behaviour. Since writing the article, Patrick has become a campaigner against those offering such treatments and has organised protests at various religious conventions. He has stated in interviews that no-one can change their sexual orientation and attempts to do so are extremely harmful.

However, in 2006, the homosexual rights activist Peter Tatchell wrote in The Guardian: ‘Much as I would love to go along with the fashionable "born gay" consensus (it would be very politically convenient), I can't. The evidence does not support the idea that sexuality is a fixed biological given.’

Mr Strudwick also published an attacking article in The Independent newspaper about Lesley, subsequently receiving the journalist of the year award by the homosexual-rights organisation Stonewall!

Unfortunately, those offering counselling for homosexual orientation have been increasingly targeted by the homosexual lobby.

Lesley is a wonderful, highly professional Christian counsellor, who has practised for many years with an unblemished record.  When a young man asked for help to change his behaviour, she was happy to give it. Rather than breaching his autonomy, Lesley provided exactly what was asked of her. It is shocking that she was targeted, lied to and misrepresented by this homosexual activist; and even worse that her professional body consider her actions worthy of investigation.

I would hope that many would also support Lesley in prayer over the coming days.

Confidentiality - or Hypocrisy?

I seem, currently, to be asking a lot of questions in my headings!  This one is because of the Question Time programme on BBC 1, on Thursday night.  I should have posted then, but I had been out for most of the evening at the Christmas Carols by Candlelight service in St George's-Tron Parish Church in Gasgow, which was under the auspices of the Christian Police Association (I'm a member by virtue of my Force Chaplaincy).

It was near to the end of the programme - the final question, if I recall correctly - when the panel was asked if Julian Assange (of WikiLeaks) was a hero or a terrorist.  During the discussion that followed, Dr Liam Fox, the U.K. Defence Secretary, commented to the effect that politicians and diplomats had to be able to be sure that their 'off-stage' (or 'off-mike') comments were kept confidential as this was how they built up trust among one another.  He used, as an illustration, a normal MP's 'surgery' in which, he rightly said, a constituent should be able to have the assurance that the matter discussed would not be made public.

I was a little bit confused!  He seemed to be saying that because a private matter between him and a constituent should, quite properly, be kept private, that it is acceptable for poiticians and diplomats to say one thing to their foreign counterparts in public, while saying something totally different in private!  I would disagree.  This is like comparing apples and oranges.  For me, as a minister of the Gospel and, therefore, with a required level of confidentiality, to share private matters with all and sundry would be absolutely wrong. and a breach of that confidentiality upon which I set a high value.  However, for me to tell my wife that the hat she has just purchased (that isn't going to happen, by the way!) is beautiful, and then to send an e-mail to a friend telling him how hideous I think it is, is nothing more, or less, than hypocrisy!

Perhaps Dr Fox - and a lot of others - need to check out the meanings of words, and use the correct terminology.  A manually-operated agricultural digging implement is a spade!