The link below is to an article that looks at persecution of Christians in the USA and puts it in perspective.
The link below is to an article that takes a quick look at Brunei, from a Christian perspective.
For more visit:
This will be a lesson I should have learnt some time ago, but seemingly forgot. It’s a really simple lesson really, though apparently easily forgotten. Simply put – don’t over commit at work. Certainly, work to the appropriate level, not denying that – just don’t over do it. What I mean is, putting in a heap of extra hours doesn’t do your health any good – physically, mentally, etc. So keep the job in perspective and in balance with the rest of life.
My greatest achievement from a purely human perspective would be gaining the top jobs in my chosen field of work – not that they are necessarily the greatest tasks a person has ever had. In the areas in which I have chosen to work and in the two different companies I have now had the top jobs in both. I have been content with that.
The ‘International Burn a Quran Day’ drama that has been played out in the United States in the weeks running up to the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has sparked of outrage around the world. I have been tempted to post some thoughts on this for several days and I have now decided to do so. The three links below are to articles dealing with the story in the United States as published at The Christian Post. These are meant to show some of the thoughts on this subject being broadcast (I do not necessarily agree with everything in them).
I cannot see anything positive being gained by the burning of Qurans on any particular day from a Christian perspective. The only thing that would be achieved is to create further tension between Christians and Muslims, and between the West and Islam. I believe it would only achieve an increase in hostility towards the West and Christianity in particular. There would certainly be no profit gained as far as winning Muslims over to Christianity through such actions, only a further wedge between the two religions.
Having said the above, I do find it hypocritical of many in Islamic circles and countries, who have no problem in burning Bibles and persecuting Christians. When the shoe is on the other foot they like to whine about being hard done by and being discriminated against. The evidence is clear, as presented in the many articles on this Blog, that Islamists are constantly burning Bibles, destroying places of Christian worship and persecuting Christians even to death. Please spare me the self-righteous outrage of Islamists – they are hypocrites.
Again, I do not wish to condemn all Muslims in the above comments relating to Islamic extremists. Not all Muslims behave in the same manner and there are many who find it foolish and wrong to burn Bibles, destroy places of Christian worship and persecute Christians. However, there is a growing scourge that is Islamic extremism.
I believe in freedom of religion, as much for Muslims as for Christians. Quite obviously as a Christian I believe that Christianity is the right religion and I make no apologies for that. I expect Muslims would say the same thing about Islam and they are free to say so. Why would you believe it if you stand by it? One day we will all need to give an account of our positions, but that is neither to me nor to any Muslim.
I also believe that both faiths have a right to non-violent missionary activity, without the forceful coercion of others to adopt their position. Where we stand before God is where we stand before God and it is to him that we must give an account.
I have no problem with a mosque being built in the same suburb as me – though I would expect that extremism would be stamped out should it break the laws of the land. I do however think it is insensitive to build a mosque close by the scene of one of the greatest acts of murder known in modern day history, which was perpetrated by Islamic extremists. Surely commonsense and decency needs to prevail here. Sure, it may be OK in the land of the free and all of that sort of thing, but have some regard for the many thousands of people who still suffer grief over the evil that was committed 9 hears ago.
Anyhow, just a few thoughts.
The mentally and morally “unfit” should be sterilized, Professor David Marsland, a sociologist and health expert, said this weekend. The professor made the remarks on the BBC radio program Iconoclasts, which advertises itself as the place to “think the unthinkable,” reports Hilary White, LifeSiteNews.com.
Pro-life advocates and disability rights campaigners have responded by saying that Marsland’s proposed system is a straightforward throwback to the coercive eugenics practices of the past.
Marsland, Emeritus Scholar of Sociology and Health Sciences at Brunel University, London and Professorial Research Fellow in Sociology at the University of Buckingham, told the BBC that “permanent sterilization” is the solution to child neglect and abuse.
“Children are abused or grossly neglected by a very small minority of inadequate parents.” Such parents, he said, are not distinguished by “disadvantage, poverty or exploitation,” he said, but by “a number or moral and mental inadequacies” caused by “serious mental defect,” “chronic mental illness” and drug addiction and alcoholism.
“Short of lifetime incarceration,” he said, the solution is “permanent sterilization.”
The debate, chaired by the BBC’s Edward Stourton, was held in response to a request by a local council in the West Midlands that wanted to force contraception on a 29-year-old woman who members of the council judged was mentally incapable of making decisions about childrearing. The judge in the case refused to permit it, saying such a decision would “raise profound questions about state intervention in private and family life.”
Children whose parents are alcoholics or drug addicts can be rescued from abusive situations, but, Marlsand said, “Why should we allow further predictable victims to be harmed by the same perpetrators? Here too, sterilization provides a dependable answer.”
He dismissed possible objections based on human rights, saying that “Rights is a grossly overused and fundamentally incoherent concept … Neither philosophers nor political activists can agree on the nature of human rights or on their extent.”
Complaints that court-ordered sterilization could be abused “should be ignored,” he added. “This argument would inhibit any and every action of social defense.”
Brian Clowes, director of research for Human Life International (HLI), told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that in his view Professor Marsland is just one more in a long line of eugenicists who want to solve human problems by erasing the humans who have them. Clowes compared Marsland to Lothrop Stoddard and Margaret Sanger, prominent early 20th century eugenicists who promoted contraception and sterilization for blacks, Catholics, the poor and the mentally ill and disabled whom they classified as “human weeds.”
He told LSN, “It does not seem to occur to Marsland that most severe child abuse is committed by people he might consider ‘perfectly normal,’ people like his elitist friends and neighbors.”
“Most frightening of all,” he said, “is Marsland’s dismissal of human rights. In essence, he is saying people have no rights whatsoever, because there is no universal agreement on what those rights actually are.”
The program, which aired on Saturday, August 28, also featured a professor of ethics and philosophy at Oxford, who expressed concern about Marland’s proposal, saying, “There are serious problems about who makes the decisions, and abuses.” Janet Radcliffe Richards, a Professor of Practical Philosophy at Oxford, continued, “I would dispute the argument that this is for the sake of the children.
“It’s curious case that if the child doesn’t exist, it can’t be harmed. And to say that it would be better for the child not to exist, you need to be able to say that its life is worse than nothing. Now I think that’s a difficult thing to do because most people are glad they exist.”
But Radcliffe Richards refused to reject categorically the notion of forced sterilization as a solution to social problems. She said there “is a really serious argument” about the “cost to the rest of society of allowing people to have children when you can pretty strongly predict that those children are going to be a nuisance.”
Marsland’s remarks also drew a response from Alison Davis, head of the campaign group No Less Human, who rejected his entire argument, saying that compulsory sterilization would itself be “an abuse of some of the most vulnerable people in society.”
Marsland’s closing comments, Davis said, were indicative of his anti-human perspective. In those remarks he said that nothing in the discussion had changed his mind, and that the reduction of births would be desirable since “there are too many people anyway.”
Davis commented, “As a disabled person myself I find his comments offensive, degrading and eugenic in content.
“The BBC is supposed to stand against prejudicial comments against any minority group. As such it is against it’s own code of conduct, as well as a breach of basic human decency, to broadcast such inflammatory and ableist views.”
Report from the Christian Telegraph
The Episcopal Church has to clarify God’s official position on abortion – at least so says a priestess of the church, who claims that a proposed rite for post-abortive women conflicts with church theology and that the Deity “rejoices” when women elect to abort their children, reports Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com.
Rev. Nina Churchman wrote a letter to Episcopal Life Online expressing her outrage upon learning that her church has developed a healing rite for post-abortion women sorrowful over their abortion that seems to have language alluding to “sin” and “guilt.”
Churchman said she “was sickened to discover that the rite for abortion is couched wholly in terms of sin and transgression.”
The priestess also took particular umbrage with the words, “I seek God’s forgiveness” and the words “God rejoices that you have come seeking God’s merciful forgiveness.”
“The Episcopal Church, by resolution, has long held that women have the freedom to choose an abortion,” asserted Churchman. “It is not considered a sin.”
The Episcopal Church’s “long held” position permitting abortion dates back to 1967, when the church began to lobby for abortion in limited cases (i.e. rape, incest, fetal deformity, health of the mother), which by 1994 had become a full-blown defense of a right to an abortion. The church’s previous position on abortion, had lasted much longer. As late as 1958 the church had expressed an unequivocal defense of over 1900 years of Christian tradition against abortion, stating, “Abortion and infanticide are to be condemned.”
“Women should be able to mourn the loss of an aborted fetus without having to confess anything,” declared Churchman.
“God, unlike what the liturgy states, also rejoices that women facing unplanned pregnancies have the freedom to carefully choose the best option – birth, adoption or abortion – for themselves and their families.”
“The wording of this liturgy focuses solely on guilt and sin instead of the grief and healing that may accompany a very difficult but appropriate decision to terminate a pregnancy,” said Churchman.
Instead Churchman expressed her determination that the church should reject the rite at the next General Convention and do away with the references to “sin” and “guilt.”
The proposed post-abortion healing service had been the idea of Georgette Forney, president of Anglicans for Life, who had obtained an abortion when she was 16. Forney had asked the church to create a healing service for women like herself seeking healing, and the Episcopal General Convention had approved the development of the project.
The result was a rite addressing “the pastoral needs of women and men and who have experienced miscarriage, abortion or other trauma in the childbearing or childbirth process” in a book called, “Rachel’s Tears, Hannah’s Hopes: Liturgies and Prayers for Healing from Loss Related to Childbearing and Childbirth.”
The 2009 General Convention of the Episcopal Church will consider and vote on the rite when it convenes July 8-17 in Anaheim, California.
Report from the Christian Telegraph
NOTE: My Thoughts on the Above Article
The above article surely highlights some serious issues relating to the Episcopal Church in America, from a Biblical perspective.
1. The area of church leadership is of concern, even leaving out the issue of priests, what is a woman doing in the place of leadership within the church. Surely the Scriptures are clear on this.
2. The Episcopal Church in America has landed on the wrong side of the abortion debate. Abortion is a crime against humanity and a sin. I wouldn’t have thought this was a difficult position to reach for Bible believing Christians, but perhaps that is the real essence of the problem – perhaps these are not Bible believing Christians?