Post 174--Disrupting Church Services--Zombie Prohibition?

I am a writer. As such, I do a lot more than just writing this particular blog. I operate an extensive website I've told you about frequently--< www.SocialTheology.com >--as well as another blog--
<  ChristianMuslimWorld >--. Sometimes they overlap such as when I decide a certain article, either my own or a guest article, is suitable for the other vehicle as well. In all of them I occasionally share articles with you about the gradual pushing Christianity out of the way here in Canada, but also in other countries.  In some countries it is another religion that persecutes Christians. This is true especially in Muslim and Communist countries, but also happens in Buddhist and Hindu nations.

It also happens in Western countries, including Canada. However, in the West, it is often under the radar so that most  people do not notice. Hence they often feel that talking about persecution of Christians in Western countries is a matter of paranoia, a distorted imagination. I plan to exposing this dangerous tendency by giving it more coverage to show you it's not just paranoia or imagination. It happens. It's true. But usually it is done in such small steps and in such hidden ways that people either not notice or just shrug their shoulders as a non-issue that is blown all out of proportion.

And true enough, in many cases these are small issues that by themselves are not all that significant. However, when you pay attention and put them all in a row you have to come to the conclusion that there is definitely a tendency, an important tendency in Canada, for example, of slowly putting tiny screws on what on the surface look like minor issues.

And while in two paragraphs back I point to other religions plus Communism as the perpetrators, here in Canada it is mainly the people with secular or liberal agendas who are behind it all.  Note that I refer to"liberal," not to"Liberal" as in the Liberal Party, though that Party has its share of supporters for this movement. But it's not only those with such an agenda, there are also kind people among them whose secular or liberal definition of religion blinds them to its real nature. So, when anti-Christian measures come on the table, they don't even recognize them to be anti-Christian in however minute shape.

Today I treat you to an interview published by Lighthouse News, an online news source operated by ARPA--Association for Reformed Political Action, "Reformed" being another term for "Calvinistic," not the former Reform Party. It is also close to Presbyterianism, but that's for another time. You will profit the most from this interview if you also pursue the links in the document. 


                                 DISRUPTING CHURCH SERVICES

André Schutten, Director of Law and Policy - ARPA Canada

As we told you a few months ago on Lighthouse News, the federal government is making a move to eliminate so-called “zombie laws”. These are essentially old laws       which are no longer in effect. The most common reason for their obsolescence is that they’ve been struck down by the court. While those laws are technically still on the books, they have become unenforceable, so they need to be removed to reflect that reality. But earlier this month, the federal Liberals introduced a second bill to eliminate some other old laws, and one of those eliminations could have an impact on every single pastor, and every single church, mosque, synagogue, or Sikh temple in the country. This is a completely separate bill from the one we discussed back in March. On the feature today, ARPA’s Law and Policy Director, André Schutten, on what the government is doing with this latest bill.

LN: Andre, let’s start with some background on the difference between these two bills.

AS: So they have a zombie law [Bill C-39] already and that one targets all these old Criminal Code provisions that were ruled unconstitutional, right? And so, I’m not really sure what the government’s up to. It might be that they’re trying to pass other stuff through this one and they use that description as cover. So C-39, which is also that – unconstitutional provisions, right – it’s “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts” from the Minister of Justice. So that one is the zombie law one. So I don’t know what else they’re trying to do with C-51, but I imagine that what they’re trying to do is they’ve got this cover going on, and they’re saying “Look! All we’re doing is cleaning up the Code again, and we’re just taking care of anything that’s probably unconstitutional.” But what they’re doing with that is they’re also taking out sections that aren’t unconstitutional; that are actually good sections (but) they just don’t feel like debating them.

LN: And that brings us to the central issue here. Right now, the Criminal Code says you can’t harass or assault a clergyman or minister in connection with him performing his duties, on the way to or from a worship service for example. And… you can’t disturb or interrupt a worship service while it’s underway. That is specifically addressed in the Criminal Code. But section 14 of the new zombie law, Bill C-51, specifically moves to eliminate that part of the Criminal Code.

AS: Yeah, so this one clause – Clause 14 – is key to that. Clause 14 is the one that removes protections for worship services. Whether that’s Christian worship services or Islamic or Jewish or Hindu or Sikh worship services; it’s written very broadly and says that anyone who disrupts these worship services is “guilty of a criminal offence.” And that’s a good provision to have, and yet they’re removing it, for no apparent good reason anyway.

LN: ‘I’m looking at that clause and I looked at it initially and I went: “Wow. This is really big.” And then I got to thinking about it and in the government’s defense – and I’m not defending the government, but just to play devil’s advocate for a minute – what’s the last time this provision was ever used? I mean, this is an ancient law that said you’re not allowed to disrupt a church service. Could the argument be made that being a multicultural, pluralistic society, church services aren’t special enough to require a specific clause in the Criminal Code to protect the conduct there?

AS: So, in reviewing some of the transcripts from the House of Commons on debate on this, Mr. Tom Kmiec – he’s a Member of Parliament from Alberta – he pointed out that this section has actually just been used a couple of weeks ago right here in Ottawa, where somebody has been charged under this provision. So in that sense, it is still a “live” section of the Criminal Code; it is being used.

And I think what’s driving the desire to remove this section from the Criminal Code is an attitude that a religious service is no different than a university lecture for example. And why should we give special protection to religious ceremonies if we don’t give it to, you know, a university lecture? And you can imagine, right, it’s been in the news; professor Jordan Peterson for example tried to give a lecture at McMaster University, the University of Toronto, (and) elsewhere, (and) he gets shouted down by protestors, right?

And so some people might say, “Well why – if we’re not gonna give criminal law protection to Jordan Peterson to give his lecture – why would we give it to a minister to give his sermon?” And I’d say that fundamentally the two are very, very different. A university lecture is one thing, but a religious service is something at a much different level. It’s something much more profound going on. And whether you’re Christian or not, I would say that protection ought to be there for a Muslim service – like a prayer service as a mosque – or it should be there for a Jewish service at a synagogue, or at a Christian service at a church. And I think that the government should not be afraid that this section is in any way unconstitutional; it certainly never has been ruled unconstitutional. So we should keep it.

And we need it in today’s society. Again, thinking of the Jordan Petersons of this country that get shouted down (while) giving a lecture, it’s not that hard to imagine that we might one day see people disrupting – in big ways – Christian services where orthodox teaching is being preached from the pulpit.

LN: Is this a fundamental shift in Canadian society? I mean, here we have on the one hand a government that pushes through (Bill) C-16, (that) says you have to use whatever pronouns somebody says they want to be described as, and on the other hand they’re removing this historical context of protection for religious services. It seems to me that there’s a fundamental reshaping of society going on here.

AS: Yeah, I think so. Absolutely. It seems to me there’s this fear of our Christian heritage. There’s this fear of our Christian past. And while I would say it’s absolutely true that the history of this particular section does have to do with Christianity and the Christian faith and protecting church services, that doesn’t mean that it has no value today. Even though we are definitely not a Christian nation anymore, we definitely should be protecting (the) Christian faith but also, again, other faiths should be protected in this respect as well.

And the counter-argument might be made that “Well, you know, we took out those sections but don’t worry; there’s still a section about criminal trespass,” right? So people can be charged under criminal trespass. But that, again, shows a total ignorance of what a worship service is. Now I can’t speak for the Jewish faith or the Muslim faith or the Sikh faith, but certainly for the Christian faith, our worship services are public events. It’s a public worship service. So, you know, we can’t exactly criminally charge protestors who come to a church service if we’re so public about our worship. Our worship is open to the public; we want other people to be able to come. They’re welcome in our church buildings. We want them to hear the Gospel. We want them to get to know Jesus Christ. But yeah, if they’re going to be disruptive and so on then we want to be able to also have the criminal law protection to make sure that that doesn’t happen. So we see ignorance of the Christian faith here, we see the ignorance of our history here. We see ignorance of the possible risks to not just the Christian faith but to all faiths with the approach being taken here. And I think that’s problematic all around.

LN: Is there anything we can do stop C-51? I mean, how do you mount a legal challenge on something that takes something away? It’s kind of a complicated piece.

AS: Indeed. We can’t exactly make a claim that – I don’t think – that we have a constitutional right to this provision. At the same time, we can make the argument that there is no constitutional reason to remove this provision. And so, certainly we are going to apply to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights – that’s where this bill is now – so that’s the Committee stage in the House of Commons, and we’re going to lobby to get that Clause 14 removed. We haven’t looked at the rest of the bill yet, so there might be good parts in the rest of the bill, I’m not going to condemn the entire bill, but this one clause – clause 14, which removes protection for our pastors and our worship services – definitely has to be cut out of that bill. https://arpacanada.ca/lighthouse-news/disrupting-church-services/#lhn-article-7442

Post 173--To Judge or not to Judge

As far as I can recall, I have never heard of Regis Nicoll until ten minutes ago, when a friend forwarded an article written by him. Apparently, Nicoll is no slouch, judging from his association with the late Charles Colson and his BreakPoint column. Oh, oh. My title is about whether or not to judge and here I go, before I even open up the subject, making a judgment about some someone on basis of his friends.  Well, it is often said that  you can judge a person by her friends and, I guess, that's what I am doing right now. But I'll stick to it, since it is a positive judgement this time.

When you take Biblical passages about judging out of their context and just place them side by side, you could conclude that the Bible contradicts itself.  Sometimes it tells you not to judge; at other times it tells you to do so.  It's a matter of context. It all depends on the issue under discussion.  Each issue requires a different response: some need judging; others need restraint in this respect.

Well, herewith Nicoll's article taken from Crisis Magazine of June 15, 2017.  Enjoy the read and weigh the matter carefully. It surely is relevant to our lives, both individual as well as social.

The Problem with Non-Judgmentalism

REGIS NICOLL

It took but a few decades for the law written on the human heart, engraved on stone, and honored for millennia to be largely lost on the collective conscience. Today, instead of the Ten Commandments, there is one: “Thou shalt not judge.”

Oddly, in a time when the concept of “sin” has also lost its purchase, a person called out for judging will become a social outcast until his “guilt” is purged by the penances of public apology, diversity/sensitivity training, and reparation to the offended. Even among Christians, judging the behaviors and lifestyles of others is considered unseemly at best and unchristian at worst.

Take singer Carrie Underwood. When she came out in support of same-sex “marriage” in 2012, she credited her faith for her position stating, “Above all, God wanted us to love others,” adding “It’s not up to me to judge anybody.”

A year later when Pope Francis fielded a question about a gay subculture in the clergy, his now famous response, stripped from its context, was taken by nice people of faith and social progressives as an imprimatur on non-judgmentalism.

Despite its ever-so humble patina, non-judgmentalism has deep logical, practical, moral, and theological problems.

First, if “it’s not up to me to judge,” that applies to the wrongness of actions as well as their rightness. For which ever way we judge is a de facto judgment on the opposing view. For example, when Carrie Underwood endorsed same-sex “marriage” it was her moral judgment on the social contrivance and its supporters, as well as a moral insinuation, if not judgment, about the criticisms and critics.

Second, non-judgmentalism is self-indicting. If judgment-making is wrong, so too is the judgment against judgment-making.

Third, fidelity to non-judgmentalism requires moral neutrality on all matters—an impossibility even for the entrenched non-judgmentalist. Regardless of his religious sympathies, he will consider things like cheating, rape, and exploitation as wrong and things like honesty, fairness, and charity as good.

Fourth, the person who refrains from judging truth from falsehood and good from evil quickly will find himself a victim of those adept at parading one for the other.

Lastly and most importantly for Christians, the “who-am-I-to-judge” ethic has no biblical warrant. Quite the opposite.

In his letter to the Colossians, St. Paul wanted his readers to make a moral distinction between the traditions of men and the teachings of Jesus so that they wouldn’t be taken “captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy.” Likewise, Jesus’ instruction in St. Matthew’s gospel about “fruit” inspection was to help his disciples from falling in with bad teachers and their sophistry.

Too often, socially nice Christians focus on what Jesus says a few verses up (“Do not judge, or you too will be judged”), isolate it from the rest of the chapter, and couple it with the second half of the Great Commandment, reasoning,

Since I would be offended if my neighbor pointed out my moral failings, I’ll not point out his. That way I love my neighbor as myself and relieve us both of any awkward moments.

A win-win with undeniable appeal, but in direct conflict with Jesus’s instruction, “If your brother sins, rebuke him.”

Contra “who-am-I-to-judge” morality, Jesus expects his people to make moral judgments, confronting others and invoking discipline when necessary. In fact, Paul had some sharp words for a congregation that failed to do just that.

The occasion was an instance of sexual immorality that went unaddressed within the Corinthian church. Scolding the assembly for its moral complacence, Paul ordered the expulsion of the offender “so that [his] sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” In the same spirit, Paul told the Galatian believers, “if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.”

According to Jesus and the early Church, judgment and discipline are duties that the Church exercises for the health of the Body and the restoration and spiritual well-being of its members.

Who-am-I-to-judge Christians will demur, referencing a Pharisaical sting operation that outed an adulteress. Although the encounter nearly led to her stoning, neither the morality of her deed nor the moral authority to judge it was at issue. The woman had sinned, plain and simple, a fact acknowledged by Jesus in his parting instruction, “leave your life of sin.”

Had the religious SWAT team done the same, this biblical vignette might never have been recorded. Instead, they condemned her to death, and Jesus called into question their license to do so.

Anyone can judge the morality of an act, knowing only the applicable standard. But condemnation requires not only knowledge of the standard and the transgression, but what was in the transgressor’s mind (what did they know about the standard) and heart (what was their intent), places that no one has access to but God.

Today a common ploy to silence Christian objections to homosexualism is to point out heterosexual sin in the camp, citing Matthew 7:3 (“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”).

Despite the stinging prose of the popular proof text, neither it nor the moral condition in the Church has any bearing on the morality of homosexualism and the novel institutions it promotes. What’s more, Jesus never said that one sinner shouldn’t judge the actions of another. Instead, in the context of Matthew chapter 7, Jesus teaches that we should be attentive to the “specks” in our eyes so that we can rightly discern the specks in others.

People who decline to do so—particularly, who-am-I-to-judge Christians—have much to answer for the moral pathologies of the church that they are quick to, uh, judge.

They are like the village physician whose patients are dying off because he doesn’t want to unsettle them with information about their life-threatening conditions. Or the best-friend-mom whose little angel has become a tyrant over momma’s fear that a “no” landing on the delicate ears of her budding prodigy would damage the sense of exceptionalness that she has worked so hard to nurture.

Love seeks the supreme good for others. Above all, love desires others to become the persons they were created to be: children of God, being transformed in the image of the Son, and enjoying unbroken fellowship with the Son and Father through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Love means that I am my brother’s keeper, with the duty to observe, question, challenge, and, yes, judge his actions—not to condemn, but to guide, coach and encourage toward life abundant. To do otherwise is not love but indifference or cowardice.

Carrie Underwood was right. “Above all, God wanted us to love others.” However, we love others not by never having to say they’re sinning; but by helping them with their “specks” and allowing them to help us with ours.

Regis Nicoll is a Colson Center Fellow, a columnist for BreakPoint, and regular contributor to Touchstone and Salvo magazines. He also serves as the lay pastor of an Anglican church plant in Chattanooga. His new book is titled Why There Is a God: And Why It Matters.

Post 172--Why These Crummy Tax Forms?

I know, the tax season 2016 is history. We've done ours or had them done.  We've moved on. Perhaps you've received your rebate and felt happy about that, something you might not have saved on your own initiative If it were not for that tax system, you would never been able to buy that big barbeque console you've coveted for solong. 

But if you're anything like me on this subject, you dislike the system.  I don't mind paying my graduated tax. You cannot expect to get all those government services free of charge--roads, schools, hospitals, protection and security, etc. etc., not to speak of pensions. All of that is good. Those who are opposed to taxes, they could be rounded up for year, put them together in some isolated place and leave them there without paying taxes and without any services paid for by taxes. I dare say, they would soon change their mind.  

Now, we may have many questions. Why am I charged that specific amount?  And how is it all spent?  There is a lot of suspicion for good reason, for there is a lot of misspending. The media keeps reminding both citizens and governments about that. There is a lot of spending that can be defended on legal grounds but not on moral. The Senator Duffy affair is a shining example of that.

But my main question or, perhaps better put, my main objection is the forms citizens have to fill in to figure out and declare the amount they owe.  Whenever tax season is upon us my blood pressure increases along with great annoyance and a deep sense of injustice--even though I am little more than a bystander. My wife is a natural administrator and record keeper. So, throughout the year she keeps and files the necessary documents. I only ask an occasional question. When the deadline is near, she rides transit for an hour each way to my accountant nephew who does the hard work for us and usually manages to squeeze a rebate out of it for us, without, I am convinced, any shady shenanigans, something he would not engage in. 

But when he is finished and my wife brings the completed forms to be signed home, I usually page through the pile of documents to try to figure out how he has arrived at his figure. For the life of me, I feel totally dumb! I have a Ph. D., but I am left to feel a total ignoramus.  Now, that's where my indignation kicks in.  This is my money, for goodness sake. I should have the right to control its spending or at least understand why someone is charging me this or amount. I come close to yelling it out: "This is criminal!"  And so it is.  Criminal. I hate it with a passion. It may be government and it may even be legal, but I still consider it criminal.  Legalized crime. 

And sometimes it actually is. Quite a few postings ago I told the story of a BC citizen being totally abused by the tax boys for years on end till he was completely broke and a public appeal had to be made to bail him out and keep him out of prison.  

Earlier this year, Jamie Golombek, dubbed a "Tax Expert" in the Vancouver Sun, during the height of the 2016 tax season in 2017, wrote a column "Why are we filling out these crummy tax forms in 2017?"  Exactly my question and, probably, yours. Why, indeed? If a tax expert asks that question, then we should not be surprised that we are bothered by such questions. At the end of his two full-length column from top to bottom, he comes up with no acceptable answer. That's not a critique of him, but of the tax system.  

So, here's your chance to be enlightened by a tax expert. Read it at https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgaryherald/20170422/282196535836108 and see if you understand the why or wherefore--or it is makes you any happier. We owe Jamie a mouthful of thanks for his revelation.  

Please do remember my earlier assertion that, even if I do not write overtly about religion, it is always there in the background. I wonder if you can detect the religious aspect in today's issue?  

Post 171--Use of Bible Censored in Alberta Christian School!

Throughout this blog, I have talked about the creeping restrictions on expressions of the Christian faith in Canada. While freedom of WORSHIP has not been curtailed, though that cannot be far behind, freedom of RELIGION is another matter.  Freedom of worship, if very narrowly defined, takes place in Church, but freedom of religion takes place throughout our culture, in both private and public places--in the market place as it has come to be called. It is this religion thing that is under fire.  

It mostly happens under the radar, for the mainline media do not concern themselves with it. So it happens with very few people noticing. As a result when someone does notice and makes it public, she will be sidelined as a "r

adical" who does not deserve our attention and is berated even by such respected journalists as Andrew Coyne, whom, I hasten to say, I enjoy reading--without always agreeing.

It is not always brave individuals like Ezra Levant who monitor such situations; some church organizations do as well, among them the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) and non-church Christian organizations like the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA). You've met both of these organizations in this blog and no doubt will again.  

Today's report comes from Levant. It's heading reads:

"A school board in Alberta has LITERALLY BANNED PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE."

The Cornerstone Christian Academy in Alberta is exactly what it says it is — a Christian school. Just like Alberta has Jewish schools and Muslim schools too. But the head of the government school board that oversees Cornerstone, a woman named Lauri Skori, has literally ordered the school to stop teaching passages in the Bible that she personally disagrees with. I know this sounds crazy. But it’s true. For example, Skori has ordered the school to stop teaching a line from 1 Corinthians, because she finds it “offensive": It’s shocking, but it’s not surprising. Christianity has been driven out of the public square everywhere in Canada. But surely this is a new low — Christianity is actually being banned in a Christian school. Government bureaucrats would never dream of telling Muslim schools they couldn’t teach passages from the Koran — even ones that call for the murder of infidels and apostates. But banning the Bible is now official school board policy. And, not surprisingly, the media and the political class are silent. Even supposedly Christian or conservative politicians are keeping their heads down — they don’t want to be attacked by the leftist mob at the CBC. Well, we’ve found one honest man — John Carpay, from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. He’s agreed to take the case of Cornerstone Christian Academy. He’s written a scorching 8-page legal letter to the school board pointing out how what they’re doing is illegal — it’s unconstitutional. You can read that letter here. But they seem to be digging in their heels. And why not? No-one is coming to the aid of the school. Well, that’s where you and I come in. As you can see in my interview with John (at the end of the video here), I’ve promised to help him raise up to $5,000 to help pay for his team of three lawyers to fight for the school’s freedom of religion, against government censors. I’ve agreed to chip in the first $50 myself. If you agree that this case is outrageous, please join with me in helping to chip in to John’s legal defence fund, by clicking here.

Post 170--British Liberals vs Conservative Christians in Politics

British Christians wonder if there is room for them in politics

By Catherine Pepinster | --

Religious News Service

Tim Farron, leader of Britain's Liberal Democrat Party, arrives at a polling station in Kendal, Britain, on June 8, 2017. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Andrew Yates

In general, I am no klutz.  If I were I would not have a doctorate and would not have published as much as I have. However, when it comes to technical computer stuff, the description would not be far off.
I copied this article from the website Religious News Service and try as I may, I cannot adjust the formatting as it came to me. You may have noticed such irregularities before. I get easily stumped when it comes to this stuff. So, please take it as it comes and concentrate on the content rather than the format. I hope that is not asking too much.

I am treating you to an important British issue of religion in politics. Yes, it's a British report, not a Canadian one. However, the situation in Canada is not much different. If you read up on Liberal theory in Canada and practice, you will find parallel, if not similar situations in our own country. The thing is, it does not appear often in our secular media and so you're not aware of it. For this reason, I do draw your attention to it occasionally--like today--and this won't be the last.   

LONDON (RNS) Concern is growing among British Christians about their place in the country’s public life after Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, resigned over his religious beliefs.

Farron, who led his party for two years, cited the difficulties he faced squaring his Christianity with his political leadership. In a statement Wednesday (June 14), Farron said: “I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader.”

“I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe in and whom my faith is in,” he added. “In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we are living in a tolerant liberal society.

Farron’s religious beliefs emerged as an issue early on in the recent British general election when he was challenged on his attitude toward same-sex marriage in a TV interview and was asked whether he thought homosexuality was a sin.

His first reply was to say that “to understand sexuality is to understand we are all sinners,” but it only spurred more criticism, despite Farron’s eventually saying he accepted same-sex marriage.

Farron led the Liberal Democrats in June 9’s election from nine seats to 12, although the party failed to capitalize on the anti-Brexit vote, despite being strongly in favor of the European Union.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats Party, Tim Farron, speaks at the launch of the party’s general election campaign in Kingston-Upon-Thames, Britain, on May 1, 2017. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Peter Nicholls

But his leadership was called into question after Lord Brian Paddick – the party’s home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords and a well-known gay activist – said he was quitting because of the leadership’s views during the election.

Party members are said to have then acted against Farron, indicating he had to go.

The Liberal Democrat Party is Britain’s third largest, formed in 1988. It is a centrist party, usually closer to the Conservatives on economics and veering more toward Labour on social policy.

Lord David Alton at a summit on how freedom of religion or belief can help prevent violent extremism. The event was held at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London on Oct. 19, 2016. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons/Foreign and Commonwealth Office

One of the notable Christian politicians in Britain, Lord David Alton, was among those who expressed dismay at Farron’s quitting.

“The old Liberal Party was a party of conscience and proud of its Christian foundations,” he said. “That Christian tradition was subsequently ridiculed by many Liberal Democrats, implacable in their hostility to faith schools and insistent on imposing policies, such as abortion, on their members. Inevitably, this has made it a hostile place for people of faith.”

The old Liberal Party and its successor, the Liberal Democrats, managed to accommodate people of differing views on personal moral matters for many years.

Others in politics were dismayed by what happened to Farron.

“His resignation reflects the fact that we live in a society that is still illiberal in many ways and is intolerant of political leaders having a faith,” said Sarah Latham, director of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum. “This urgently needs to change. It will change only if Christians step up and get involved in all areas of life and change the rhetoric.”

On Twitter, Richard Chapman, adviser to the Church of England on Parliament and politics, said what had happened to Farron was “awful.”

“Mature liberal democracy shouldn’t be pushing religion from the public square,” he wrote. Paul Woolley, the deputy chief executive of the Bible Society, expressed fear that Britain’s liberal political culture isn’t liberal enough to include decent people such as Farron.

However, journalist Mary Kenny, who is a columnist for the Catholic Herald, argued that Farron’s problem was that he was not politically adept enough and that he should have made his point better by saying “what I believe is a matter of conscience but I respect the law.”

In recent years, gay issues have become the most neuralgic matter in the crossover between faith and politics in the U.K.

In 2007 a dispute arose between the Catholic Church in England and Wales and the government over whether Catholic adoption agencies should be exempt from the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which allowed same-sex couples to adopt children.

The Catholic Church argued that the legislation contradicted the church’s moral values. The church was unsuccessful in fighting the matter through the courts, and the Catholic charities either closed or stopped working on adoptions.

More recently, politicians and commentators criticized Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed coalition partner, the Democratic Unionist Party, because of the DUP’s track record on opposing same-sex marriage.

The Conservative leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, who is gay and planning to marry her partner, demanded assurances from May that there would be no watering down of LGBT rights if the DUP deal went through.

Post 169--The Roots of the Islamist Crisis

To begin with: a disclaimer. The document below is about a book I have not read and have never even heard about till just a few moments ago.  However, I used to be member of its publishers, the Book of the Month club, and I was always impressed with their selections. So, I take the chance on the strength of their reputation with me. However,  many books have been written about these kinds of subjects and all too many try to reduce the basic reason for or cause of our current Islamist--in distinction from Islam--problem(s), that I am skeptical about all of them, including this one. Many point to one cause and try to convince us that that's the basic or even only cause. If we can solve that one particular cause, then we're done and the chaos will be a thing of the past. I myself have written an 8-volume series about Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria. You can find it on my website   < www.SocialTheology.com/ islamica.htm >.  During the course of my 30 years in Nigeria and of my years of research, I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of causes that worked together to create our present situation.  It is not all due to Islam; Western imperialism has contributed no small proportion. So, though I am thus skeptical about the book offered below, I do suspect it lays its finger on an important component of today's crisis. So, I decided to draw your attention to it. A confession: During the course of writing the above, I suddenly wonder whether this Book of the Month is really the same as the club that used to have that name.  Who or what is "Intercollegiate Studies Institute?"  Well, if they are someone else than what I first thought, they have only themselves to blame for taking on a name that can cause confusion. Check them out for yourself--but do read the book.  Here goes:                                                 ============== The Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks have reignited the debate over Islamic radicalism. But you’ve probably noticed that the terms of the debate haven’t changed in years; pundits on all sides rely on the same talking points. That’s why I’m so grateful for Robert Reilly’s eye-opening book The Closing of the Muslim Mind. Reilly goes well beyond the simplistic analyses we always hear. He reveals that our contemporary crisis can be traced to a heated battle within Islam itself, waged a thousand years ago. It was a battle over the role of reason—and the side of irrationality won. This was, as Reilly writes, “one of the greatest intellectual dramas in human history.” And we’re still feeling the reverberations today. I’m excited to make Reilly’s masterful work the Book of the Month so you can purchase it at a special 30% discount. As National Review notes, The Closing of the Muslim Mind is a “brilliant and groundbreaking” book that “should be read by anyone who wants to understand one of the most fundamental causes of conflict in the twenty-first century.” Roger Scruton, widely considered the greatest living conservative intellectual, calls Reilly’s book “lucid and fascinating.” Please pick up your copy today. This book will change how you understand the Islamist crisis. Best, Jed Donahue Editor in Chief, ISI Books