Helping Christians to make a difference
Dealing with current Issues
Helping Christian families to make a difference
Various UN agencies and other groups tell nations they have to legalise abortion because it is required under international law.
But it isn't.
Now an authoritative document, called the San Jose Articles has been launched...
The Articles identify that life starts at conception, and that life must be protected.
In particular, the Articles note that no UN Treaties specify a 'right to abortion' - and that agencies that say so go beyond their mandate.
They also state that development aid should not be based on a nation's position on abortion.
Read a report on the launch at Lifesite News - click here.
Threat of execution for apostasy
UPDATE: Tuesday 11 October.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which is advocating for Pastor Youcef, reports that "the court has delayed issuing a verdict" and that "The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei will personally decide the fate of Pastor Nadarkhani."
They say this is a result of the pressure from the international community and urge people to keep it up. So far, more than 127,000 people have signed their petition urging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to intervene.
Please pray for Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani - he was a Muslim (non-practising) before converting to Christianity. He has been on trial in Iran for apostasy. Initial charges go back to 2006 (see overview and report at Present Truth).
The American Centre for Law and Justice has been defending him - watch their short (less than 3 min) video about this situation.
Elizabeth Kendal, of Religious Liberty Monitoring, reports that the Supreme Court in Iran has made a ruling - that he must convert back to Islam or be executed... Elizabeth has written three reports on the situation.
Some world leaders have called on Iran not to execute him - a recent report in the International Business Times reports that Iran says he is not under threat of execution - and that they say reports of imminent execution are 'wrong'. Iran is now accusing him of other crimes - 'rape and treason'. See all current News items at Google News - click here.
Reports from Elizabeth Kendal of Religious Liberty Monitoring ...
Update from 28 Sept: UPDATE ON PASTOR YOUCEF NADARKHANI:The trial court has ruled that, whilst Youcef Nadarkhani was not a practising Muslim before his conversion to Christianity, he is an apostate because of his Muslim ancestry. The Supreme Court has given Youcef four opportunities to renounce Christ and return to Islam, once daily on 25, 26, 27 & 28 September. Youcef will be executed if he does not comply.
Elizabeth wrote about the case, and Iran, on 21 September (click here). She also wrote about it after the decision was handed down - click here to read that Bulletin, from 5 October, titled 'Will Iran Risk this execution?'.
For hundreds of years, we have measured time in AD and BC - AD meaning Anno Domini, in the year of our Lord and BC meaning 'Before Christ'.
Of course the date represents the number of years before and after the birth of Jesus Christ.
Recently we wrote in our journal about the proposal for the Australian National Curriculum to use the terms CE and BCE - Common Era and Before Common Era - in place of BC and AD.
We have a couple of questions for those engaged in 'political correctness' who advocate the use of these terms...
Do they realise that the years will still be the same - eg AD 2011 and 2011 CE still give the same year?
And do they realise that those new, politically correct terms STILL measure the years since the (estimated) date of the birth of Jesus Christ...?
Read the article we printed on this topic in our Journal -
The Calendar and Political Correctness (with Proposed Action included)
Columnist Melanie Phillips has recently written on the increasing move to replace the terms BC and AD with CE and BCE.
She notes that the BBC has recently adopted the terms on their website - with a note saying "since the BBC is committed to impartiality, it is important not to alienate or offend non-Christians".
She says that, as a Jewish woman, she is not offended by the use of the terms.
Melanie writes, "Well, I am a Jew, so I am presumably a member of this group that must not be alienated. It so happens, however, that along with many other Jewish people I sometimes use CE and BCE since the terms BC and AD are not appropriate to me. But the idea that any of us would be offended by anyone else using BC and AD would be totally ridiculous. How could we possibly take offence, since these are the commonly used and understood expressions when referring to the calendar? Moreover, I most certainly would not expect society in general to use these Common Era terms rather than BC and AD."
Malanie goes on to acknowledge the importance of the Christian heritage in Britain. She also gives various examples of attacks on Christianity and Christian values.
Read her article: Hijacking the language to stifle debate - Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail, Sept 26, 2011.
We often say that when people call other people names they haven't got an argument - so they resort to 'name-calling' instead.
So when people call us a 'bigot' or a 'homophobe' we ask a question... 'What do you mean by that?' followed by a second question 'How did you come to that conclusion?'
Andrew Bolt has experienced 'name-calling' from other journalists this past week, since the Federal Court handed down its decision against him (see post below) that has serious implications for free speech.
In his column today, Andrew writes an article referring to some of the comments made by journalists - some of which are untrue.
Read the column - How I became a monster.
On the question of aboriginal 'identity', Professor Keith Windschuttle wrote an article in the December 2010 issue of Quadrant about the Andrew Bolt case, focusing on the fact that aborigines themselves have objected to people 'self-identifying' as aborigines over the past five decades. He now responds to a letter of complaint - and includes more information about this question of 'identity'...
For another interesting perspective on the case, the issue of Andrew Bolt not getting all his facts 'right', a comparison with defamation law, and his concern about the actual law, read Jonathan Holmes' (of Media Watch), article on The Drum.
Although Jonathan doesn't agree with all of the comments made by Andrew Bolt, he has concerns about the decision and the law.
Bolt, Bromberg and a profoundly disturbing judgment
Back to asking those questions. . .
These two questions are part of Greg Koukl's 'Colombo Tactic'.
Greg is from STR - Stand to Reason - and has collated all his 'tactics' for defending the faith and engaging in discussion in a book called 'Tactics' - and DVD small group series.
View the book at Google Books - click here.
Buy it at Koorong or from STR. STR also has quick reference Guides, audio CDs and a 6 session small group Interactive DVD along with manuals etc.
The Judgement has been returned in the Andrew Bolt case - the Federal Court found he had breached the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) because of his comments about some aborigines.
This decision highlights the immense DANGER of the Federal law, which allows anyone who feels they have been 'offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated' on the basis of their race or ethnic identity to take a case in the Federal Court. (Decision)
Andrew Bolt responds to the ruling: Silencing me impedes unity, 29/9/2011.
This 'language', particularly of 'offend or insult', severely limits free speech, as anyone can be easily 'offended', and this decision will no doubt now be used to justify other such cases where someone feels 'offended' because questions are asked about them or some characteristic related to their cultural or possibly even religious status.
Various ethnic groups are covered by the law. Regarding religion, Jews, for instance, are classed as a race under the RDA, and Muslims have asked to have their religion classed as a race and are seeking 'protection' under this federal law.
Read on for the full comment we sent on our E-News list.