It's OK To Rape Your Wife

I was flicking through 'Britain in Sin', a book[let] thing you can get on the Christian Voice website here, when I found this gem about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:

It introduced an offence of "marital rape", drafted by the Law Commission, unknown in the Law of God, and in conflict with the marriage service of the Book of Common Prayer, where the promises given by a man and woman to each other establish a binding consent to sexual intercourse.

Lovely.

This makes the following quotes from people supporting the booklet pretty scary:

"Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, has made a meaningful attempt to analyse the cause of Britain 's current moral decline. The list of unrighteous laws passed during the last 50 years is particularly helpful; indeed, it would be a miracle if we were not in decline, having passed so much legislation which is directly contrary to Scripture."
Lord Ashbourne
EDIT: From the comments - "I need to update this entry, as it appears Lord Ashbourne is Christian Voice's patron which kind of reduces the meaningfulness of his quote. I thought he was just some random person of standing".

"This makes interesting and disturbing reading. We desperately need to understand, as a nation, that our Creator knows what is best for us, and to return to His way as the best way to live."
Rt Rev Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes

Well done for supporting marital rape, you utter cunts.

Abortotron

I have not updated my blogs for far too long. Sorry about that, I've been somewhat busy.

Anyway, the abortion conference mentioned in previous posts took place, and Christian Voice commented on the day itself. Apparently Christian Voice carried out a 'successful lobbying' - although I somehow doubt that everyone there decided to denounce abortion as evil).

WITNESS SUCCESS AT PRO-ABORTION CONFERENCE - Link to the press release

Leaflets were handed out to attendees. Apparently it was 'sad to see so many African and Asian faces and hear Eastern European accents', although I'm not quite sure why.

Steven Green's apparently cynical about reformation on the law of abortion, stating that we should 'expect all the effort being put into reducing the [number of] weeks [abortion is allowed] to result in nothing, or maybe just a two-week reduction, with massive further liberalisation including just one doctor's signature instead of two, and the legalisation of DIY back-street abortion kits.'

Yeah... back-street abortion kits. That's... really going to happen. I mean... surely having Steven Green as PM would encourage the proliferation of these back-street abortion kits, what with abortion being totally illegal under his crazy far-right control.

After a bizarre passage comparing the abolition of slavery with the potential abolition of abortion, we find that Jon Snow didn't attend the conference after all, pulling out 'after being inundated by critical emails, saying he would be "out of the country"'. Since when did Christian Voice have access to Jon Snow's inbox? Because being inundated by e-mails from one person (Steven Green), isn't really a point of interest at all.

And that's that.

Oh, and if you want to see some very selective quoting from the Koran and the Bible, look here: link.

Christian Voice On Islam

OLMYPIC MOSQUE VS. THE BIBLE - Link to the page

"A mosque is regarded as an abomination in the sight of Almighty God... Because Islam is a rival religion, one which rejects the God-incarnate, crucified, risen, ascended Messiah and Son of God the Lord Jesus Christ, a mosque is an abomination wherever in the world it is placed."

"When a person worships a god who is not the true God, they are worshipping and empowering unseen principalities and powers that have already been defeated by Christ on the cross. This is exactly what happens in a mosque. When Muslims go into a mosque and bow down before their false god, ‘Allah’ (‘the god’ in Arabic) they are engaging in idol worship without realizing it. It is only necessary to look at the symbol of Islam, the crescent moon, to realize the identity of the real spirit behind Islam. It follows that a mosque is a place where demonic principalities and powers are glorified. The God of the Bible is the only Creator and Almighty God, not ‘Allah’, the god of Islam."

And I thought Christian Voice were such nice people! Fucking hell, doing this blog can be depressing at times...

BAN RAINBOWS NOW!

Wasn't intending on doing another post, but I was clicking around the Christian Voice website and discovered this:

WATCH OUT FOR THE RAINBOW!
The rainbow and the ‘rainbow sash’ have become the international symbol of ‘diversity’. Sexuality is a spectrum, according to the thinking, and can encompass ‘straight’, ‘gay’, ‘bisexual’, or ‘transsexual’. When a rainbow in a bold semi-circular design appears in a school classroom alarm bells should ring in parents’ minds. The rainbow sign means that the school is pushing homosexual rights under the guise of making that classroom a ‘safe’ place for ‘gay children’.

Or it could just mean that the kids have been, y'know, learning about rainbows and the teacher thought it'd be a good opportunity to get the coloured paint out and decorate the classroom a bit.

Shriti Vadera And The Abortion Conference

Christian Voice are upset because Shriti Vadera, aka. Baroness Vadera, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, has attended a conference on safe abortion.

GOVERNMENT'S VADERA TAKES SIDES ON ABORTION - Link to the press release

There's some guff about the Government taking sides (which they may or may not have a point about, I don't really care) but then Steven Green comes out with this:

'It is especially disturbing to have a Government spokeswoman of Indian origin supporting abortion on demand given the abuses of abortion in India. Selective foeticide has resulted in a gender imbalance of 80 girls being born for every 100 boys. Clearly the Hindu dowry system is partly to blame, but abortion on demand in India is the evil which allows such an injustice to be done. For Shriti Vadera to go and support abortion on demand knowing about the misogyny it encourages in India is simply callous.'

Raised in India? Well then, the Indian abortion issue's entirely on your shoulders then! Ugh...

Dawkins Can't Blaspheme

Christian Voice have taken a year - a whole year - to discover that Richard Dawkins is corrupting 'children' by encouraging them to blaspheme.

DAFFY DAWKINS FAILS TO BLASPHEME HOLY SPIRIT - Link to the press release

I can't be bothered to explain the details, so I'll get Christian Voice to do it for me:

"On www.richarddawkins.net the campaigning atheist has republished 'the blasphemy challenge' by a youth group calling itself 'Rational Responders'.

The idea, which dates from December 2006, is that anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit on video on YouTube is rewarded with a free copy of a DVD called 'The God Who Wasn't There'."

Yes, that's right, last year Richard Dawkins' website regurgitated a press release from another website. What a fuss over nothing. Oh, by the way, if you want to see the offending article on Dawkins' website you can look at it here.

More:

"[T]he campaign claims to go further than foster renunciations of belief. It 'encourages participants to commit what Christian doctrine calls the only unforgivable sin - blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.'"

At this point Stephen Green gets into a bit of a tizzy (notice how he assumes that Dawkins' regurgitating something is tantamount to him endorsing it):

"Dawkins thinks that by encouraging young people to blaspheme the Holy Spirit he can keep them out of the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom of a God in whom he claims not to believe.

A superficial look at Luke 12:10 would appear to indicate that speaking a word against the Holy Spirit is enough to commit the said blasphemy and remain unforgiven, but Matthew 12:22-32 and Mark 3:20-30 set the Lord's remark in context.

To blaspheme the Holy Spirit, it is necessary to ascribe Jesus's casting out of a demon to Satan rather than to the Holy Spirit. Some would say it was only relevant during our Lord's time on earth and such a sin can not now be committed. It is certainly clear from the text that the Lord's fire, as it were, was turned on a group of unbelieving Pharisees who were watching the event.

However we read the passage, merely saying 'I deny the Holy Spirit' doesn't come close to what the Pharisees did and would appear to be entirely forgivable. It is not actually blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The crucial point however, is that Richard Dawkins thinks it is, and that he is trying to convince young people in particular to commit a sin against a God in whom he does not believe and for them to surmise they will never be forgiven by the same God whom he says does not exist."

I'm sure Richard Dawkins gives a massive shit about that.

Honestly though, it's the Richard Dawkins' website copy-and-pasting a press release. Get over it.