Just as some radicals what to get rid of Christian education in schools.
BRITAIN risks turning out a generation of amoral children as schools struggle to find the time to teach the difference between right and wrong, according to a survey published yesterday.
One in three of the 2000 state school head teachers polled said schools were not doing enough to develop the morals of their students and one in five said they were doing too little to help pupils understand the difference between right and wrong.
One head commented: “We train children to be successful, ruthless, greedy and selfish; our virtues are money, fame and looks. We do not reward kindness, do not value loyalty, do not care about courage.
The survey coincides with a growing movement in the United States to try to develop children’s good character, including traits such as resilience, self-control and empathy.
Research has showed that lack of such characteristics is hampering youngsters later in life.
Some schools in the US use character report cards on which pupils are scored every year. Others train their teachers to be moral role models.
By contrast, a quarter of the head teachers polled last week said schools in England were failing to develop sound values in students and more than 40 per cent felt schools were doing too little to develop the whole child, particularly since the decline of religious assemblies and competitive sports.
Many added that when they did try, parents foiled their efforts.
One head teacher said: “When trying to instil moral values, parents can be undermining.”
Another said: “”Many children seem to have not been taught manners at home.”
According to Anthony Seldon, headmaster of Wellington College in Berkshire, who organised the survey, “schools should consciously and deliberately be setting out to develop good character, good virtues, and good morals but not enough time is being given to doing this.”
Source: Sunday Times
Published in The Dominion Post, Monday, June 10, 2013. B2.
Lecture by funny-man Dan Wallace, PhD.
Shameless disgraceful depravity and intolerance
No surprises I’m afraid. These homosexual lesbians believe free speech should only be free to them, and certainly should not be free to those who dare to criticise their grotesque lifestyles and behaviour. Here they are, topless, dousing an archbishop with water as he prays.
Remember how God dealt with the Sodomites in Genesis 19?
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
Great lecture by Dr. John Lennox at Socrates in the City. This excellent video presentation is in full HD here:
Eric Metaxas and Socrates in the City present an evening with John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, at the Union Club in New York City on January 31, 2013. Dr. Lennox explores a method for reading and interpreting the first chapters of Genesis without discounting either science or Scripture. Afterward Metaxas is heard asking, “Why didn’t I ever have any math teachers like this?”
I think they mean “God”, not “god” but hey, Lennox only beat up Dawkins twice. Congrats to Mark Cubey and Kim Hill for having Professor Lennox on their show.
8:15 John Lennox
John Carson Lennox is a British mathematician and philosopher of science who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University. He is the author of a number of books, including and God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Lion Books, ISBN: 978-0-82547-912-0) and Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target (Lion Books, ISBN: 978-0745953229).
Whoever thought I would agree with the French???
PARIS, April 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to the organization Mayors for Children, approximately 14,900 French mayors will refuse to celebrate “marriages” between couples of the same sex. More than 20,000 mayors and assistant mayors have signed a petition stating, “I am opposed to the bill that opens marriage and the adoption of children by two people of the same sex.”
And every single evangelical pastor or marriage celebrant should do likewise. Let the rest of us stand firmly behind them.
It is noteworthy that when Key was asked by GayExpress “who would be go gay for?” … and “after taking a moment to compose himself” – he responded:
“‘Brad Pit. Now that he’s a bit older, he’s a bit of a looker. I was going to say Tom Cruise but someone of his age shouldn’t look that age.”
Who John Key would want to have “gay” sex with is apparently of great interest to the readers of Gay Express.
“Gay pride” necessitates anti-Christian hate. It must. “Gay marriage” and other “sexual orientation”-based laws do violence to freedom and truth. They are the hammer with which the postmodern left intends to bludgeon bloody religious liberty and the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.
According to the unequivocal moral precepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition – explicit throughout both the Old and New Testaments – homosexual behavior is sin. Sin is evil. Homosexual behavior is the central, defining characteristic of so-called “gay marriage.” Therefore, “gay marriage” is evil. Christians are obligated to avoid sin – to “do no evil.”
Forces pushing for genderless marriage are a wellspring of fallacies and unanswered questions about the consequences. Let’s explore some of them.
1. What’s love got to do with it?
Nothing. Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a foolish distraction. Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing “affection” as a factor in defining civil marriage. Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dynamics of couples. But not the state.
2. What is the state’s interest in marriage?
“…So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the ‘ick’ factor? Why should that preclude it? If life comes down to who you love and who loves you back, if a father and son love each other so much they want to get married, there is little moral difference between two people of the same sex getting married who are not related and want to be and two people of the same sex who already are related becoming closer…”
Yup. Question is, will Mormons or Muslims be the first to fight the discrimination in the courts?
Louisa Wall highlighted the fact that “same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero”, in her First Reading speech (ref. 1) in parliament in support of her private member’s bill – the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.
She put forward the erroneous argument that because “the civil and social institution of marriage” had [allegedly] “changed dramatically” over the period “pre-dat[ing] government and Christianity” and leading up to the present-day, as illustrated by the legalisation of homosexual marriage in Rome in the time of Nero, New Zealand MPs should therefore support her bill and embrace homosexual marriage.
Then she made the claim that for opponents of her bill to “even raise such concerns” as “polygamy, bigamy, bestiality and incest … within the context of discussion about marriage equality” [i.e. homosexual “marriage”] was “insulting” to her and those championing her bill, because such practices constituted “criminal offences” under current NZ law.
Read the full story here: www.spcs.org.nz/2013/louisa-wall-same-sex-marriage-emperor-nero-flippancy-and-bestiality/
As the Supreme Court takes up two cases regarding the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” Americans may be surprised to learn that same-sex marriage was legalized once before.
The practice of homosexuality in the Roman Empire had increased during the early years until the Romans accepted and adopted the pederasty of the Greeks (fornication with boys ages 12 to 18). Though at first the acts were considered acceptable only if the boy was a slave, the Romans eventually extended their tolerance of homosexual acts to adult men, both free and slave. Same-sex marriage, once unthinkable, was not far behind.
Early Roman poets and critics wrote about the practice, from Juvenal’s satire that mentions Gracchus, who “arrayed himself in the flounces and train and veil of a bride,” to Martial, a first-century poet who observed that homosexual marriage was not uncommon in the empire during the first century. Both Juvenal and Martial gave us accounts of men who “played the bride” in wedding ceremonies, wearing bridal veils like women.
Read the full story here: www.spcs.org.nz/2013/same-sex-marriage-the-roman-emperors/
A former Dutch MP who was behind the first same-sex marriage legislation in the world, and brought to NZ by supporters of the same-sex marriage bill to make a submission to the Select Committee, has admitted that group marriages of three or more people is the next step.
In a video interview with a French online gay magazine, Boris Dittrich, a former Dutch MP and gay activist now working for Human Rights Watch, said the redefinition of marriage has led to discussions of allowing group marriages of three or more persons.
“But that’s the beginning of something completely new.”
He acknowledged that this next step “will take a lot of years.”
Netherlands was the first country in the world to allow same-sex marriage, in 2001. He said that in the countries where it has been created, legislators pushing for gay “marriage” started the process by promising that “civil partnerships” were as far as it would go, and that marriage would remain untouched – the exact same promises made in NZ in 2004.
“We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships,” and that once “people got used to the idea that two men or two women went to the municipality, had their relationship recognised by the law. And people called it a ‘gay marriage’…. So then the next step of marriage equality, and really being equal, was a logical step.”
Yes, persecution is coming, and yes the state would appear to be meddling in the church (synagogue, temple, mosque) again.
So if words mean anything at all, this will mean that non-compromising/non-bow-the-knee-to-the-state churches will be in the sights of the state if they don’t bow the knee to the demands of a rabid ~1% of the population and their state meddling backers.
The Bible is a brilliant production that brings the history of the Bible to life, and it’s immensely encouraging that a series of this caliber will be airing on The History Channel. No series could possibly perfectly convey the message of Scripture given the constraints of the medium. But I believe The Bible could expose people to these stories for perhaps the first time. People who won’t pick up a Bible will perhaps switch on The History Channel. And if we as Christians ‘get behind’ efforts like these, perhaps we will see more high-quality productions based on the biblical message.