Free Speech And Why It Matters by Andrew Doyle – Reviewish

Free Speech And Why It Matters by Andrew Doyle, Constable, 2021. £7.32 on Amazon at the time of writing.

It’s a hardback just a bit smaller than A5. 134 pages total. An easy to read type, a notes section and even an index. Think I would’ve preferred footnotes but it kind of works. I ended up reading the book and then read all the notes, which were actually worth reading. He uses a lot of fancy words I’ve never heard of, but then he does have a Doctorate in Renaissance Literature from Oxford. As you would expect then, the book is well researched and referenced. Like I say, the Notes really are worth reading. For example:

‘In an address to the House of Commons in March 1763, William Pitt the Elder (1708-78) recognised that the home is a sanctuary for every citizen in which in which even treasonous sentiments might be safely expressed: ‘The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It mat be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, but the King of England cannot enter. All his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.’ p. 123, note for p. 89.

And if you know what’s happening to friends North of the Border you’ll know the relevance of that quote. As indeed does Andrew Doyle.

Early on in the book he takes a bleak view of Savonarola and his ‘Bonfire of the Vanities.’ This in the chapter titled ‘The Self-Censuring Artist.’ What Andrew doesn’t tell you is that Savonarola was going up against, through action and speech, the psychopathic Pope Alexander and his equally psychopathic Cardinal son Cesar Borgia (Duke Valentino, AKA The Prince). By speaking out against the Pope, Savonarola wasn’t long for this world. Maybe Andrew should really have been supporting him. I guess we’ll never know.

The book has 18 chapters so they are all quite short. I thought this worked well.  It’s easy to pick up and put down. I didn’t think there were any wasted words. The chapter ‘A Thought Experiment’ was interesting. Andrew chose Christian opposition to homosexuality for his experiment. It felt quite personal so I checked to see if Andrew is a homosexual – which he is. I must admit knowing that did slightly change how I read the book. Not enough to put me off it though. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would see him as quite opposed to the Christian faith, but he wouldn’t want to lock me up for expressing the view that homosexuality is a sin. For the record I would’t want to lock him up either. I wish him no ill – at all. In the realm of Free Speech, he, along with Douglas Murray and Peter Tatchell are allies. Friends even.

As for the book, yes, it’s helpful. He perhaps makes for a surprising ally.

Like so many, Andrew wants to have an objective truth, because that is the only rational option, but then wants to have a relative view of it where it suits. You can’t have both. Nevertheless I’m grateful that common grace forces him, and those like him, to operate within a Christian Worldview, even for those that oppose it. It’s truly amazing how even the godless can end up praising God. It’s quite amusing really.

Do I recommend it? Yes I do. In fact, the way it’s written and its size makes it a handy reference book. So I may well read it again. Like me, you probably won’t agree with everything he writes. We don’t have to support his worldview, but we can support him.

As Christians we should support Free Speech, even if that means unpleasant speech, or speech that is directed at us. And there is plenty of that! There is one who judges our speech, and our prayer is that our speaking the Gospel freely will bring those who at the moment are opposed to The Lord Jesus, into His Kingdom, and then to speak FOR Him. But we don’t do that by banning the free speech of others, even those that are vehemently opposed to the Christian faith.

The other side of the Transgender Debate – Dan Crenshaw interviews Scott Newgent

Dan Crenshaw interviews Scott Newgent (No idea if that’s his real surname.) ‘Let’s talk about Transgenderism.’

This is another really important interview. So important it probably means no one will listen to it. There you go. But it’s the side of the Trans debate that isn’t being heard. It needs to be heard. The link to the interview is HERE and at the end of this post.

It’s an interview with Scott, a Transgender man. A really poignant part of the interview was when Dan asks Scott ‘Would you do it again? If you didn’t have these medical kinds of complications? Would you do it again?

Scott: Erm, (long pause) probably not, no.

Dan: Still no? Even if it was a smooth surgery?

Scott: ‘Probably not, no. You know, it’s taken me a while to say that. And you get pushed when you’re talking about this stuff to De-trans right. It’s another fallacy, I’m changed, the hormones are permanent. I could De trans but then I’d be a trans woman. And I really don’t want to go through the BS. My family has been through enough. I’ve got to the point in my life where I accept who I am. Should I have accepted who I was before? Absolutely.’

Scott needs to be heard. He tackles some really important stuff here, commenting on suicide, surgeons, and, interestingly, on evangelicals. I was tempted to use the phrase ‘Follow the money‘ for the interview. If you listen you’ll see why.

It’s quite raw in places and very honest.

Dan Crenshaw interviews Scott Newgent – Let’s talk about Transgenderism

‘The Madness of Crowds’ by Douglas Murray – Recommended reading

The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, Douglas Murray, Bloomsbury, 2020. This is the updated & expanded edition.

Have you ever seen the 1963 film ‘It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World’? It’s a totally crazy film with big stars in it all searching for buried loot under a ‘Big W.’ It’s a comedy and is hysterical. It’s very funny.

This book by Douglas Murray plunges us into a mad, mad, mad, mad world as well. There’s a lot that’s hysterical. But it isn’t funny. At all. There is a ‘Big W’ though. And an elusive prize.

I didn’t take any notes. I simply wanted to read it. I think the book will make a good companion to Carl Trueman’s latest book (started but not finished).

On the cover of the book is the line: The Sunday Times Bestseller. This is rather surprising because, I assume then, someone is buying it. I did. Presumably lots of people are buying it – not sure if they’re reading it though. Murray was initially encouraged by this. But in the afterword of this edition he’s rather more pessimistic. The frightening aspect of the book is that you can be anything you want to be by ticking the appropriate ideological box. And this is the message: we (that is, most people) are being coerced (or simply marinated) into an ideology. We are being forced further into an ideology that divides. You capitulate or else. In fact, it works the other way as well. You can be told what you are as well. So a black man can be a white man if he doesn’t get with the program. The whole idea of black, white, man, woman, boy, girl is an utter mess of confusion and cancellation. Murray has provided us with enough evidence (all cited in the end-notes) to convince anyone, that wants to step back and see, that what is going on is complete madness.

The Chapter Titles are: 1. Gay. Then an Interlude – The Marxist Foundations. 2. Women. Another Interlude – The Impact of Tech. 3. Race. Interlude – On Forgiveness. 4. Trans. Conclusion. Then an Afterword for this edition.

The chapter on Race is the longest – just. The chapter on Trans is the saddest. The whole book is fairly tragic though. At the beginning of the book he explains the difference between what he calls a Hardware or a Software issue. It recurs a few times through the book.

‘…. the contemporary world has begun to settle on a morality which roots itself in this dispute and which may be viewed as a hardware versus software question.
Hardware is something that people cannot change and so (the reasoning goes) it is something that they should not be judged on. Software, on the other hand, can be changed and may demand judgements – including moral judgements – to be made. Inevitably in such a system there will be a push to make potential software issues into hardware issues, not least in order to garner more sympathy for people who may in fact have software, rather than hardware, issues.’ p.29.

I do think there are some conditions that might be described as a ‘Hardware’ issue simply because we live, according to the Bible, in a fallen world. We should expect to find things that don’t fit. For example Murray gives some figures for people with Intersex (formerly Hermaphrodite) that might be a ‘Hardware’ issue. I’m not convinced surgery is the answer though. It’s all very sad. Help is definitely needed but it’s coming from the wrong place. Everyone has an inherent worth and dignity because we are all  made in the image of God our creator. Everyone. Just like me they need the love and grace of God not an ideology.

‘It has been estimated that in America today around one in every two thousand children is born with sexual organs that are indeterminate, and around one in every three hundred will need to be referred to a specialist.⁷’

I wasn’t sure quite how to read those figures but according to one website I looked at there’s about 1.4 million intersex people in America. That sounds like an epidemic to me. But it depends where you are on the trajectory and also on who decides where you are. Some of the people that decide, frankly, should be prosecuted for child abuse. It’s not science or health care, it’s ideology. It’s all in the book if you can stomach it. 

I’ll quote below a couple more sections from the conclusion to give you a flavour of the book.

Because the most extreme claims keep getting heard, there is a tendency for people to believe them and their worst-case scenarios. p.242

Final quote:

‘With each of the issues highlighted in this book the aim of the social justice campaigners has consistently been to take each one – gay, women, race, trans – that they can present as a rights grievance and make their case at its most inflammatory. Their desire is not to heal but to divide, not to placate but to inflame, not to dampen but to burn. In this again the last part of a Marxist substructure can be glimpsed. If you cannot rule a society – or pretend to rule it, or try to rule it and collapse everything – then you can do something else. In a society that is alive to its faults, and though imperfect remains a better option than anything else on offer, you sow doubt, division, animosity and fear. Most effectively you can try to make people doubt absolutely everything. Make them doubt whether the society they live in is good at all (and it’s working – my comment). Make them doubt that people really are treated fairly. Make them doubt whether there are any such groupings as men or women. Make them doubt almost everything. And then present yourself as having the answers: the grand, overarching, interlocking set of answers that will bring everyone to some perfect place, the details of which will follow in the post (in other words there is no answer – my comment)’ Pp. 247-248.

Given the hot-button topics I thought the book is written quite sensitively. It’s not an aggressive book, but unfortunately what Murray can’t give you, and to be fair he doesn’t try, is any hope, or an objective truth claim to base that hope on. I don’t think he’s saying there’s no such thing as truth, I’m fairly sure he would say there is, but he can’t base it on anything. If there’s no God of truth, there can’t be any truth. The Lord Jesus said ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ And so as Christians our hope is in God – the God of the Bible. But we do have to reach people with the Gospel of Christ; a world that is perishing and drowning in its own particular madness. This book describes the world, or some of it anyway, that desperately needs the Gospel.

‘Of One Blood’

‘And he made from one man (‘One blood’ in the AV) every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, (Acts 17:26).’

In this verse we see ‘racism’ or the idea of different races refuted in the Bible. The Apostle Paul here is clearly referring to the Creation of man (that is: Mankind. Humans) back at the beginning. From Adam the Lord also creates Eve (Mother of the living). So from this couple we all descend (Genesis 1 & 2). ‘One blood’ suggests we all bleed the same. The Bible also speaks of the life being in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). There are differences, but not different races, there is only one humanity. One blood.

‘One blood. That is, of one man’s blood; the Vulgate Latin version reads, “of one”; and the Arabic version of De Dieu reads, “of one man”; of Adam, the first parent of all mankind, and who had the blood of all men in his veins: .’

‘And it is a certain truth that follows upon this, that no man has any reason to vaunt over another, and boast of his blood and family; and as little reason have any to have any dependence upon their being the children of believers, or to distinguish themselves from others, and reject them as the children of unbelievers, when all belong to one family, and are of one man’s blood, whether Adam or Noah: of whom there ‘is only one humanity’ (all nations of men, AV)(John Gill, 23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771. Baptist Bible commentator)

The verse also tells us that not only has God decreed that we (that’s all of us) should live on all the face of the earth (Genesis 9:1) but also how long we should be here. Psalm 90:10 gives a rough estimate of ‘three score years and ten.’ (Or should that be three score years and Then!) It’s at this point the Bible teaching starts to get (more) uncomfortable. This is starting to sound like we aren’t in control. If you are starting to feel the pinch a little, it gets even more specific. He (God) has also ‘determined …. the boundaries of their (me & you) dwelling place.’ The fact is we had no control over where or when we were born. We had no control over our parents either. So even where we are born (or live) falls under the supervision of God.

There are at least three things then we should realise from this verse.

1. We all share a common ancestry. In that sense we are all brothers and sisters.

2. We are all allotted a time to live. There’s nothing fatalistic about this. There’s a plan in place.

3. When and where we were born, and where we live, is no accident.

Once we realise that we have no say where or when we are born and have no say in the day of our death and that it’s not us in control the following verse becomes clear. What is it?

That we should seek God (Acts 17:27).

Again, here’s John Gill:

‘That they should seek the Lord,…. Or “God”, as the Alexandrian copy and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read; their Creator, and kind Benefactor, and who has appointed their time of life, and their habitations for them; and this should engage them to seek to know him, who has done all this for them, and to fear and serve him, and to glorify his name:’

Frankly, I see little seeking after God. But then I cannot see the heart. There is a lot of activity. But is there a seeking after God. Are you seeking God? Or does this describe you:

‘no one understands; no one seeks for God (Rom 3:11).’

But then verse 27 gives an encouragement to seek after God. How come? They might ‘feel their way towards him and find him.’ This is what happened in ancient Nineveh. The prophet Jonah was sent to preach to the people there. He preached a message of coming judgement. The King said Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.” (Jonah 3:9).’ And that’s what happened. Here’s more from the book of Jonah:

‘When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it (Jonah 3:10).’

We live in days of upheaval and perhaps this is God’s judgement upon us. In all of what’s happening right now please take notice of what the writer of Ecclesiastes says ‘Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near…. (Ecc 12:1).’ What does it mean to remember? What does it mean to turn from an evil way?

When the Apostle preached to the people in Thessalonica he described their response like this:

‘For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, (1 Thes 1:9). The same word is used as we saw in Jonah. The people turned. God saw that they turned. They turned TO God FROM Idols. That is an about turn. Their lives were going one way, with one end. They turned and went the exact opposite way, with a different end.

What about you? With all the upheaval and uncertainty will you turn to God from your idols?

In all the upheaval then, in all the injustice and sadness in the world, and even in your own life, will you hear the call of The Lord Jesus Christ:

Mat 11:28  Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

The cancellation of Franklin Graham’s tour events is a seminal moment for the UK – TheWeeFlea.com

I’ve been blogging about Freedom of Speech on and off for over 10 years and have watched it slowly but surely be eroded away. The pace of that erosion seems to be quickening. David has asked that we might share this post of his. So that’s what I’m going to do. This is an important article. Please read and share.


This is my latest column for Christian Today – you can read the original here. I am grateful to Christian Today for having the courage to print this. For me this is a really key tipping poin…

: The cancellation of Franklin Graham’s tour events is a seminal moment for the UK – TheWeeFlea.com

Free Speech – Going, going, gone?

I read this some while ago now at the recommendation of a friend (Thanks Nick!). Having checked the revisions, I first started writing this over a year ago. I’m staggered at how things have moved!

The author, Mick Hulme is an atheist but the subject of Free Speech is something that should unite both Atheist and Christian alike and this book does that. It’s been in my ‘Draft’ folder for a while but the book’s relevance continues. Indeed, the book seems to have more relevance each week. There’s so much to quote you might as well go and buy it. The following extracts will suffice for now. Note especially this line: ‘Free speech means you are also free to talk back as you see fit‘. So talking and talking back. Sounds very much like a conversation – even a heated conversation.

‘If it is to mean anything, free speech has to live up to its name. This is the hardest thing for many who claim to endorse the principle to remember in practice. It means that what others say or write need not conform to what you, I, or anybody else might prefer.

Here is the terrible truth about free speech. Anybody can choose to write, blog, tweet, chant, preach, phone a radio program or shout at a television set. Not all of them will have the purity of soul of Jesus Christ or Joan Rivers, the wisdom of Socrates or Simon Cowell, or the good manners of Prince Harry or Piers Morgan. That’s tough. They still get the same access to free speech as the rest of us, whether we like it or not.

Defending the unfettered Free in free speech is not a question of endorsing whatever objectionable or idiotic things might be written or said. Nobody had to find Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons insightful or hilarious in order to stand by its right to publish them. Nor is it a question of being soft and suffering in silence. Free speech means you are also free to talk back as you see fit.

The Free in free speech does mean recognising that free speech is for fools, fanatics and the other fellow too. Like all true liberties, free speech is an indivisible and universal right. We defend it for all or not at all.’

Trigger Warning: Is the fear of being offensive killing free speech?, Mick Hume (Pages. 12 & 13).

In practice, this isn’t easy for Christians – or for anyone else for that matter. Having our faith and our Saviour ridiculed in public isn’t pleasant but is nothing new. And it’s happening all the time directly and indirectly. (I didn’t say we have to like it) Why other lobby groups expect a free pass on abuse and ridicule is quite frankly beyond me. Welcome to the real world. Christians have been living with this reality for centuries. Christians have been pilloried, abused, imprisoned, made fun of, and even burnt. Now, especially in The West, it’s shaming, losing your livelihood and trial by Media. In other countries, right now, like China for example, it’s another story.

In order to apply the principles of democracy, tolerance and free speech, which the UK is supposed to stand for, and even exports (allegedly), is it unreasonable to ask for the liberty to speak freely? By speaking freely I mean as Mick Hume writes ‘Free speech means you are also free to talk back as you see fit.’ This freedom is disappearing. We thank God for the freedoms we enjoy and we should pray that it continues. But what to do? The temptation is to lie down and simply hope it will all go away and suddenly as if by magic all our liberties will be restored. It’s not going to happen. You might remember when Boris Johnson brought the topic of Free-Speech to the fore (which BTW has come back several times – including ‘Any Questions’ BBC Radio 4).

At the end of the book, Mick Hulme has provided a glossary, if you will, of anti-free speech Trigger Warnings that were trotted out several times over the comments by Boris. Nothing has changed in the intervening period, our liberties, or lack of them, continually slip away. How things change, Boris Johnson is now Prime Minister. Incidentally, ‘Boris’ is a passionate believer in Free Speech (correct me if I’m wrong). Consider the torrent of abuse he receives – including from Christians. Just in the last week a Judge ruled against a Doctor for not referring to someone by their preferred way of being addressed. Again, I’m just amazed at how fast things are moving.

Here’s the first two of Mick Hulme’s Glossary:

‘This is not a free-speech issue.’

‘This is a pretty sure sign that yes, it is.
The first shot fired in the silent war on free speech is often an assurance that the bans or proscriptions on speech being demanded really have nothing to do with attacking freedom of expression. Of course, the fraudsters assure us that they support free speech, but this is about something else – hate or harassment, national security or personal safety.
What they usually mean is ‘This not a me-speech issue’. It is not infringing on their free speech, so it’s not a problem. But free speech is not the same as me-speech, never mind me-me-me speech. It is always about defending freedom for the other fellow, for the one who thinks differently.’

Incidentally, there have a few discussions regarding our freedom to Speak and interesting, and alarming, to note the frequency these warnings given by Mick Hume are used. But here’s another one that you will probably have noticed. One more:

‘Of course I believe in free speech, but…’

‘This is the one most often guaranteed to give the game away that no, in fact, you don’t.
Ours is the age of the but-heads, when almost nobody opposes free speech ‘in principle’, but Principle is seemingly another country and they do things differently there. In Practice, back here on Earth, many have a ‘but’ to wave around in the face of free speech to explain why the freedom to express an opinion should go thus far, but no further, like ‘free’-range livestock caged in a pen.
This might sound reasonable. But (to use the only language some people seem to understand) the problem is that, like all meaningful liberties, free speech has to be a universal and indivisible right. Once you apply a ‘but’ impose conditions or attach a string, it ceases to be a right. Instead it becomes a concession to be rationed by somebody in authority.
Those ubiquitous ‘buts’ don’t just qualify a commitment to free speech, they crush it. To claim to believe in free speech, but … is akin to insisting that you believe in an Almighty God, but you don’t think He’s all that. It might be better if the but-heads came clean and confessed that they don’t really believe in free speech after all.’

Having said all the above, does that mean we can say whatever we like in an absolute sense? By absolute, I mean saying whatever you like without any eternal consequence. I accept that as Christians we ought to weigh our words carefully and I’ll be the first to confess that I may have overstepped the mark on occasion. We should all consider some words from the Bible. Of course, the Bible is itself soon to be labeled Hate Speech (Gen 1:27). The Bible is considered by some as outrageous, and probably to some extent by Mick Hume, but he doesn’t (I assume) want to close me down or have me arrested for having a different view or even for calling him a sinner. The fact is, Jesus said that every idle word we say will be brought into the judgment.

Mat 12:36  I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless (idle AV) word they speak,
Mat 12:37  for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (ESV)

That is serious stuff but I still believe people have the right to call me a nutcase and say what they like about the Christian faith. In this life Jesus said every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven: except a final rejection of the Salvation offered by God. But right now, your sin, no matter how grievous, and no matter how you may have railed against your God, it can all be forgiven.

That Hideous Strength – Part 2 – The Gender Agenda

via That Hideous Strength – Part 2 – The Gender Agenda

The Christian Worldview & BREXIT (Al Mohler – The Briefing)

Not everyone will agree with this (obviously), but for me, Al Mohler is absolutely spot on with this. Below is the Transcript from Friday’s The Briefing. And THIS LINK for the Audio.


Sovereignty, subsidiarity, and the future of Europe: What the Brexit deal tells us about the prospect of the EU

But next, we turn to another story with huge worldview implications, most of which are simply not acknowledged in the mainstream media coverage. We’re talking about the world’s messiest divorce in history. It’s actually not between a husband and a wife, it is between Britain and the European Union, the so-called Brexit. British voters voted quite unexpectedly in the views of the political elites early in 2016, to leave the European Union for Britain to declare its economic independence and to leave the union that had so characterized Europe in the post-war period.

This was a declaration that Britain intended to exercise and to assert its national sovereignty. But that, of course, led to a huge array of the most complicated questions ever confronted in modern politics. How in the world would a nation like the United Kingdom, which has been so integrated into the European Union exit? The word Brexit, as it became popularly known, was actually a clever political neologism. It was a word coined out of the blue, a combination of Britain and exit, thus Brexit.

…political elites first of all in Europe, but also in the United Kingdom were absolutely confident that the voters in the UK would never vote to leave the European Union. But that’s exactly what they did.

It is really important to notice that the political elites first of all in Europe, but also in the United Kingdom were absolutely confident that the voters in the UK would never vote to leave the European Union. But that’s exactly what they did. This then precipitated to the biggest political crisis in modern diplomatic history. How would the United Kingdom leave the European Union? That’s still an unanswered question. It was declared earlier this week that the British government under Prime Minister Theresa May had reached a Brexit agreement with the forces in Brussels that are responsible for the European Union. It had to be a negotiated exit. This is how complicated the situation is.

Britain had been integrated into the immigration laws, integrated into the border laws, integrated into the economic policies, integrated within the custom system of the European Union. In essence, the European Union that came out of the ashes of the Second World War was an attempt to limit the sovereignty of those European states that would join the union and create a new super national authority, the European Union.

Now, as Christians, we need to pause for a moment and recognize there is a huge problem here. That problem is a violation of the principle of what is called subsidiarity. It’s always good for Christians to be reminded of this principle. Subsidiarity is a basic principle of Christian theology, deeply embedded in the biblical worldview. It tells us that truth and reality and health subside at the most basic unit possible. If that sounds abstract, let me clarify. This means that the greatest unit of meaning is in the smallest unit of structure, which is to say that marriage is actually the centerpiece of civilization. Marriage is not healthy because the civilization is healthy. A civilization is healthy because marriage is healthy.

Marriage, the union of a man and a woman creating a family as that man and the woman have children, that creates the unit of greatest importance to the civilization. The functioning of healthy families is something that is so indispensable that no government at any level can alleviate what is missing if the family is broken. That’s a pathology that is radically demonstrated in American society, and in so many other societies today.

Subsidiarity also tells us that the most important government action is not at the highest level possible, most abstracted from the real lives of people, but rather at the closest level possible. That’s to say, a city government is more likely to be responsive to people, than a supranational authority The United States is more likely as a government to be responsive to its people, than would be the United Nations. This is a basic principle. It’s written into our constitutional order in the system of federalism that marks our constitution. It’s also important to recognize that the intellectual elites both in Europe and in the United States, increasingly have rejected subsidiarity. They have instead argued for a certain kind of internationalism.

In the views of so many, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, bigger is always better. A global authorities better than a national authority, a national authority as far better than a state authority. That we need to note is not only the reversal of the constitutional logic of the United States, it is also the reversal of that basic Christian worldview principle of subsidiarity.

When British voters in early 2016 voted so unexpectedly for Britain to withdraw from the European Union, the arguments were extremely important, and they were generally very straightforward. European leaders argued that Britain could not leave, it must not leave. Because in so leaving it would leave the entire European project. Most major British political leaders in both major British political parties also opposed Brexit. So, this was a populist revolt that in so many ways, was matched by the populist revolt in the United States in the 2016 presidential election. Those two events Brexit in early 2016, the presidential election in the United States at the end of 2016, those really formed the year of the great uprisings in both Britain and the United States.

But Britain’s uprising, the Brexit vote, set into play a series of events that clearly is not over. But there’s a deadline, that deadline, March 29, 2019. That’s a hard exit for the United Kingdom, and that might appear to be the easiest solution except it’s not. It’s extremely complicated. Britain is so interwoven into the European Union, its policies, its economics, its politics, its policies going all the way down to regulations about produce and weights and measures. Furthermore, the very important issues of customs and trade, all of these are so deeply intertwined that it is not easy for just one partner to walk out of this relationship any more than it’s easy for one spouse to leave a marriage.

The metaphor of divorce in this case is almost entirely appropriate. It’s messy. Prime Minister Theresa May appeared to win the support of her cabinet in the middle of this week, only to have her cabinet undermined by two very prominent resignations in protest by those coming from a conservative side who argued that this is a compromise, a further compromise of British sovereignty because under the proposal of the British Prime Minister, Britain would continue to lack control over its own trade and customs, processes and policies. That is indeed a very important infringement of sovereignty.

So, what’s the principle for Christians? Why would Christians in the United States care about this? There’s a huge lesson, the lesson is this: once you surrender sovereignty, it is extremely difficult to get it back. Once you compromise subsidiarity, it is extremely costly to clarify it. There are many in the political elites in the United States who would prefer very clearly to have more federal authority than state authority, more state authority than local authority, and even more authority in international entities above the United States of America. That’s a very dangerous argument. We do live in a global community, but we’re really not a global community. We are a community of nations, but what’s really important is to recognize that the existence of the nation state is itself a protection for human dignity and human rights around the world.

The compromise of that national sovereignty is extremely dangerous. But as I said, for Christians, we understand there’s more than sovereignty at stake here, subsidiarity is at stake. The European Union did come out of the ruins, out of the ashes of World War II with the promise that the violence between states that so marked the 20th century will be overcome by integrating those nations in one big entity. There was actually explicitly the hope of something like a United States of Europe to match the United States of America. But the current European Union is complicated by the fact that the kind of union that had been envisioned, well, it turns out to have been far more idealized than can ever be realized to the perplexity are so many who want to believe that we live in a simple global community. The French continue to speak French and to act French, the Germans speak German and to have characteristics to German culture. That’s true across the board in Europe. And what you see right now in the United Kingdom is that the people of Britain decided we’re simply going to be Britain.

Now the question is: will that actually happen even as the decision of the voters in 2016 was abundantly clear, even if unexpected?

Al Mohler – The Briefing

Welcome to Dystopia

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse. Move away from an objective morality and here’s where it leads. Some selected quotes from Al Mohler’s The Briefing Transcript:

‘They are now killing children in Belgium. We’re talking about euthanasia, and we’re talking about children seventeen and under.’

‘We are often told that arguments that say “this will follow that” are slippery slope arguments that are intellectually indefensible. Here, it’s not just the warning of a slippery slope, it’s a slope that has proved itself to be slippery in a most deadly way. By the way, slippery slope arguments are only invalid if they come without the kind of explanation of causality. In this case, the causality is abundantly apparent.’
(Or, as James White would say, That’s not a slippery slope, that’s a cliff!)

Here’s the terrible logic!
‘Back in 2014, one of the Belgian medical authorities who promoted the change said this, and I quote, “Why wouldn’t you give children who are incurably sick and who are unbearably suffering the same possibilities adults have?”…’ ‘…As you look back at that statement made by Dr. Jan Bernheim–that’s the medical authority who argued that children should have the same rights as adults when it comes to euthaooking at the doctor’s language, he said that children should have “The same possibilities adults have.” Well, what is this possibility? It is the possibility to request to death and to have others administer that death.

Dystopia is soon coming to a Healthcare facility near you!

Listen to Wednesday’s edition (8th August 2018) of The Briefing:

Abortion – Holding Down The Truth

At the end of this section is a letter I sent to the Welsh Assembly back in February to oppose the funding of Abortions from Northern Ireland. But I’d like to set the letter in the broader context. Events have followed on from the letter showing how utterly absurd it is to deny what’s real – that is, we are aborting babies not lumps of cell tissue. This denial can only be described as the deliberate holding down (or suppressing) of the truth in unrighteousness.

Rom 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

The suppression spoken of in the verse is of a continued effort exerted to keep the truth from rising to the surface. it’s been described as akin to holding a beach ball under water. Very difficult to do. To keep it under water takes a lot of effort! But every now and then it pops up to the surface as you will see in the videos.

Just the other day I happened to watch a feature on BBC breakfast about infertility and the anguish for couples that cannot have children. Yes, we call them children. The time, research, cost and pain couples go through to have children is quite extraordinary. But the results are beautiful and amazing! I know this to be true.

And then a ‘royal’ baby is born. Yes, it’s incredible, a little boy for the world to Coo over. I wonder when the happy couple, grandparents and indeed the public and even Parliament starting calling that little life a baby. I would think fairly early on, as soon as she knew she was expecting, while the baby was still in the womb. The Royal Fetus somehow doesn’t sound quite right.

In the letter below I mention the trauma of (a real) miscarriage where all hopes for that little life are dashed. Yes, a life all the same, and treated as such. I also mention the joy of a safe arrival.

It’s quite clear then, at least it seems very clear to me, that if the child is wanted it’s a baby, a little life with a future and a hope, but if that same little life with all its future and hope is not wanted, it’s called a fetus and can be terminated. That’s how we treat a product, a commodity to be discarded at will, not a baby. We treat animals better than that! I know the decision to terminate is not always easy, maybe rarely easy. But we should ask why it isn’t easy. Could it be that suppressing the truth takes an awful lot of effort? Going against what is known deep down to be an egregious crime is actually very difficult to do. But many millions have done exactly that all the same. 

All the above is very recent but shortly after I’d written the letter Jenny Rathbone AM (Assembly Member – A Welsh MP) was interviewed. It was a few weeks ago now but please watch the two videos as they demonstrate very clearly the deliberate suppression of the truth – never mind the ethics of truthful unbiased reporting.

Num 32:20  So Moses said to them, “If you will do this, if you will take up arms to go before the LORD for the war,

Num 32:21  and every armed man of you will pass over the Jordan before the LORD, until he has driven out his enemies from before him

Num 32:22  and the land is subdued before the LORD; then after that you shall return and be free of obligation to the LORD and to Israel, and this land shall be your possession before the LORD.

Num 32:23  But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the LORD, and be sure your sin will find you out.

I first watched the report – about completing a Medical Abortion – I happened to be at home watching the BBC Regional (Wales) news at lunchtime. My thought at the time was ‘I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s never shown again’. I remember quickly rewinding the live TV so I could play it back to record it on my phone. I wasn’t 100% sure what I’d heard so listened really carefully when I played it back. So I listened ‘drop-jawed’ to what Jenny Rathbone AM calls the woman. To my surprise, the interview was aired again in the evening – with a difference.

This time the offending word MOTHER had been edited out. Exactly as I thought. There’s your honest unbiased reporting for you from the BBC. I couldn’t say if it was edited out at the request of Jenny Rathbone (most likely as a supporter of Abortion) or if the BBC took it upon themselves to edit Mother out. Either way, the BBC have a responsibility to be truthful to reality. They could have refused to edit it but they obviously didn’t. The reason I recorded both before and after was because I thought that’s what they would do. The editing is really obvious and badly done (deliberately I hope). Like everyone, Jenny Rathbone knows the truth. She expressed it in the original interview. The edited version is the deliberate suppression of the truth. This isn’t to single her out but it serves as an example of how suppressed truth ‘pops up’ unconsciously to the surface. Colloquially we might call it a Freudian-slip’ but it’s much more than that.

You may have heard the expression ‘be sure your sin will find you out’. You might not realise that saying is from The Bible. Although the original context is said to the Israelites it holds true as a principle. Your sin will find you out. Not everyone gets found out in this life. Some fear they will be found out and exposed and then sadly commit suicide to escape the shame of discovery. But there’s another day coming when there will be no escape.

Rev 6:15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains,

Rev 6:16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb,

Rev 6:17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?

 


Women and Children’s Health Branch
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

6th February 2018

RE: Funding / Enabling NI Abortions

Dear Assembly Members,

A few months ago a lady I know had a miscarriage at around 11 weeks. This was as you might imagine quite devastating for her, and her husband. In fact, as many do, they held a short service for their unborn child. She grieves for that precious little life. Just a few days ago another lady I know gave birth to a healthy baby boy.  That family is rightly rejoicing. The lady that miscarried did not think any less of her child than the one that went full term. I suggest most ladies’ that miscarry feel a terrible sense of loss. Why is it then that in our so-called civilised society we are on a mission to terminate our unborn children? Not only this, in Northern Ireland where the unborn has some safety, we in Wales are considering inviting women to bring their unborn children here. Why? That they might be killed in what should be the safest place on earth – the womb.

Some have called the culture in which we live ‘The Culture of Death’. The measure of civilisation can be measured by how we treat the most vulnerable. Who amongst us are more vulnerable than the unborn? Our culture seeks to deprive the unborn of the right to be born, to have a future, to live. As if our society were not already in The Dock standing accused of taking the lives of thousands of children – we intend on heaping upon ourselves even more guilt by inviting and cajoling like the child catcher the helpless children so they might be terminated. Termination is euphemistically called a ‘Health Service’, (Children’s Health!) which in itself must be regarded as a contradiction. Shame on us! Shame I say. This is not the mark of civilised people.

In light of the above, and more, much more could be said; I implore you to take a stand against funding NI abortions. I do not support funding NI Terminations.

Yours Sincerely,

Michael J. Iliff