If you are an atheist (I suspect more an agnostic) like Stefan Molyneux and you want to speak the truth to people, you will experience persecution. You don’t need to be a Christian to be speaking the truth, as he is trying to do against a barrage of violent hatred from the Left. Your speech will not be protected because it is the truth. This video is his message about how bad the situation is out there – and my fellow believers need to take note. Stefan Molyneux is experiencing persecution – this is what persecution looks like.
I would ask you to pray for Stefan. He is trying to do good, and what he needs is to come to Christ. He has the bravery and boldness to speak that truth were he ever to receive it. I would pray that he does before it’s too late.
These two memes I will share with you – they really make you realise that some on the Right are coming to faith for perhaps the wrong reasons (pragmatic ones, not real faith-based ones), but it is interesting none-the-less to see that people are making and sharing memes which express the view that a society run on Christian lines is what made us great. We can never be great without God, however, because it is His greatness and His glory!
The recognition of looming social collapse isn’t enough, we must realise WHY godlessness results in social collapse! We cannot salvage a feminist/homosexual rights society and tack on Christian values and expect it to survive. We must promote God first, and His laws, allowing everything else to follow from that – because of Him. We cannot do it of our own strength no matter how hard we try,
I saw the article above (Link) this morning, and it contained a bit more detail about what happened to Lauren Southern on her intended (and prevented) entry into the UK. I quote: [my comments added]
Southern took to Twitter to document the incident, and said: ‘I’m not kidding about this, but during my questioning by the UK police.
‘I was asked about my Christianity and whether I’m a radical. I was also asked how I feel about running Muslims over with cars.
A British security official confirmed all three had been refused entry and said when Sellner and Pettibone landed at Luton Airport, north of London, on Friday, border police refused to allow them to enter Britain.
They were detained and then deported on Sunday. [No, they weren’t – they never entered therefore were not deported, they were denied entry.]
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the couple had been banned from entering by Britain’s Home Office on the grounds that their ‘presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good’. [According to whom?]
On Monday, British border police stationed in the French port of Calais also denied entry to Southern.
After being detained, Southern tweeted that British authorities had told her she was ‘officially banned from UK for “racism”‘. [Islam is NOT a race]
Note they call her “far-right” – in other words she is white, and seeks to prevent white genocide (even going to South Africa to film a documentary about the farmers’ plight there – brave lady!).
Katie Hopkins tweeted out this image of her refusal notice:
Note the wording carefully – “by your own admission” – I’d like to know how that went down – admitting to distributing material which the government deems to be racist is the most likely explanation here. Also note the phrase “You have not sought entry under any other provisions under the immigration rules” – in other words there are other provisions which can be applied (presumably to the actual terrorists we keep letting back in to our country, no?).
Lauren also tweeted out this image which I only saw in the article quoted above today:
Lauren was held under Schedule 7 – part of the terrorism act.
So words (printed on paper or spoken out of our mouths) are actually terrorism now?
Do you know who the only people are who are terrorised by words? Those whose arguments or behaviour cannot stand up to scrutiny. In this case that is the British establishment. I can’t imagine any Christian, or muslim being unable to defend their beliefs. Words don’t harm and words don’t terrorise.
Quick briefing: What is “Common Purpose”? – it’s a charity run by a “Communitarian” leader, which sells it’s expensive re-framing training to local authorities and police with the aim of developing leaders of the future – people in fact who will “lead outside authority”.
I’m sorry that that description isn’t more enlightening – there is SO much I could write about these evil people (I recommend you read the links I provided, for more), but suffice to say that in the UK, at any rate, wherever you see police or council workers doing something utterly ridiculous, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ve been re-framed (which means that their world-view has been altered to fit a Communitarian agenda).
Why is this important? Well it’s the only thing which explains how our once rational police force has descended into an Orwellian nightmare. They are no longer “fit for purpose”.
Yes, you read that right, they really did go and knock on this man’s door to “have a chat” with him about what he’d said on social media, even though he had not broken any laws. Does this make you feel uncomfortable? It does me!
Police told Mr Boxford he had done ‘nothing wrong’ and was ‘not in trouble’ but that they needed to ‘have a chat’ with him about the online comments.
He was on his way out on January 30 when he heard a knock on the door.
‘I ignored it because I thought it was charity workers,’ he said.
‘But as I walked out of the door, I saw the police across the road.
‘I knew the officer so I said hello.’
Mr Boxford eventually let the officers inside and said: ‘They said a couple of times ‘you’re not in trouble’ and ‘you’ve done nothing wrong’.’
‘I said, ‘unless you’re going to arrest me or caution me I’m not interested.
‘I will not allow my democratic right to hold my elected representatives or their officers to account shut down.
‘I’m simply expressing my personal opinion about things in the public domain.’
Mr Boxford, a trainee driving instructor, said police could not tell him specifically what he had said or written to warrant the visit.
Remarkable. Who but a moronic copper would allow themselves to be used in a campaign to silence the free speech of another human – oh, did I misspell “masonic”? Perhaps that explains it! Many in the comments section thought so. I think, personally, that the Common Purpose training is the more likely cause, however.
The police are becoming the enforcement wing of the state in matters of free speech. They are heavily invested in promoting both islam and the LGBTQ agenda. The following images make that much clear:
Yes, the police have a “diversity budget”, but not if that involves a diversity of opinion. No. They will stand with islam, but flaunt their support of homosexuals – those three tweets were all from the same force, by the way.
in support of the agenda, the basis for the introduction of the police force (the protection of property) has been completely usurped!
I would actually call this “fiddling while Rome burns” myself!
The message is becoming clear – don’t you dare express an opinion online which the agenda doesn’t support. If someone complains about your social media post, the police will find time to come and harass you and intimidate you in behalf of the person who you offended, even if you have not broken any laws. Clearly police budgets are still too high if they have time for such behaviour!
This next one is just satire (for now).
For my American chums, Frazzles are bacon flavoured crisps. Let me also make clear that I do not condone the eating of Frazzles (I don’t want a knock at my door, do I?)
Impression? The ‘counter-extremism’ unit are warning that Milo Yiannopoulos is an extremist.
Later on, however, we read (although, judging by the comments, no-one did):
So it was not to do with what he might say, but concerns about demonstrations. And who would be demonstrating? Local NUT left-whingers (sic!). The complaint which sparked this controversy came from none other than a local National Union of Teachers rep:
“…Christine Dickinson, local secretary of the NUT, attacked the decision to invite someone who is ‘well known for his inflammatory views to speak to their pupils without contest’.”
So although it was not about what Milo Yiannopoulos was going to say, it has served to silence his free-speech anyway. This is how the left, and Cultural Marxists work.
The truth is now abhorrent, and it’s freely available for all those who seek it.
The truth is abhorrent, but:
We must in fact be willing to speak the abhorrent truth – even if we are lambasted for doing so, even if we are censured by the propagators of lies (who we thought we had a hand in electing, but probably didn’t). We must stand and speak that which is vile, horrible abhorrent TRUTH, because no matter what the truth is what it is.
If you are a Christian this will be sooner rather than later. If you’re in the UK it’s coming – the government wants to crack down on ‘extremism.’ Yet so far it has declined to define extremism – which makes it very easy to become a target.
Firstly I will say that free speech is a benefit to all. If you cannot HEAR a view which is repellant, how can you educate the young to be repelled by it? If such views are deemed ‘unacceptable’ where other views are deemed to be sacrosanct, we’ve entered an Orwellian nightmare.
If extremism is undefined, the government has free reign to move the goalposts until even speaking the Law of God will become an offense – how can it not be? God’s Law says that homosexuality is wrong – what could be more offensive than that, these days?
Extremism is a moving target – and an oppressive regime such as the one we appear to have elected, can use it how it likes, when it likes, to stop any action or mode of speech – it’s a race to totalitarianism.
I’m not trying to be flippant here – my point is serious. Extremism is too broad a term to use. Where does it end – that’s my point. The UK is already falling down the rankings of ‘free countries’ for journalism:
“‘Freedom of Press’ is published by the US-based Freedom House, an NGO established in 1941 that has been ranking countries worldwide since 1980 in relation to democracy, human rights and press freedom. In May 2014 it reported that Britain has slipped down the global rankings for freedom of the press to 36th place.
The organisation said press freedom and therefore free speech, had fallen to its lowest level for over a decade. It partly blames regressive steps in countries such as Libya, Turkey and Ukraine, as well as the actions taken against journalists reporting on national security issues in both the US and UK.
Karin Karlekar, the report’s project director, said: “We see declines in media freedom on a global level, driven by governments’ efforts to control the message and punish the messenger.”” (source)
My views may differ from yours, but if I cannot hear your views, because you are censored, how can I learn what is right and wrong? How can I hold my views, if opposing views are not allowed? My views then become ‘unnecessary’? We would all become ‘drones’ of one viewpoint. Thought might be banned altogether.
When I was a teenager, a doctor came to our school to answer the girl’s questions about matters reproductive. One girl asked the question ‘What happens if I’m pregnant and I don’t want to be?’
The doctor’s reply was ‘You just have an abortion.’
Afterwards, a teacher, in fact our R.E. teacher took the whole class into a room and sat us down, while she told us the story of her abortion.
I want to share what I can remember about her story all these years later.
Firstly she already had a disabled son, and when she fell pregnant again, they had to wait until the preganacy was advanced enough to do amniocentesis to determine if the baby had the same disability. It turned out that he did. She was advised to have a termination – she and her husband must have already had so much on their hands with their first son that they agreed to this.
She told us how she had to go through a full birth of a baby which had been killed in her womb. This birth had to be chemically induced.
You could have heard a pin drop – we must have been slack jawed with horror at what she was sharing – this poor woman.
I feel tearful just typing this.
I can’t remember her name, but she sat and told us that she HAD to tell us, because the doctor had said ‘You just have an abortion,’ as if it was easy, simple, and held no pain, emotions, or trauma.
She had all of us there to hear her story, and I would bet you that not one in that room would have thought of having an abortion as matter of course after hearing it.
I think of her story, and I particularly see it’s relevance today. Planned Parenthood is being ‘targetted by the GOP’ who, according to Harry Reid (*hiss*) have ‘lost their moral compass’ – no Harry, you awful little man – YOU HAVE!
Women are being CARED for by KILLING their children?
The teacher who shared her trauma with us, would today be disciplined for doing so – in the US, probably drummed out of the profession for HATE SPEECH.
I’m glad that back in the late 1980’s she was still free to speak.
Please pray for that dear teacher of mine today – she must be in her 70’s if she’s still alive, and I’m sure she still thinks of that day. I hope she knows she did right to share her pain with a class of misled teenage girls.
So the Telegraph tells us today that an MP has answered contact from a constituent by telling them that free speech is protected by the new Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs). He is quoted as saying in the article (Link) [my emphasis added]:
“He wrote: “I believe that everybody in society has a right to free speech and to express their views without fear of persecution.
“The EDOs will not serve to limit but rather to guarantee it: it is those who seek to stop other people expressing their beliefs who will be targeted.
“Let me give you an example, one which lots of constituents have been writing about – talking about gay marriage in schools.”
He went on to insist that Christians with traditional views on marriage are “perfectly entitled to express their views” but suggests it could constitute “hate speech” in some contexts.
“The new legislation specifically targets hate speech, so teachers will still be free to express their understanding of the term ‘marriage’, and their moral opposition to its use in some situations without breaking the new laws.
“The EDOs, in this case, would apply to a situation where a teacher was specifically teaching that gay marriage is wrong.”
So hang on a minute… You’re saying “The EDOs will not serve to limit but rather to guarantee it [free speech]: it is those who seek to stop other people expressing their beliefs who will be targeted.” and cannot see the irony that it is YOU who is preventing free speech – the government itself! What he has said there simply is not true, nor is it safe to assume that is how the orders will be used. Why would they be? A government with the power to introduce any law it feels like, and then use an order (not a trial before peers, I might add) to prevent you disagreeing with it. This is classic Statism, classic Communism – we should all be very concerned about this.
While the queen retains what she claims is her ‘Divine right to rule‘, you and I who believe in God’s Word, are going to be prevented from speaking the truth by her very government.
I’ll end with a quote from the Secular society from the same article, above [my emphasis added]:
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society said: “If EDOs really could be used to prevent teachers from talking about same-sex marriage, unless they are inciting violence, they are an even greater threat to freedom of expression than I had feared.
“To suggest that EDOs guarantee freedom of expression [as Mark Spencer suggests] is not just inaccurate, it is the opposite of the truth; they are the largest threat to freedom of expression I have ever seen in Britain.
“The spreading of hatred is far too vague a concept to be the basis of legal sanctions, and would be worryingly open to misuse, particularly by ideological opponents.”
And this is from a man who’s organisation supports gay marriage.
I have expressed my views on the Law of Moses before, but I’ll expand a little on it here. The Christian churches are very much to blame for the loss of our moral compass, and for where we find ourselves today. They have wanted, and continue to, pick and choose what they want to believe, and pass on to their congregations.
They want to say that homosexuality is wrong whilst making ham sandwiches for the church fete. They want to say that adultery is a sin, but have abandoned God’s Sabbath.
They have craved to nail whichever parts of the law seem onerous to them to Christ’s cross, on behalf of the flock they pastor. Yet God’s laws are nothing as compared to the numeousness of man’s laws, which he has put in it’s place, and which now keep changing by the wind of man’s morals, which blow around like the sands of the desert.
No wonder we are expected as Christians to bend ourselves to these winds of doctrine – we have thrown away God’s law, and yet decided to keep those parts which we feel are important – to God it is all important.
In North Carolina, you are about to be outlawed from sharing dietary or nutritional information with others. Yes, if you reversed your diabetes with diet, you will not be allowed to share that information with others – you will be breaking a new law.
The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition (NCBDN) has launched an all-out assault against free speech with its antithetically named “Modernize Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act,” or House Bill 796, which would make it a crime to share health advice or food strategies with non-family members who are suffering from health conditions.
The bill, which has already passed its first reading in the North Carolina State Senate, would prohibit unlicensed individuals from offering “medical nutrition therapy,” which the proposed legislation defines as the “provision of nutrition care services for the purpose of managing or treating a medical condition.”
Recommending that a friend with an autistic child try the GAPS diet, for instance, would essentially be outlawed under HB 796, as only licensed dietitians would be permitted to dispense such nutrition advice. Or like with Steve Cooksey, teaching people how to overcome “incurable” diseases through diet and supplementation would be off limits under HB 796.”
I thought protectionism had been outlawed? No – only YOUR rights are infringed. Heaven help you if you reach out to help someone else.
In every way, we must surely be able to see by now that only God’s Law is righteous – that man’s laws are flawed, corrupt and corrupting. The very idea of this kind of protectionism in an industry which is so tiny (how many people would consider going to see a nutritionist?) should be offensive to us all.
If you are in North Carolina, please act now to stop this law being passed.