Now that the Same-sex community has been granted their “rights,” what’s stopping the transgenders, the polygamists and others for demanding their “rights” to marriage, too.

WHY I THINK SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE ORDAINED BY THE CHURCH.
By Chris Briscoe, Truth Apologist, with no apologies for speaking the Truth! Author page: amazon.com/author/chrisbriscoe

image

image

Have you ever felt yourself in the position of wanting to say something but disabled from doing so for fear of offending another human being; yes, every person these days has felt intimidated by the watch-word of today which is political-correctness. At times we feel like we are walking on egg-shells because we are now living in a society where the atmosphere has become poisoned by fear?   Fear of offending the vocal minority, against the sacrifice of the silent majority’s feeling!  Where the majority is expected to keep silent and not speak what is on their mind, to “toe the current line” of what is deemed politically-correct by our politicians!  Now, the silent majority are living in fear, and they are expected to keep quiet, and not speak the truth about what is normal behaviour in a normal and healthy society.

People are living in fear of speaking the truth! Fear of offending some body’s feelings. For there was one such case which was the case of a forty year old man who was demoted from his job after posting something on Facebook. You can find the Link at:

image

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/nov/16/christian-wins-case-gay-marriage-comments

The dispute began in February 2011 when Smith saw an article on the BBC News website headed “Gay church marriages get go ahead”. He linked to it on his Facebook page and added the comment: “An equality too far”. Two colleagues read the remark and one of them posted a response asking Smith to explain what he meant.
The next evening he posted: “I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in Church.”
“The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the state wants to offer civil marriage to the same sex then that is up to the state; but the state shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.”

Adrian Smith lost his managerial position, had his salary cut by 40%, and was given a final written warning by Trafford Housing Trust (THT) after posting in February.
The comments were not visible to the general public, and were posted outside work time, but the trust said he broke its code of conduct by expressing religious or political views which might upset co-workers.

In response, Mr. Smith brought breach of contract proceedings, saying the trust acted unlawfully in demoting him, and Mr. Justice Briggs ruled in his favour at the high court on Friday. The judge said the trust did not have a right to demote Smith as his Facebook postings did not amount to misconduct, and the demotion imposed by way of purported disciplinary sanction constituted a breach of contract.

Mr. Smith, commenting after his court case win, which came before the redefinition of marriage, said, “Something has poisoned the atmosphere in Britain, where an honest man like me can be punished for making perfectly polite remarks about the importance of marriage.”

“I have won today. But what will tomorrow bring? I am fearful that, if marriage is redefined, there will be more cases like mine – and if the law of marriage changes people like me may not win in court.

“Does the prime minister want to create a society where people like me, people who believe in traditional marriage, are treated as outcasts? That may not be his intention, but, as my treatment shows, that’s what will happen.

“The prime minister should think very carefully about the impact of redefining marriage on ordinary people.”

Healthy Debate is being Stifled
These days in the U.S. and the U.K., debate is being stifled and people are too afraid to say what is really is on their mind because they just don’t want to be different or offend the homosexual communities’ feelings, so they keep quiet so as to have a peaceful life free from persecution or penalty from the State, just like the majority of people in Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s.

In another case which involves another 40 year old, Mr. Felix Ngole, but this time a student in Sheffield University who posted some comments on his Facebook which was set to be seen by his circle of friends.He was responding to the news coming out of the U.S. about Kim Davies, a county clerk, who had refused to issue licences for same-sex marriage and who was sent to jail for 6 days! Ngole gave his opinion, stating that according to the Bible, in the book of Levititcus, chapter 20, the Bible forbids same-sex relations and classifies those actions alongside sins of other weird relationships.  It transpired that one of those friends complained to the Sheffield faculty and he was durely sent a letter informing him that he was under investigation. Two months later he was sent an e-mail informing him that his comments may have offended someone, and that his membership of the University had been terminated.

In our society these days, folks who speak up and articulate what is society’s traditional, natural view of marriage are being penalized by losing their jobs, or worse, being intimidated or threatened by certain people fueled by the LBT community. What is happening is people who believe in the traditional view of marriage are being made to feel alienated and branded “a bigot.”

Therefore, something has poisoned the atmosphere and minds of millions of people, even our society!
Please understand my next statement as it may offend somebody. But what about my feelings when I am told by my Prime Minister in his same-sex marriage legislation that I have to support a wedding ceremony giving a blessing to a man who thinks marriage consummation is putting his dick up the backside of another man’s backside?  “The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 Act” was passed in 2013 but which same-sex couples were not allowed to marry until 13th March 2014.

Our Society is becoming Warped
Now that this legislation has come into law, children are being taught the virtues of transgender relationships and even there was the shocking case of a Anglican Elementary School announcing that it will have a Transgender Day in its School calendar. The link for thst case is: http://anglicanmainstream.org/parents-pull-children-out-of-primary-school-in-outrage-at-planned-transgender-day-for-children-as-young-as-four/

All these occurrences shows we are now living in a warped society and it is only going to get even more warped. The next under 0.1% section of our society to demand that the state gives them the same provision in law for marriage will be the polygamists as well as those who want to marry their daughter or sons, their mother, their father, their sister, their brother, or those who want to marry their pets. For our Prime Minister has laid the way for such provisions when he heralded his same-sex legislation with the words:
“Where there is love and commitment, then that’s all that you need for marriage.”

Whether you are a believer in the Bible or not, whether or not you believe in the Jewish and Christianity’s teachings on same-sex marriage, something was very obviously omitted during the debate about same-sex marriage, for which I will outline below:

WHY I THINK SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE ORDAINED BY THE CHURCH
These are the reasons why I think same-sex marriage should not have become part of a religious ceremony:
1. Because the Church is predominantly a Christian institution, and marriage within the Church is a Christian ceremony, within a religious context, whose teachings forbid marriage between members of the same sex; historically, Christianity sprung up as an off-shoot of Judaism; in both the Judaism and Christian teaching, homosexuality is explicitly forbidden;  actually Moses explicitly warns against such relationships in the same context as other unnatural relationships.  Listen to this taken from the Bible’s teaching in the book of Leviticus, Chapter, 20, from verse 11:

11 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 “ ‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 “ ‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
17 “ ‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.”

2. It is undemocratic because the wishes of the majority have been steam rollered by the wishes of the minority.
For example, even though in most U.S states they either opposed same-sex marriage or were against the redefinition of marriage, in June last year five judges among nine ruled that it was okay to redefine marriage to include same-sex marriage; in other words, nine judges were given the task of deciding whether to redefine marriage,  and decide on behalf of 70 million people; and all because the silent majority didn’t speak out, or worse, were not given opportunity to do so, the law was passed to allow same-sex marriage in the U.S. When the U.S. Supreme Court was not set up to legislate, nine judges legislated on behalf of 70 million citizens in fifty states, of which the majority had already rejected same-sex marriage or voted against marriage being re-defined. HOW UNDEMOCRATIC IS THAT?

Thomas Jefferson was right when he prophesied that the U.S. Supreme Court would be ruled by “despots!”

In my country, there are special devices laid down which should be used when new laws want to be introduced on our statute books. Before a law is even debated in the Commons, the lower house of parliament, it has to be prepared before the Commons as a white paper, where it needs to be scrutinized with rigorous debate and discussion in both houses of Parliament. But something scandalous has happened: these democratic devices were steam-rollered over when this same-sex legislation was introduced.  There was no announcement in any party manifesto; there’s was no green paper; there was no statement in the Queen’s speech but was rushed through both the Commons and the House of Lords.

3.Think about it! The Prime Minister and his Deputy had an idea to redefine marriage; after the traditional view of marriage of Judeo-Christian served our society well for around 5000 years since Moses walked the earth. Actually, the institution we call “marriage” was laid down in the teaching and writings of Moses; in the book of Genesis, which records its own history of how man and woman were made; there is the context of marriage in the words:

20 “But for Adam, no suitable helper was found.
21  So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23  The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24  That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Whether you believe this or not, within the issue of same-sex marriage it tells us about how there is male and female, of which the word says that the man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife.

Also, within Christianity’s teachings, there are the words of Jesus commenting on Moses’ teaching, when members of the strict, Pharisee Jewish sect asked him a question in the book of Matthew 19:3:
3 “Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
So whether you believe in Christ or Moses, or even if you are an atheist or anyone, the root of the issue  in same-sex marriage is that the Church should not introduce it as a ceremony because its teaching explicitly forbid it. And so, for governments and the Prime Minster to make legislation to force the Church to allow it to open its doors to same-sex marriage is something for which it’s completely unauthorized to do, and indeed, it means the secular is treading on holy ground “where angels do not even dear to tread!”

But someone may say, “Ah, but in the U.K. our the British law and Constitution is fundamentally tied up together!”
Yes, I admit here in the U.K., we do not have the division which the U.S. has in its Constitution between State and Church – granted, but still our leaders, and our supposed head of the Church in Great Britain and Wales’ Constitution, the Queen, has supported same-sex marriage and given her nod of approval or Royal Accent to allowing this same-sex legislation to reach its validation, of which the teachings of Christianity strictly forbid. And it speaks of double-standards when both our two most prominent leaders go before the nation at Christmas and Easter and speak about the virtues of Christianity, when they themselves are so obviously going against those Christian values and leading us all astray!

4. And in the future, when all man’s  heart’s and true motives are judged, individuals,  both Ministers, Prime Ministers and legislators, as well as our other once trusted leaders, who have done this,  will be judged – and our leaders judged more severely, even so called Christian leaders, unless they repent! There is still time to repent and repeel this law and reinstate the right, true definition of marriage, which safeguards our society and  the boundaries of our cherished concept of marriage, which undergirds our society and nation, of what is right and wrong for a real,  traditional, normal family, which constitutes marriage as one man and one woman. Otherwise, disorder, chaos and the unnatural will rule, creating a warped society and warped concept of marriage, and resulting in no end of detrimental consequences for our children and their children to come!
Every honest man or woman, when they consult nature, will admit homosexuality goes against the laws of nature, and if there is somebody who doesn’t think along those lines, then please could I ask that person the following question, go to nature and look, “Are two people of the same sex compatible, biologically?” “No, absolutely not!” “Then, please go to the animal kingdom, are there any species which leave their natural relations?” The answers is, “No, you cannot find any monkey or any other species who are pursuing a gay lifestyle!”

But man, because man follows the inclinations of his heart, if he has feelings for the same-sex, we now have the exceedingly shocking situation that our societies and governments support what is by nature, outlawed. But I would say, that’s why we have laws in nature, to protect our human species from adverse activity, from lack of procreation, which could lead the human race to extinction, if there were enough people who thought, “I will try this new and fashionable lifestyle out, of which our government and Queen support!”   Why do we have governments and prime ministers installed? To protect our society from the extreme elements of society, the 1% of our society, whose behaviour, if adopted by the majority, would bring the entire society into unbalance. And it is our government’s duty  to discourage adverse, warped and unnatural lifestyles, which would unbalance the natural order and bring extinction to the human race!

But now, thanks to our Prime minister, we have the scandalous situation where those politicians are encouraging and supporting the unnatural order so that, today, there are millions of people, even children who are thinking to themselves, “I think I will try out this new and fashionable lifestyle!” There are thousands of children who are now being encouraged into entering a warped life-style of transgender, who feel that it is natural! And that’s why transgender cases changing, sex-operations have spiked in the previous two years, since our society and Government decided to support same-sex marriage.

We have a Prime Minister who said these words when introducing his new legislation of the redefinition of marriage. He said, in 2014, when introducing his idea to redefine marriage, along with his Deputy Prime Minister:

He said, “Where there is love and commitment, then that’s all that you need for marriage.”

Please think about these words and consider deeply what can result in our society for the future. Personally, I would recommend that this kind of thinking is shallow thinking from our Leader and needs re-considering, and remember that this legislation was rushed through both houses of parliament, and wasn’t even mentioned in the Queen’s speech – how undemocratic and scandalous that was?

If he believes and defines, as the qualifying element for marriage are two things of “commitment” and “love” then, mark my words, the next vocal minority to demand their “rights” will be those who want to marry more than one person and those who want to marry same-blood relations, as well as the community of people who have an affection for their animals in such a way that they advocate sexual relationships with their “pets” and want to also have marriage to their “partners.”

If you, Mr. Prime Minister, qualify marriage as only commitment and love, then in the not too distant future, when you will have retired and will be writing your memoirs under your fully knighted-name, in the House of the Lords, then there will be men and women who are demanding from their State, equal rights that you gave to same-sex marriage partners, and a man will enter the Church one day with his pet-partner and demand that his State-Clergy marry them, in the sight of God, and give his blessing before consummation.

We are already having a hell of a problem in articulating to our children when they ask us the question, “Dad, how can two men or two women have sex?” Of course we answer, ”They can’t!”

And then how can we answer their next question of, then “Why are they allowed to marry?” Which is an equally difficult question to ask! And why does our government support such unnatural lifestyles? Because it is our nation’s Ministers and Prime Minister and parliamentarians who have supported such unnatural relations! Why? Because in the previous fifty years, the Church was deemed no longer relevant, insisting the truth of what our society and natural order should look like!  Only 100 years ago, nearly all of the scientists believed in the natural order, and further believed in the concept of the Truth undergirding this natural order.

And now, us folks, are having to answer other questions: the kind of questions teenagers ask, “Dad, why can the same sex get married when they cannot have sex or procreate children?  In today’s age, this is the kind of question parents are getting from their Elementary-age children, “Why does my friend have two Dads and they live together without their Mummy?”  or “Why does  my friend have two Mums and they live together without their father?” And we live in societies where Christian and Catholic adoption agencies are being forced to close their doors to receive homeless and orphaned children because the governments of the U.S. have told them they must have a quota of same-sex parents adopting children! And some of these adoption agencies have served our communities for over two hundred years, bringing together children into natural families, and bringing health, happiness and order where there was disorder!

What kind of question will my child ask when they see Mr. Joe Bloggs walking down the road, with his new “wife” in toe, beaming with pride, and showing his better-half’s horseshoe wedding-ring, with both climbed onboard a horse and cart, of which the horse leading the happy wedding party is his new mother-in-law. Mr. Prime Minister, please would you do the kindness to answer that question in the back or the inside jacket of your of your Memoirs, because I am not qualified to answer that, because I don’t know!

But it is the responsibility of our government and courts to protect our society’s status quo, of what has been in place for almost 5000 years!
So, Mr. Prime Minister, you are the one who got us into this mess, and so you are more qualified to get us out of this mess!
By Chris Briscoe, Truth Apologist, with no apologies for speaking the Truth!

Please, I would be thrilled if you could take a look at my Author page: amazon.com/author/chrisbriscoe

HERE ARE THE REASONS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE A CHRISTIAN CEREMONY:

1.THE OBVIOUS IS, THE TWO CANNOT CONSUMMATE THEIR MARRIAGE, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY BRITISH LAW, THEREFORE, A JUDGE CAN ANNULIFY ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.

2. BIOLOGICALLY, THE TWO ARE INCOMPATIBLE.

3. THE TWO CANNOT PROCREATE CHILDREN, THEREFORE, THEY DO NOT FULFILL THEIR BASIC REQUIREMENT OF MARRIAGE FOR SOCIETY, WHICH IS THE MAIN REASON MARRIAGE IS ENSHRINED WITHIN THE LAW: TO SAFEGUARD FUTURE GENERATIONS’ POSTERITY. BUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS FUNDEMENTALLY DETRIMENTAL TO SOCIETY FOR IF ALL PEOPLE DECIDED TO CHOOSE THIS “NEW AND FASHIONABLE LIFESTYLE,” THE HUMAN RACE WOULD BE FACING EXTINCTION!

4. AND NOW THAT THE SAME-SEX SUB-CULTURE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THEIR “RIGHTS, ” WHAT OTHER SUB-CULTURE WILL ALSO DEMAND THEIRS, TOO? The Polygamists (those who want to marry multiple partners) or those who want to marry their sister or brother, their daughter, their son, or even those who want to marry their pets. Our Prime Minister has led the way when heralding this new legislation as,

“Where there is love and commitment, then that’s all that you need for marriage.”

Same-sex marriage and the gay community represents the sub-culture of our culture and we should do all we can to help people face this truth, gently and with healing-time, and to counsel people that they need to suppress such feelings, to tell them that with medicine, prayer and loving support, they too can break free.

Advertisements

STUDENT EXPELLED FROM UK UNIVERSITY FOR QUOTING THE BIBLE ON FACEBOOK

By Chris Briscoe, Apologist of Truth, without apologies for speaking the truth.

Author page:amazon.com/author/chrisbriscoe

 

I am sure you have heard about the Christian bakers, florists and photographers who were fined large amounts of money under sexual-orientation discrimination laws, but a recent case involves just a student who was posting comments on his private account.

The case is about Felix Ngole, aged 38, a married student with four children and a Christian, who was expelled from his university because he wrote a post on Facebook, supporting the Bible’s teaching on marriage and sexual ethics, which outlaws homosexual relations. He was studying a Masters in Sheffield University in England.

Please read this case. What do you think. Let me tell you my thoughts: when I read about this case I was shocked and I grieved for this man whose only offence was expressing his religious-orientated conscience!

You can read about it at http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/29/social-work-student-expelled-course-anti-gay-facebook-posts/

This is what happened:

Felix was in his second year,  when he logged onto his Facebook account which he had set to be read by his own circle of friends;  in response to the news from the U.S.A, he gave his reaction to a U.S. Kentucky clerk being locked up in prison because she was a conscientious objector to gay marriage.

Felix wrote that in the Bible there is teaching which states, in Leviticus, Chapter 20, verse 13, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.”

The Kentucky county Clerk, Mrs. Kim Davies, Felix was commenting on was sent to jail for six days because she refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses. And then two months later Felix received a notice from the University that he was under investigation. Somehow his words came to the attention of his teachers and faculty members,who,  following a meeting of a subset of the Faculty of Social Sciences regarding public conduct in the profession,  he was sent a further e-mail which informed him that he had been “excluded from further study on a program leading to a professional qualification and is no longer recognized as a University student.”

The committee wrote that the grounds for this expulsion was he, “may have caused offence to some individuals” and had “transgressed boundaries which are not deemed appropriate for someone entering the social work profession,”  and that, “his action would have an effect on his ability to carry out a role as a social worker.”

The committee further wrote, “Your student record will be terminated shortly and your library membership and University computer account withdrawn. You may wish to contact your funding body for advice on your financial position.”

Mr. Ngole is appealing the University’s decision through its appeal system but is being defended by Andrea Williams from the Christian Legal Center, who said that the universitie’s conduct violates Mr. Ngoles fundemental rights.

“The university has failed to protect his freedom of speech under Article 10 and his freedom of religion under Article 9,” she said, referring to the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Ngole warned against universities judging on their own whether to ban a student on the basis of a personal statement saying, “If each university is making its own, arbitrary decisions, who is monitoring these decisions and how can students ensure that, across all universities, there is good, fair and equal assessment of such issues?” 

Universities, in his opinion, should follow a completely different path and, instead of censoring peoples’ beliefs, encourage an exchange of opinion.

“If they are ‘censored’ from even sharing their ideas or beliefs as part of a discussion on Facebook then how can that happen?” says Ngole, who plans to file a legal motion referring to the breach of his right of expression if his appeal to the university panel fails. He intends to appeal the decision on the basis of discrimination.

“I wonder whether the university would have taken any action if a Muslim student who believes in Sharia law, with its teaching about women and homosexuality, had made moderate comments on his Facebook page. I don’t think so,” said Ngole, stressing that he was being discriminated against for expressing Christian beliefs, as cited by Premier Christian Radio.

 

This is not another one of those dreadful cases, like the case where a Christian Baker couple who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple were fined $135,000 and were subsequently issued with a gagging order to be constrained under law from making any more public comments about their opinion on same-sex marriage. That case was shocking in its implications for religious and freedom of speech rights, for it was later found that the judge in this case representing the Labour and Industries Commision was in collusion with the local LGBT representative; but this case here has much far reaching, wider implications concerning your rights to express your opinion, whatever that opinion may be, because it does not involve any public official, neither a Baker, a Florist, nor a county clerk or anyone serving in a public capacity, but this case involves a lone student, a person who was expelled from an English University because of expressing a private opinion to friends.

 

Regarding Christian people serving the public as Bakers or Florists or county clerks; Of course, some make the argument that these people are in the public domain and should therefore, leave their religion at home. However, whatever your view on same-sex marriage is, the case of Felix does not involve any person working in the public domain and, therefore, it is genuinely an affront to Western values, of which our Grandfathers spent over thirty years defending in two world wars.

If this University’s expulsion is supported in the courts of the U.K. or by the U.K. Government, then it will mean the nation will be rolling back century’s old freedom of speech rights, as well as religious rights, since the Magna Carta, and instead will be heading towards a society on the lines of North Korea or China!

Let’s think about this case:

A university in a so called free country, arbitrarily expelling a man because they thought his comments caused offence to some individuals, and which they deemed, in their opinion, as inappropriate for someone entering the social work profession. They wrote to him an e-mail, he “may have caused offence to some people.” Remember, they had no evidence that this man would discriminate; and furthermore, there are thousands of Christians serving as social workers whose religion makes them gentler and more compassionate individuals.What about all those millions of social workers who are already working in the profession and who would also hold to being Christian?

Does this case not beg some very important questions?

What happend to the judicial protection of “innocent until proven guilty?” In this case, those who expelled him were not acting on any real evidence of discrimination but just according to their own presumptions and personal predujices.

Would you want your son or daughter to attend such a school where open debate and healthy discussion were stifled? Isn’t the very requirements of education to be in an atmosphere where there is room for different opinions and creative discussion? Would you study in a University which expels any student who is not in line with the current university’s orthodoxy?

As a society we have to ask ourselves, is this the kind of society we want to live in, where our freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion are not protected, as every citizen rights have been protected since the era of the Magna Carta? Or to put it another way, has our society now been reduced to accommodating only one opinion, and where all freedom of debate or differing opinion are stifled? Has our society really become as narrow-minded as that – a nation where  its normal citizens are snooped on, and sanctioned, as foretold by George Orwell’s writings in his novel, “1984,” where “Big Brother” is watching us, reading our mail, ready to pounce?

What happened to people’s religious rights? What happened to people’s freedom of speech.This was not a public official like Kim Davies but just a student in an institution of learning, who is a paying student, who was just talking with his friends. If this was an official like Kim Davies speaking, it would be a different matter, but this was an MA student who was told by the faculty that his opinion was, in their view, not conducive to the chosen area of study he is studying.

What kind of world is this becoming, when students of an institution of learning are no longer allowed to question an issue or to debate among their friends, or express their personal opinion, on a private social media account without the fear of being sanctioned or expelled from their school? And this is not a case where a student was inciting violence or hatred.

This is clearly a case where the government or the University are trying to impose their opinion, which they view as politically correct, onto the views of a student, and it is an affront to this nation’s laws or right of freedom of speech.

It is just another case in a long line of cases where people who express their view which is distinct from the current politically-correct thinking on a matter, or the current government’s view, are penalized. We used to live in a free country where our freedom of speech and freedom to express our conscience were guaranteed,  as long as that didn’t lead to illegal activities, of which men like Thomas Jefferson, wrote abridgments to the United States Constitution called, “The Ten Bill of Rights.” These 10 Amendments had their roots in Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia religious statues of which he first drafted in 1774 when because of illness he was prevented from attending the Virginia Convention of 1774, whem the deligates met in response to the British cl8sing down Boston harbour, calling his draft,  “A Summary View of the rights of British America” in rensponse to the Boston tea party when harbour-side tea-workers were fed up with the tax which King James was demanding on tea, they began dumping  British tea companies tea in the harbour, coined,”The Boston Tea party.”

He wrote: Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was his Almighty power to do.”

Sheffield Faculty members would do well to read Jefferson’s wisdom.

 

Mr. Jefferson, who later rose in political office, to be the third  U.S. President who also was the first Vice President of the U.S. of which his Virgins Delcaration of religious rights was the inspiration behind the First Amendment, which is enshrined in the U.S. Consitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 

What are your thoughts on this? Is this really the direction political- correctness is taking us?

– Where our every comment results in us being scrutinized, and where our right to freely speak our mind, as long as we are not inciting hatred and violence, is unprotected.

– Where student’s right to discuss freely and openly criticize within the confines of their classroom walls or private account is no longer protected, as it has been protected under our Constitution, both in the U.S. and the U.K.

 

If it is, then political-correctness can go to hell!

What’s on earth is happening? Today what is happening in this world? What do you think about this case? This is England, a country where our Grandfather’s fought for our freedom to be free to speak without Fascist or Communist Government’s telling us what is right and wrong to think – reading our mail! Where grandparenrs fought two bloody wars so that we can keep our rights, freedom of speech rights, religious rights, a country where we have enjoyed since Mary Queen of Scots was deposed, the right to worship or express our religion! This is not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union!

 

By Chris Briscoe

Author page:


amazon.com/author/chrisbriscoe