|
| TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Consider the following from a Reuters report from Washington, filed February 4, 2008: U.S. popular music is awash with lyrics about drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Medical researchers have reviewed the words of the 279 top songs of 2005 to estimate just how common they are. Their report ... showed a third of the songs had explicit references to substance abuse. And two-thirds of these references placed drugs, alcohol and tobacco in a positive light by associating them with sex, partying and humor, according to the team led by Dr. Brian Primack of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. They calculated that with Americans aged 15 to 18 listening to 2.4 hours of music daily, they hear 84 musical references to substance use a day and more than 30,000 a year. Not wishing to run counter to the current views political correctness, the doctor who led the inquiry and issued the report at once stated, "It's not going to be feasible or even desirable to censor these messages. Probably a more empowering approach is to teach kids to analyze and evaluate the messages for themselves." This report deals with a major problem and we should be grateful to Dr. Primack for producing the study, even though his suggested solution is weak and doomed to failure. The stark reality that we have to face is that the entertainment industry thrives on moral decadence and is the major instrument for causing the moral collapse of our nation's youth. The music industry has been incredibly successful in indoctrinating generations of Americans into adopting the depraved "values" of drugged out, alcoholic and immoral singers and musicians. There is nothing accidental in the concentration of popular music on the themes of drugs, booze and illicit sex. These form the atmosphere that all too many musicians live in. It's the world they know and it's the world they want our young people to live in. Unfortunately, they have been overwhelmingly successful in attaining their objective. The question is, "How should we deal with the problem?" The most obvious answer is to cut off the cancer at its source. But, we are told, that would be censorship and we couldn't have that. We can have dead teens, drunk drivers, broken homes and a fractured society-yes, we can put up with these but we cannot stop a lying, drug addicted, alcoholic sexual pervert from poisoning millions of young minds. We make it a crime for anyone to sell drugs. We call him a drug "pusher." But we cannot criminalize singers who push drug use. That would inhibit their freedom of speech! Of course, we inhibit many other kinds of speech but somehow the vaporings of drugged up singers are sacrosanct, no matter how much damage they cause. This is what happens to a society when it abandons God's code of right and wrong. In this age of self-absorption-when instant gratification of lust is glorified and when self-discipline is held up to ridicule-all talk of "sin" is hissed at as "judgmental." Americans could do with hearing a bit more of the judgment of God before they get to experience it in the eternal burnings. Perhaps then, made to tremble by the force of God's law, they would seek His mercy in Christ. That is the only real answer to the filthy flood that is engulfing this nation. Only the gospel has the power to save sinners and truly set them free. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
A few months ago a British Muslim leader spoke of "offering" Britain the benefit of adopting Shari‘a law. Now Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has come forward to tell the nation that the introduction of Shari‘a law for Muslims in the United Kingdom "seems unavoidable." The fact that British Muslims do not "relate" to the British legal system is sufficient reason for Williams to call for Shari‘a courts to be set up to deal with Muslim marital and financial disputes. Adopting such parts of Muslim law would, according to him, "help maintain social cohesion." Williams told the BBC that an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts-I think that's a bit of a danger. ... There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law." This is incredible. Muslims have flocked into Britain and now complain that the British legal system is not compatible with their "culture." So what does Rowan Williams propose? That Muslims do what all the rest of the citizens of the country do and obey the law or have it changed for all citizens by due parliamentary process? No. He suggests that Britain should set up special courts for Muslims, outside the state legal system, courts with standards that are foreign to Britain's legal tradition and that deal with only a segment of the population. And-astonishingly-according to the Archbishop, this legal segregation will lead to greater social "cohesion." Now the last time I looked at a dictionary, cohesion carried the idea of a tendency to stick together. How setting up segregated Muslim courts will lead Muslims and non-Muslims to stick together or will enable Muslims to assimilate into the mainstream of British life is beyond me. And I suspect it is beyond anyone but noodle-headed liberals who have no deep attachment to the beliefs and practices that underlie Britain's constitution. Rowan Williams assures us, "Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well." But that inhumanity is precisely what we would get. Already Muslim girls have been murdered by fathers or brothers in what Muslims call "honor killings." Imagine what would happen if a Muslim party to a marital dispute decided he or she did not want to be judged by Shari‘a law. And imagine what will happen when, having got their exclusive Muslim courts, Muslims decide to demand the right to devise their own system of punishments or even the extension of Shari‘a law to the entire population. The simple truth is that Muslims, like all other sections of the community, can appoint third party mediators to decide disputes but all are ultimately answerable to the legal code of the state. To call for a segregated court system is foolish, dangerous and in open defiance of the standard God set up in Israel: "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you" (Exodus 12:49; see Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:16). I believe the Lord knows more about a just legal system than Rowan Williams, so we should heed Him not the Archbishop. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
About a month ago I reported that EthicsDaily.com, a Baptist internet service, named Al Gore "Baptist of the Year." Gore has recently demonstrated his ethical credentials by coming out in open support of so-called "gay marriages." I say "so-called" because first, there is nothing gay about homosexuality. Gay is a word that denotes joy and happiness; homosexuality is a culture of gloom, doom and death. And marriage is not open to redefinition. I know that the great Mr. Gore seems to have taken credit for creating the internet and has with equal justification claimed that men are causing the planet to heat up, thus threatening the world with impending disaster. But even such an evidently powerful man cannot redefine marriage. Even Gore wasn't around when the Creator made marriage what it was and is and ever must be, the union of a man and a woman. No matter what Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and others of their ilk say, the perverted sexual union of two men or two women cannot pass as marriage. After his defeat for the presidency in 2000, Gore and wife Tipper released a book, Joined at the Heart: The Transformation of the American Family, that included profiles of homosexual couples as well as traditional families. In a 2006 speech Gore referred to the "gay marriage" ceremonies performed at San Francisco in early 2004, and said, "[S]ome reacted with hatred and anger. What I saw that was just the overwhelming love, the joy, the purity of the excitement that that love was being honored." Now he has given us this gem of further ethical insight: "I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women -- to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don't understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage." I suspect that there is a lot more that Al Gore cannot see. The man is as blind as they come. What God's word calls "lust," "inordinate affection," and "evil concupiscence" Gore calls love. What the Bible says keeps a man out of heaven, Gore believes should be celebrated and sanctioned by law on earth. I say he believes all this because this is what he has said. Of course, he carefully refrained from saying any of this when he was running for President. He did not believe these things deeply enough to come out and tell the American people the truth about his positions. He is such an ethical Baptist that he did all he could to hide his pro-sodomite beliefs, at least until he could get elected. Gore poses as a Christian. He passes for a "liberal" Baptist. The truth is that he is a radical left-winger, a socialist whose brief is to destroy the message and morality of the gospel and replace them with the perverted inventions of men who share his own darkened view of life. I have refrained from making any political commentary on Mr. Gore or others in his political sphere. But this goes beyond politics. What Al Gore has done is to take a giant step of shame. He excuses his shameful position as one of "love." Those who reject it he denigrates as those who react with "hatred and anger." This lie can no more cover his shame than the fig leaf could Adam's. Gore is the real hater for he hates and despises his Creator's law and rises in rebellion to overthrow His order for a holy and happy society. Al Gore's love is on a par with his ethics: they both reek of hypocrisy. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Hindu fanatics have been launching one attack after another on any who profess to be Christians in the Indian state of Orissa. Their violent activities have been well reported and documented. Now they have issued an ultimatum to all Christians in that state: CONVERT TO HINDUISM OR DIE. Given the recent murders of Christians, no one can take this threat as anything but a deadly serious statement of intent. And such is the barbarism and fanaticism of Orissa's Hindus that we can be sure that they will do all in their power to put their intention into operation. The local and state authorities have made no more than token gestures to contain Hindu violence. Those in authority are mostly Hindus, so you have the position that politicians and police are really in sympathy with the murderers rather than their victims. So the violence keeps on exploding and there is neither the political will nor the military muscle to put an effective end to it. What is worse is that the silence from the West is deafening. Where are the great champions of human rights when you need them? We have people who will howl all day and all night about sodomites being denied the "right" to contract same sex "marriages" but they have not a word to say on the subject of Indian Christians being allowed to exercise their right to live. The governments of the United States and of Europe do big business with India. Indeed the hope of the Indian economy depends to a large extent on getting along with the West. Yet our governments seem to be entirely disinterested in raising the plight of Orissa's Christian population. It is acceptable to raise the subject of human rights with the Chinese (though I must confess usually in a weak and ineffectual way-it appears that Western nations care more for their bottom line than for any great principle of human rights) but it seems that for some reason India gets a free pass. The United Nations likes to pose as the guardian of the underprivileged. But have you heard any representations from that body on behalf of India's persecuted Christian minority? Again the silence is deafening. Perhaps even more reprehensible than the silence of governments and of secular agencies is that of America's Christians. Have we really descended so far into carnal ease that as long as we have our creature comforts we have little time or interest to spare for our brothers and sisters who are facing death at the hands of Hindu murderers? When last did you hear your pastor pray for the persecuted churches of the world? When last did you pray for them? Remember the Saviour's words, "In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." That's serious. It says that how we treat the poorest of our brethren is really how we treat Christ. Isn't it time Christians began to cry out on behalf of their persecuted brethren? Isn't it time we got the word to Hindu fanatics that the hunting season on Christians is formally closed? Why not ask the Lord what you can do, starting today, on behalf of your persecuted brothers and sisters? |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
"His life seems something of a sacred manuscript upon which the Holy Ghost has written - and is still writing one remarkable message after another." So says the Mormon blurb on the life of the cult's new 80 year old President, Thomas S. Monson. Monson will lead the world's 13 million Mormons who will revere him as a prophet and a vehicle of divine revelation. He can hardly be called a fresh face, having been at the heart of the Mormon bureaucracy for almost half a century and achieving the top post in Mormonism only in the twilight of his life. Monson comes to the job after a life time of preparation in Mormon administration. By all accounts he has business experience and acumen and has considerable powers of diplomacy. He is touted as a man of deep personal sympathies for the weak and underprivileged and has gained for his followers a respected place alongside Jewish and Christian groups as a co-belligerent in social campaigns. Having said that, Monson has been adamant that those co-operative efforts are not exercises in ecumenical religion; they are purely joint actions to alleviate social need. The question that faces Mormons and indeed the rest of us is whether the organization Monson now leads is in any way a Christian church. Mormons have styled themselves as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." That title makes a number of radical claims not one of which can be justified by Scripture or history. Is Mormonism a never mind the Church of Jesus Christ? Has it any claim at all to be recognized as Christian? If you start with the premise that Christianity is the religion of the Bible, that no church has the right to the title Christian just because it claims it, but that its claim must be validated by Scripture, then Mormonism must be rejected as non-Christian. Like all cults, Mormonism cannot be satisfied with the Bible. Given that the Bible does not countenance the weird system that Joseph Smith concocted and that Brigham Young advanced, Mormons have to appeal to the bogus Book of Mormon. It is the mark of a cult that it places some other authority over or alongside the Bible. Mormonism is a cult, not a Christian church. That conclusion is strengthened when you consider Mormon doctrine. The god of Mormonism is not the God of the Bible. In fact the Mormon view of God is obscenely crass. Mormonism rejects the central doctrine of Christianity, namely the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is thus not Christian but anti-Christian. The same could be said for its doctrine of salvation. Anything further from the Biblical doctrine would be difficult to imagine. Are Mormons "Latter day Saints?" Many of them are decent, upright people but by definition Mormons are not Christians and therefore not saints but sinners who still need to be saved. And that is the challenge facing Bible believing Christians, not only to recognize Mormonism for what it is, an unchristian cult, but to reach those trapped in its web of error with the gospel of God's saving grace in Jesus Christ. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
You are going to find this report difficult to believe. But I am not kidding you. What I am about to tell you comes from The British Broadcasting Corporation. It is sober fact and it is crazy. But judge for yourself: A story based on the Three Little Pigs fairy tale has been turned down by a government agency's awards panel as the subject matter could offend Muslims. The digital book, re-telling the classic story, was rejected by judges who warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues". Becta, the government's educational technology agency, is a leading partner in the annual Bett Award for schools. The judges also attacked Three Little Cowboy Builders for offending builders. The book's creative director, Anne Curtis, said the idea that including pigs in a story could be interpreted as racism was "like a slap in the face". The CD-Rom digital version of the traditional story of the three little pigs, called Three Little Cowboy Builders, is aimed at primary school children. But judges at this year's Bett Award said that they had "concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs raises cultural issues". The Three Little Cowboy Builders has already been a prize winner at the recent Education Resource Award - but its Newcastle-based publishers, Shoo-fly, were turned down by the Bett Award panel. The feedback from the judges explaining why they had rejected the CD-Rom highlighted that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community". They also warned that the story might "alienate parts of the workforce (building trade)". The judges criticised the stereotyping in the story of the unfortunate pigs: "Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?" So there you have it. A fairy tale aimed at entertaining four and five year old kids could insult Muslims and hurt the tender feelings of construction workers! It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the world has gone mad. I am reminded of the verdict of a famous Conservative on those who voted for Socialist candidates: "They are stark, raving bonkers!" I think that is a good phrase to sum up these politically correct lunatics. Compared to them, most certifiable madmen are models of sanity. They are stark, raving bonkers! |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Ben Stein is not a Bible believing Christian. He is a Jew and a journalist, a former speech writer for Presidents Nixon and Ford. Both as a Jew and a journalist he has a very personal interest in anything to do with the Holocaust, the slaughter of some 6 million Jews by Hitler's Nazi regime. For Stein, Darwinism is not just problematic but dangerous even. He contended in a teleconference with the press that Darwin said that there were certain species that were superior to other species and all were competing for scarce supplies of food or resources. But if there was a limited supply of basic resources, Darwinism taught that "you owe it to the superior race to kill the inferior race." Stein further stated that Darwinian evolutionary theory fueled Nazi idealism that felt gypsies, Eastern Europeans and others were competing with them for scarce basic resources. "As a Jew, I am horrified that people thought Jews were so inferior they didn't deserve to live." Referring to the Darwinian theory of natural selection and random mutation, he said that it "led in a straight line to the holocaust and Nazism." Stein's strictures on Darwinism are right on the money. The blame for the 20th century's blackest nightmare lies fairly and squarely at the door of Darwinian evolution. So it is a dangerous system of belief. But there are other reasons for viewing Darwinism as dangerous, an enemy of liberty of thought and investigation. Stein has produced a documentary film that will hit theaters across the nation in April of this year titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film deals with the stranglehold that Darwinists have gained over academia and how its evolutionists are determined to exclude any other possible explanation of origins. He interviews leading atheists and evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, as well as leading proponents of the theory of Intelligent Design. While Stein's film does not seek to validate one theory over the other it does raise questions that evolutionists would rather avoid. Stein asks, "Where did life come from? How did cells get so complex? If the origins of life all did happen by random mutation, where do the laws that make the universe possible to function - the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, laws of motion - all come from? Who created these laws that keeps the planets in motion?" As Stein says, "These are fundamental questions" to which Darwinism has no answer. Don't expect to see Stein's film win any Oscars. But if enough sane people act on the impetus it causes we can see our politicians forced to move to protect freedom of speech in academia. As the executive producer of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said, "What we are asking for is freedom of speech ... for people who do research to have freedom to ask the questions they need to ask and go where they need to go." That sounds good. It is good. But it is enough to give evolutionists across America a heart attack. The last thing Darwinism can stand is competition from people free to think. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
According to the British government Islamic terrorists or extremists will be no more. Last year it stopped using such terms as "the war on terror." It was offensive to Muslims and provided Al Qaida with a powerful recruiting tool as the terrorists could paint their struggle as the defense of Muslim values against a war waged by Western secularism. Now Gordon Brown's government imagines it can woo Muslim opinion by renaming Islamic terrorism as "anti-Islamic activity." At the same time a Dutch film maker was postponing the issue of his study of Islam in which he likened the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf, the British government wants us all to believe that Muslim belief does not countenance acts of atrocity against infidels. I must say it will have a hard job on its hands. Looking at the problem of radicalizing young Muslims in Western society, we may say that if indeed renaming Islamic terrorism as anti-Islamic activity they have done in the past, it would be an acceptable change. However, there is no evidence that changes like the one we are considering will have the slightest effect on Al Qaida recruitment or on the radicalizing of young Muslims. Along with renaming Islamic terrorism, the government intends seeking to encourage mosques to deal with extremism and to prevail on more imams to learn to speak English. Now we are getting to the real heart of the problem but the government's way of dealing with is insipid and doomed to fail. Britain's mosques have all too often been hotbeds of rebellion and treachery. The Arabic-speaking imams bode no good for Britain, rather are they all too often the lightning rods for Muslim discontent. Wishing Muslim terrorism away will not get rid of it. Renaming it will make no difference to it. Being nice to radical imams whose big purpose in Britain is to radicalize young Muslims is like feeding cupcakes to a hungry lion in the hope he won't eat you. Britain is afflicted with the same fear of Islam that is paralyzing the other governments of Europe. They are undoubtedly right in seeking not to offend or alienate Muslims who wish them no harm and engage in no radical activity. But it is difficult to see how or why law-abiding Muslims should be radicalized or scandalized by calling terrorists who commit their acts of carnage in the name of their religion "Islamic terrorists." Those moderate Muslims know as well as the rest of us that many of Britain's mosques are havens for radical imams and their followers, so why would they be offended at that fact being publicly stated? Whether we like it or not, the West is in a war with Islamic terrorists. We cannot wish it away. Nor can we win it simply with guns and rockets. We have an increasing Muslim community. It is largely a closed community and therefore more easily radicalized. What we need is the exposure of Muslims to genuine Christianity, preached and lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. What they imagine is Christianity is more likely antichristianity and we need to give ourselves to prayer that we may be able to have an effective Christian witness that will bring Muslims out of the bondage of Islam into the liberty of the gospel. Converted Muslims-just as converted Jews, Protestants, Roman Catholics or Hindus-will never become terrorists. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Yesterday I spoke about a huge row in Britain about faith schools. What has really fueled the debate is the increase of Muslim schools, what are called "voluntary-aided schools." These schools operate with the financial support of the government. They are really faith-based state schools as distinct from secular state schools. At present there are more than 100 private Muslim schools and eight state-funded Muslim schools in Britain. At the beginning of 2007, David lay the risk of undermining the coherence of British society. He worried that "many young people were being educated with little appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British society". He added, we "must not allow our recognition of diversity to become apathy in the face of any challenge to our coherence as a nation." There is something unique to Muslim schools, something that is not true of Jewish or nominally Christian schools in England. It is that Muslim schools do not lead to the integration of their pupils into the life of the nation. Even though the children of Muslim immigrants are born in Britain and are educated with the help of British taxes, they do not really become British. Despite this, as the Times Online stated in an op-ed article, "Tony Blair decided the government would offer voluntary aided status to 120-150 independent Muslim schools, bringing them in line with the existing 6,850 Christian and Jewish schools - in other words it will create masses of Muslim state schools. The heart sinks. How, in the name of integration, familiarity and trust, can it possibly be a good idea to have lots of state schools that are exclusively Muslim, with Muslim teachers, Muslim traditions and intense Islamic education?" The government now says that all new faith schools-i.e., Muslim schools-will have to make 25% of their places available to those outside their faith. The government minister then hinted that-to be fair to the new Muslim schools-all faith schools would have to do the same. Now this is dangerous. The government should stop what one writer termed "sleepwalking to apartheid" and refuse to allow any financial support to any schools that set themselves against the ideals of British society. It should criminalize any purportedly educational program that inculcates violence or that supports Islamic or other terrorists. It should then keep its nose out of purely theological issues. The government will do none of this. Instead it will capitulate to Muslim pressure. It will allow Muslim schools to polarize British society and the only targets at which it will shoot its arrows of wrath are those schools and churches that dare to oppose its policy of accommodating the destructive and insatiable demands of Islamic radicals. "Sleepwalking to apartheid" is an apt phrase to describe this policy of madness. Or we could go even further and see it as it is, the cringing, fawning and cowardly capitulation of spineless politicians who desperately, but vainly, hope that their pliability will help them avoid the runaway train of Muslim fanaticism. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Britain is having a huge debate these days about the role of what are termed "faith schools." In many cases these are schools run by the state church, the Church of England. In other cases, they are Roman Catholic or Jewish. And, of course, with the influx of Muslims into the country, many are Muslim schools. Given the rather abysmal record of many secular state schools, many middle class parents have been opting to send their children to "faith" schools. It's not that these parents have suddenly become religious or started going to church. They just want access to better schools and therefore have been faking a religiosity they don't really possess to open the way for their kids. Many politicians and journalists are angry at them. Some longtime church goers are a bit upset as well-the fakers get the benefits of religion without the tedium of the usual Church of England Sunday homily! One journalist found it disgusting that in a country with a state-run education system faith schools should even be allowed to exist. Many were incensed at the thought of tax revenues supporting schools that were not open to all-apparently careless of the obvious fact that those revenues were producing much better results than in secular schools. So there has been a great brouhaha over faith schools. Perhaps the most bizarre thing that has come to light is the case of a Muslim teacher who worked in a professedly "Christian" school. She arrived in her Muslim dress, all carefully covered up, except for her expensively decorated eyes and toes. The school refused to allow her to come to class in her Muslim costume. Parents found it intolerable and the school agreed. So she sued. She lost her discrimination suit-though her lawyers are ready to appeal to the European Court, which is so out in left field that it could give any sort of a crazy decision. As I say, she lost her discrimination suit but she was awarded a couple of thousand dollars for her hurt feelings. Some people in Britain look on this case as proof that no matter how tolerant you try to be toward the Muslim community, it will never be enough. If a school is really a Christian school, one that exists to teach its students Christian truth and inculcate Christian moral standards, why should a Muslim expect to have the right to teach there? We will have to wait to see what the European Court may decide. As I say, that is anybody's guess, but you can be sure that sooner rather than later the British government will capitulate to Muslim pressure and deny Christian schools the right to refuse to hire Muslim teachers, even if they arrive in full Muslim regalia. In Northern Ireland, the Free Presbyterian Church has a number of Christian schools. They do not receive a penny in government support. It may be unfair to Christian parents to have to pay tax to support the state school system and then pay again for the education of their children-especially since Roman Catholic schools in Northern Ireland are fully funded by the government. But being free from government financial support has clear benefits, not the least of which is the right to hire or not to hire according to the beliefs of our church. England's faith schools will find that when Caesar gives with one hand he takes away a lot more with the other. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
