Posted by: stpowen | April 29, 2010

Why Martin Marprelate Won’t be Voting Conservative

‘It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.  It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes’ (Psalm 118:8-9).

Doubtless the whole country has been agog over the past few weeks waiting to hear how Martin Marprelate will be voting in the forthcoming election.

Well, there was a time when Mrs Marprelate and I were very active in the Conservative Party.  I was a District Councillor and Chairman of my District Conservative Association.  Briefly, I even had my name down as a potential Conservative Parliamentary candidate.  There’s glory for you!  But as I grew in my Christian faith I came to see that the problems of Britain were not political or economic, but moral and quite outside the ability of any government to solve.

I have always believed that it is every citizen’s duty to vote.  Our freedoms have been gained over many years and not to take advantage of them shows contempt for our forbears who struggled to obtain them.  Although I no longer have any faith in politicians, I have usually voted Conservative, partly out of habit and partly because of a belief that the Tories believe in personal freedom and were more likely to leave Christians alone.

Voting Labour in this election is not an option for Christians because it is committed to overturning the ‘Waddington Amendment’ which protects Christians who preach against sin from persecution for ‘hate Crimes’ against homosexuals.  I could not vote Liberal, however personable and plausible Nick Clegg might be, because of their support for further European integration.  Now, however, I shall not be voting Conservative either.

 Philip Lardman was Conservative Candidate for Argyll in Scotland.  In response to a question he wrote the following on his blog:-

I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common-sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is ‘normal’ or encourage children to indulge in it.

“The promotion of homosexuality by public bodies (as per ‘clause 28?/section 2a in Scotland,) was correctly outlawed by Mrs Thatcher’s government. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another.

“Why should Christian churches be forced by the government to employ homosexuals as ‘ministers’ against all that the Bible teaches? They are being forced by the government to betray their mission ? would the Equality and Human Rights Commission be fined for refusing a job to Nick Griffin?

“Christians (and most of the population) believe homosexuality to be somewhere between ‘unfortunate’ and simply ‘wrong’ and they should not be penalised for politely saying so ? good manners count too, of course.

“The current ‘law’ is wrong and must be overturned in the interests of freedom as well as Christian values.”

Now Mr Lardner has been suspended by the Tory Party for making “deeply offensive and unacceptable” comments about homosexuality.  Read his post again.  What actually is “deeply offensive and unacceptable” about it?  Apparently it is the assertion that homosexuality is not ‘normal.’  What does ‘normal’ mean?  Well, one definition of ‘normal’ is something that would cause no problem if everybody did it.  Therefore, by that definition bird-watching and Scottish Country Dancing are normal.  But if everybody in the land became homosexual the entire nation would die out in a generation.  Therefore homosexuality is not ‘normal.’  Nor is it harmless; by the Government’s own figures homosexuals are four times more likely to be HIV Positive than the rest of the population.

Mr Lardner’s comments may not be Tory Party policy, but he defends the human rights of homosexuals and his comments are no more offensive than if he had said that obese people should diet or that drunks should sober up.  People’s lifestyles are not above criticism and nor should they be.  All Conservative Head Office needed to say about the matter was that Mr Larner’s views did not reflect Party policy.

By suspending Mr Lardner,  Conservative Party has shown that it no longer stands for freedom and free speech and it has therefore forfeited my vote.  Whom shall I vote for?  I haven’t made my mind up yet.  Possibly for UKIP, but possibly I shall be spoiling my paper by writing ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE’ in large letters.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Gee thanks. If we get five more years of Brown I am blaming you.

    ;- )

  2. Who let that Jonathan Hunt onto this blog? He’s just a bigoted man………Oh! Is someone reading this? So sorry, Jonathan! I’m mortified. I’ll be round your house tomorrow to blag a cup of tea and apologize.

    Seriously, I do understand what you’re saying. On the whole, I think the Conservatives have better policies on a number of things than the other two parties, but I can’t bring myself to vote for a party that is clearly just as anti-Christian as the others.

  3. Are you serious?! Steve, Steve, Steve … you can’t possible NOT vote!

    Honestly there’s never been a politician that I’ve been satisfied with … so I do vote for the “lesser evil” of the choices. I know this isn’t ideal … but what is on this earth? But I do feel that it’s every citizen’s duty to vote. As John Quincy Adams once said “Duty is ours, results are God’s” …

  4. The Waddington Amendment is merely symbolic. Whether it is overturned or not, the legal position is unaltered. The Human Rights Act gives a legal right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

    The Conservatives are committed to repealing the Human Rights Act. If they do, only those with the time and money to pursue their case in the European Court of Human Rights will, in practice, be able to defend themselves on the grounds of freedom of speech and religion.

    I think it is instructive that when politicians from other parties called on the Conservatives to take action against Chris Grayling and Julian Lewis for similar comments they did nothing (quite rightly in my opinion), but then dealt harshly with Philip Lardner. It looks like how they treat people depends upon how important they are in the party, contrary to biblical standards of equity.

    I am finding it a very difficult decision.

  5. I am not sure that the Waddington Amendment is ‘purely symbolic.’ That is not the view of the Christian Institute. However, you are right that whom to vote for is a difficult decision. Christian liberties are being whittled awy before our eyes. I see that Mr Lardman has now been suspended from his job as a teacher.

    I suppose that I shall vote for somebody, but it won’t be one of the three main parties.

  6. You know what Jonathan … you’re right, you should blame Steve if Brown gets re-elected! I was just reading an article from the NY Times, on how Brown has put your country in the red ink and Britain’s deficits is right behind Greece’s! Have you seen the riots at Greece lately?! Is that how London will be like soon?!

  7. Judging by the early results, I’m not sure that my poor little vote is going to worry the Conservatives very much, nor help UKIP.
    Whatever the result, Gordon is toast and jolly good riddance to him.

    However, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength’ (Jer 17:5). I’m not putting any confidence at all in Cameron. If God does not revive this country, he sure isn’t going to do it.

  8. Well, my predictions weren’t up to much! Brown hangs on.

    I have been praying that there might be more Christians in Parliament. whether that’s come about I don’t know. We could do with another Wilberforce or Lord Salisbury in Parliament.

    However, God has it all in hand and if He brings this country even lower in order to bring folk to cry out to Him (Judges 6:7 etc), so be it.

  9. Here is another good reason for not voting Conservative.

    http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/education/tory-suspended-for-expressing-concern-over-school-homosexual-campaign

    Clearly, no one who has doubts about the propriety of homosexuality is welcome in today’s Conservative party.

    I think it is not unreasonable for anyone to be concerned about the promotion of homosexuality in schools. A recent edition of ‘Attitude,’ a leading ‘gay’ magazine in Britain admitted that homosexuals were more likely to suffer from depression, self-harm, self-loathing etc. It is also the case that homosexual men are the main reservoir of HIV infection in Britain. Why anyone would think that such a life-style should be promoted in our schools is beyond me.

    I also note that Peter Tatchell, who I think is or was something to do with ‘Stonewall’ is campaigning to have the age of consent lowered. Is that Conservative Party policy also?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: