ARTICLE QUOTE: "God thunders out a warning to a people who have been immersed in the things of God and of Christianity but have now followed after the wholly corrupt idols of hedonism, immorality and rampant consumerism and are even now reaping the results of that in the futile hopelessness of millions of young people facing unparalleled moral lawlessness, debauchery and Nihilistic cynicism..."

I think that most of us would agree that racism is most unpleasant. We should not ultimately judge people on the colour of their skin, in fact, it is quite stupid to do so because what can the colour of somebody's skin tell us about their character, personality, integrity or ability? Absolutely nothing!

However, having established the above, is racism the most evil prejudice and teaching ever known to Mankind?

It has become a central mantra of liberal morality to say, 'Yes.' Only discrimination against homosexuals, criticism of Darwinism and the challenging of “a woman's right to choose” (whether or not to have an abortion), appear to rank anywhere near this new 'holy mantra' of political-correctness and modern liberal 'morality' in perceived importance!

But other considerations must also impact this 'mantra' – how about personally-held private opinion? Has that right been lost? And how about Freedom of Speech? I have noted with great and increasing concern the readiness of liberals to completely disregard such factors, especially freedom of speech. During the last year or two here in the UK we have also witnessed so-called 'investigative journalists' gatecrashing private meetings and seeking to gain evidence of “prejudice” - this activity has started to raise other issues: In private meetings of friends do people no longer have the right to express purely private opinions? I do not necessarily support Nick Griffin, the right-wing British politician but when one of his meetings in a pub was gatecrashed and secretly recorded in the above manner several months ago, it was found that Mr Griffin made a remark about the religion of Islam (basically, he is not an admirer of Islam), immediately this was blown up out of all proportion and Mr Griffin was arrested. Liberal lawyers spent countless hours attempting to prove that this criticism of Islam was really racism. Without doubt the investigative journalists involved were bitterly disappointed that Griffin made no clearly racist remarks in the illegally recorded session, so the criticism of Islam was all that they had! But not only does this whole matter (as well as several other highly worrying recent examples), raise questions about whether freedom of speech has been quietly removed as being axiomatic to British democratic freedom (without anybody being told), but it raises questions about whether it is now illegal to even hold private opinions which liberalism does not happen to like; after all, Griffin's was a private meeting in a pub, he had called no press conference!

I have recently made the comment that Orwell's concept of 'thought police' now appear to have arrived - not in a dictatorial society but in a liberal democracy! At this point I am also reminded of the Christian couple who questioned their council's 'gay rights' policy and were then visited by police and grilled for several hours! What next? Are we going to have so-called “investigative journalists” hiding listening devices in church buildings in an attempt to trap preachers who might be critical of other religions? Are we going to have police hiding microphones in Christian homes to see if they can uncover instances of Christians making critical comments about gays? If I employed people and placed an advert in our local paper for an assistant and said “British nationality preferred”, or – even more seriously, “homosexuals should not apply” there is no doubt whatsoever that I would not only be visited by police but almost certainly arrested too. But would I not have the right – in a democratic and free society – to make such personal decisions? Why is it so serious to question homosexuality but not serious for homosexuals to be critical of Christianity? Why is the highly selective morality of Liberalism never challenged?

The True Test of Any Society: How That Society Protects Their Weakest!

It was always said that the true value of the decency of any society is how that society treats its most weak and vulnerable. We may shudder if we look at that assertion and then look at our modern western liberal democracies! So let us consider our most vulnerable: the sick, elderly and the very young.

  1. Firstly, the very sick and elderly. In the opinion of many, euthanasia (already legal in Holland), is no more than two years away from being allowed under British law. Hitler loved euthanasia. Why? Because he saw how the law could be easily manipulated in order to rid society of 'weaker and more degenerate elements' in a quiet way. The trouble with this whole concept of 'choosing how and when we want to die' is that people often change their minds! I knew an elderly man who was adamant that he wanted to die after losing his wife of 40 years. He maintained this opinion for two years but then he met a widow and married again! He later admitted that during the period after losing his first wife he also exaggerated his health problems. He would say things like, “Is there any reason I should go on suffering with this arthritis and costing the health service money when I no longer even want to live?” He would have been considered a prime candidate for receiving euthanasia. His main problem had been depression – mental suffering, not physical suffering. After remarrying, this apparent prime candidate for euthanasia lived another twelve years and was bright and cheerful until the day of his death! There is also the fact that the very sick could record their wish to die but then lose their power of speech or communication. Such people could change their minds yet fall prey to greedy relatives who stood to inherit much! Euthanasia would come in as entirely voluntary, yet I have no doubt at all that if our societies do not change their present liberal and immoral direction, it would eventually become compulsory euthanasia for certain groups – perhaps within twenty years! Some would say that that assertion is utterly ludicrous, silly and fanciful, that it could never happen here, but I should remind these people that around 1958-1960 probably not a single Christian would ever have believed that abortion would be freely allowed under British law by 1967. That brings us to my next point.

  2. Secondly, the very young. Abortion is the murder of the very young because – for some reason or other – it is too inconvenient for pregnant women to follow through with their pregnancy. I am really sorry if that offends you but – hey! - let us all speak up here, not hide behind smooth-sounding liberal catch-phrases like 'It's always a woman's right to choose'since when?? On whose or what authority?? Moreover, we should all refuse to use the word 'foetus' - why? Because that term is purposely over-used in order to de-personalise these tiny children in the womb. Abortions remain legal long after these tiny ones have started moving around and even sucking their thumbs! Therefore I suggest that today's rampant abortion is another horrendous fact which indicts our modern western liberal democracies of a wide-ranging and tragic disregard for its weakest and most vulnerable. In many societies (including Old Testament Israel), it was a very serious offence to harm or damage a tiny baby in its mother's womb. The serious penalties for willfully doing so included the death penalty! But this has now come full circle with many so-called “family planning counsellors” offering abortion as a first option to women who suddenly discover that they are pregnant. The prevalence of abortion in western Europe is also one of the reasons that Europe is facing a huge worker shortage. Why a shortage of skills and labour? Because rampant abortion has robbed us of millions of European children! The only solution to this which liberal social planners can see is huge immigration from countries and societies which have retained a respect for the very young within their mother's womb! Is this not ironical?

Therefore I suggest that while it is true that racism is a most unpleasant thing (by the way, none other than Charles Darwin was one of the major influences which allowed racism to become an especially major 20th century problem), there are other evils in this world. I propose that it is especially difficult to look beyond abortion and genocide as the major evils of our time (by the way, abortion is a form of genocide. 'Genocide' means 'the deliberate and planned killing of a people or nation' which must include abortion).

The whole concept of atheistic political liberals deciding our 'modern liberal morality' only came along with the demise of religious authority. Our collective societies have taken this right and authority off Christian leaders and handed it to liberal leaders. Here in the UK we still (believe it or not!) have a state church, the Church of England. Lamentably, this huge instituition of squabbling factions has shown little or no interest in speaking out against the evils of our modern liberal democracies and has been far more interested in frequently bending over backwards in order to pridefully show off how liberal and “modern” they can be. But God is not mocked and a day of accounting will surely come!!

To a people who have been immersed in the things of God and of Christianity but have now followed after the wholly corrupt idols of hedonism, immorality and rampant consumerism and are – even now – reaping the results of that in the futile hopelessness of millions of young people facing unparalleled moral lawlessness, debauchery and Nihilistic cynicism, God thunders out this warning:

'If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”' (2 Peter 2:20-22, NIV).

Robin A. Brace, 2006.