The Mail On Sunday has discovered that halal meat is being served up as standard in a wide range of public and private establishments, from schools and hospitals to restaurants and pubs.

While the humanists and secularists have been attacking the Judeo-Christian heritage which gave them a decent society in which to live, and the freedom to protest, they have allowed an alien philosophy to gain influence by the back door.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society said,

We suspected that meat killed by the halal and kosher methods was being used for general consumption but we never imagined it was so widespread. It is disgraceful that ­people aren’t being told if the food they are being served is from meat that has not been stunned prior to slaughter.

You see? They never imagined it was so widespread. Too busy attacking Christianity, no doubt, like those dreadful schools which teach sound morals. In fact, the current masthead on their website states: Join Us… in the campaign against faith schools.

Meanwhile, they have been ignorantly tucking in to chicken, beef and lamb which have been slaughtered according to Islamic law.

Sharia law expressly forbids knocking the animal out with a bolt gun, as is usual in British slaughter­houses. Instead, it must be sentient when its throat is cut, and the blood allowed to drip from the carcass while a religious phrase in praise of Allah is recited.

Bon appetite, secularists. See what you have done?

I became aware of this issue last year and telephoned the local Indian and Turkish takeaways and found that they all use halal meat as standard. I love a curry, even without lager to wash it down, but I haven’t had a takeaway since.

These are indeed strange days, with the secularists demanding we completely change our ways and Islamists doing the same, but are even nastier sometimes…

They want to turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque. The Queen can either become a Muslim or leave the country. Why have these traitors not been arrested for this. Or these traitors?

How have we reached this uncomfortable situation?

Secularism and humanism have been growing for decades. Their adherents have managed to change attitudes; to convince people that our old ways were unfair. What was needed was equality and our traditional beliefs were incompatible.

Women had to be equal to men, by leaving their children and going to work. They had to be “empowered”. They had to be free to be sexually promiscuous and to kill their unborn children. These were their rights, appparently, which were denied them under the repression of a patriarchal, moral and ordered community.

Homosexual and even bisexual lifestyles had to be treated as equal to marriage, the basic unit of a stable society.

Now faith schools have to be abolished so that all children can be conditioned to accept the new order.

Secularists probably knew that most Christians would tut at best and accept the gradual changes in society. Socialists and liberals started calling this agenda progressive.

What they seem to have failed to realise was that Islam was also progressing in the UK. Despite Labour’s deliberate agenda of mass immigration to re-engineer society, the danger appears to have taken secularists by surprise, like a 100-1 outsider in the Derby which has come to join the favourite in the lead and well clear of the rest of the field and whose jockey hadn’t taken this no-hoper into account when planning his riding strategy.

But who will win the photo finish?

Neither needs to, if the majority demands a steward’s enquiry.

Humanists and Germans don't like it up 'em

Humanists have the same attitude. I cannot leave comments on the blogs of the first two people whose names are at the foot of that anti-pope letter in the Guardian. I have been banned from Richard Dawkins’ blog and the moderator of the blog of delicate flower, Stephen Fry, doesn’t approve my comments.

Mr Fry is proud to be “hated” by the Daily Mail, but the moderator doesn’t accept my negative comments, which are, of course, not hateful. The first comment is this,

What happened to freedom of speech? I think it is absolutely ridiculous that a newspaper can go about accusing Stephen of “fuelling a campaign of hate” simply because he objects to the Pope visiting as a head of state. Stephen is just as entitled to his opinion as the next person…

Unless the next person disagrees with the fragrant Stephen on his fluffy bloggie-poo.

A major American humanist is PZ Myers. I followed him on Twitter last year and he replied to one of my tweets in quite a shocking way, saying Jesus buggerin’ Christ. His tweet brought so much traffic to this blog that I reposted a previous blog entry about his attempts to get his supporters to skew a poll on CNN’s website, which they did. Myers blocked me from following him on Twitter.

They don’t like it up ‘em, these humanists!

So, okay, there is this bloke who is the head of a church and also a head of state (Vatican City) who says things many people don’t like. He also has many priests who fiddle with kiddies and whose church has tried to hush up a multitude of very serious crimes. There is the question of whether the touted £20 million bill to host him is money well spent.

Actually, I’m thinking it’s not such a good idea!

But as Cranmer points out (welcome back, Your Grace),

Those who shame the British spirit of generosity and offend against Christian notions of hospitality with cries of ‘No Pope Here!’ are doubtless those who uttered not a syllable of protest against the state visits of Mugabe, Hirohito, Ceauşescu, Abdullah, Jintao…

Not, of course, that Pope Benedict may in any sense be considered a rogue, vagabond, tyrant, dictator or mass murderer.

Other than by Peter Tatchell or Stephen Fry.

To be fair to Peter Tatchell (did I really just type that?) he has bravely protested the heinous psychopath Mugabe.

Stephen Fry used to entertain, but he now seems primarily to be a quasi-intellectual whose opinions are formed by way of his sexuality. As with that other leading quasi-intellectual pest, Richard Dawkins, some people think he can’t say anything wrong and so provides others’ opinions so they don’t have to come up with their own.

Mr Tatchell is involved in the Protest the Pope campaign. Their list of supporters is mainly humanists and homosexuals. The “usual brigade” if you like. It also includes the laughingly-named Young Freethought. If they want to encourage freedom of thought, why do they support atheism? As I have said before, denying the Divine and one’s own spirituality is the opposite of free thinking.

The Rev. Ian Paisley and his entourage from the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster are also protesting against the Pope’s visit. Is it really because of the £20 million price tag?

The Rev Wesley Irwin of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster in Rutherglen, where a protest meeting will be held tomorrow night, said: “We reject sectarianism – there is nothing like that in our protest. It is not our intention to cause anger or upset. But we feel that at this time of financial restraint it is sad that tax payers are being used to fund this event.”

To put £20 million into context, it is little more than one day’s net contribution the UK hands over to the European Union. Why aren’t the various protestors concerned about this? If they showed some consistency then we could have our referendum and vote to escape the devilish plot which is totally destroying our country. Could it be because the EU has provided the legislation which has allowed humanists and homosexuals to ride roughshod over the rest of society?

It looks like the majority of the British people have no more fight left in them. It is now all about I; me; mine. And containing oneself within one’s comfort zone.

The comments under the Scotsman’s article on Ian Paisley’s protest in Edinburgh are mainly negative. Many don’t want the Pope here, but they also don’t want a Presbyterian protest. See: no fight left. No fire in the belly. No side to take. No opinion that hasn’t been made for you. Just keep pretending there is no God and become immersed in junk telly, junk food and junk science. If it is popular, it must be wholesome!

A statement from the current moderator in Ulster, Ronald Johnstone said: “The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster views the state visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom with dismay and abhorrence.

“Many citizens do not welcome the visit by the head of the Vatican State to this country on financial, constitutional and on moral grounds.”

So it’s not just about the money. Good. I’m not sure if he is correct about the constitutional situation. As a head of state he can surely be invited here. Whether it is right that he has been is another matter entirely. Certainly, the moderator has a point regarding the cost.

Someone called Billy Boy left a comment about Dr Paisley,

He is leading a mob just as he has always done. Any other gang setting out to cause a public nuisance would be carefully watched by the police. Mr Paisley is one of the most evil human beings I have ever met!

To which I replied,

I met him last December in Stranraer, so I know you are wrong. I’m not a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, but I have met many of their clergymen and quite a few members and they seem to me to be among the finest of our citizens.

They have the right to protest anything they wish, just as you or I have.

I used to believe a lot of the negative comments about Ian Paisley before I actually had the pleasure and privilege of hearing him preach the gospel with power and passion and spending some time with him afterwards.

He has strong views and personal convictions and a lot of people don’t like that. (I can vouch for that too!) They believe we should all be reformed into obliging, non-partisan, super-cool Euro-persons.

David Cameron has offered Pope Benedict XVI a “very warm welcome” to Britain ahead of his “incredibly important and historic visit”.

You can listen to Mr Cameron talking about it here. I had to for writing this post. Whoever wrote the spiel for him had his nose firmly buried in the LibLabCon politically-correct phrasebook, with such classics as,

all our faith communities… people of every faith and none… multi-faith dialogue

I feel that Cranmer too has been too kind about the Pope, although his piece today is well worth reading, for gems such as this,

And now it appears that a religious leader who happens to believe that homosexual practice is an ‘objective disorder’, that abortion is murder and that contraception is a mortal sin, is reviled severally by the secularists, atheists, liberals and Richard Dawkins.

It may have taken 500 years for the wheel to come full circle, but is it not ironic that this Pope comes to defend those very liberties which his forebears sought to deny us? When he talks of the imperative of the liberty of the Christian conscience, he takes the Protestant theme, for which many suffered horrifically and even paid with their lives.

And for this we cannot thank the pope, but rather, we must despise the weakness of most of our church leaders in the way they have caved in to every type of ungodly behaviour. They have sat back and watched wickedness become mainstream.

This has not been the case with the church Ian Paisley founded.

We have to realise that we live in a fallen world. For this reason there will be no cuddly, all-inclusive, Disneyesque future if we will just become obedient clones. A people with no fight in them cannot remain a people for very long.

So after all this, what do I think of the Pope’s visit? I don’t like my taxes being spent on it, but they are being spent on worse things every day of the year. Let those who wish to protest do so for their various reasons. My wish would be that Catholics would realise that the pope cannot get them saved and neither can prayers to Mary. Only repentance for sins and faith in Christ provides salvation from the fate we deserve, which is an eternity in Hell. This is the only possible way there could be peace on earth, but false dogma and the pride and lusts of the natural man will always lead the majority of folk down the wide road that leads to destruction.

England’s last remaining Roman Catholic adoption agency has won a lifeline in the High Court today over laws which could force it to consider homosexuals as parents.

Leeds-based Catholic Care is battling for its life because its policy of not placing children with unmarried couples may breach Labour’s homosexual equality laws.

Today’s High Court ruling gives the agency a glimmer of hope, but it must still argue with the Charity Commission for the liberty to act according to its religious ethos.

That’s what we have been reduced to in this country: having to go to court in order to justify your adherence to traditional values.

The case centres around Labour’s Sexual Orientation Regulations which were controversially introduced under former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

He’s the good Catholic boy, remember.

The regulations outlaw sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods or services.

Since the regulations were introduced all but this last one of England’s Roman Catholic adoption agencies have either closed or cut their ties with the church.

However, the regulations give some charities the right to restrict their services to one sexual orientation group. A charity can do this if it is attempting to act within its stated aims as set out in its trust deed.

This is a benefit to some homosexual charities that wish to restrict certain services, for example counseling services, to help homosexuals only.

I think the expression is hoist by their own petard.

Catholic Care wants to use this legal right to restrict its adoption services to heterosexual married couples only.

To do this, it needed to clarify its trust deed with the Charity Commission. But in 2008 the Commission refused to allow the clarification.

Is this the same Charity Commission which considers ASH a charity, despite practically none of its funds coming from voluntary donations? Ditto for some of the other fake charities.

Catholic Care then appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Commission’s interpretation of the right to restrict services was too narrow.

Today the High Court agreed with Catholic Care and ordered the Charity Commission to reconsider its decision in light of the court’s judgment.

This does not necessarily mean Catholic Care will be permitted to restrict its services to heterosexual married couples, but it does offer the group some hope.

The ruling was welcomed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds, Rt Revd Arthur Roche.

He said the judgment confirmed that Catholic Care was correct in its reading of the law and that the exemption could apply “to any charity subject to it being in the public interest”.

The bishop said: “We look forward to producing evidence to the Charity Commission to support the position that we have consistently taken through this process: that without being able to use this exemption, children without families would be seriously disadvantaged.

“The judgment today will help in our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities.”

But the ruling was slammed by secularists and homosexual activists.

They are incensed that some of us refuse to kowtow to their selfish whims.

Jonathan Finney, head of external affairs at Stonewall, said: “It’s unthinkable that anyone engaged in delivering any kind of public or publicly funded service should be given licence to pick and choose service users on the basis of individual prejudice.

“It’s clearly in the best interests of children in care to encourage as wide a pool of potential adopters as possible.”

He is either stupid or a liar, because it is in the best interests of children to be placed with a stable married couple. This prejudice is for the benefit of the children. Plenty of potential parents have been discriminated against by local councils when it comes to the placement of children. Reasons include they go to church, are too fat and have too many books. I don’t remember Stonewall being worried about children being denied good homes then.

But, of course, this was done to engineer a perceived shortage of suitable parents in order to help make the case for homosexual adoption: “better being with a “gay” couple than in a home”.

And Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “It is unfortunate that the court has enabled Catholic Care to exploit what was obviously an error in the drafting of the equality legislation. The loophole this created was never intended to be used this way.

Don’t you love them? It was only ever intended to be used to attack people of conscience; people who do not toe the line; those of us who refuse to believe the gospel according to Karl Marx.

“If the Charity Commission reverses its previous decision – as the court is asking it to – we can look forward to a tidal wave of similar challenges from bigoted Catholic organisations who are determined not to accord any rights to gay people at all.”

I dearly hope he is right and not just Catholic organisations. If we want a country worth living in then people must be allowed to exercise their conscience. If not, then we will be living in a Marxist nightmare. We are very quickly getting there. And homosexuals will no longer get special treatment once their status as the elite’s pets is ended. When they have fulfilled their mission as social engineers, they will be as despised as most of the rest of us are just now, if not more so.

Then they will cry out for help from the people whose consciences they tried to destroy.

The British Humanist Association are furious that some schools want to teach about sex and relationships according to their ethos.

The BHA, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England and the Accord Coalition have condemned a new Government amendment to its own Children, Schools and Families Bill, describing it as discriminatory.

It is discriminatory, yes. Just as forcing people to accept beliefs and behaviour that are at best alien to them discriminates against them. But that’s all right, isn’t it? This is how it works. Nobody is allowed to be discriminated against except those people who don’t do as they are commanded by the state. No matter how unfair or crazy.

A great myth has grown which says that discrimination is wrong. Any discrimination. Personally, I discriminate all the time, don’t you? Some food I love and others I detest. Some people I find are wonderful and others I avoid. How many parents don’t discriminate when it comes to choosing a babysitter? Fortunately, not many.

I have looked at the members of the aforementioned Accord Coalition on their website. They include The British Humanist Association themselves, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, the Hindu Academy, The Lesbian and Gay Christian (sic) Movement, The Socialist Education Association and the admittedly feminist Women Against Fundamentalism.

In other words, this is a political/religio-political attack on faith schools to further an atheistic/secular/humanist/socialist agenda. Dress it up as children’s rights and they think they can get away with anything.

The BHA encouraged its supporters to email their MPs,

Please do this today to ensure all young people have access to accurate, balanced SRE that promotes equality and diversity, and to prevent faith schools from teaching that same sex relationships and the use of contraception are wrong.

They go on to elaborate on the importance of promoting equality, diversity and rights: three of the main pillars of political correctness.

Ian Dunt, writing for politics.co.uk, was also upset. He wants faith schools ‘banned’. As I commented under his article,

I’m not sure if this is meant to be satirical, but it sounds like it. Mr Dunt is a ‘libertarian’ (he says) who naturally hates government interference – except when it comes to parents’ choices in how their children are educated, then they should have no choice. Despite the majority of the population having a faith, the author thinks their children should be herded into secular state institutions to be conditioned not to be ‘too religious’. I wonder what he thinks about the news that faith schools are best at building social unity:

“It found that secondary schools run by faith groups scored eleven per cent higher for their promotion of community cohesion when compared with secular schools.

“The report also concluded that faith-based schools outperformed secular schools by almost nine per cent when it came to tackling inequality.”

The Dunts and Dawkins of this country need to mind their own business when it comes to how parents bring up their own children. Oh, and stop using people’s aversion to homosexuality as a reason for getting your own angry way.”

And this is another great myth, that people who are against homosexuality being approved to children do it on grounds of hatred. We get this word discrimination as usual. That’s exactly what it is – like the babysitting example I gave above, parents and schools discriminate because they see it as the right thing to do by their children. This is their right.

Then the word homophobic gets thrown around. Never religiophobic (if that’s a word), because religious people are now, by default, in the wrong. Let us not be misled; when humanists promote homosexuality as normal, they do so against the biological evidence. Theirs is also a belief system. They believe it is right and I believe it is wrong. Why do they expect their beliefs to carry more weight than mine?

To conclude, then, what is next? How much more diversity are we meant to teach children, or be accused of the next invented ‘phobia’? Some children are already being groomed to be dysfunctional through state sex education that tells them anything goes and here are your free condoms and this way to the abortion clinic – your parents won’t find out.

This increases the underclass dependent on state intervention at every turn: the single mothers on handouts, the unemployed and unemployable, the depressed, the diseased, those for whom life has no meaning because they are used to their every whim being catered for and being shielded from the real world.

This attack on freedom of conscience and parental responsibility is demonic. For what benefit?

I have read bits and pieces of Dawkins’ writings and I can agree with Cranmer when he says of him,

He displays a sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy. If one were to critique evolutionary biology in such crass terms, Professor Dawkins would be the first to dismiss one as being an intellectually deficient ignoramus.

This is one of the aspects of Dawkins’ writing that discourages me from giving him any credence whatsoever. To confuse his gentle readers (or perhaps he genuinely is confused himself), he constantly talks about ‘religion’ as if they are basically all the same. The major religions are wildly different. Trying to equate the Son of the Living God with the animal ‘gods’ of Hinduism and the warmongering paedophile Muhammad (as some people call him) is obviously a good way to discredit the notion of religion, but it doesn’t do anything for the pursuit of truth.

It does sell books though. Lots of them.

Dawkins replied to Cranmer privately, who in turn issued A response to Richard Dawkins.

Cranmer writes,

…this blog…appears is fast-becoming the last bastion of unfettered religio-political speech in the United Kingdom.

Well, this one is also available for all opinions to be expressed, but to back up his point, I was banned from Dawkins’ Clear-thinking Oasis last week. Apparently I was trolling. I have been leaving comments now and again for about a year (I think) and have even been told by some of the regulars that I am welcome.

My crime seems to have been talking about the salvation possible through Christ. I occasionally quote some scripture. Now this seems perfectly fair and logical to me based on the fact that the discussion is often about faith and I am responding to the questions others pose.

I suggest that the ‘atheists’ do not like their consciences pricked nor their souls inconvenienced with spiritual matters when there is so much sinning to be done! What else can they do but report me for ‘trolling’?

Here is a rare example of my downright proselytizing, but it was only in reply to somebody who doesn’t understand what saving faith is.

Anyway, I did resolve to spend less time on Dawkins’ blog, so they have done me a favour.

Dawkins begins his letter to Cranmer with this accusation,

I am intrigued by the Christian vitriol that is being thrown in my face after my article in The Times. You, Cranmer, have even suggested that I should be arrested for incitement to religious hatred.

Dawkins believes that religious people should be seen and not heard. Well, not seen either. We should leave our faith at home. He also seems to like labelling plain speaking as ‘vitriol’. I get the same accusations on a number of topics of discussion.

I am constantly tickled, and disturbed, by Dawkins’ insistence that his blog is a Clear-thinking Oasis. Strange, then, that judging from the comments on both blogs, Cranmer’s supporters are generally erudite and polite, appearing to be fully human – while Dawkins’ are rude, crude and give credence to the theory that man evolved from apes!

Ministers were astonished on Monday when the Pope said that the Bill violated “natural justice” and urged bishops to fight it. But that attack, along with the strength of opposition in the Lords and the limited time left to get Bills passed before the election, has sapped the Government’s enthusiasm to continue the fight.

Who knows, maybe with the election just around the corner, some bright spark in the government has realised that there are many more Catholics than homosexuals. I’m sure that ‘natural justice’ didn’t figure at all in the decision.

In her blind allegiance to ‘equality’, Harriet Harman, Hater of Harmony, obviously couldn’t see that a homosexual preaching about the importance of sexual morality would be rather irrational. But her government thrives on the irrational, especially when it comes to ‘equality’.

Why should people who choose to behave in a certain way receive so much attention anyway? We don’t get adulterers demanding to get a job in a church. Should I, who disagrees with New Labour’s philosophy, insist on getting a job with one of their MPs? Would I be accepted for a job with Stonewall? Not after they had Googled my name, that’s for sure.

I would be discriminated against for my beliefs in many places and rightly so because I don’t conform to their ethos.

I cannot see that churches are singled out for ’special’ treatment other than the fact that they are churches and this government has proven how much it hates Christianity.

Because the Pope has expressed an opinion, and he’s not supposed to because he is the head of a church and is expected to keep schtum, the National Secular Society is upset and is planning demonstrations during his visit to the UK in the Autumn.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some £20 million for the visit of the Pope. A visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination.”

Their version of events is that he will attack equal rights. But he is trying to preserve his church’s freedom to employ people who share its beliefs. What business is this of the NSS, other than an excuse to attack religion, which seems to be their raison d’être?

The truth is that ‘equality’ which suits secularists is an impossibility because it forces people to accept things that they vehemently oppose. The government knows this and is using the resulting chaos to create tensions in society so they can ruin all our lives while we fight among ourselves.

The message was that we should not just believe in God, nor just try to obey Him, but to love Him. It sounds simple, until perhaps we examine our own lives.

At the end of the evening service, three teenage boys turned up, wanting to wish us Happy New Year for some reason. Maybe they were aiming to get their hands on the collection plate, or perhaps, like so many others of their generation, they are looking for meaning in their lives and answers to the questions nobody else can give them. I can fully understand their angst living in a society that teaches them they are nothing more than descendants of pond slime, that gives them a third-rate education (I blame the government, not the teachers), that tells them that Allah and his suicide bombers are equal to Almighty God and those who will be redeemed through Christ, and that gives them all they need to have ’safer sex’ – but omits to explain the spiritual and emotional aspects that can reduce them to despair.

I have met so many adults who have been through the alcohol/drugs/sex/gambling/(insert your vice here) black hole and thankfully come out the other side, and they realise that none of these things was able to fill the ‘God-shaped hole’ in their hearts.

But few in the secular world now dare tell the children.

Which is very sad, especially since our society allegedly does everything these days for the children. It is baloney, of course. What these youngsters really need is to have wisdom, good role models, and most importantly, a love for God. Come the General Election, which political party will you trust on the issue of giving comfort to the soul?

For a complete takeover of the individual, his conscience must also be brought into line with State expectations. Churches must employ people who live contrary to Christian ethics. Teachers must impart lies to the children in their keep. Even the pharmacists’ conscience clause is now under threat after centuries of protecting the rights of dispensing chemists.

The right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense controversial drugs is under threat after a consultation asked if it should be scrapped.

For centuries, pharmacists have been able to decline services with which they disagree on moral or religious grounds.

A significant number, mainly Christians and Muslims, have refused women the morning-after pill because they believe it is a form of abortion.

To alarm, however, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, a Government quango that oversees the health professions, is asking whether the practice should continue.

How many quangos and fake charities is that we have pushing abortion? All to ensure Regulatory Excellence, of course.

Calls for the conscience clause to be scrapped have come from pharmacists as well as groups such as the National Secular Society.

It would be the Secularists, wouldn’t it? And obviously the ‘calls’ only came from certain pharmacists. And why should they be concerned? If some chemists refuse to prescribe abortion pills, then that means more (blood) money for them.

What’s next? Will bakers be forced to sell battenburg cakes against their will? Will newsagents who disaprove of Halloween be required by law to stock masks, witches’ hats and rubber bats? Of course they won’t. That’s because contraception and abortion and the whole promotion of sex thing is part of a social engineering agenda which has to be seen through to the end. It’s the same blitzkrieg approach that means parents are being denied the right to have their children opt out of sex ‘education’. They must be indoctrinated at every opportunity. Nobody should be allowed to escape the net and be in a position to tell others there are better ways. Even those children who are home-schooled are to be under greater state scrutiny.

When the Bible warns us that we are “not our own,” it means that we are God’s, not the State’s.

But anti-abortionists are warning the code of ethics is in danger of being ‘hijacked by an anti-life agenda’.

Eugenics is here to stay. There are even plans to introduce five year-olds to their ‘rights’ to abortion. This really is how far we have fallen and we’re still falling fast.

The consultation, which ends on January 12, is part of plans to set up a new General Pharmaceutical Council to regulate the profession.

Regulate the conscience, you mean.

The Department of Health denied that Ministers, who have been struggling to bring down teenage pregnancy rates, had any role in the questionnaire.

They are struggling to bring down teenage pregnancy rates because they concentrate on doing just that and that alone as if pregnancy just happens in isolation and there are no other factors that need addressed. This is because people from abortion and contraceptive ’services’ like the FPA and Brook ‘advise’ the government to promote abortion and contraceptive ’services’. It is a vicious circle from what I can deduce.

When you see that some teenage girls have been getting multiple terminations on demand, you begin to understand who benefits from the government’s strategy.

Some experts have questioned whether the clause is ‘in keeping with the rising rights and expectations of Health Service users’.

As usual, someone mentions the word ‘rights’. No doubt everyone will flap around desperate to promote this new ‘right’ and ensure the nation complies. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

The Church of England, however, says many Christians would wish for their right to refuse emergency contraception to be preserved.

But the humanists and secularists say we should just shut up because we have no right to influence society. We should keep our beliefs private. They, on the other hand, should boss us all around based on their beliefs. I bet they cannot see the folly in their thinking.

The happy smiley children used by humanists in a don’t-label-me-as-religious billboard campaign actually come from an evangelical Christian family.

The images used by the British Humanist Association (BHA), as part of a nationwide advertising drive, were bought from a stock photo library and the BHA had no way of knowing the children’s background.

The children’s father, Brad Mason, said: “It is quite funny, because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free.

“They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children.”

Mr Mason added: “Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians.

“That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy.”