TV Freedom

They say that freedom comes with responsibility, but I don’t see much, if any responsibility shown on TV in the UK, and that horrifies me. As a nation we are buying bigger and bigger TV sets, LED, LCD, OLED Curved screen, 4K, Widescreen, and Cinema with surround sound, so please don’t try to tell me we are watching less media now beamed into our homes and lives.

I constantly hear the words, TV content is rubbish, and the truth is I have said it too. Do you think TV programs reflect our society, or promote life as we (would like to) see it around us? After a hard day, and our evening meal, we like to plop ourselves into our favourite chair and be entertained, filling our heads with anything and everything that is shown for our viewing pleasure. And there are many channels to choose from, so we are drawn into the bright, coloured, strobing lights of the small but getting ever bigger screen.

Think about it for a moment if you can pull yourself away from your program. We are being openly fed just about everything that’s wrong with society, and we accept it as escapism entertainment. So we end up tacitly condoning dramatic and graphic displays of rage, shouting, swearing, partner swapping, sex scenes, adultery, homosexuality etc, and many of these before the so called 9 O’Clock watershed. Do you really believe that censorship (if applied at all) is working to our advantage?

We are feeding our children a diet of TV programming which promotes as acceptable, every lifestyle which is contrary to normal moral decency, and that is without mentioning any Biblical or religious overtone. Is it enough to turn the channel when the scene has already been shown? Is it enough to switch it off, only to turn it back on later when the kids are in bed? Some people might go as far as to call that hypocrisy. Ouch. The rule is simple. If you can’t watch the TV program or movie with the kids, then don’t watch it at all.

Free Speech? What Free Speech??

Tory election candidate Philip Lardner has been suspended for describing gay people on his website as "not normal", the party has confirmed. His suspension was provoked by comments in the "What I believe in" section of his website, under the sub-heading: "Homosexuality is not 'normal behaviour'." The former Territorial Army soldier wrote of his support for the controversial "clause 28", which was introduced by the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and banned public bodies from promoting homosexuality.

Last year, David Cameron apologised for Tory efforts to stop the measure being repealed by Labour and his party have since indicated they would consider allowing same-sex marriages, if elected. But Mr Lardner wrote: "As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage. "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. "Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

The comments have since been removed.

Labour's Europe minister Chris Bryant, who is gay, said: "These comments are completely unacceptable and betray the nasty, judgmental truth behind the Tory campaign."

Where else can we start but with the dictionary definition of the word 'Normal'

nor·mal (nôr′məl)

adjective

1. conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern; esp., corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; usual; standard; regular.

There is no way that the gay community can be described as normal using this definition. This does not imply that they have no rights, neither does it say that they should be discounted, but they are NOT NORMAL by definition!

What happened to free speech? Does it not apply to prospective MPs? Is the Conservative Party embarrassed by this statement? Maybe they are offended, but the man does have a right to say it. It is not illegal. It seems that the only people who have a right to freedom of expression are the minorities, and they can take the form of gays, and other minority (non Christian) religions especially, as we have seen recently.

There seems to be a contradiction here. The Tory Party will recognise the importance of 'normal' family life by giving married couples a tax break, but in the same breath, they do not allow one of their candidates to say the obvious. Gays do not constitute the majority of our population according to the definition which says.

1. the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; usual; standard; regular.

Ok, get it now? No offence. No confusion. No contradiction. Not normal. Now what? Will we see the minorities change the dictionary, as they have the (obvious and clear) teaching of the Bible? Now that would be unlikely.... but don't rule it out altogether. And on top of that the same party would sanction same sex marriage! Choosing a candidate in this election is giving me a bigger headache than in past years. To borrow and change a phrase coined by another political party, "we are dancing to the minority's jig!" Oh that is scary!

It appears that there will be one less possible MP in parliament who would have a moral compass. If this is how we hire and fire our MPs, we are indeed .." A' DOOMED LADDIE".

1. 
   

Freedom of Expression??

This is in reference to my earlier blog posted on 29 March!

Nurse Shirley Chaplin was in court to defend her right to wear a cross on a chain, around her neck, while performing her ward duties. She had been wearing the cross for 38 years! However Royal Devon and Exeter NHS determined that she lost her case, and with it the right to wear a small cross 'for health and safety reasons'. Her conviction for wearing it, and the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments are shown below, as reported in Sky News.

"To deliberately remove or hide my crucifix or to treat it disrespectfully would violate my faith," she testified. But the tribunal ruled against the nurse, who had worn the emblem throughout her 30-year career. Mrs Chaplin's case was highlighted by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Easter sermon last weekend. He referred to "wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness" which has seen some Christians stopped from wearing religious symbols at work.

There is a General Election coming up on the 6 May, and I for one, will be watching closely the positions of the parties on matters of the Christian Faith, and the Church's freedoms. It seems we now have to stand up and be counted, because the established government bodies, like the NHS, are starting to take away common sense rights on a whim. What possible reasons can there be for anyone NOT to wear a cross around their neck as a symbol of their faith?

These changes are being brought about by stealth, and under the guise of spurious legislation like 'health and safety'. I think it was well expressed by the Archbishop as,"wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness" which has seen some Christians stopped from wearing religious symbols at work.

We now need some straight talk from our government bodies and MPs as to how they will defend the basic Christian principles like this one. Do we wait until all rights have been removed before we wake up?