And They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love (Or What Has The National Secular Society Ever Done For Anyone?)

Left: A Certificate of "De-baptism" available from your local "tongue-in-cheek" Secular Society



Multiple Choice Questionnaire:

What with the Pope's visit getting nearer by the day and all, I am fed up to the back teeth of The National Secular Society and the Guardian and their ilk complaining about everything the Pope has never done(!). I have got to thinking about how I have always believed that it is worth weighing up any philosophy in terms of "what would this belief and the people attached to it do for me if I was really in trouble". Now we hear constantly about the shortcomings and failures of the Catholic Church, so I thought I would take Catholicism and some of the opposing philosophies and consider the following:

1. If you found yourself having to beg to survive, where would you go to beg?

a) The local branch of the Secular Society
b) Your local Catholic Church
c) Richard Dawkin's house

2. Who provides millions of pounds worth of healthcare to victims of Aids?

a) The National Secular Society
b) The Catholic Church
c) Peter Thatchell

3. If you lived in a third world country and couldn't afford to send your child to school, who is most likely to provide free education somewhere in your locality?

a) The British Secular Society
b) The Catholic Church
c) Christopher Hitchens

4. If you were unmarried, broke, pregnant, alone and homeless, couldn't see how to keep your baby but didn't really want to kill him or her, who would you contact for help?

a) Marie Stopes International
b) The National Secular Society
c) The Catholic Church

5. If you were being refused food and fluids in hospital and you wanted help to fight for the right to be fed, would you call:

a) Terry Pratchett
b) The National Secular Society
c) The Catholic Church

6. In the case of a national disaster, where homes and workplaces were destroyed who would you expect to provide the most help to victims?

a) The Catholic Church
b) The National Secular Society
c) The Guardian

Well I can't answer for you, but I know which of the above I would be in touch with; The Catholic Church, the largest charitable organisation in the world. A Church of sinners and of saints too. Despite our failings, millions of suffering peoples around the world benefit form the charitable works of the Church everyday ~ And they know we are Christians by our collective love, even though we individually make a hash of so many things.

Let's pray for the other sad lot, let's pray that they can rejoice instead of fearing, that the Kingdom of God has come upon them, in the form of His Vicar setting foot in the UK.

Clare McCullough

Religious Believer's More Likely To Recognise Sanctity of Life

Since I have been involved in counselling women who are planning an abortion, I have become more and more aware that a woman with a religious belief is far more likely, ultimately, to keep her baby than an atheist in the same situation.

I meet many people, including many pro-lifers and many Catholics who swear this is not so. But statistically all the evidence suggests it really is.

OK, we all know a really good atheist, and we can look at their high standards and moral values and feel that being pro-life is not a religious issue.

Likewise we all know Christians, and other believers, ourselves included, who constantly fall short of the mark in our beliefs and our behaviour, in little ways and in big ways.

We may know many religious people who have had abortions for example.

But nevertheless, there is a vast difference in talking to a woman who is planning an abortion if she believes in God and talking to her if she doesn't. And their is a vast difference between a nominal "believer" and someone who really believes in God with their heart and soul.

Simply put, the believer sees the unborn child as a child of God, created for a purpose, and created to be her child. Furthermore, the believer sees the child as someone with an immortal soul, who will not 'end' when the abortion happens, but who they may one day meet again face to face. Lastly, the believer knows that one day they will face God and have to account for this deed. They, therefore, have much more than the 'here and now' to consider in aborting this baby.

The atheist may respect life and want to spare the child the physical pain of abortion. But where there are real difficulties involved in having the baby, if they can be assured that their baby will not feel pain (a lie women are often told when aborting) they can consider the worldly sufferings the child could endure if born to be their paramount concern.

Despite this, it is true that sometimes the Christian woman, for example, may abort, and the atheist may keep her baby. But this does not disprove the general rule that the believer can more readily recognise the incalculable worth of the soul created by God and then, therefore, treat it with the respect due, where the atheist often cannot.

Therefore it came as no surprise to read Thursday's Guardian article: "Atheist Doctors 'more likely to hasten death' ". The article goes on to say;

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient, according to Professor Clive Seale, from the centre for health sciences at Barts and the London school of medicine and dentistry.

After all, how could an atheist be expected to appreciate that God has numbered our days, and permits us the grace of exactly the right number of days, and exactly the right amount of suffering for us to be able to work out our own salvation?

Apologies to good-hearted atheists who do respect life. But in my experience, the odds are stacked against them doing so.

All this shows the importance of praying for the conversion of your country, click here for more information.

Clare McCullough