Renewed call for UK to ban spanking

This is live issue over here. Folks wanting to more about the background could visit Families First. Phil Williamson, one the chief spokesmen, is a long time personal friend. Anyone wanting to do a quick catch up should read the newsletters on this site and the news releases.

What ways can individuals on SI get involved other then in prayers?Fighting for this legislation involves taking a Families First case to the House of Lord; the senior court in the UK. This is a very costly endeavour. The Families First folk have seen God provide in wonderful ways but there is always need for funds in the 'war chest'.Phil Williamson is suffering from an unusual respiratory condition which has taken hold over the last months. He and his family would certainly appreciate the prayers of the saints.

SMACKING:This Tuesday (2 November) MPs will debate attempts to change the law on smacking. MPs will vote on whether to keep the law unchanged, to remove the 'reasonable chastisement' defence in some circumstances, or to ban smacking completely.The Christian Institute believes the law should stay unchanged. There is no evidence that the current law is a problem, it is firm enough to protect children and fair enough to protect parents. The Government's own research shows that 88 per cent of people think it is sometimes necessary to smack a naughty child.Briefings on this issue are available on our website:http://www.christian.org.ukPlease pray that:* MPs will vote to keep the present law. Pray for Andrew Turner MP who has tabled an amendment to keep the law unchanged. * The media would report the issue fairly and accurately.* Those who speak in favour of retaining the current law would speak clearly and persuasively.* The legal problems of changing the law will be clearly shown and the Government will face strong opposition.* Pray for the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, that he would resist calls to allow a free vote on a complete smacking ban.

I believe that we should obey the laws in our country unless they contradict God's laws.The question is, if the govenment brings in this law, does it contradict Proverbs 13:24?He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.And if it does, will we see lots of Christians getting punished for smacking their Children? especially when they do it in public?

Here is an update on the Christian Liberty issue Christian Liberty Fund currently being pursued through the House of Lord (the senior law court of the UK) Dear Head/Supporter,This is to thank you for supporting the House of Lord Appeal in prayer and financially.The result will not be known until sometime in January, but I wanted to give you some idea of what took place in the court on 1st and 2nd December.The five Law Lords consisted of four men Lord Bingham, Lord Nicholls, Lord Brown, Lord Walker and one woman Lady Hale, who is known to have anti- Christian views. The presiding judge was Lord Bingham who was the Master of the Rolls. James Dingemans, our QC, was speaking all day on the first day and then again after the government barrister on the second day. He was excellent on both occasions. His initial argument was to ask the Lords to take a more principled approach to religious rights, akin to the courts in Canada, Australia, India and the U.S.A rather than the often conflicting judgements that have come from the court in Strasbourg. In the course of his address James Dingemans was able to declare that we are all sinners, hence the need for discipline and that Jesus came to die for our sins. He also included a point of law on which we could gain a technical victory, because the government had failed to argue an important religious rights issue in the lower courts and therefore had to ask the courts permission to address it. The Lords cleared the court for five minutes while they decided whether or not they would hear the government’s argument. They decided to hear the government’s argument but did NOT say at this stage whether they will take it into consideration or not. If they do take it into consideration, then the judgement they reach will be final - we will either win or lose. If we lose, there is a possibility that we will go back to the European Court.In the event of gaining a technical victory, then we will have to go back to the High Court and start again. This may sound awful, but there are advantages. The issue is not really about ‘to smack or not to smack’ but about a conflict of worldviews. The main advantage would be that we could argue the case from this point of view. This would mean the judges would be forced to think through arguments from a perspective new to them but at the heart of our case. Just as it would be unthinkable to try and impose a Christian worldview on Moslems, it should not be possible to impose a secular humanistic philosophy on Christians, which is effectively what the government is trying to do.All five judges will discuss the relative merits of the arguments put to them and come to a final judgement. Since the result will not be known until sometime in January, It is very important to keep praying for the Law Lords as they have their discussions.Yours in Him, Phil Williamson ( representing CST schools )my underlining above RonB