Thursday, November 08, 2007

Gordon Brown is not a godly man

Somebody very close to me keeps referring to Gordon Brown, our prime minister as a 'godly man'. I expect this rather generous description has something to do with the fact that Brown's father was a Church of Scotland minister and his profession to be a Christian.

But, no he is not a godly man. I think this is clear from his policies.

What is godly about all this pro-homosexual legislation? I am not one of these Christians who gets obsessed over the Gay issue and makes that the most pressing issue of the day. However, I do not see how a Bible-believing prime minister could preside over a government which is so committed to the pro-homosexual agenda.

If Gordon Brown is a godly man, why do we hear nothing from him about abortion? If a person supports abortion, they are ungodly no matter what church they go to or where they stand theologically. I do not accept as godly a prime minister who thinks that the slaughter of unborn children is not the great crime of our age.

I appreciate that in British politics it is difficult for a politician to oppose abortion. I appreciate that a Labour prime minister might be unable to get the support of his party to oppose abortion. However, if Gordon Brown really was pro-life, I would like to see some sign of that. I would like to see some indication that he was opposed to abortion on principle. I have never seen such a sign.

Gordon Brown is not a godly man. A godly man could not have played a senior role in Blair's government and a godly man could not preside over the legislative programme that is coming in under Brown.

The Labour government is the Devil's government.


Chris said...


We have the same dynamic with George Bush who lays claim to being a Christian, but whose vigorous prosecution of a war that benefits his friends mightily and his country and the world scantily gives voice to the lie that is his faith.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I am not sure I share your anti-war stance.

I view war as a raison de etat. The question is whether the Iraq war had a good enough raison de etat. I am quite unable to say with certainty.

Chris said...

A "War on Terror" is in the national interest in many respects ( I wasn't suggesting that it isn't), but I am certain that these are not the primary reasons the President is engaged in it, and for that, I find fault with him.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I believe Kissinger was critical of the Iraq war and he knew a fair bit about foreign policy.

Rose~ said...



Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Not me.

I just can't make my mind up about the war.

Have the results justified the costs involved?

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I am sure if Palm Boy visits he will give some convincing arguments for the Iraq War.