For a while, I have voted for UKIP as the only possibly alternative to all other political parties, because UKIP was not hostile to Christians. For this reason I maintained a continual commendation to vote UKIP on our website and in our various newsletters, altogether reaching many thousands of Christians.
Before the last General Election we urged all Christians to vote for UKIP, because it stood for freedom of speech and expression of beliefs. Our commendation went to others, too – Muslims, Jews and non-Christians, who wanted a decent life, with honest politicians and freedom to speak freely, not hampered by PC (Politically Correct) mindsets. This commendation was spread by fellow Christians so that we had a hung-parliament, and I have no doubt at all that it was the Christian and ‘decency’ vote that helped in this cause.
Sadly, and with much regret, we must now advise our readers that this option is no longer viable, given UKIPs recent acceptance of homosexual laws. Perhaps UKIP does not realise that it was the last resort for genuine Christians, and all who prefer not to be browbeaten by propaganda.
Homosexual laws are not just designed to give ‘equality’. They are designed to silence Christians and anyone who will not accept what they say. It is not about ‘equality’ – gay activists openly boast that they are not interested in mere equality, but in superiority. But, first they must silence Christians. Already they have written laws, under the tutelage of Stonewall, that are so tightly written that people who cannot accept gay propaganda will be, and are, crushed, penalised, harassed and persecuted. For this reason, it is the single most dire issue for UK Christians.
Dr Waddell is perfectly correct to refer to ‘gay’ laws as fascism. And by accepting gay laws as they stand, UKIP are aligning with Christianity’s most vociferous enemy. The next logical step will be for gays to fill the membership, in order to gain even more benefits and skew policies. Part of this will be to silence Christian members with law. This is what has happened in every other Party.
To retain its integrity, UKIP could do the following:
State publicly that UKIP accepts that the homosexual laws exist, but will oppose it or seek amendments
State publicly that its members may hold differing views concerning homosexual laws, and that UKIP will not penalise members or MPs who do so.
State publicly that it opposes any form of Political Correctness and the silencing of opposing views.
UKIP need NOT perpetuate pro-gay laws or promote them in any way. In other words, UKIP is simply acknowledging that the law is on the statute books, but will not continue its immoral and destructive path as policy.
Without this kind of careful wording and attitude, we cannot in any way further commend UKIP to Christian and other voters, but will actively persuade them not to vote at all. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others who prefer morality, must have the right to dissent. Without it, UKIP will encourage the current fascism of the law. (If UKIP wishes to receive evidence that it is fascist, it need only ask).
UKIP should also encourage open debate on these issues, otherwise it joins the other Parties in persecution.
I have had over forty years’ experience in dealing with homosexuality, and have been attacked twice since 1985 (including death threats), losing my position on both occasions, so I know what I am talking about. I was also the first Christian to research and write serious comment on the then new AIDS problem, and know that both issues were manipulated by government and gay activists. This has led to 25 years of seriously misled ‘facts’ even amongst the medical fraternity, and many deaths. The last attack was made in 2005, when I finally lost all opportunity to hold a job, thanks to the wickedness of gay activists, who refused all genuine facts. It is my sincere belief that if the public had access to real statistics and information concerning homosexuality, they would not allow gay laws to be made.
Dr Barry Napier
This open letter will be published on our website, along with any responses. We reserve the right to answer responses.
© 2 July 2011