Download entire 232-page book HERE (PDF ... - MassResistance

Requiem for the Magna Carta
One of the oldest and most venerable pillars of constitutional law has been toppled: Britain’s Magna Carta. For
almost 800 years, since it was first drafted in 1215, the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms)
has been a symbol of liberty throughout the world. More than just a human rights manifesto, the Magna Carta is
one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy…
On June 15, 1215, an intrepid group of English lords stood on the field of Runnymede and faced
down the leviathan of arbitrary governmental power, represented at that moment by the heavyhanded
King John. They called the list of concessions which they extracted from him that day the
Magna Carta Libertatum, and this "Great Charter of Freedoms" has served as a mighty foundational
pillar of constitutional law and human rights law for nearly 800 years.
From the Magna Carta have come such legal essentials to democracy as the right of habeas corpus
(clauses 36, 38-40) and the right to due process of law (clause 29). But the clause to which the barons
gave preeminence, placing it first in the list, was the one which provided that "the English Church
shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired."
On March 21, 2007, another group of English lords, those seated in the upper house of the English
Parliament, dealt the death blow to that great clause, which has protected not only the integrity of
the English Church, but the notion that the church can stand as a moral authority independent of a
nation's ever-changing social policies and political currents. Ironically, this long-standing freedom
was cancelled by the approval of the Sexual Orientation Regulations of the Equality Act, a document
which has all the appearance of a human rights instrument. In its implementation, however, this set
of rules will have the effect of (among other things) prohibiting private Christian schools throughout
the United Kingdom from teaching students the biblical position that homosexual sexual behavior is
morally wrong, and that it violates the evident heterosexual design of the human body.
This prohibition is one result of the tireless campaign of dedicated homosexual agitators to curtail
freedom of speech in any case where its exercise would allow the expression of disapproval of
homosexual practice. This sort of rule is necessarily arbitrary, since it addresses any speech which has
"the effect of violating…dignity, or creating…[an] offensive environment" in the opinion of a
self-styled homosexual person, a person who defines him- or herself solely by feelings and behavior.
Thus it is impossible to conceive of any speech critical of homosexual behavior, however reasonably
founded on medical, psychological or experiential bases, which would not be found dignity-violating
or offensive to some homosexual person. And the church, to the extent that it bases its teaching on
the Bible, is not at liberty to choose its position, or even its wording when teaching from Scripture.
Redeeming the Rainbow 155