By
Rich Peterson
“I’ve just been dismissed by a Christian college for tweets on homosexuality – if I wasn’t safe, no one is.”
These are words written by Aaron Edwards, a former lecturer of theology at Cliff College, an evangelical Bible college in the UK. Aaron Edwards was removed from his position for bringing “disrepute” to the college. The offense was that he expressed the Biblical position on homosexuality over a public forum. Specifically, Twitter. The college demanded he remove the tweet. Edwards’ refusal led to a two week suspension followed by termination.
Mr. Edward’s suspension was followed by a hearing where, reportedly, should he be asked by same sex attracted students for prayer how he might respond. Various news articles report Mr. Edwards was threatened with a referral to Prevent, the deradicalization component of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy. Read here, here, here, and here.
Cliff College principal denies any threat. Perhaps it was a promise?
Whether or not Prevent was mentioned to Dr. Edwards is unclear but it certainly is not a stretch to accept that would have happened.
Aaron Edwards’ experience brings to memory thoughts of the Alliance of Civilizations and the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy of which I had written about a few years back. The Alliance, becoming the “Mother Tongue” of the UN, would also become the “global conscience” in the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The UK Home Office eagerly partnered with the Alliance to harmonize its counter-terrorism efforts with the UN Global Strategy.
The Alliance of Civilizations uses religion to combat religion. Its definition of extremism, the root cause of terrorism, is especially hostile towards Christianity: one cannot be an adherent of an “exclusive truth” claim.
The
threat to refer Dr. Edwards to Prevent (or not), is consistent with the
counter-terrorism strategy’s goal to combat religious fundamentalism. Back in
2007 as I read the through the Alliance of Civilizations/Council of Europe counter
terrorism materials, I recall thinking they intend to use beliefs about homosexuality as a
means to categorize people as either tolerant or extremists.
“No one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law…” Ponder that.
UNESCO policy is to include sexual orientation as part of cultural diversity. For Aaron Edwards to speak openly of homosexuality as sin would be viewed as an infringement of another’s rights.
What happened to Aaron Edwards speaks volumes. His words of warning are ominous:
“Whilst my
situation remains difficult for me and my family, it is also a microcosm of the
greater difficulties awaiting other Christians in the post-Christian West. The growing
expectation is that we should keep quiet about our beliefs, especially if they
may offend others.”
“Western
progressive ideals of inclusivity no longer include many Christian beliefs.
Indeed, the vociferous responses to my tweet demonstrate the problem my tweet
was highlighting. There are some Christian beliefs that Christians are no
longer allowed to express, not even to other Christians.”
1,404 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1401 – 1404 of 1404X at 10:04 PM is only 'educated' in his socialist globalist narrative and worldview.
Deceived or purposeful in it, he is determined not to listen to the truth shown him.
I think he has a money and influence stake in it to continue to defend it.
Craig,
I kind of assume you didn’t read the study and just read the short excerpt above??
The introduction to the paper covers this and explains the difficulties is studying and attributing just a model of “excess deaths” to anything in particular which is why, as they explain, it was/is so seemingly useful information to manipulate by anti vaccine persons/groups because they can just say “look …excess deaths which seem to exceed lab verified covid deaths” without accounting for contributing factors while 2021 might be different than pre pandemic excess death models let alone 2020 when lockdowns occurred, etc
They even gave links to articles and a study questioning late 2021 excess deaths in Cyprus, specifically, which implied, but did not attribute, high 3rd and 4th quarter “excess deaths” in Cyprus to the loose observation that vaccines were administered largely throughout 2021. They raised the question, by implication, but did not conclude anything.
Thus (I’m paraphrasing in my own words), they (authors of this study who were not paid by NIH or anyone) set out to show once and for that if vaccines were actually responsible for an increase in all cause excess deaths there would/should be a linear association between the delivery of vaccines to the population and excess all-cause deaths week by week as more and more shots were administered over time to all age groups or specific age groups short or long term.
They explored two excess death models too.
In other words (my words reading that study) if the vaccine is/was actually killing people short term or long term it should be doing so consistently over time and as more and more vaccines were administered in 2021 (through June 2022).
This study shows that didn’t happen while also showing a strong correlation between such weekly excess deaths and covid 19 deaths. I am not sure how such covid deaths were measured -lab results and death certificates, I think, as they indicated lab results alone would not account for those that died at home from covid but I don’t think such measurement affected the vaccination side of the analysis at all. Perhaps you can glean more??
As to your question, I'm pretty sure this was looked at population-wide so there’s no 2-week lag between the shot and any individual person being considered technically “vaccinated”. I also don’t think the study period including 2020 affected the vaccine part of the analysis.
x
X,
Unless and until you can provide meanings/definitions for the questions I laid out in my 10:59 PM, I submit you cannot claim "This is irrefutable". I hereby refute it because it is unclear as to what terms mean. I can individually understand the terms within Distributed Lag Nonlinear Model (DLNM), but I have no idea what this four-worded phrase means in any sense, but especially in the context of your excerpt. It seems to be some computer algorithm, but what does it actually measure? What does "vaccinated" mean in this study, i.e., does it refer to individuals beyond the first 14 days, thereby excluding anyone within this 14 day window?
Craig,
I can’t cut and paste the whole study herein. The study is irrefutable, not the excerpt by itself. If there was actually a strong association between vaccines and excess deaths in Cyrus through June 2022, either short term or long term, this analysis would have demonstrated such.
The DLNM is explained in section 2.2 “estimating excess mortality”
It has a footnote link to this article if you want to more fully understand DLNMs
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/sim.3940?src=getftr
It’s one of the two models I think they used to determine how many weekly deaths were to be expected…they then compared to actual all cause deaths to determine weekly “excess deaths”.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think you are seeing the word “lag” and thinking that has something to do with a timing issue between vaccine delivery and two weeks later being considered officially vaccinated. I do not believe that is the case at all. It’s just a statistical model approach they utilized to estimate expected future deaths. It’s also not a new model cherry picked for this analysis because it supports some preconceived bias. The DLNM was used previously in Greece to forecast excess deaths in relation to the flu vaccine.
To put this all another way, if the covid vaccine were really a new separate “cause of death” in any kind of significant manner wouldn’t you expect to see excess all cause deaths consistently and in some kind of growing consistent pattern as more and more people (and separate age groups) received the covid vaccines? There would be some kind of correlation. Separately, they did show there IS such correlation between covid deaths and excess deaths.
X
p.s.- To make this even more irrefutable, perhaps they could do similiar studies on different populations that had varying covid waves, excess death timetables and vaccination timelines. It's actually a model even anti-vaxxers could use to try to cherry-pick a population where the model, by chance, works in their favor. You may claim Cyprus was cherry-picked but it's where the lead Doctors who wrote the study happen to live. These aren't uncredentialed keyboard warriors who combed the world looking for data to manipulate. The live, eat and work professionally in the community they studied.
Post a Comment