Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Anglicans start to grow a pair?
No offence meant to fellow bloggers such as Archbishop Cranmer or The Sectarian Strand (see sidebar) or to The Archbishop Of York Dr John Sentamu or the Bishop Of Rochester Right Reverend Dr Michael James Nazir-Ali and other Anglicans like them, who (it seems to me) are always prepared to put their faith above political correctness and expediency.
The Times reports on the Anglican hierarchy sending a letter in support of the Catholic stance over the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs see yesterday). The support of Dr John Sentamu whilst welcome, doesn't surprise me, it is unusual to find Dr Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury embroiling himself; quite whether this a reflection of him being worried about being left behind (I suppose we could run a "No Archbishop Left Behind" campaign) or a genuine realisation that Christian belief and political correctness are incompatible remains to be seen.
In any event according to report, Blair and Kelly are turning on the horns of a dilemma and the cabinet (lefties keen to promote a perverse vision of a politically correct "family") are showing no signs of backing down.
Whilst I'm against the SORs, both for moral and practical reasons, if they are passed without any religious exemptions, there will be benefits. The Anglican Church isn't the only one riddled with leftie surrender monkeys, the Catholic Church has it's fair share too, although they tend to be less publicly vociferous; it has always been my view that socialism and Christianity are incompatible, but these lefties have been a cross that we've had to bear.
If the state adopts the route as appears likely, then it will be clear to all that Christian belief isn't compatible with the socialist state which in turn will enable Christians to take more accurate theological political positions on many matters. The leftie priest won't be able to talk about "social justice" and "recommend" a position that ultimately leads to theological incompatibility, as that incompatibility will be visible from the outset.
If Labour continues down this route, they'll force Christians into politics as Christians.
The Times reports on the Anglican hierarchy sending a letter in support of the Catholic stance over the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs see yesterday). The support of Dr John Sentamu whilst welcome, doesn't surprise me, it is unusual to find Dr Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury embroiling himself; quite whether this a reflection of him being worried about being left behind (I suppose we could run a "No Archbishop Left Behind" campaign) or a genuine realisation that Christian belief and political correctness are incompatible remains to be seen.
In any event according to report, Blair and Kelly are turning on the horns of a dilemma and the cabinet (lefties keen to promote a perverse vision of a politically correct "family") are showing no signs of backing down.
Whilst I'm against the SORs, both for moral and practical reasons, if they are passed without any religious exemptions, there will be benefits. The Anglican Church isn't the only one riddled with leftie surrender monkeys, the Catholic Church has it's fair share too, although they tend to be less publicly vociferous; it has always been my view that socialism and Christianity are incompatible, but these lefties have been a cross that we've had to bear.
If the state adopts the route as appears likely, then it will be clear to all that Christian belief isn't compatible with the socialist state which in turn will enable Christians to take more accurate theological political positions on many matters. The leftie priest won't be able to talk about "social justice" and "recommend" a position that ultimately leads to theological incompatibility, as that incompatibility will be visible from the outset.
If Labour continues down this route, they'll force Christians into politics as Christians.
Labels: Church and State
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Protests - Compare and contrast
The Times reports on the awaited passenger protest on First Great Western trains, apparently an appalling service has been ongoing for quite some time. The idea of the protest was to board the trains without paying the fare, and presenting a fake protest ticket when requested.
The pathetic public couldn't even muster up enough courage and backbone for this simple non-consequential protest "Commuters took the fake tickets, but most also queued at the ticket widows to buy real ones." Why bother? You should be sending a message to the company and depriving them of their daily takings. Even the company know they're in the wrong: "The train company decided that pursuing non-paying rebels was not the thing to do in front of news cameras..." Both the passengers and the company know the passengers are being "shafted", but the company (either this one or another) needs the passengers more than the passengers need the company, but because the company is bigger than an individual, they (the passengers) sit back and accept it, allowing themselves to be bullied.
If they were charging to take them to prison (or worse), they'd still pay the fare.
On the other hand we have the Catholic Church and the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs as I shall refer to them). Now as regards lifestyle choices, I believe in freedom provided no harm is done to others, but that doesn't mean I agree with every choice made. Nor does it mean I have to cater for all choices, of course in a free market any choices not catered for by one will by supplied by another (if there's any demand) and it isn't really an area for legislation at all.
Nevertheless the SORs would ensure that Catholic adoption agencies could no longer choose not to use homosexual couples for adoption purposes, as this would be discriminatory. Now for Catholics, homosexual behaviour (along with many other types) is immoral; no amount of legislation, publicity, wishy washy niceness or anything else can alter that; of course it's a matter for the individuals concerned, but when you are responsible for placing a child into the care of others, you have to consider the best interests of the child, not within the context of the BBC, or the media or society, but you must be guided by your own morality and if your morality tells you a certain behaviour is wrong, then you cannot place children into that environment, no matter how many regulations come out of the closet.
"Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda, said: “I suspect the bishops are hopelessly out of step with ordinary Catholics on this. Surely all that counts is the best interests of the child.”" Well no the bishops are in step with ordinary Catholics on this, most Catholics will not be too bothered by what people do and what lifestyle choices they make, but you cannot make the immoral, moral, by regulations and legislation. I for one, don't allow legislation or the media to affect my morality and neither do I suspect do the majority of ordinary Catholics.
The Catholic Church is threatening to, and will close its adoption agencies rather than compromise on morality. The passengers will do and accept anything rather than even risk upsetting the apple cart.
The pathetic public couldn't even muster up enough courage and backbone for this simple non-consequential protest "Commuters took the fake tickets, but most also queued at the ticket widows to buy real ones." Why bother? You should be sending a message to the company and depriving them of their daily takings. Even the company know they're in the wrong: "The train company decided that pursuing non-paying rebels was not the thing to do in front of news cameras..." Both the passengers and the company know the passengers are being "shafted", but the company (either this one or another) needs the passengers more than the passengers need the company, but because the company is bigger than an individual, they (the passengers) sit back and accept it, allowing themselves to be bullied.
If they were charging to take them to prison (or worse), they'd still pay the fare.
On the other hand we have the Catholic Church and the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs as I shall refer to them). Now as regards lifestyle choices, I believe in freedom provided no harm is done to others, but that doesn't mean I agree with every choice made. Nor does it mean I have to cater for all choices, of course in a free market any choices not catered for by one will by supplied by another (if there's any demand) and it isn't really an area for legislation at all.
Nevertheless the SORs would ensure that Catholic adoption agencies could no longer choose not to use homosexual couples for adoption purposes, as this would be discriminatory. Now for Catholics, homosexual behaviour (along with many other types) is immoral; no amount of legislation, publicity, wishy washy niceness or anything else can alter that; of course it's a matter for the individuals concerned, but when you are responsible for placing a child into the care of others, you have to consider the best interests of the child, not within the context of the BBC, or the media or society, but you must be guided by your own morality and if your morality tells you a certain behaviour is wrong, then you cannot place children into that environment, no matter how many regulations come out of the closet.
"Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda, said: “I suspect the bishops are hopelessly out of step with ordinary Catholics on this. Surely all that counts is the best interests of the child.”" Well no the bishops are in step with ordinary Catholics on this, most Catholics will not be too bothered by what people do and what lifestyle choices they make, but you cannot make the immoral, moral, by regulations and legislation. I for one, don't allow legislation or the media to affect my morality and neither do I suspect do the majority of ordinary Catholics.
The Catholic Church is threatening to, and will close its adoption agencies rather than compromise on morality. The passengers will do and accept anything rather than even risk upsetting the apple cart.
Tags: protest, Church and State
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Church and State, protest
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Church and State
The Daily Mail reports here on The Sexual Orientation Regulations which should become law in April.
Anyway a great row is brewing between the government and the Catholic Church over the issue; the problem being that so called discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be illegal and of course the Catholic Church has always maintained a robust moral stance on this matter.
My personal view is that homosexuality is immoral, but morality is a private matter for the individual concerned. When it comes to business matters, I generally suspend moral judgements, (obviously not fully - I wouldn't trade with an enemy). Likewise in social matters, I don't expect people to pass some sort of morality test before socialising with them, I don't force my morality on others, and equally I expect to be free from the morality of others.
Where the Church is concerned the situation is totally different, they have to follow the theological doctrines. The Church cannot, with authority, approve of homosexuality, but unlike the individual, the Church isn't free to ignore morality, people can be forgiven their sins, but they have to repent. Sin has nothing to do with the law of the land (although there is often overlap), but it has everything to do with morality. This sort of discrimination though is only permissible in areas concerning morality; so say in selling ordinary candles, it would be wrong for the Church to refuse to sell such candles to persons because of their morality.
Looking at adoption, which is where this row is centred, the Church has a duty to ensure the best for those children in their care, and that has to include moral well-being. The Church must always judge it's own morality as superior to that of any state and accordingly cannot and should not allow the state to interfere in these matters. They cannot in all conscience give those children into the care of those whose morality they disapprove of, no matter how many laws are passed.
I find the whole thing rather ironic, especially given this from the report: "The attack is particularly sharp because Catholic bishops in England have traditionally leaned, like many of their flock, towards support for the Labour Party.
They have published guidance on Catholic teaching in advance of elections that has broadly supported Labour. "
I would agree with that statement from my experience, and I've always thought that support to be incompatible with true Catholic values. I hope that some in the Church are starting to wake up what socialism and Labour are really all about.
Anyway a great row is brewing between the government and the Catholic Church over the issue; the problem being that so called discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be illegal and of course the Catholic Church has always maintained a robust moral stance on this matter.
My personal view is that homosexuality is immoral, but morality is a private matter for the individual concerned. When it comes to business matters, I generally suspend moral judgements, (obviously not fully - I wouldn't trade with an enemy). Likewise in social matters, I don't expect people to pass some sort of morality test before socialising with them, I don't force my morality on others, and equally I expect to be free from the morality of others.
Where the Church is concerned the situation is totally different, they have to follow the theological doctrines. The Church cannot, with authority, approve of homosexuality, but unlike the individual, the Church isn't free to ignore morality, people can be forgiven their sins, but they have to repent. Sin has nothing to do with the law of the land (although there is often overlap), but it has everything to do with morality. This sort of discrimination though is only permissible in areas concerning morality; so say in selling ordinary candles, it would be wrong for the Church to refuse to sell such candles to persons because of their morality.
Looking at adoption, which is where this row is centred, the Church has a duty to ensure the best for those children in their care, and that has to include moral well-being. The Church must always judge it's own morality as superior to that of any state and accordingly cannot and should not allow the state to interfere in these matters. They cannot in all conscience give those children into the care of those whose morality they disapprove of, no matter how many laws are passed.
I find the whole thing rather ironic, especially given this from the report: "The attack is particularly sharp because Catholic bishops in England have traditionally leaned, like many of their flock, towards support for the Labour Party.
They have published guidance on Catholic teaching in advance of elections that has broadly supported Labour. "
I would agree with that statement from my experience, and I've always thought that support to be incompatible with true Catholic values. I hope that some in the Church are starting to wake up what socialism and Labour are really all about.
Tags: religion, liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Church and State
