Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Doesn't anyone see the irony here?
Rachel Dolezal considers herself to be a black woman, even though there is not one gene to warrant this identification. But she claims to be "black" because she thinks of herself as "black".
And Bruce Jenner, who had gender-changing surgery, because he thinks he is a "woman".
Glad to see that one journalist did (see the irony, that is).
Robson really struck home with me when he concluded "I always wanted to be tall".
at 12:51 PM
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Another tragedy in the US as a lone man killed 9 people inside a Baptist church, while members were holding a prayer meeting.
And the inevitable question arises: should there be more gun control in the US?
For once, I have to agree with President Obama as he said that this simply does not occur in other countries with the regularity that it does in the US, and the problem is guns.
Now, I know that those who believe in the right of private citizens will cite the second amendment of the constitution which gives the regular folks the right to "bear arms". But this amendment comes from a time when people really did need to protect themselves from violent assaults by their enemies and to hold their own against intrusive government. But the times have changed, and don't we now protect ourselves with the law and with our words, instead of our weapons?
The latest perpetrator used a hand gun, supposedly the one his father gave to him as a gift. And gun laws allow guns to be exchanged within a family. But this guy is nuts, surely anyone can see that, except perhaps the father who gave him the gun.
But if there had been no gun to be given, those nine people would be alive now.
There is no longer any need to protect yourself from the overreaching government with a weapon; we now have our courts and our logic and our words to do our fighting. The time for violence with weapons is past. If a psychopath gets violent, without a gun, he will have to resort to a weapon like a knife which does a lot less damage.
I for one am in favour of more gun control. I just do not see the need for private citizens to have guns in their homes. Let those who disagree leave a comment.
Friday, June 5, 2015
And you thought it was about marriage? How wrong you were. All the commentary on how the referendum was ‘about more than marriage’, how it went ‘beyond the letter of the law’ to touch on something deeper, something psychic, confirms that the campaign for gay marriage is not about achieving social equality — no, it’s about securing parity of esteem, which is very different.
What is being sought through gay marriage is not the securing of rights but the boosting of esteem. And this is a problem for those of us who believe in liberty. For where old, positive forms of social equality were a narrowly legal accomplishment, concerned simply with either removing discriminatory laws or passing legislation forbidding discrimination at work or in the public sphere, cultural equality is far more about… well, culture; the general outlook; even people’s attitudes. It is not satisfied with simply legislating against discrimination and then allowing people to get on with their lives; rather, it is concerned with reshaping the cultural climate, discussion, how people express themselves in relation to certain groups.
This is why we have seen, across the West, the bizarre ‘gay cake’ phenomenon, where there are more and more cases of traditionalist bakers (and other businesses) being purposefully approached by campaigners to provide services to gay weddings. The aim of this very modern form of religious persecution is to discover and expose those whose attitudes have not yet been corrected by the top-down enforcement of parity of esteem, of protected feelings, for gays. That cultural equality is concerned not merely with altering laws, but with reshaping culture and even belief itself, is clear from the growing trend for harassing those who do not bow before the altar of gay marriage. ....
...... That is, all must agree, all must partake; there can be no room for the exercise of individual conscience when it comes to the engineering of a new cultural climate.
Years ago, I tried to read After the Ball, the (apparently) definitive book on how to advance the gay agenda. I gave up after about 40 pages, it was just so depressing. All I can recall is how Kurt Madsen said that it is necessary to get the camel's nose under the tent in order to get the entire camel in later. That beginning, he said, was to portray gays as victims and to garner sympathy for them from the majority of people. And he proceeded to outline how gay activists were to promote the "gay agenda" until society accepted them as they were, without exception.
It seems that they have succeeded. We now live in a world where you are considered "intolerant" and "bigoted" if you don't accept the homosexual lifestyle. Upholding the Christian values of traditional marriage will soon be considered wrong, and those who do will be punished in some way. Just look at the bakers who decline to make a cake for a gay wedding. It is not about their refusal to bake that cake, it is about their stating that they disagree with the values of the homosexual lifestyle and that is just not acceptable to those who are in the gay bleachers. Look at the attack on the Duggar family who handled the crisis in their family in an appropriate way when it happened. But the fact that they had some moral problems has made them the target of all those who hate Christians.
So, unless we want to be cowed by this turn of events, we must stand up and defend the values that we hold. If you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, don't be afraid to say so. You have that right and those who think you don't, are stealing your freedom from you.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Same-sex marriage, gender transitions, reproductive technology, the list seems endless of what has been unleashed by the sexual revolution.
Fr. Dwight Longenecker has a very good article on this in NC Register.
Catholics, who have the strongest theological, anthropological, ethical and historical grounds for defining marriage, rightly see the crisis in marriage. But we really haven’t seen anything yet. As reproductive technologies continue to become more widely available on a global scale, the confusion about sexuality and marriage will be spread to the whole human race. The experience of the developed world has shown that while reproductive technologies can be used to turn the baby-machine both off and on, it is most frequently turned off. The demographic winter that is approaching will not only be for the developing world, but for our entire race, and there is only one solution for the problem.His conclusion is that
The solution is for Catholics to understand clearly the simple facts of natural human sexuality, to teach them to our children and to live them out to the best of our ability. The solution is to offer an attractive, pro-life alternative by building strong, vibrant and creative families, along with dynamic human communities.
I hope that priests read this and pluck up the courage to speak of it to their congregations. Nothing will be gained by ignoring the elephant in the room. And much can be gained by tackling the problem head on.