SAINT MARY OF THE CROSS
The debate over “same-sex marriage” is essentially a clash between children’s rights and the demands of certain adults.
Think about it.
Opposing unjust discrimination against homosexuals can be achieved without overturning the meaning and definition of marriage.
The nature of marriage makes marriage the community’s institution which symbolises and safeguards the reproductive relationship between a man and a woman.
That’s how we protect the desirability of children to know their biological origins and, when possible, to be raised by their biological parents.
Living-together arrangements which don’t fit this description are not marriage and should be called something else.
Many Muslims around the world believe that establishing “caliphates” is the will of Allah.
But whenever one Muslim group establishes a dictatorship — calling it a caliphate — other groups will shed Islamic blood seeking to start their own rival caliphate.
It’s something Western nations can, in justice, do nothing about.
Making war is “just” only if:
(i) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations is lasting, grave, and certain;
(ii) all other means of ending it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
(iii) there must be serious prospects of success;
(iv) the use of arms must not produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated.
The IS violence needs to be curbed: but not by us.
It can only be achieved by other nearby Islamic states — plus worldwide moral pressure of “moderate” Muslims and “moderate” Muslim spiritual leaders.
Some say there’s no such thing as “moderate” Muslims.
Fortunately that isn’t true.
The kind of Muslims who give Australian security agents tip-offs regarding dangerous would-be jihadists – they obviously exist.
As pointed out on this site on October 8 . . . .
And as was also obvious, anyway, to anyone really thinking about it . . . .
(that is, to almost anybody except our media . . . .)
The recent Vatican Synod on the Family made no move to approve of same-sex “marriage”. ( * see below)
The Church still urges that homosexually-active persons shouldn’t be treated un-fairly but – to be fair to them and to everybody else — their relationships must be recognised as having nothing basically in common with natural marriage.
It is certainly to be hoped that homosexual persons will never give up seeking for the God who loves us all.
And that they may be able, by his help, to lead lives that are pleasing to him and that demonstrate God-inspired love to all around them.
What other reason is there to have a life at all?
( * In the Synod’s own words, “There is no reason to assimilate or establish analogies, even remote ones, between homosexual unions and God’s design for marriage and the family.” )
Some Council of Europe politicians, petitioning for an inquiry, have written how commercial surrogacy “manipulates the identity and parentage of children and robs them of any claim to their gestational carrier, which recent research points to being harmful to the development and wellbeing of the baby.” *
Research? Did we really need research to work that out?
Research smacks of science . . . science implies statistical manipulatings . . . with results likely favouring the entity commissioning the research.
Don’t answers to ethical questions ultimately come down to considerations of right and wrong.
Dhimmitude means the status of a non-Muslim subject in an Islamic state.
I suppose it could, in principle, be co-opted and used as a description of people taking a soft line by acquiescing to unethical/intolerant governments and laws in general.
Do you pay income tax to the Australian government?
If so, your money is used to help pay Medicare refunds for operations to abort unborn babies.
If you don’t believe in abortion, you will withhold your money from the Oz Taxation Department.
But it is more comfortable to pay.
Abortion is, to many, a black and white issue.
But not to those who pay tax, as above.
It’s no good listening to anything such people might say to the contrary.
Jesus Christ was a preacher.
Whatever else we think about him, that cannot be denied.
His key themes were:
(i) the impending, soon-coming establishment of what he called the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven
(ii) that God is our Father
(iii) that people will be judged by God on the basis of how they treated their fellow beings.
It seems that he didn’t greatly emphasise that he himself was God or should be understood in terms of God being a Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
Is a kingdom the same as a caliphate?
* * *
If Jesus was alive on earth today, would he again tell a story to illustrate how practical love and compassion trump details of doctrine and creed in God’s eyes?
Jesus spoke then of the “Good Samaritan” to make that point — the Samaritans being a cult rejected by most Jews of the time.
If he was now preaching, would he make the same point by telling of a “Good Muslim”?
These questions interest me.
I am not sure of the right answers.