As important as the "gay marriage" issue is to society in the abstract in reality it is of no importance to most people. Each year less than 6,000 civil partnership ceremonies take place, one may expect less "gay marriages" to take place. Even in the gay community it is not a major issue, some of the first people who signed the Coalition for Marriage petition here might well define themselves as being Catholic members of that community.
So, what is the Government up to?
I thought "Dave" was just trying to distance himself from "Sir Tufton Bufton" and "Section 28" Conservatism by saying he supports gay marriage because he was a Conservative, trying to say we are not the "Nasty Party" but I think there is more. Most Conservatives of course don't give a fig about it.
If you want to know Government is up to look at the up-coming budget, it is the economy, stupid, but actually it is a very great deal more.
When Mrs Thatcher did her great bit of social re-engineering in the 1980s, with her "no such thing as society", the biggest, most intellectually articulate source of opposition was the C of E's document "Faith in the City" which highlighted the damage her policies were doing to the poorest and the fabric of our society. The CofE ceased to be the Tory Party at Prayer and became its enemy.
Whilst Christians are getting angry about the marriage issue and being accused of, crime of crimes, homophobia - see Brendan O'Neil's article on the fall of Abp Sentamu - the govermnent are heading to removing Sunday trading, at the moment, ad experimentum - no longer an issue which gets Christians too upset but up it does upset those involved protecting the rights of low-paid service and shopworkers and their family life. Also under attack are child allowances, not just for the wealthy but across the board, suggestions are being made for a curb on it for larger families. Similarly the end of collective bargaining for public sector employees, were there will be a cut in the pay of the some of the least well off, it is going to affect so many families. All the straws in the wind suggest the Cameron government are intent on pushing unbridled Capitalism.
Already as a parish priest in a very mixed parish I notice an increase in those who beg and those who are homeless, the increased number of people who are either unemployed or who have had hours - therefore their incomes - cut. We are in for a time of cuts and for a dismantling of familiar British institutions which will hurt the poor and families.
The organisations that care for the poor are increasingly having what help the government offered pruned heavily, so much so that those who used our parish facilities for education, training, advocacy can no longer afford either the rent, we cut the charges, or to pay helpers.
Dr Williams self described as "a bearded leftie", similarly, the inclinations of Catholic bishops too, is to the political left, formed by an "fundamental option for the poor" are the natural and historic critics such policies. Getting Christian leaders excited by "gay marriage" and forcing them into what appears a politically "reactionary" position means that not only are they distracted from any criticism of government cuts and social re-ordering but also, amongst the chattering classes of the media, their criticism is discredited and the group that has traditionally championed the poor and oppressed is marginalised.
A clever bit of politics but no help for the needy.
12 comments:
Sadly, the left claims to help the poor more than the right and stick the more radical, immoral agendas, which put the good Catholics off such politicians, with those good causes. There has to be rational examination of all these goals. A Catholic cannot just follow one party and stay in grace.
Intersting post and much to agree with. But don't be taken in by Brendan O'Neill's posturing. He is a well known contrarian - part of a coterie of former leaders of the pro-Serbian nationalist Revolutionary Communist Party, along with Claire Fox and Frank Furedi - who enjoys inventing arguments to make a liberatarian (and anti-liberal) point. Even if liberals were not now turning on John Sentamu (are they really?), O'Neill would manufacture an argument to make his point.
Those of us who watch that bunch of Charlatans like a rabbit watches a snake would have recognised that the "Marriage Debate " was just a smoke screen.
Much more serious mischief is afoot,abolishing Sunday will be another form of Slavery,reducing the income of the poorest will make them more compliant,flogging off the affordable Social Housing,driving up the cost of other housing and then introducing a Mansion Tax.
There is no end to the ingenuity of the Berks running the country.
Every last vestige of what we have come to value is being handed over to the very people who have nearly brought us to our knees.
I see what you mean but I don't think Dave and the others have really thought it through that much. It seems to me the whole gay marriage nonsense was just part of a smokey back-room deal which meant the Lib Dems went with the Conservatives rather than the Labour party.
I think it must have also been the deal clincher because the Conservatives kept it very, very quiet and they also seem to have said 'and yes, by the way' you can have a sham 'consultation' as well which means it won't even be up for discussion. The Lib Dems couldn't resist it as a lot of them hate the traditional view on marriage and Christianity anyway and it gave them a key social policy.
All in all though I think the mainstream policitians have fallen asleep on the job and don't seem to have cottoned on to the fact they are being played like a fiddle by liberal/feminist/neo-marxist/queer theory extremists. All these wackos converge on one point. The importance of the family. Feminists hate the family because it oppresses women; marxists hate the family because it stands between the individual and the state; queer theorists hate the family because this is where homophobia starts. What's the solution?. Tear down marriage and then you can automatically redefine the oppressor 'family' and destroy it. In schools up and down the country PHSE classes will now have to be re-written as 'family' as we know it will have to be redefined. Is it one man one woman or one man one man; what about group marriages?; what about polygamy?. Its better than winning the pools to an activist, better than winning a general election because you have just in one foul swoop re-created society. The whole Christian basis of society i.e. marriage and the family has just been rejected. Its their ultimate goal.
Characters like Peter Tatchell (older people here will remember him from the marxist infiltration of the Labour party in the 1980's - the so called Militant tendancy) don't stand a chance getting elected in mainstream politics because no one likes them or trusts them and they are too extreme. Their only chance is to form pressure groups/lobby groups and try and influence things that way. That's what I reckon he and others have done here and they are now on the brink of a victory they couldn't have dreamed of. I wonder who he has on his e-mail list and Skypes?. There does seem to be some co-ordination here.
Our politicians are day-dreaming and don't seem to see what's at stake or where its coming from. Only the Church is trying to wake them up. The problem is of course after 40/50 years of contraception, abortion, divorce, binge drinking, drug taking, pornography, consumer culture et al the country is in such a morally dilapidated state it too doesn't know whether its coming or going either. The devil has tilled the soil well and now he is going for a knock-out blow again.
The gay marriage issue has brought together a weird collection of allies all of whom hate traditional marriage and the family for different reasons. For now they will fight with a united front be they aetheists, agnostics, neo-marxists, queer theorists or just plain malcontents and contrarians. Afterwards though if they succeed it will be chaos but I don't think any of them think much beyond the next move.
BJC
Anonymous
Having been recruited by Militant when I was a member of the Labour Party Young Socialists at the age of 16 I can assure that Peter Tatchell was not of that ilk. Militant was a Trotskyist group - which has now morphed into the Socialist Party - and not noted for it support for gay rights. Indeed, it was fairly homophobic. Tatchell's politics were of the libertarian marxist sort. Sorry to split hairs here but there are - or were - as many varieties on the left as there are Protestant sects. Only a few of them were friendly towards gay people back in the 1980s.
When the 'hate police'start knocking on presbytery doors to enquire why Fr.refused to officiate at adam and steve's marriage perhaps then the Church will awake to the danger facing the traditional family.
Amfortas
My memories are wrong then. I always associated Tatchell with Militant for some reason.
My wider point is that for activists like him this was never really about equality and gay marriage. These were just a means to an end. What this was really all about was destroying/remoulding the family and therefore remoulding society around it. If they get their way all of this junk will be taught in our schools because we have a national curriculum and it will be legal. It will all go on the PHSE syllabus. The net result is that their madness is taught to the next generation as 'normal' and they get what they want - a thorough-going reshaping of society. The activists see the the importance of what's at stake whereas our mainstream politicians don't and seem to think its a harmless little concession on equality. How wrong they are. They are being played like a fiddle - that's my take on it anyway.
What we are seeing now is a temporary alliance of agnostics, atheists, feminists, neo-marxists, queer theorists, social liberals, liberal Catholics, the indifferent et al who sense a historic moment to bring down "Big Blue' i.e. the Church and remould Western society and/or the Church itself. Some are useful idiots for the others like the liberal Catholics but ultimately the whole 'gay marriage' issue is just a means to an end. The real thing the activists want to change is our notions of the family. The Church then becomes public enemy number one because she is the natural protector and promoter of traditional marriage and the family and is the bedrock of Western civilisation. And ultimately of course they have to overthrow the Church to usher in their own mad little 'civilisation'.
BJC
Agreed! So what do we do about it?
My suggestion is that the Church must raise the anti on positive, good humoured, uncompromising clear teaching on marriage including Humanae Vitae, chastity, abortion and the Church's social teaching.
It must also offer support and resources to Catholics in the public sector who have seen all this coming in equal ops and diversity "training".
My hope there is that my "training", at least, was so mind numbingly boring that many switched off.
Interestingly, my greatest ally was a Muslim colleague. I've learnt that we must get to know our local Muslim communities. We must seek out what we have in common as well as facing what divides us.
Well, at the moment, I see both the US and the UK being affected by 'the evil one' and his minions. Dark days for Christians or indeed, anyone with 'normal' family values...and that goes for Jews, Muslims, etc too. We Catholics need to find common cause when we are all under attack like this. Marxism has always sought to destroy the family unit in favor of the collective in order to raise sheeple and they want to destroy belief in God or marginalize it because God is bigger than the state, and they can't stand competition - because it leaves sole authority with them. And that's where they want it. If I had children in a government run school I'd be very frightened for them with the brainwashing that goes on these days. Parents are being undermined at every turn.
I fear what you say is true, but must correct you on the Thatcher quotation. You are falling into the trap of quoting only the bit chosen by the left. This what she actually said, which is in fact quite Catholic:
"There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."
Do we argue with that?
Is that a Lion?
The Baroness was very good with the Gobbledegook,it was all swallowed by her sycophantic hangers-on as great profound sayings.Her most famous was a misinterpretation of St Francis of Assisi and she has been well and truly castigated for it.
On Society she said in 1987 in Womans Own. There is no such thing as society.There are individual men and women,and there are families.
She never said anything original in her whole life.
It will take a long time for us to get over the damage done by Britain's first female Prime Minister.
Post a Comment