3/11/2012

Let's see if they really want Church and State divided

Yet again the British government seek to push their country further and further into the moral abyss.


It was with sadness I learnt that the British government are seeking to make Gay "Marriage" legal.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Primate of Scotland, said that the "grotesque" plans would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" if implemented.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, leader of the Church in England and Wales said changing the nature of marriage would be a "profoundly radical step" that would reduce its effectiveness and significance.

"There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children.


"Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible."

This liberal agenda is being fought in many Christian countries across the world and I proud of the Church for being the main vocal critic of such repugnant plans.

For any Christian to even consider supporting such a divergence is in direct contrast to God's law as laid down in both the Book of Genesis and the Gospel of Mark.

From time immemorial Marriage has been the union of a man and woman under God, it has never been and should never be allowed to become a tool to advance the liberal homosexual agenda.

It has always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. For if we follow in that path of decay how long before people want to be allowed to "marry" their animals and lay with them.

Marriage is a religious institution and once which many in the liberal agenda mistakenly believe can be used to further their own ends. So, in that vein in order to protect the institution of marriage I would seek the state to remove itself from the religious affairs of the various religions.

Most of the liberals seeking to advance this notion of Gay "Marriage" also seek further separation of Church and State so let’s see if the practise what they preach, pardon the pun.

I would see Marriage return to the preserve of the religions only and let the state recognise any union it wishes through civil partnerships.

That would mean that married couples would be recognised as civil partners under the law with the same rights and responsibilities as all homosexual couples.

Isn't that the equality they are seeking? Or is it, as I suspect, they are seeking to undermine the religious institution of marriage?

3 comments:

Evan said...

It is this mix of catholic dogma in one post that seamlessly evolves to republican politics in other posts creates and feeds the unionist perception that the religion and political philosophy are some how linked. It also adds credence to the argument that the war in Ireland historically has been religious rather than anti colonial. Whilst I don't expect you to lie about your personal beliefs there is no harm in exercising a little bit of 'separation of church and state' thinking. Especially when your personal views contradict party policy. It is unhelpful and a discredit, especially when it is done so flippantly in public. I say that as a catholic and party member.

Chris Gaskin said...

Evan


I'm a Catholic Republican, why would my topics of discussion be surprising? The war in Ireland historically has been a mixture of both religion and colonialism, how else would you explain the Penal Laws, Tithe Acts etc.


Are you suggesting I operate a separation of Church and State in my head? Or merely that I refrain from commenting on certain topics?


So, should one only comment on topics when they agree with Sinn Fein party policy? I'm genuinely interested in the response because even though I am no longer a party member even when I was one I was at pains to make clear that this was not a party blog, it was mine.


I never had any problem speaking both within party structures and outside of them about issues that I was not in agreement with the party on.


I'm also keen to understand how these sorts of views are unhelpful and a discredit, to whom is that the case?


I hope my responses didn't come across as aggressive as that was not my intention, I am genuinely interested in the responses.

Evan said...

Again, I think muddying the issue off religion and politics is unhelpful to the republican message. Britain's policy has always been to present the conflict in Ireland as one of religious conflict as to mask its own history of colonialism in Ireland. If Britains colonial settlers had have been catholics themselves it wouldn't have justified their actions anymore than that of our protestant settlers. It just so happens that in most instances the best way of tracing our cultural & national identity is by the predominant religious practises of our ancestors. It doesn't mean that the conflict itself was about religion. Not all catholics are republican/nationalist. Not all protestants are loyalist/unionist. Conceeding to the point that the conflict in Ireland's motiviation is religious rather than politicial is also to say that past efforts for national liberation where secterian. Thats unacceptable. It is irresponsible to say otherwise and it is to effectively shoot ourselves as in the foot from a PR perspective.
When I speak about the 'war in Ireland' I mean the politicial struggles of Irish republican's for national liberation. Freedom of concious is apart of republican political philosophy but who can honestly say they faught a war on the basis of their religious beliefs alone. That's completely misguided and ignorant of greater political objectives of their time.
The tagline of your blog is 'an Irish republican perspective on life'. One can denote from that this is a) a political blog and b) generally representitive of the views of an Irish republican. However, many of your posts are about your personal religious convictions. Whilst you're entitled to hold those views as much as anyone else one could be forgiven for reading your blog and making some sort of religious-political connection between Irish republicanism and catholicism, when in actual fact there is none. When I say excercise some 'separation of church and state' thinking I basically ment couldn't you reserve your religious views for maybe a separate page or another blog?
Forgive me for thinking that you where still a Sinn Féin party member. I assued you still where because I didn't hear otherwise. Normally, party members exercise greater discipline in public when they disagree with minor policy issue, hence my reaction.
I found your posts unhelpful because of the veiled links presented in this blog between Irish republicanism and catholicism. Also, earlier assuming that you where a party member, your out of sync views on marriage equality would have otherwise tainted the progressive position the party has adopted.