Those who believe that democracy is a sham now have before them a proof that they can hold up in public. The political agenda of the ‘elite’ has taken precedence over all the usual democratic procedures. In the UK and France the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) is being forced through both parliaments without due regard for consultation with the electorate.
The French government under President Hollande claim legitimacy on the basis of 53% of the vote at the election last year. This premise is false as SSM was not overtly discussed at the time of the election. Many of the electorate would have merely cast their vote to get rid of the previous incumbent, Sarkozy. Some 400,000 people protesting on the streets suggest that it does not command wide support. In England no political party had an overall majority and thus no mandate to impose SSM, which no Party raised prior to the election. The coalition government are simply pushing it through.
It does not matter what your individual stance on the issue is, the real story concerns the political agenda of the ‘elite’ and why single sex marriage is being rolled out globally. Who is behind this agenda and why single sex marriage at this particular time?
Let us not pretend that society welcomes this change to their otherwise orthodox lives. Let us not pretend that this is a necessary change. Let us not pretend that politicians are pursuing their course of action because of a groundswell of support. This is part of a much larger political agenda with a comprehensive perspective in mind. That it is being promoted worldwide tells us that it is not a locally generated programme. It would seem that local politicians are not in control and many no doubt will be against it but are, like us, being railroaded into accepting it.
There are many stories and films about conspiracy theories and some may suspect that I am perpetuating another. Some may also suspect that if I opened my door that the ‘men in white coats’ will be waiting to usher me off. I have no plans to open the door just yet!
However, suspicion needs to be clarified and in a democracy open and frank discussion is supposed to be an integral part of the process. But as with immigration, when people have voiced an opinion or doubt they have found themselves quickly attacked as: racist, bigot, nimby, homophobic and Neanderthal etc. This is the way now with our new brand of politics, intimidation. Where intimidation is allowed to thrive a democracy cannot exist. Intimidation was and is the preserve of dictators.
I don’t know of any religion that would openly welcome homosexuals into their church. So why are political organisations, predominately of the ‘left’ (more susceptible) intent on making same sex marriage into law? Why is it so important? Many people, probably the majority get married in a Register Office, while others chose a venue to suit their preference: castle, hotel, village hall or up a mountain etc. Humanists who are non- religious provide their own wedding ceremonies. Millions don’t even bother to get married at all. So why the sudden clamour for same sex marriage in a church, a synagogue or a mosque?
The suspicion must be that marriage in a church is not the real issue. Rather it is a determined action to loosen the yoke of the church, in effect to destabilize religion. Therefore we have to consider the possibility that the Gay community is not so much being supported in a campaign for equality but are being used as a battering ram by those who want to contain religion and its perceived power now and in the future.
Homosexuals are different; they acknowledge that fact and celebrate their individuality in various ways: clubs, bars, meetings, parades etc. On the other hand, perhaps these insular settings are because they feel ostracized in society. However, they are to all intents and purposes an independent body within our community. They want respect for who they are and if respect is forthcoming it will be reciprocated. That is community!
Unfortunately, Gay people know that not all agree or accept them. That some faiths will
never reconcile themselves to acknowledge that being gay is okay. Have we reached an impasse that can only be remedied by recourse to a legal gavel? Is this a case of intransigence versus intransigence; of a simple, I will not accept ‘no’ as an answer? Is there a principle at stake? A principle is merely an opinion that your view is superior too or supersedes the other. That your view is correct is a political construct and becomes a motivation based on your belief. Is it really about equality for that is a whole different equation.
Can equality be a dictated policy handed down by those who hold power? Oh, laws can be passed; in fact we have laws; Equal pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1985, have they delivered the sought after goal? NO! Both these laws came up against the ‘One Great Demagogue’ – Capitalism! Not that the ‘One Great Demagogue’ would interfere in gay marriage but it’s illustrative that you can’t just pass laws and expect compliance forthwith or on going. You cannot force people to download your beliefs and delete their own. Who is right them or you? It’s a political catch 22. Take it away, Frankie – ‘Two Tribes go to war…’
Recent history has given us a lesson on forcing people to live together. With the disintegration of the Communist Bloc and in consequence the great communist experiment of forcing people to live cohesively, burst. The resultant break up of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia witnessed an eruption of sectarianism, and hatred spewed from every vent. Thousands died, neighbour murdered neighbour and genocide was only avoided by sending in the troops.
Now that the Junta has relaxed their iron grip on the people of Burma sectarianism has raised its ugly head and scores have died. Pent up feelings need to be let out and rationalized before they become a source of hatred.
The riots in Turkey this week (June 2013) are an indication of how pent up anger can suddenly explode onto our streets. The decision to bulldoze a local park in a small town fed into a national frustration and the petrol bomb came out.
An interesting point is raised by the Secular Society in their statement that “…individuals have rights, ideas do not.” However, if the individual has a thought and wants that thought to be transmuted into a benefit for themselves and/or those who share a common view, then they are promoting a political doctrine. Therefore taking a lead from the secularists, the idea has no rights. A further point of clarification is required here; does the individual have more rights than the community or society? If so, what is the point of democracy?
Another point raised is as follows: “Secularism seeks to ensure and protect freedom of religious belief and practice for all citizens”. All sounds positive until you read the ‘rider’. “…insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights of others”. The question therefore is; how does the marriage of a heterosexual couple in a church ‘impinge disproportionately’ on the rights of others? The answer may lie with another statement, “Secularism champions human rights above discriminatory religious demands”. It would seem to me that the church simply want to maintain the status quo, to continue a process that has been in place for centuries, without causing harm to anyone. As alluded to earlier, there are many places and different ways in which a couple can get married. Is there an ulterior motive for insisting on a church wedding? Also, note the word ‘above’ in the sentence, this tells us that human rights supersedes all religious conviction. We now have a clear political hierarchy that supersedes all other belief systems.
What puzzles me is a further statement from the secular group, “It ensures that religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of the state, and makes sure the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs”. Hm. Colour me blushing.
It’s a very complicated business this philosophy lark. Especially when you read more of what the group believe in. “Secularism is about democracy and fairness”. Good, I can agree with that wholeheartedly. But in light of previous confusion I thought I had better examine this statement in more detail. Using my Oxford dictionary (the world’s most trusted – according to the cover) I looked up the word democracy:
- A form of government in which people can vote for a representative to govern the state on their behalf.
- A state governed by elected representatives.
- Control of a group by the majority of its members.
I then looked up the word ‘fair’.
- Treating people equally.
- Just and reasonable in the circumstances.
Needless to say I didn’t find anything that suggested the imposition of a diktat by a minority. I thought how do you treat people equally by taking away one person’s or group’s right and belief system and impose another’s right and belief system upon them? A funny old thing is equality. Excuse my cynicism!
Especially when one considers more thought from the secular school, “…does not seek to challenge the tenets of any particular religion or belief”. Back to the dictionary, I couldn’t resist, and found that a ‘tenet’ is a central principle or belief. Thus I would humbly suggest that marriage in the Christian faith is a ‘tenet’ and probably is in all religions.
It was not my intention to pick a fight with secularism, in fact I support a number of points they raise:
- Separate the state and religion.
- Ensure animals are stunned before killing them.
- Democracy and fairness ( with intent and clarification)
- Secular education for all – state and private
If you truly believe in education as a fundamental necessity for an open and constructive society then by principle you must oppose any notion of indoctrination, however, well meaning. How is a child to grow and be in control of their own thinking if the cloud of indoctrination pervades their every thought? To close to brainwashing for me! WE must remember Descartes, ‘I think therefore I am’.
If the advocates of human rights truly want equality then we must look to an old socialist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Louis Blanc 1839, Karl Marx 1875. That I would imagine is how you treat people equally; anything else is a political sham. Made up for and by political hacks!
We must be aware that human rights is based on human belief, it is a doctrine; as is religion, as is humanism, as is paganism and so on. Which one is ‘above’ the others will depend entirely on who holds the power.
Few should need reminding that two of the greatest proponents of equality in the 20th century were: Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, both devout religious men. A little earlier, we had Karl Marx, who advocated equality without the ‘opium’ of religion. Going back even further we have William Shakespeare, who through his character Shylock, in the Merchant of Venice, questioned religious prejudice and inequality with the retort; “ if you prick us, do we not bleed.” I would contend that religion at its inception and by character is about equality. History is abound with champions and still we labour.
We may never know the logic behind the compulsion to introduce same sex marriage into the church. From one standpoint it is all about control, to ensure that in the future religion cannot override the liberal outlook of society. A further viewpoint that should be considered is that human rights legislation is being used forcibly to manipulate society. The law has become the ‘Great Oracle Deliverer’. Be warned, imposition is the tool of the jejune.