A revolutionary act

By now many bloggers will have followed the example of Dr Joseph Shaw and added the Coalition for Marriage advertisement by way of expressing support for Archbishop Cranmer, who despite being a long-dead heretic, remains, in my humble opinion, the best religio-politico blogger on the net. It is a shame that His Grace is long since deceased, in his current incarnation he stands head and shoulders above the rest of the field of potential candidates for the see of Canterbury.

Neil Addison has the URL of the banner on his site, for anyone experiencing difficulties in uploading the advertisement to their sidebar. Every single proponent of free speech must stand up and prepare to be counted against this moral tyranny.

I cannot say anything that has not already been eloquently articulated elsewhere, suffice to say Orwell would be spinning. That’s if he’s not already in terms of the execrable, mediocre sub-GCSE level ranting that is spewed out by bullies, bigots and plagiarists that passes as political writing these days and awarded recognition by the liberal ‘elite’ in his name.

Mind you since Orwell’s openly expressed aversion to religion, that can come as no surprise. It is a tragedy that as Christians we seem to have failed to demonstrate how correctly understood, taught and lived-out Christian morality can be applied to the greatest social issues of our age. It is, without a doubt, the best counter-weapon to the scourge of the Big Brother mentality, ever devised.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. – George Orwell

3 thoughts on “A revolutionary act

  1. It is a pity Christians can’t put their efforts into something useful! Odd Jesus calls us to turn the other cheek (Matt 5:39); if we are sued for our shirt, to offer our tunic as well (Matt 5:40); to wash one another’s feet (Jn 13: 12-17); and that Christians should be the servants of all (Mk 9:35). The latter commandment rather flies in the face of the present vogue of a certain flavour of Christian wanting to be society’s master (and given the fact religiously conservative societies tend to be rather lacking when it comes to producing wholesome societies, God forbid politically ambitious Christians should ever regain social or political power while secular liberalism remains a viable political system!!). Christianity has been hijacked by Right Wing reactionaries that presumes opposition to liberalism equates to Christian orthodoxy – which it certainly doesn’t; it is often just a case of self-interest veiled in piety.

    I am glad the ASA is asking for clarification of the dubious statistics produced by Catholic Voices. It is sad that the Catholic Voices blog at present produces nearly every other post on the subject SSM. Is this REALLY a major issue or cause for concern – considering that even if all SS couples were to ‘marry’ at tomorrow, this would only mean 0.5% of the population (if that) entered into SSMs? Yes, I fully understand that there is concern about what is the meaning of marriage – and I am not unsympathetic to this debate. However it has now descended into a platform for bigotry, nasty smears, self righteousness and hate-mongering. Given Christians (not to mention those of other faiths) have a divorce rate that is little different to that of wider society (indeed in the US Jews, ‘Born again Christians’ and Mormons have a higher divorce rate than non-believers!) you’d think Christians would have more pressing matters when it comes to marriage, rather than this disproportionate yet well organised sortie into ‘easy’ morality of focusing on an issue that is peripheral to their own rather dismal record when it comes to maintain marriages. As you note:

    Comment edited/moderated by blog-owner to remove defamatory personal remarks.

  2. nw72ja – “I am glad the ASA is asking for clarification of the dubious statistics produced by Catholic Voices.”

    Ah, would that it were so – Cranmer could direct them to ComRes, the long-established polling organisation that conducted the survey. What it has done instead is to present Cranmer with accusations that the advert is ‘offensive’ and ‘homophobic’ without giving any detail as to what exactly is offensive or homophobic. He is being required to answer charges that have not been made clear.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how, exactly, this advert is ‘offensive’ or ‘homophobic’? Because I, for one, would really like to know.

    By the way – I complained about the ad on my blog and got a reply from the ASA. They will not be pursuing the complaint because, they said, it relates to my “…own views and beliefs”.

    Maybe you could explain to me how, then, Cranmer’s posting of the ad differs from mine? Or perhaps you could go one better than that and complain to the ASA that my blog is carrying an ‘offensive and homophobic’ advert? Best be specific – they seem to have just discovered that disliking an ad is not necessarily grounds for complaint. The address is in my first post, above.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s