Recent information from the Barnabas Fund
http://barnabasfund.org/UK-retailer-halal-guide.html
suggests that a number of supermarkets may be selling Halal meat to us without our consent and with no option to purchase more humanely killed meat. While I would wish to disagree with the claims of Islam that is not the issue here – it is the lack of choice; the imposition of someone else’s belief system on me. Yet so often if the majority object to actions that go against our belief system or social norms then we are vilified as cranks.
Why it that if I wish state my own thought-through position on an issue and offer it for discussion I am simply railed upon as a bigot, a fundamentalist or a ‘****phobe’ (add whichever prefix you like depending upon the issue).
Recently a woman was discussing with some of her colleagues issues concerning the effects of abortion. In an effort to logically and rationally help explain her position she gave them a leaflet she had in her possession which laid out quite clinically research on the emotional effects of abortion on many women. Their response to this reasoned offered piece of information? To try and get her sacked. She was eventually reinstated but the issue is still there. It seems if you are short on reasoned argument then scream ‘bigot’ or reach in desperation for the bill of human rights!
It strikes me that that such ‘phobic’ accusations are made by those who are sh
ort on reason and long on passion. Screaming ‘phobic’ accusations at me or choose to rage against me as a “fundamentalist” or a “bigot” seems simply rather a confession of shallow argument which would not stand up to scrutiny.
The Daily Telegraph reports in its on-line newspaper for 1st March 2011 that:
“... judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values. In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.
“…In their r
uling yesterday, the judges complained that it was not yet “well understood” that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity”
Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester said “….what really worries me about this spate of judgments is that they leave no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swaths of public life, including adoption and fostering.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html
Daily Telegraph Editorial went on to say that, “Neither Mr nor Mrs Johns has anything against gay people but they are not in favour of sex before marriage, whatever an individual's orientation. Their views were denounced by Ben Summerskill, of the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, as "old-fashioned".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8353180/Foster-parents-defeated-by-the-new-Inquisition.html
The word old-fashioned sounds to me to be a way on indicating that certain held views do not comply with a vocal minority who want things to be different. Many recent surveys in recent months and indeed years show that the majority of our society in the UK want and desire the social order of monogamous heterosexual marriages. It seems that the majority in this so-called democracy of Great Britain are not to have their wishes listened to because they are considered “old-fashioned” by a small minority of the population.
The country has gone barking mad!
suggests that a number of supermarkets may be selling Halal meat to us without our consent and with no option to purchase more humanely killed meat. While I would wish to disagree with the claims of Islam that is not the issue here – it is the lack of choice; the imposition of someone else’s belief system on me. Yet so often if the majority object to actions that go against our belief system or social norms then we are vilified as cranks.
Why it that if I wish state my own thought-through position on an issue and offer it for discussion I am simply railed upon as a bigot, a fundamentalist or a ‘****phobe’ (add whichever prefix you like depending upon the issue).
Recently a woman was discussing with some of her colleagues issues concerning the effects of abortion. In an effort to logically and rationally help explain her position she gave them a leaflet she had in her possession which laid out quite clinically research on the emotional effects of abortion on many women. Their response to this reasoned offered piece of information? To try and get her sacked. She was eventually reinstated but the issue is still there. It seems if you are short on reasoned argument then scream ‘bigot’ or reach in desperation for the bill of human rights!
It strikes me that that such ‘phobic’ accusations are made by those who are sh
ort on reason and long on passion. Screaming ‘phobic’ accusations at me or choose to rage against me as a “fundamentalist” or a “bigot” seems simply rather a confession of shallow argument which would not stand up to scrutiny.The Daily Telegraph reports in its on-line newspaper for 1st March 2011 that:
“... judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values. In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.
“…In their r
uling yesterday, the judges complained that it was not yet “well understood” that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity”Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester said “….what really worries me about this spate of judgments is that they leave no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swaths of public life, including adoption and fostering.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html
Daily Telegraph Editorial went on to say that, “Neither Mr nor Mrs Johns has anything against gay people but they are not in favour of sex before marriage, whatever an individual's orientation. Their views were denounced by Ben Summerskill, of the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, as "old-fashioned".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8353180/Foster-parents-defeated-by-the-new-Inquisition.html
The word old-fashioned sounds to me to be a way on indicating that certain held views do not comply with a vocal minority who want things to be different. Many recent surveys in recent months and indeed years show that the majority of our society in the UK want and desire the social order of monogamous heterosexual marriages. It seems that the majority in this so-called democracy of Great Britain are not to have their wishes listened to because they are considered “old-fashioned” by a small minority of the population.
The country has gone barking mad!
No comments:
Post a Comment