It seems those days are over: secular Unionists now think the LGBTQ+ policies more important than the Union. Or maybe they think the Christians in the DUP will drop their opposition to abortion and the silencing of Christians on the immorality of homosexuality.
They are very mistaken, if that is the case. I'm not and never was a member of the DUP, but I will never vote for any party that chooses to endorse abortion and ban pastoral prayer and counselling for those who come to them looking help for their unwanted sexual attractions. I will not vote for them, even if that means Republicans taking the seat.
Opponents of the motion have made it clear that they support a ban on gay conversion therapy, the psychological techniques that are abusive. But it seems the proposers intend that the only prayer and counsel acceptable is that which affirms homosexuality and would help the homosexual to embrace his/her unwanted sexual desires.
If the DUP remain faithful to their Christian electorate on these matters of first importance, they will continue to get the Christian vote. If they don't, I can see no point in voting for them. And the UUP will not gain those votes. The Union is not more important to us than basic Christian morality.
If the DUP cut loose from any residual disrespect for Nationalists, and maintain their Christian values, they may well add to the number of Catholics who already vote for them because of their pro-life stance.
This present crisis may well be a watershed for Unionism. If secular anti-Christian policies become the majority view of Unionism, and the DUP elect a leader who caves in on it, I reckon most Christians will walk away from politics completely. No support for any party, and no voting in elections. That certainly will be my position. Some Christians I know have already adopted that course.
⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist.
Secular (not anti-Christian) politics are now the mainstream in the Republic of Ireland and are progressively becoming so in NI. Get used to it.ReplyDelete
Barry, I have no problem with secular politics. Each to his/her own.Delete
It is the inquisition on religion that I object to - priests, rabbis, pastors, imams, whatever should be free to teach and pray as they wish- as long as they are not advocating violence against dissenters.
Trendy Unionists seem to have a different view. Banning prayer and counselling for gays who want to be free of their unwanted desires.
Freedom-loving secularists are getting a touch of it too in the deplatforming of dissenting views.
Ian, did you choose to be straight?ReplyDelete
Yes, I did. Not consciously, but instinctively as a sum of my environmental experiences,just as homosexuals do. And paedophiles. And the omnisexuals.Delete
What each person must do is ask themselves if their choice was mistaken, a result of unfortunate influences. Is it morally right, that is.
But if their moral code has nothing against whichever sexual orientation they have, they can still choose to change for pragmatic reasons.
It may not be an easy change, for their orientation may gave been long ingrained. That's when they may ask for spiritual or secular psychological help.
Surely even you can see the massive problem with that? There's even plenty of examples in the animal kingdom were even with the abundance of mates two of the same sex choose to co-habit (try me on this please, I'm very well read on the subject).
So you 'choose instinctively'...what does that even mean? How can it be a choice if it is instinctive?
Interesting how you lump all the different preferences there, one tiny note, pedo's really don't want to be pedo's yet they cannot change.
In fact, I read a case study from Canada were a normal healthy mid 30's male suddenley found for a unexplained reason he was becoming attracted to children.
Very bravely he went to his GP and said this is just wrong, I have never felt this before.
Brain scan showed he had a tumour. After medical treatment, those feelings went away. Did he choose?
Yet again I'm left wondering why an evangelical christian spends an inordinate amount of time preoccupied with the bedroom antics of two consenting adults.
As I have said before, when my neighbour quotes scripture I count my sheep.
The irony is that Unionist with such views as the writer of this article are doing more the weaken the Union than the Provos ever did in 30 years.ReplyDelete
It would certainly be no bad thing if extremists who try to impose their abusive and non-loving ideas on others walked away from politicsReplyDelete
I object to priests, pastors, inams, rabbis etc being allowed to indoctrinate children with their non-falsifiable mythology often with public funding; the system which existed in NI for generations and which stunted the moral and developmental pathways of generations of children in our wee country.
That's a problem all sides have - the sort of influence educators have on our children. But the children have to be taught something about morality and also an explanation of our intrinsic value.Delete
You object to religious explanations, I object to anti-Christian ones. I hope we can both live with both being taught and the parents providing any corrections needed.
Otherwise an imposed religion/ideology will be established. Of course, those who wish only one sort to be taught should be permitted to have such schools across the spectrum.
Education under an imposed religion was the norm for generations of Irish school students North and South.ReplyDelete
Teaching of ethics and moral philosophy does not have to be anti-Christian or compulsory atheism. Children have to be taught the tenets of humanitarianism including that human rights inhere in the dignity of the human person and their capacity to make moral choices and to develop autonomous lifestyles - hence no gay or autism conversion.
Such teaching should draw from a wide spectrum of philosophical and, yes, theological outlooks and not depend on a single body of scripture.