Rites of Passage.

In my teaching career, one of the units taught to S1 pupils concerned Rites of Passage.  This refers to the four major events in a person's life that are celebrated, in some way, by every culture known to mankind.  These are Birth, Coming of Age, Marriage, and Death.

These are also areas that, in recent decades, in some of the more 'civilised' nations in the world, have become increasingly under attack from a secular, atheistic, humanism that would have us all made in its own image - rather than in the image of the Creator God Who is responsible for our very existence.

Birth.  It was in 1967 that abortion became legal within the UK.  Since then, around 10 million babies have been callously murdered in the very place in which they ought to have been best protected - their mothers' wombs.  And that is in England, Scotland, and Wales alone!  By the way, if you missed my brief series on abortion - "Womb - or tomb?" - you can scroll down to the Blog Archive; click on "August", and then scroll down to Tuesday, 19th for the first article.  Birth, in far too many cases, is not being celebrated - it is being prevented!

Coming of age.  It is the case, as I type, that it is when one reaches the age of 18 years that, in the UK, one is considered to have 'come of age'.  Of course, as my pupils were quick to point out, the age varies for different activities - from joining the Armed Forces, to purchasing alcohol, to acquiring a mortgage.  However, for at least two - maybe three - generations, we seem to have been encouraging our children to 'grow up' far too quickly.  Beauty Pageants, at least in the USoA, for toddlers - dressed up by their mothers in 'sexy' outfits (must be some sort of paedophile 'heaven'!), to Clubs and bars being frequented by children who have barely left puberty, to 'under-age' sexual activity.  And much of this with the knowledge, and tacit approval, of parents/guardians!

Marriage.  In the UK, with the honourable exception of N.Ireland, marriage has been redefined as being the union of any two persons, regardless of gender.  This has been, effectively, a response by politicians to a sustained lobbying exercise by those representing (according to recent National Office of Statistics report) a mere 1.6% of the population.  A massive petition opposing the move, in both Westminster and Holyrood, was ignored.  Of course, it is arguable, given revelations since, that the reason for that is that the percentage of those who practise deviant sexual relations, is much higher in government circles than in the population at large!  Now, I read that an OFSTED inspection in a Jewish school resulted in pupils feeling bullied, and traumatised, by the questions asked - questions such as "Do you know that it is acceptable for two men to be married to one another?"  Marriage, instead of being a relationship in which a man and a woman fulfil God's plan for them, and produce a family (something that no two people of the same gender can ever do, on their own!), has become a declaration of deviance that is sanctioned by the state.

Death.  There was a time when death came to most people before they reached 80 years of age.  Today, in the western world, more and more people are living to be centenarians.  At least, that is what we would like to think.  However, the constant push by some for the legalisation of euthanasia, and assisted dying/suicide, shows that death is becoming a marketable commodity - think Dignitas in Switzerland, or the whole situation in the Netherlands!   The tragedy of such a situation was shown by a newspaper report just a few days ago: 

"An elderly husband and wife have announced their plans to die in the world's first 'couple' euthanasia - despite neither of them being terminally ill.

Instead the pair fear loneliness if the other one dies first from natural causes.

Identified only by their first names, Francis, 89, and Anne, 86, they have the support of their three adult children who say they would be unable to care for either parent if they became widowed.

The children have even gone so far as to find a practitioner willing to carry out the double killings on the grounds that the couple's mental anguish constituted the unbearable suffering needed to legally justify euthanasia.

… The couple's daughter has remarked that her parents are talking about their deaths as eagerly as if they were planning a holiday.

John Paul [their son] said the double euthanasia of his parents was the 'best solution'.  'If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad and totally dependent on us,' he said. 'It would be impossible for us to come here every day, to take care of our father or our mother.'"

One commentator has responded like this:  "I wonder why no one considers the fact that the reason some elderly parents may experience “mental anguish” is that they have come to the sickening realisation that their grown children would rather find an executioner to dispatch them, than take on the responsibility of caring for their parents. Imagine the thoughts of a mother realising that the child she fed and rocked to sleep, played with and sang to, would rather have her killed than care for her; that their relationship really does have a price."

When I consider all of that, I confess to being glad that I am now out of the RME classroom.  My fear is that those who are in may be pushing the kind of agenda that is mirrored above!

Proposed redefinition of marriage.

The following is a copy of the letter that I have sent to my Constituency MSP, in advance of the final vote on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill which is scheduled to take place on Feb.4th.  A slightly amended version has been sent to each of the 'List' MSPs for my Constituency.

This is not copyright, so anyone who wishes to contact their own representatives should feel free to make use of the information contained therein.  However, please do not simply 'copy and paste'!  Use the info, but write in your own words.  Doing so is much more effective!

******************

Dear Mr Pentland,

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill

As the final, Stage 3, vote on the above Bill approaches, I am writing, again, to solicit your help as my elected representative in the Scottish Parliament.

It continues to be my sincere desire that this Bill be defeated, and I would respectfully remind you that almost 54,000 people have petitioned that marriage not be redefined, but continue as "The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Marriage.aspx).  Those polls which, it is claimed, have supported the redefinition of marriage have, as far as I can make out, been so worded as to lead responders to believe that they are being asked if couples of the same gender should be treated with equality.  No one denies that right to those couples, and it is already fully available through current Civil Partnership legislation.  However, it is my contention that there is confusion, here, between the concept of equality and that of equivalence.  A particular apple may be equal to a particular orange in terms of its volume, weight, and even nutritional value.  However, it is never going to be the equivalent of that orange - regardless of what any law of the land may say!

I would further submit that, under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, para. 3, which states that "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.", this Bill ought not to be enacted as only in a heterosexual relationship can procreation take place, and that "... natural and fundamental group unit of society ..." be maintained.  Indeed, a new Canadian study - published in the October, 2013 Review of the Economics of the Household - has found that children raised by same-gender couples are greatly disadvantaged.  The economist, Douglas Allen, states that previous studies that have indicated that there is no difference have been biased and unscientific.  He has argued that the subjects are 'self-selected', using samples of high-income, highly educated, same-gender couples, compared to random samples of heterosexual couples.  He has avoided any such charge by using Canadian census data to survey more than 300,000 individuals!

In the event that the Bill does become law, I would submit that it is absolutely essential that certain amendments be accepted.  These include strong safeguards for both individuals and organisations who seek to uphold marriage in its traditional, heterosexual, form.  I have already been a victim of such discrimination when my unequivocal support for traditional marriage, purely on my personal blog (see below) led to my services as a volunteer Chaplain to the former Strathclyde Police Force being dispensed with.  Others in the public service could find that they are without a job!

I would also strongly urge you to support any amendment that would protect those who apply to be foster-parents, or adoptive parents.  It is insufficient that the Scottish government give assurances and/or guidance.  We know that similar assurances provided by the Westminster government with regard to the now enacted Bill in that place, are already being challenged. 

It is also an undeniable fact that such enactments are rarely an end in themselves.  You will, for example, be well aware of the terms of the 1967 Abortion Act.  That Act, that permitted a pregnancy to be "... terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith ..." followed by four specific sets of circumstances (Section 1,1, [a]-[d]), is now used, by the vast majority of women who present themselves for the procedure, as a belated form of 'contraceptive' or, we are discovering, as a means of gender-choice.  This present Bill would, undoubtedly, also lead to increasingly liberal interpretations, and to further demand from the small minority, of a small minority, who are pushing this present agenda.

I am aware that you did not vote against the Bill at Stage 1, but I implore you to do so at Stage 3.

Yours sincerely,

******************

Those who believe in prayer - and who pray, believing! - are urged to keep this matter before the Lord over the next week and a bit.