May 7th - Why I won't be voting SNP.

This is my penultimate pre-election, political post.  I am not dealing with the specifically N.Irish and Welsh Parties as none of them are, for obvious reasons, standing in Scotland.  Nor am I dealing with the very minor Parties (could include the LibDems, next time around!!).

However, I have to make mention of

The Scottish National Party (The Scottish Nasty Party).

There is nothing unexpected in the SNP Manifesto.  This is the Party that, in its manifesto for the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary Election, pledged to consult on same-gender 'marriage'.  It did so - but pushed the legislation through even although some 64% of respondents opposed such a redefinition of marriage.  Ministers even denied that there was any need for amendments to the Bill that would have protected religious liberty and freedom of speech (something that, as many are aware, lost me my Strathclyde Police Chaplaincy!).

This is also the Party that has introduced the controversial 'Named Person' scheme that allows an outsider to interfere in the lives of ordinary families by having a "State representative" for every child, from birth until they have attained 18 years of age - a person who can, for example, ask questions of a Primary School child that relate to what happens within the home, and what level of sex education the child has been given!  This scheme - which is being challenged by a wide range of people and organisations - is planned to be rolled out by August of next year, although 'pilot schemes' have already operated in a number of areas.

Nicola Sturgeon, the current leader of the SNP, is in favour of a "rights envoy" for those who practice sexual deviance.  This person would promote their 'rights' "throughout the world, as an integral part of UK foreign policy"!  Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

In 2004, an SNP spokesman welcomed the introduction of the Civil Partnership Bill.  All of the contemporary SNP MPs supported the Bill at Westminster - and voted against the benefits of the Bill being provided to siblings, or a parent and carer 'child' who shared a home, but not a bed!

Last year, the SNP Government published revised guidance for sex education in Scottish schools.  The guidance emphasises the 'rights' of children at the expense of parental involvement, and says that a "named person" (as above) should be given confidential information that should be kept from parents!

In spite of the assurance, given by the previous Leader of the Party, after the referendum on Scottish separation from the rest of the UK, that such a referendum would not be held again "in his lifetime", his successor is already making noises as to the possibility of a second referendum during the lifetime of the next Scottish Parliament.  As one of the 55%, I find this a very dangerous move that could, so soon after the previous one, end up with the "yes" camp actually being successful!  This, I believe, would be simply because of the same - in my opinion - unthinking euphoria that will see a dramatic increase in the Westminster seats won by the SNP next week.  It would not be for the good of the country, or of its people.

These are some of the reasons why, next Thursday, my vote will not be cast in support of the SNP.

I've made up my mind - don't confuse me with the facts!

Humza Yousaf is not someone about whom I would normally post - or even want to post!  He is a List MSP (i.e. not elected by the people, but put in place by the party, in his case, the SNP).  He has a Facebook page which, when I was directed to it yesterday, allowed comments.  Today, it would appear that such a facility is no longer available!

Mr Yousaf is obviously a supporter of the so-called Palestinian people - not surprising given his own apparent ethnic background.  His Facebook page - from what I read of it - swings between informing us that the Palestinians are down-trodden refugees in their own land (okay, he doesn't use those precise words, but I write better prose than does he!), and telling us what a fine fellow he is as he junkets around at the expense of the tax-payer (well, he is a politician!).

Yesterday, I posted some comments, including two links to YouTube videos, that provided an alternative perspective of the current situation in Israel.  I also commented on a number of Mr Yousaf's earlier posts.  Today, I received notification that my comments had been removed, and it was when I checked this out (it is true!) that I discovered that I was unable to redo them.

This would suggest, to me, that Mr Yousaf is:

(a) too biased to permit another viewpoint to be aired;
(b) too cowardly to allow an alternative voice to be heard;
(c) too uneducated to provide a reasoned response;
(d) all of the above.

If Mr Youssaf is an example of the Parliamentarians in Holyrood, then a 'No' vote on September becomes an absolute necessity.  I certainly do not want biased, uneducated, cowards representing me in the Scottish Parliament! 

By the way, one of the two video clips was at:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/islamic-state-to-fifa-cancel-the-world-cup-or-well-bomb-it

(Apologies that the 'hot link' appears not to work - but 'copy and paste' seems to do the trick!) 

The other has been taken down by BBC World (possibly a copyright issue), but gave the lie to many of the 'reports' coming out of Gaza - with graphics that are from years ago, and some that are not even from Gaza!

If you hadn't heard it before, you heard it first here!!!!

18 who did not bow the knee to the 'cool' perversion of political correctness.

The Scottish Parliament has spoken - but it does not reflect the beliefs and desires of the majority of the population of Scotland.  By 105 votes to 18, it has passed the Bill that will redefine marriage - except that, to the majority, it will do no such thing.  It all boiled down to a failure to recognise the difference between equality and equivalence (see my letter to Mr John Pentland, MSP, below).  However, there were eighteen brave persons who showed that they could not be browbeaten into subjection on such an important issue.

Why is it so important?  Because marriage, between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life, is the bedrock of any civilised society.  It is the only union that is capable of procreation, and the continuation, for as long as time exists, of the human race.  This is true whether, or not, one is a religious person, let alone a disciple of Jesus.

Of course, according to the Scottish Government’s Health Secretary, Alex Neil: “We have always maintained at the heart of this issue there is one simple fact: a marriage is about love.”  Sorry, Mr Neil, but such a statement is, to put it mildly, gushy garbage.  Of course a marriage ought to have love at its heart, but there is much more to the institution than that.  There is commitment; there is mutual support; there is, above all, and uniquely within a heterosexual relationship, the conception of children - without the need to go to a third party for assistance.  Of course I know, as we were frequently reminded over the past year or so, that there are heterosexual couples who are either unable, or unwilling, to have a family.  These, however, are a small minority.  Within a homosexual/lesbian relationship there is no possibility.  The number of men who are capable of bearing a child with another man is absolutely zilch/zero - and the same is true of two women.  At the very least, and from a non-religious perspective, it is an anthropological phenomenon that affirms that marriage is actually about the sanctioning and recognition of new biological, sexual and physical unions of men and women; the way human societies order, structure, promote and protect mating, motherhood and procreation, attaching fathers to children and their mothers, providing an ordered context for sexual activity, rooted in the protracted and intense needs of mothers and infants and in securing the future of society.

So what happens next?  I imagine that we will have to wait and see.  Of one thing I am certain, that the homosexual lobby will not be satisfied with what they now have (although I will be happy to be proved wrong!).  There will be appeals to the European Court of Human Rights as soon as a member of the Christian clergy refuses to 'marry' a homosexual couple.  It is unlikely that  any Muslim Imam will have the same problem!   It will be then that the current Scottish government will realise how totally useless are their assurances that individual members of the clergy will be 'protected'.

However, anyone who has read the chapter on Predestination in my book, Great Words of the Faith, will know that this evening's vote did not surprise the Eternal Creator of all that is.  He is still on the throne of heaven and, as the old adage had it: "Man proposes, but God disposes."  Could it be that all of this is a judgement on a society and culture that has moved far from the faith of its fathers?  Paul's words to the early believers in Rome, which you may read at Rom.1:18ff, are a valid commentary on our modern, 'progressive' society.

Those of us who are disciples of Jesus will continue to pray - that the relevant law will be repealed, and that God will have mercy on an apostate nation.

What's in a name?

"A rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet", the English Bard has his character Juliet argue, in Romeo and Juliet (Act II; Scene I).  The argument is that the names of things don't matter, only what they "are"!

However, although there is an element of truth in the statement - an 'apple' is the same as a 'pomme', or a 'manzana', or a 'μήλο' (melo) - it is not completely true.  Some names have a meaning that makes them of greater importance than others.

One such word, I would still argue, is the word 'marriage'.  Regardless of the language into which it is translated, it is still the union of a man and a woman, for life, and to the exclusion of all others.  That is so, regardless of the voting decisions of any group of politicians!

Wednesday evening's vote in the Scottish Parliament had more to do with the impassioned speeches of some of the members in the Chamber, than it had to do with reason and common-sense!  Of course, as the last Sunday School teacher that I ever had (by 15 I was considered too old, and had to leave!) often said, "The problem with common sense is that it isn't very common"!

I was unable to listen to all of the debate.  However, it struck me that the strongest pleas came from those who, like the Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, are openly homosexual/lesbian/bisexual.  I didn't pick up on anyone confessing to be transsexual.   It also struck me that those speeches which I heard, from the aforementioned groups were very personal - as Ms Davidson stated in her opening remarks, "... this could be the most personal speech that I will ever make in the Chamber."

Therein, I would contend, lies the problem!  All of those speakers whom I heard supporting the Bill appeared to be doing so from the perspective of either personal choice (to do with their own sexuality), or on the basis of 'equality'.

I fail, utterly, to see why the very fabric of our society should be altered merely to suit the personal lifestyles of certain politicians - politicians who are elected (although, in the List system used by the Scottish Parliament, the majority are not even directly elected, but are put in place by their respective Parties!) to represent the public, not to use their positions of temporal power to achieve their personal ends!

The others, it seems to me, have yet to understand the difference between 'equality' and 'equivalence'!  Yet there is, in fact, a world of difference between the two terms.  To put it simply, 'equality' means being treated the same; 'equivalence' means being the same.

The Civil Partnership legislation gave, and gives, same-gender couples all of the legal rights of heterosexual married couples.  That is equality.   Indeed, they have far greater rights, in law than, for example, two elderly same-gender siblings, or a mother and (full-time carer) daughter, sharing the same family home - but not the same bed!  That same Civil Partnership, we were assured at the time (and that was less than ten years ago!), would not lead to any further demands from the homosexual (etc) community.  Of course, it was politicians who gave the assurance and, as the old joke (with too much truth in it to be funny) asks: "How do you know when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving"!

It is more than interesting that these "representatives" totally ignored the expressed view of almost fifty-five thousand petitioners (almost 670,000 for the whole of the UK - but David Cameron ignored them and realised, too late, that he had made a major mistake!) who were, and are, opposed to the proposal.  They realise that neither two men, nor two women, is the 'equivalent' of one man and one woman - any more than two oranges, or two bananas, is the equivalent of an apple and a kiwi fruit!

What is also interesting is that it is not, as the media have persistently portrayed, only 'religious' people who are opposed to this redefinition of marriage.  Prominent homosexuals have voiced their opposition - including Rupert Everett (actor), and David Starkey (academic); or their indifference - Alan Bennett (playwright) has stated that he isn't bothered, and doesn't even know anyone who cared, one way or another!   Indeed, even the (largely tax-funded) homosexual rights organisation, Stonewall, didn't start pushing for the redefinition of marriage until after Civil Partnerships had been introduced!

Paddy Manning, a homosexual commentator, writing in the Irish Daily Mirror, said that with same-gender marriage, the state remakes the institution as “an anything-goes irrelevant partnership agreement between adults”.  He further commented that same-gender  marriage “asks us to ignore reality and children’s rights”, and stated that “I’m a gay man, I’m not a victim and I reject this notion that traditional marriage should be drastically altered for some fantasy.”   He said that Civil Partnerships are sufficient. Of course, he was writing within the context of the Republic of Ireland having announced that, in 2015, it is giving all of its citizens the opportunity to vote in a referendum regarding the redefinition of marriage to include two persons of the same gender.  Jim Eadie (SNP) provided the debate with the views of three (3) of his constituents (none of whom actually elected him!) out of the hundreds that he claimed he had received urging him to support the Bill.  It would be of great interest to know how many requests he received urging him to oppose it!  I wondered, too, if those who support the Bill are so convinced that they have the electorate on their side, why we were constantly refused the very referendum that the Republic of Ireland is being given!

Of course, the Bill has two further stages to go though and so, although the signs don't look good, I am one who will continue to campaign, and pray, that it will be defeated.  What if it passes all stages, and is enacted?  All that I can say to that is that this is not human beings seeking to change that which was introduced by human beings - such as the Butter and Margarine Act, 1907!  This is human beings flying in the face of the Creator, and Sustainer, of all that exists, and Who ordained, from the beginning, that it should be a man and a woman who come together for their mutual comfort (strengthening);  for the procreation of children (a definite 'no-no' for same -gender partners!); and for the good of society.  Those who are supporting this measure, or who have supported it in the Westminster Parliament, will ultimately answer to Him - and "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10:31).

Redefinition of marriage.

I have signed a petition calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government not to redefine marriage and thought you may like to sign it too.  Marriage has served Scotland well for centuries as the fundamental unit of our society and I do not believe that it should be changed.  Redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage will have huge implications for what is taught and promoted in schools and in wider society.  It is likely, over time, to cause an erosion of religious freedoms and freedom of conscience.  If you feel the same it is important to let the government know.  The link to the petition is at the right-hand-side of this page.

I'm sorry if you've heard about this before or if you've already signed but I have no way of knowing, and I wanted to make sure that you had a chance to be included.

P.S. If you and a spouse are both signing, please do so separately so that you count as two signatures rather than one!