The Belief That's Now Unmentionable

Reading this article in the Mail this week, I was struck by the way that those who do not agree with abortion now seem to be scared of voicing that belief to the world. Which ever way they wish to dress it up with quotes about 'leading-edge medicine', the very act of banning it suggests that there are moralistic reasons behind this decision.

But, I will not be too harsh on Ms Czernin. I can understand why simply coming out and saying that you do not agree with abortion would be a problem. For they probably realise that such an admission would set themselves in opposition to the pro-abortion lobby. A lobby composed of death-threatening, maniacal feminists.

The end of the article also has some quotes from a pro-abortion bint, named Anne Quesney:

Forty years after abortion was legalised in Britain, women's rights continue to be under threat from those who oppose abortion and want to impose their personal beliefs across the country

No, actually, they want to stop abortions within their own clinic – how is that ‘imposing their personal beliefs across the country’? It is you, in fact, who is imposing your beliefs on people, and when they disagree with you it’s your lobby that is the one that seeks resort to violence in attempt to silence opposition.

As for myself, I have said before that my view is that the less abortions there are in this country, the better. There's nothing unreasonable in that! And, considering that I do accept that there is always going to be a demand for abortions so a ban would not be in feasible, I would regard my views as moderate and sensible. How airing of such views is threatining 'women's rights', I do not know.

Ultimately, it’s Anne Quesney’s world that we live in, not mine. Britain’s abortion laws are not ‘under threat’, but have recently been given a massive vote of confidence by the Liberal Democrats and Labour. Instead of making it harder for women to have abortions, we are as liberal as just about anywhere in the world. The result has been increasing abortions year after year.

This is where we are at, morally. We have what seem like the vestigial remains of Christianity - with some aspects completely disregarded - surviving in the sort of Secular Religion that I talked about a few weeks ago. Where we believe that abortions should be as ubiquitous as appendix operations, but when it comes to the remains of Tasmanians, taken in the name of science, we regard it as immoral. We sneer at Polygamous Mormons, and retain a prohibition on polygamy, yet are desperate to welcome in ‘civil partnerships’ and gay adoption. This is a fundamentally illogical stand to take, after all aren’t they also ‘loving’ relationships, which take place behind closed doors?

It all feels like a great contradiction. And that is the point: this is an experiment that has no logic, doctrine or stability, and is, therefore, doomed to failure sooner rather than later.

Equality - The Killer of Freedom

The law is the law is the law, quoted Nick Robinson, claiming that those were the words of a Labour cabinet minister replying to the Catholic criticisms of the new ‘Equality law’. The first question that arises in my head from hearing this is: does that little mantra apply to Muslims as well? If so, perhaps you should mention that to Sir Ian Blair.

But what the act, and the reaction of the government, really shows is that fundamentally liberalism is intolerant of any opposition to its belief system. In sum it’s a type of extreme fundamentalism, which may be the reason for its cosying-up to radical Islam. Note the almost Korannic nature of liberal doctrine – equality is good, discrimination ‘evil’, for instance.

This is where old-school conservatives, like myself, come into grief with liberalism. We try to be tolerant. Questioned on homosexuality, I tell people that really I am not interested in interfering in other people’s bedroom habits, and that the state has no place prosecuting people for sexual orientation. I also have no desire to abuse people, either verbally or physically, for their orientation. But, I will not accept and support gay marriage, civil partnerships, or gay adoption, ever. If a gay couple want to draw up some legal documents recognising them as next of kin, fine. But civil ceremonies are a charade; they are designed, like normal marriage, to show community approval of the union, but I will never approve of recognition of a marriage, other than the ones between a man and a woman.

I’d also say that it is up to an individual hotelier, and adoption agency, whether or not they accept gay couples. Freedom of conscience is a right we should all have. Yes, this is discrimination, and therefore probably doctrinally unacceptable to liberals, but criminalising this makes liberals as intolerant as those who prosecuted homosexuals in the past.

In many ways the modern Church, has also reached what seems to me to be an amicable accord. Namely, that homosexuals can live as they want, but those who oppose it do not have to ‘celebrate’ or condone their activities. And what’s the reward for those who have taken this moderate, tolerant line? Extremism and intolerance. A secular fundamentalism, led by a modern day Torquemada, Lord Falconer. I must obey, or I am a ‘criminal’.

The ludicrousness of this world-view should be obvious. It seems that to the nutty ‘rights’ brigade, there is no difference between the Catholic Church’s objection to this law, and a Muslim Iman who calls for homosexuals to be thrown from a mountain. And my belief that people should have freedom of conscience and the right to discriminate between what behaviour is viewed as good for society, and what is viewed as bad, probably makes me a Nazi sympathiser. And that’s the point about modern politics mired in a liberal epoch, there is no room for compromise, rationality and debate. Instead, there is only good and evil, equality or 'oppression', and an axis between secular and Islamic fundamentalism.

It really is hard not to be severely depressed and despondent, when faced with such truths. But we must battle on, for there may yet come a day when the public realise that to the gods of equality, freedom itself has had to be sacrificed.

Blame it on the Pope.............

As we all know, Pope John Paul the 2nd was responsible for 'millions of deaths'. This was because of his non-belief in the usage of condoms, and its contribution to the spread of AIDS in Africa.

This is modern doctrine. A doctrine that was originally propogated by 'progressives', and then by their media mouthpieces, Peter Thatchell and Polly Toynbee. Toynbee even criticised Tony Blair for paying his respects to Pope John Paul the 2nd, at his funeral, on account of him 'killing millions of Africans'. So works the strange mind of Ms Toynbee. And yet, it seems that in almost every aspect of modern politics in Britain, the mainstream eventually dances to the tune of these 'progressives'. And now this theory, formally belonging to the left, is the official doctrine of our glorious leader:

Tony Blair has told religious leaders to "face up to reality" and drop their opposition to condoms to help the fight against Aids.

In a pointed criticism of the Vatican's stance on contraception, Mr Blair used a television interview on World Aids Day to insist that preaching abstinence was not enough. Speaking to MTV, Mr Blair said: "The danger is if we have a sort of blanket ban from religious hierarchy saying it's wrong to do it, then you discourage people from doing it in circumstances where they need to protect their lives."[...]

The Vatican says abstinence is the best way to tackle HIV/Aids, but in April, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan, said the use of condoms was "a lesser evil" in relationships where one partner had HIV/Aids, prompting speculation that the Vatican was preparing to relax its position.

With attacks like this from world leaders, Pope Benedict will almost certainly have to change the official Vatican policy. And that victory for 'progress', will be another wound in the belly of common sense. Because, this is quite simply the most nonsensical and ludicrous theory, ever expounded by a human being. In fact, it makes some of these look positively sane.

The theory rests on the belief that inter-sex relations in a tribal village in Africa are hugely affected by Papal teaching and doctrine. This belief is simply laughable. It's obvious to me - perhaps not to the left- that if you are basing your sexual behaviour on what the Pope says, adultery, multiple-sexual partners and extra-marital sex (especially with prostitutes) are sins. And, as they seem to be the main ways in which African HIV is spread, they are obviously widely practiced. So a large number of people are directly contradicting the teachings of the Pope. That, of course is their choice. But why would such a person, who obviously doesn't believe in Papal doctrine, then start wearing condoms specifically because Pope Bendict has said so?

Furthermore, would remote African villagers even know what the Pope thinks about condom usage? I'd say that it's highly unlikely. As unlikely as an adulterer suddenly deciding to used condoms on the Pope's demand. And, therefore, any change of policy from the Vatican, will have absolutely no afffect on AIDS cases in Africa. Niente, nada, zero, not one life will be saved. And this is the point. This isn't about helping Africans but about western self-hatred. A hatred which is embodied perfectly by people like Toynbee and Thatchell. Now, their views are mainstream, and the hallowed 'centre-ground'.

As the Pope would probably say, God help us all.