Daily Archives: December 11, 2012
Those like me who, now slowly getting old(ish), see around them a world much different from the one they grew up in can also, in a way, observe epochal changes and their roots.
When I was a child, the expression that the sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons wasn’t very easy to grasp. Forty and more years later, things begins to make a lot of sense.
Where shall I start? Let us see: divorce. One generation decides that divorce can be barely tolerated in extreme cases, but thinks it “unchristian” to withheld it from all those women victims of drunken bastards and violent psychopaths now suddenly roaming around (and, apparently, just not there in Jesus’ time…).
The following generation sees a more generalised use of divorce, and many children begin to grow with huge emotional scars, and already predisposed to that absence of serious commitment they can clearly observe in their quarreling, self-centred parents. Their generation, the third, will be largely rotten.
Or do you want casual Catholicism? The generation of those who found V II somewhat “cool” but still believed in God raised up a generation of people who believe, if we are lucky, in a mixture of New Age and Nelson Mandela. Their offspring will believe, if anything, in the X-factor and often will be not even baptised, because such a “rigidity” was obviously inconceivable to their enlightened parents. The consequences of this are as tragic as they are predictable.
If you, however, prefer a more tragic example, think of abortion. Again, at the beginning it is always the “extreme cases” used as “justification” for the legislative novelty; then the taboo is broken and the murder of a child becomes a matter of convenience or, as a satanic generation will not be ashamed to say, ” reproductive health”.
Let us conclude, of course, with sodomy, with the usual geniuses of the Sixties thinking that the sodomy laws were too “harsh”, and their children and grandchildren now confronted with a gigantic Sodom, spreading almost all over the West.
Now, let us take a closer look at your typical new-age aunt (plenty of those around in Anglo-Saxon countries). Her children are caught in destructive legal fight with their ex spouses, and their daughters went around the world sleeping with many men, and still liking none. She does not have grandchildren because they were aborted; if they weren’t , they’ll soon be fatherless. Drugs aren’t really an issue (the old aunt did marijuana herself without any problem), so when the daughter takes to heroin or the son to vodka she will, in a non-judgmental way, speak of “poor choices” as if they were insisting in buying the wrong chocolate brand. She might also be “blessed” with a pervert nephew or niece, and whilst she is obviously disgusted (because she grew up in a world which still knew what is normal and what is pervert) she will have to play the non-judgmental game and “celebrate” this other piece of evidence of what a rotten family she has.
The old lady will, of course, not see the causal links. She will not see the drugs, or the vodka, or the divorces, or the abortions, or the perverted offspring all mean the same: you reap what you sow. We will.
Of course, our marijuana-aunt is symbolic of a generation, and here and there there might be individual disgraces: the good mother tested with the perverted son, the good father whose son insisted in taking the road to drunkenness, and so on. These tragedies happen, and as no parent will ever be able to influence his child more than a certain (pretty good) amount, the risk of things going wrong is never to be completely excluded.
But in general, it’s fair to say parents who believe in commitment will tend to have children who believe in commitment, pro-life parents will tend to have pro-life children, and so on. The merits of the fathers do tend to transmit themselves to the children, too, though at times this will become more evident as the children leave the rebellious adolescence and begin, with slowly thinning hair, to look like their fathers.
The marijuana aunt will never know why her family is so rotten. But we do, we do!
Yesterday’s debate in the commons was below pathetic and at the same time indicative of the state this once great nation has reduced itself to.
Maria Miller, the minister for families who is trying to destroy them, is on record saying that “we support marriage” because “this is one of the most important institutions we have in this country”, and therefore “the Government should not stop people from getting married”.
The hypocrisy and disingenuousness of this is mind-boggling. The overweight lady simply forgets that whilst marriages obviously existed before Christianity, our understanding of marriage is deeply rooted in Christian thinking. I know that in places like Sodom people might have lived together and even called it “marriage” (they might, or might not; the Angel Maria Miller deserves hasn’t left many traces for us to investigate), but this is exactly not the point. The point is that a Christian society (in this country there are officially more than 30 million Christians; though one at times wonders where they are…) cannot understand social institutions in any other than a Christian manner, and even a non-Christian society generally has the intelligence to understand that sexual perversion is evil.
Maria Miller, like too many within her party, does not get this. She is impervious not even to Christianity, but even to natural law. We are governed by heathens without even the faintest idea of what is right and what is wrong; who do not even use that basic, elementary compass God has put in all of us, Christian or heathen, intelligent or stupid, to let us understand what is really, really wrong. But hey, she wants to be re-elected, so it must be fine.
One of the stupid assertions of the woman is that there will be safeguards to protect religious freedom, and for those who do not want to be forced to conduct such parodies of “marriage” in church. But wait, hasn’t the fat girl just said that “the government does not want to stop people from getting married” because “this is one of the most important institutions we have in this country?” What prevents, then, a future government from saying that church life is one of the most important institutions we have in this country, and people should not be discriminated against and impeded from participating to it with a marriage in church? I can see the woman sitting in Parliament and saying exactly that herself in just a few years!
And in general: what are these kind of promises worth? Have those within the so-called Church of England not been promised, many years ago, that there would not be women bishop, if you give them women priest? What of this now?
And what about the legislation about so-called “civil partnerships”? Were we not told, just a few years ago, that the institution of marriage as such should not be touched, which is why we have “civil partnerships”? How stupid can people be, that they do not get that every concession must force the next one, because if one refuses to be against perversion as such every “freedom” much chase the next “freedom”, every abuse must cause the next abuse, and Christianity must be destroyed one piece at a time?
Perverts and their aiders and abetters are eating away Western civilisation one bit at a time with the help of politicians prostituted to the popular sentiment of the moment, and most people do nothing because they are always told the next bit of Christian civilisation will remain intact. Fools. Those who support or do not fight against this measure will deserve to have their churches forcibly desecrated by perverts “celebrating” their rites. Don’t worry, it will come soon enough.
And of course I am angry at people like Yvette Cooper, the Labour witch who yesterday gave enthusiastic support to the new legislative measure (with which, by the way, every hope that Labour may decide not to support the legislation in Parliament has vanished). But you see, beside being an atheist, Yvette Cooper is not supposed to be Conservative. She is a bloody socialist, it is certainly not a surprise that she should pickaxe Christian values. But that people who call themselves “Conservatives” should do so is beyond contempt.
Make no mistake, this legislation will pass in the House of Commons without much opposition; the Anglicans will wait for the provisions meant to “protect” them before telling themselves dissatisfied but vaguely in agreement with how good the government’s aims are; the Catholic Church will do nothing more than feebly meow (Archbishop Nichols is clearly a friends of sodomy and has made everything to encourage them short of giving them open and enthusiastic approval). Do not hope for any help of Rome, either. We live in times of weak and cowardly Popes, happy to write books and tell themselves “saddened” whilst Rome burns.
It seems to escape most people that our Western democracies are becoming such pits of impiety that in comparison even revolutionary France seems a bulwark of conservative thinking. There are certainly precedents for societies which accepted sodomy as something to be “celebrated” (that’s not me, it’s Maria Miller again; she will rot in hell unless she repents), but you must go way back to the days of Sodom, or look hard at savages populations where the Word of God has never been brought. Certainly there are no past examples in countries calling themselves Christian and understanding themselves as the product of Christian civilisation. This country is about to vote itself out of the number of the Christian countries, and does not seem to notice, or to care.
The new gods are “celebration” (Maria Miller) , “equality” (Yvette Cooper) and an old profession not mentioned in parliamentary debates, but present in every word heard yesterday from the two women.