Tuesday, 22nd April 2008
PASSION FLOW
Finally, a subject has surfaced that has raised passions to the same extent politics seems to, with about the same level of respect for what is said, as opposed to what was assumed to have been said.
I never said that I was in favour of abortion or in favour of legalising it, all I did was say that I think that amending the Constitution to include what I think is wooly thinking is not right.
Reading some of the comments I got, you'd think I had proposed introducing legislation making it mandatory on every woman to have at least one abortion and on every father to ensure that at least one is procured. That's leaving aside the fact that I was called a moron at least once that I recall.
One of the comments I most enjoyed, though, was when it was pointed out that the more passionate the adherent to the cause was, the less of a command of the language he or she displayed. How true: you can see, buried in the obscure syntax and the loose hold on vocabulary, what they're trying to get at.
You can even see that the individual concerned has his or her heart in the right place, but the struggle to get past the often incoherent ranting, both in expression and in concept, gets the message lost in the fog.
This is not confined to these shores. Through the 'Net, and judicious (and legal) downloading of podcasts from LBC (a London talk station) I listen to quite a bit of phone-in discussion in the car. You can do the same and see what I mean - I suggest you try James O'Brien (you can time-slip since they're podcasts) or, for a good dose of bitching, Steve Allen or Nick Ferrari.
A couple of days ago, the discussion turned to the recent tragic and wholly avoidable death of a woman who was not given a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah's Witness. She left behind a husband and new-born twins.
The people who phoned in to put the sect's point of view were wholly incapable of answering the show's host's perfectly reasonable question and, predictably, they spouted pseudo-religious drivel at every turn. I'm unclear as to why the law ignores the wanton destruction of human life that these people tolerate.
Why should anyone be allowed to die, just because someone has taken an ancient text and decided that it means something patently ridiculous? After all, our so-called Christian society condemns Islamic Fundamentalism (quite rightly) so why shouldn't the same condemnation be directed at pseudo-Christian sects? Or any other ludicrous religion or belief system or "opinion freely held", for that matter?
I doubt any reader of the Watchtower or whatever their bigotry-distribution means is called reads this blog or has the language skills to make a coherent argument (these people prohibit blood transfusions that would save lives, remember) so we're probably not going to get any response to these questions that makes sense. Frankly, I would be wasting cyber-space if I were to confine myself to saying that I think religious fundamentalism, of whatever stripe, is an insult to our collective intelligence.
Or would I be?
Where is the line drawn, between religious fundamentalism and honestly held, reasonable, convictions? What is the difference between stopping doctors from saving the mother of your new-born twins with a simple procedure and stopping doctors from aborting a foetus that is causing the death of its host and, consequently, its own death?
I'm not, to avoid being called a moron by Ruben Farrugia again, advocating abortion, merely pointing out that in very limited circumstances, it's possible to comprehend that abortion is a preferable option to allowing the mother and foetus both to perish.
Fundamentalism - call it strict adherence to your beliefs if you like, I don't care - will lead to the same end: death which could have been avoided.
I read an interview with Marlene Pullicino, the newly-elected Labour MP, last Sunday. She came across as a very reasonable and balanced person. But even this very balanced person gave me pause for thought at one point.
She said that her religious beliefs would preclude her from voting in favour of the introduction of divorce, whatever her party might dictate. I'm all for conscienctious actions and far be it from me - or anyone - to say that Ms Pullicino should bow to Party pressure.
But should personal religious convictions be allowed to interfere in the consideration of legislation that would be entirely secular? Legislating to allow divorce, in a country that, in any event, has it in all but name if you know the ropes and have time (and money) to spare, is not tantamount to making it (divorce) mandatory.
If you are Christian and want to live your life according to what you understand are the tenets of that faith, fine, it's your life and as long as you don't cause harm to anyone else, you're free to do so.
But why should your interpretation of your religious or other beliefs be allowed to affect the lives of others who do not subscribe? As far as I am concerned, if the couple down the road (and that's just an expression, before my neighbours start libel proceedings) want to divorce, marry someone of the same sex, shack-up with multiple partners and generally do their thing, that's fine with me as long as they don't startle the horses.
RSS
Comments
I find it very easy to convince the fact lovers to abandon irrationality (religion). Rationality is the only way.
I do believe that religious people are ignorant but not in a malicious way. Religious people are ignorant to the fact of evolution and just because you cannot disprove that a tea pot orbits the sun, it doesn't mean that it exists (so is the 'God' hypothesis).
Rather then focusing on time wasteful subjects like religion, we should spend that same time to further science, so that we can progressively find answers to questions that still have no answer.
For me abortion is not justified anthropologically, because if we justify abortion, then we justify murder, which is not healthy for the survival of our species. We need to give the opportunity for the baby to grow and develop. Maybe, who knows, with abortion you might be killing an Einstein in the making (with all due respect to DCG).
Of course, there is no guarantee of success, but as with the working analogy, one might still be part of a system and still oppose some of its rules (if one so wishes). Remember Galileo?
Proud of not being part of any religion!
Unfortunately nowadays it seems that to some people, the institution of marriage is an alien concept and is something that should be avoided at all costs, mainly for the fact that if in the event of the marriage not working, then it is usually the husband who ends up losing out financially..............I should stress, only if the couple can't come to an amicible settlement.
On the other hand even in a common law marriage which has broken down, the financial details have still got to be sorted out, and if it can't be done by mutual consent then it has to be done through the courts..........So what's the difference?
All relationships are defined by the couple, some may founder whereas others prosper.
But what I can say as a married man, is that all relationships have to be worked on, not all are a bed of roses. I am talking about both married and co-habitating couples.
Your statement about having children not being an issue, is quite wrong, it is a very important issue and when you become a father you will understand, I am not sure what you mean when you say that the state provides protection, do you mean financial or institutional?
I have to admit that with so many cohabitating couples these days it seems that illigitimacy is no longer a blight and source of shame as it was a few years ago, but never the less I still think that marriage is a good institution and the best environment in which to bring up children.
If I misunderstood you, you now have the opportunity to explain yourself better.
I wasn't just criticizing your "mode of speech". I was also criticizing your archaic fundamentalist and literalist thinking.
It is strange that when people like James and myself try to give good comments in respect of life, they are either not understood or criticized for their mode of speech (respectively). The others comments are like a Xarabank of opinions, illusions, false prophets and misconception or as James said is oiling the discourse!
In my case, marriage was just a formality. Neither me, nor my wife takes our commitment for-granted and each of us is free to leave whenever we like. We don't assign to either of us any "gender-roles", and we both let ourselves have our own private life. Perhaps this, in itself, is the closest to a guarantee that such a respectful relationship like ours is bound to be permanent. And if it doesn't, we'll simply move on.
Of course, the above unfortunately does not apply to most people.
So I would say that marriage is simply a cultural blunder. I think that long term relationships without marriage are stronger, because they are not based on material equations, with only love as the binding factor. Both sides of the relationship would not be in a position to take the other side fore granted.
I still have to find someone to convince me otherwise? so comments welcome!
Hehe.
"@all the men who feel their honour has been impugned because I said they shouldn't have any say in the matter of whether a woman has an abortion or not: you will have an equal say the day you start getting pregnant for four-and-a-half months and delivering half of the baby."
Well, what can I say on this, Daphne. Ask your fellow women not to have sex with men anymore then, if they do not want to get pregnant!
When that happens, I will agree with you that men shouldn't have a say on pregnancy matters at all.
Also, I know that it is peculiarly Maltese for grown men to run crying into their mother's arms, but please don't lump me in with that culture. When real men have problems with their wives, they sort them out with their wives, not with their mothers.
First of all, I did not suggest that women have to get permission from fathers to make an abortion, but what I did is hint that there is also an issue of equality of the sexes to be considered. You may deny it until you are blue, and call this equality concept weak, but after a baby is born, in this day and age, both fathers and mothers have to take care of their baby together especially as there are lots of working mums. Having babies is for 9 months, raising kids is legally for 18 years, if not more.
Secondly you put all men as having problems with their zipper, when on the same argument, it is known that there are women who are like minded, but why generalise like this? It simply is not fair. It takes two to tango. You put men in a bad light sorry and label us as sex monsters, with no care about making women pregnant.
I did not mention anything about laws, but I was looking at it more ethically. The law never sorts out properly abortion issues such as the emotional issues that occur after an abortion. It sees everything in black and white, but in life there are shades..
I wonder how you would feel if, one fine day, your son comes to you broken hearted because your daughter-in-law has decided to end a pregnancy and your son has no choice in the matter, if not legally not even morally?
And no, C. Mallia - I am not 'against men'. I share a house with four of them, after all. I am only against Maltese men of a certain generation, whose knuckles scrape the floor when then walk.
You seem to forget about equality of the sexes, when you say abortion is the prerogative of women.
You seem to forget that an embryo is made of the same amount of genes from both parents
You seem to ignore the rights of the unborn child, as you say, mothers have the right to terminate it
You implicitly rubbish the father's role in a family, and think that women are the only ones who contribute to it
Because a woman has a 9 month pregnancy with all its suffering and has a womb, then she has the exclusive right to decide upon a child's destiny. As if women don’t need men to get a baby in the first place. Sperm banks would go bust.
What thrash. Now where is the garbage bag!!
I do agree that marriage has mostly disadvantages when one marries the wrong person. But, what about when someone has been married for close to thirty years and then the husband suddenly starts sleeping around and abandons the family? what then?
Not only that, but your continuous ranting such as "but mainly because they don't want somebody who may have been little more than a brief fling controlling their movements for the next 18 years." proves nothing and shows that you can't come up with a good enough argument to allow abortion (you actually show how much abortion is really killing a human life).
@all the men who feel their honour has been impugned because I said they shouldn't have any say in the matter of whether a woman has an abortion or not: you will have an equal say the day you start getting pregnant for four-and-a-half months and delivering half of the baby.
As for Christine Galea, I've already commented earlier in this blog below, that no religion has the right to call human principles its own. Please read my earlier comments starting "Daphne & all" in this same blog.
This quote from Albert Einstein says it all....
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
Let's say a family woman gets raped and has to bear the rapist's child for 9 months. What about the effect it will have on her marriage, and her family. The government provides counselling? Big deal. Being raped has enough pychological repercussions as it is. No need to stretch the traumatic experience for 9 months.
Regarding the subject of the unnecessary and avoidable death of the Jehovahs Witness, I am of the opinion that doctors should be able to ignore the fact that members of this cult are opposed to blood transfusions.
The patient should be sedated and given the necessary transfusion, and they can argue about it afterwards......Although I shouldn't think that there will be much of an arguement.
At least the husband will still have a wife and the children a mother.
In such cases as this,the law should be changed in support of the medical profession, who after all are there to save lives.
This is such a tragic and unnecessary waste of a young life.
I must admit that I don't know much about the Jehovahs Witness / Watchtower Society, apart from the fact that it is a very wealthy organisation which was established in the 1880s.
Can it be classified as a religious order? Frankly I'm not sure, although in many peoples eyes this is nothing more than a cult.
The founder, a guy by the name of Charles Taze Russell, was known to have introduced many physically and spiritually dangerous doctrines of his own making, I wonder if prohibiting blood transfusions were one of them?
I now await the flak from the local Jehovahs fraternity, (of whom there are many) I must admit that they are pretty good at explaining their cult.
To give it another angle, would mum be justified in killing her rape-child if he were, say, 2 years old, on the basis of his/her having been brought about by rape ? If not, why would she be justified in killing him/her 27 months earlier ie at six months in-utero, or at three months, or at two ..... ?
If we justify abortion, than we might as well justify murder or capital punishment.
Abortion is simply not justified from a strictly social/anthropological point of view.
Helping and giving our utmost support to those people that need it is the way forward and there is never a "need" for abortion (except that of saving the mother's life in very extreme, rare cases).
Love life and life will love you back.
With regards to abortion... what about pregnancy as a result of rape? Some punk giving a woman a cross to bear, and the laws not helping her out of the hole she's in because we're religious.
Christine Galea, values and "good" behaviour are based on ethics, not religion or laws. Atheists don't murder people and rob banks any more than religious people do. Now if a "good" life to you must include praying and church-going, that's just your particular opinion.
A little aside... my dad shares your conviction that Chelsea have what it takes to lift the cup... after the first round are you still of that persuasion? I hope they win (by hook or by crook) if only to see the old man happy. Next year is another matter... we'll hopefully be back with Cudicini subbing for Buffon... at least Cudicini might get another chance for the trophy n'est-ce pas?
First of all the trend lately is for governments to give certain, if not all the rights even to people who co habitate and so there is a lesser need for marriage in that sense...
Secondly, I personally totally disagree that gay people are given the right for "marriage" as "marriage" in itself is a formal union between a man and a women. I however have no objection that gay people chose to live together. The only thing is that if they wish to officially tie the bond, they can call it something else... but not a marriage. I am also not comfortable that gay people bring up children.. Ideally a child should grow up in a "mother-role / father role" environment
If that is not enough or you misunderstood me, please consider that I am doing my best and you know! If that offended you, it was not intended to your being/mentally/physically/or other (you mention) You know that with to much rushing I tend to write erroneously and I am not rechecking what I have written wrong and rush to early to submit. I hope you forgive me.
I hope this is not foggy so I stop here.
I don't think marriage provides any real benefits at all especially for men, who in 90% of the cases lose their house, half of their wealth, their kids and need to pay monthly maintenance to their ex-wife!
Ugh... and hey, from when all human beings are asexual? Reading Daphne's comments it's like women are self inseminating.... maybe we have a say afterall, since sperm is our copyright ;-) hearing Daphne is like all men are rapists and women never willingly have sex with men lol
There is a touch of misandry in DCG's comments but this is my opinion of course. May I remind everyone that our family law is extremely sexist and totally against the male parent
Now, about abortion, and I will keep it short and simple: I am obviously not the first one to state that this is a somewhat complex matter... Leaving religion and our Maltese background completely out of it, on one side, you have the right of the unborn child, to live. The unwanted pregnancy is surely not the child's fault! An abortion can also be interpreted as a murder, re affirming the concept the the unborn child has the same rights like all of us who had the privilege to breath in oxygen with our own nostrils and not through the umbilical chord.... mmmmmmm ... on the other hand there are situations where-would-be mothers (and possibly would-be-fathers! DCG please note... were it not for your father, you wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be privileged with your existance) are not "prepared" to bring up a child.. Rape victims, very young mothers, mothers with health and financial problems could all be possible candidates for "needing" to abort a child. In my opinion, abortion should be allowed, but the "allowed" cases should be carefully restricted to certain cases... which in itself creates another debate as to what exactly is acceptable as an "allowed" case. One thing for sure, and that is, that the global direction is for pro abortion. One can also argue that we cannot force a mother to give birth to a child and in certain cases, to expect her to bring the child up. As always, prevention is better than cure and so I emphasise the importance of educating society, starting from the very young at school and all the way up to late adulthood.
And if anyone wishes to have an excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black, it's la Daphne claiming that some people - other than herself - are intollerant and that they wish others to live as they do! U hallina!!!!! :-)
DCG is fond of associating the debate on abortion with 'men who have no business expressing themselves'. Today, I notice she went a step further and also eliminated a sector of women who, according to her, have lost their femininity. Eventually, I expect she will classify herself as the only person on earth with a right to an opinion on this subject. This seems to be the essence of liberalism a la Daphne.
The sad truth about men's involvement with abortion is that it empowers men to shag their way through as many women as they can lay their hands on and to shrug off any responsibility for their actions when their partners become pregnant. For a few dollars, they can forget about the whole business, leaving their women to carry the burden and to go through the entire gruesome process alone. And the cherry on the cake is that they have successfully convinced women that this state of affairs 'frees' them to choose how to live their lives. Abortion enslaves women, forcing them down a dreadful path from which there is no turning back, while freeing the very men who got them into this situation in the first place, to carry on merrily as if nothing had ever happened
If two people are serious and mature enough to commit to each other to live together forever, they wouldn't need marriage. Marriage contributes to further tension a relationship gone wrong. It is this tension that negatively impacts children rather than a mutually agreed, tense-free seperation between unmarried couples.
Unfortunately, in most cases, our society still sees marriage as an kind of insurance policy for the weaker part of the deal. The secret truth behind most local marriages.
I agree that law and society have to protect children at all costs but that in itself, doesn't justify marriage. Law must protect the siblings of any relationship, irrispective if the relationship is materially contract based (marriage) or not.
My question is, after all... why do people need marriage at all?
I am afraid that you are also an "awful ambassador" of democracy. How can you go about attacking such a fundamental role in our society as that of fatherhood. Men have a right to speak out not only because they are human beings but more so because they also happen to be fathers. But it seems that you have in the name of democracy wiped out love, marriage and parenthood. Well done! Your intellectual superiority complex will one fine day land you in hell, figuratively speaking, since you don’t believe in hell.
Fair enough, although I do have some reservations. For instance, when most anti-abortionists say "respect life" they only mean "human life". Regarding being faithful, this depends on the merits of the case. We are in fact morally duty bound not to be faithful to tyrants, for instance. Regarding respecting authority, depends on the authority in question, etc. But I do get the gist of your comment.
However, here's a question I would like to ask you. If you oppose the introduction of divorce in Malta, what reason other than the belief that "God said so" do you have for imposing this belief on the rest? Before replying, you might wish to read my previous comments on divorce and its supposed negative effects.
Remember that imposing on others beliefs that do not rest on evidence makes one a fundamentalist.
I am a proud atheist but also very much against abortion. If one can justify abortion by strictly medical reasons (e.g. arguments about embryo not considered a human being within a certain timeframe etc), then one can justify murder all together (by rationalizing if certain human beings are worth keeping alive etc).
I agree with Daphne that women have the most important say in the matter, however no more than the say of a mother psychologically hurt with the murder of her siblings.
I do not think that Christianity or any other religion has any right to call human principles and morality its own.
The same morality that religious people make their own, is nothing more than a conscious and obvious innate understanding that if we do not live together in harmony, we would eventually destroy our own species (humanity).
We know that killing someone for example, is not good, because we don’t want that to happen to us. We know that stealing is not good because we don’t want that to happen to us… and so on and so forth.
So really and truly we know exactly what are the wrongs and rights. They are written in the face of everyone to see and understand.
If we let murder for example, happen in a society, that society would accelerate its disintegration, i.e. murder foments revenge, triggering a chain of revenge murders that would eventually destroy that society. Same can happen to humanity if we let murder (or any other ‘moral’ wrong) happen unobstructed on a global scale.
So morals are nothing more than mere obvious rules that are paramount to social cohesion and human evolutionary progress.
Comments welcome
You are out of percentages by 40%
it s a one to one 50-50
if you have not already realized.
So we will have no priests interferring in marriage solutions since they were not married before!!! but I am sure they heard about them and can accumulate more fine statistics than you
Secondly, I would like to clarify my comment about our laws being guided by Catholic beliefs. What I mean is that the laws of the country are to be constructed on natural law and values. These are beneficial to all human beings, believers or not. These values are all contained in the Christian-Catholic faith. Our Catholic faith gives believers further help and motivation to live accordingly. The axiom 'grace perfects nature is true', I believe. I can give concrete examples: to respect life, to be truthful, to be faithful, to respect authority and to respect others’ rights and belongings are natural values and laws. They are all contained in our civil laws. The fact that they are also part of our Catholic faith, does not make our country confessional or us fundamentalists. Moreover, the fact that they are part of the Catholic faith does not free declared non-believers from their observance.
All organised religions create a god in their image, endow it with what they think he/her should be, burden him/her with saints they create, exterminate and destroy whole civilizations in his name, and expect the whole of humanity to prostrate to this image they have created in their own image.
Yes organised religion is the opium of the masses……….
I prefer to think that humanity was created in the image of a God, and all the puny thoughts, holier that though attitudes and earthly aspirations have no meaning in the vastness of space and time.
I repeat what I wrote before;
Our representatives place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the constitution and not the other way round.
They are liable to their electors.
Didn't you say that "Malta, on the other hand, is a democracy."? And now, you want to invalidate 90% of our opinion because we're men?
Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to take in blood or its major components because they believe that blood is sacred and should only be used as God designates.
Advancements in blood technology have enabled doctors to fractionate blood components (red blood cells, white blood cells, plasma and platelets) even further, extracting elements such as clotting factors, immune globulin and hemoglobin. In cases of treatments involving such blood derivatives, individual Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to decide for themselves which blood fractions, if any, are personally acceptable. This difference of opinion is tolerated within the congregation, and each Witness is encouraged at all times to carry a legally executed document stating his or her choices.
In more recent years, as doctors have worked to cope with challenges such as tainted blood scandals, widespread fears about the integrity of the blood supply and transfusion matching errors, they have found unlikely partners in Jehovah’s Witnesses. Forced by the HIV epidemic and blood shortages to seek alternatives to transfusions of donated blood, doctors found the Witnesses willing to test new therapies and surgical techniques that would maximize the body’s own blood-producing capacity and minimize blood loss during surgery. Doctors have successfully performed a wide variety of treatments and surgical procedures without blood, including open-heart surgery and organ transplants. Research in 2006 shows that there are over 100,000 doctors in the United States that offer some version of bloodless treatment to all patients regardless of religious beliefs.
The shed blood of Jesus Christ, representing the human life that he gave in behalf of mankind, is key to the Christian hope. It means forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life. When a Christian abstains from blood, he is in effect expressing his faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem him and save his life.
Your point that the weaker a person's argument is, the more incoherent their language becomes: it's not a coincidence, because the ability to argue rationally is impossible without the ability to think rationally, and rational thought and arguments are expressed in rational language. You'll find that when people's writing is incoherent, it's because their thoughts are incoherent, leading to incoherent arguments expressed in incoherent language. You can't express an irrational argument in rational language.
@ Kyle Pullicino - what ambiguous answer? Read my lips: organised religions have no place anywhere that gives them power over anyone's lives.
As an example, I can't believe how Mr. Cardona gave Mrs. Gauci an ambiguous answer which could spread even more misinformation. The Constitution says that the Catholic Church is duty bound to intervene whenever it doesn't agree with something and that's all. It has nothing to do with the Church blocking legalisation or whatnot. To be honest, I believe more organisations should voice their opinions and be heard rather than be accused of "fundamentalism" and an infinite number of fancy words which, more often than not, have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
And finally, I have nothing against having an organisation that is duty-bound to teach peace, love, charity and liberty (in fact, I've never been hunted down by an "inquisitor" every time I had a different opinion during my life) such as the Catholic Church.
I find the religious objections to divorce cited by Ms Christine Galea perplexing. She fails to realise that divorce is a secular remedy which dissolves only the civil marriage and has no effect on the continuing legitimacy of the religious one. This is, of course, why divorcees like myself who were married in church are considered by the Catholic Church to be married still (and in this context separated couples are in no different a position). Irrespective of whether the civil marriage has been sundered or rescinded, whether by separation or divorce, the religious marriage is held to be unaffected. It is for this reason that, for instance, Catholic divorcees still owe a duty of fidelity to their respective spouses. If it is asserted (and the assertion is logically correct in my view) that a civil dissolution of a civil marriage alters not the validity of a religious one, what possible religious objection can there be to the civil dissolution?
@Leonard Gauci - yeah, right.... (it's 8 pm, so the game hasn't started....)
Divorce is legal in Malta for those who are well-off enough to obtain it abroad. But consider this: If Maltese law should reflect Catholic religious belief, all divorced and re-married people who come to live in Malta would have to be arrested and taken to court on charges of bigamy, since their first marriage would, according to Catholic doctrine, still be valid.
I am under the impression that our Consitution mentions Catholicism as the country's religion. So can the government 'legalise' some practice which goes against that same reigion? Also, is it possible for Malta to introduce divorce for civil marriages only?
On a different note, I fully agree with your comments with reagrds to syntax and vocabulary.
I also think that the separation between religion (ANY religion) and state is an essential prerequisite for a modern democracy to function.
Unfortunately, many people would interpret this as meaning that a modern democracy lacks ethics or moral principles, which is certainly not the case. One can hardly blame them given that on these islands all experts on ethics and morals seem to be deeply immersed in the catholic religion. Who could know better?
Moreover, the fact that Maltese politicians profess to be guided by their faith is not "brave" in the least. Just like everything else they say, it simply reflects what they think they should say to avoid loosing votes. And that's also what democracy is all about... we get the MPs and consequent legislation we deserve.
Freedom misconstrued as “I did it my way” inevitably leads to freedom’s decay. Building a truly free society depends upon transforming separate individuals into a powerful collectivity. Beyond that however, the future of freedom depends on men and women of virtue, who are capable of knowing and choosing that which is genuinely good.
Anyone who has read the writings of the late Pope John II knows that he spent much of the 1990s explaining that freedom, untethered from moral truth, risks self-destruction.
It is dangerous to deny a legitimate role for Christian principles in our secular society. If we want to preserve the dignity of the human person, we cannot deny the contribution made by Christianity to this principle.
Indeed, a truly free society requires that the limit on individual freedom is at the point where the exercise of such freedom impinges on the freedoms of another. The moral convictions of others are quite irrelevant to me, as I am sure the moral convictions of others - or my own -are quite irrelevant to you or your readers. As one commentator put it: "MY freedom is much, much more important than YOUR religion."
Some seem to imply that religion and secularism are incompatible. I would beg to differ. I live life by my religious convictions, but believe in a secular society where others can do the same - that is - live life by their religious convictions, not mine. This is what freedom of worship is all about, and yes, it's in our constitution, in that legally enforceable bit about human rights. Freedom to live life by their religious convictions, of course, until such point as the exercise of their freedom starts to affect the exercise of others' freedoms.
Once again, keep up the good work. It's not you against the world. It's the world against a handful of people, admittedly in high concentration on these islands, who seem to be stuck in pre-French revolution thinking.
Now let's take the issue of divorce. For non-Christians, marriage is just a binding contract between two persons. Now, like all binding contracts, such contracts can be nullified if both parties come to such an agreement. Of course, Catholics, if they are really Catholics, should not divorce. But others have every right to, for the reason I have given above.
One might say "what about the children?". Well, if there are any, I would think that the children would rather have their parents separated than constantly fighting in their presence. And in anycase, does not separation have the same consequences for the children as divorce? Is separation illegal in Malta? I think not. Is separation condemned by the Church? Again, I think not - it is actually sometimes encouraged, especially where the reason for it includes violence.
So again, true Catholics should not divorce, but the rest should have the legal means to do so in their own country (since, just in case this has escaped the fundies among us, divorce is not illegal in Malta. Well off people may obtain a divorce in another country and re-marry in Malta - how's that for hypocricy?).
Issues as fundamental as the legalization of divorce go far beyond being a personal matter or choice. If our country's laws are not to be guided by our Catholic beliefs then what are they to be guided by???? Kudos to Marlene Pullicino - may other parliamentarians follow her example and take a brave and firm stand on this issue as she intends to do.
For generations it has been thought that we are eternal because we will ‘live’ forever which is not true because life has a beginning and so it is not eternal. What we have named as the ‘spirit’ could be eternal; but this creates an enigma. Eternity has no beginning and no end.
So in line with this thought ‘we have been’ before ‘we are’, if when we say ‘we’ we mean the spirit. With this in mind can one argue that whatever we might be deciding to do with life has nothing to do with the spirit because the fate of that life has already been decided? With the concept of eternity being ‘no beginning and no end’, can one put the question ‘Where was I before I became me?’
Having said that, when it comes to legislating, our representatives must remember that they have placed their hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the constitution, and not the other way round.
"why shouldn't the same condemnation be directed at pseudo-Christian sects? Or any other ludicrous religion or belief system or "opinion freely held", for that matter?"
Not I'm not really sure about this, but doesn't the Catholic Church condemn Christian sects such as Jehova's Witnesses and the Ku Klux Klan?
"But should personal religious convictions be allowed to interfere in the consideration of legislation that would be entirely secular?"
That's the point of religious convictions. A set of principles, that in no way should harm the fundamental rights of other people, that you decide to adhere to. I don't agree with a legislation that is entirely secular and neither do I agree with a legislation that is "multi-religious" (more than one religion) because religion is that which gives direction.
Also, as far as I know, legislation is there to promote peace, love, charity, security and prosperity; things, that many of the major religious organisations have put their greatest minds on to find ways, to achieve. So I find no problem with a legislation that listens to the opinions (that's the point of democracy after all) of a sensible religious organisation.
I also disagree with "If you are Christian and want to live your life according to what you understand are the tenets of that faith, fine, it's your life and as long as you don't cause harm to anyone else, you're free to do so."
If everyone is left to live life completely as they like to they would eventually harm the society as a whole. Some sort of principles have to be laid down for everyone but if you don't agree you have no right to go against them. If you find trouble accepting those principles though, you have many opportunities to make your voice heard and try to convince the majority in your favour (that's also the point of democracy).