|
By Craig Manners
Samuel Johnson once declared, "The supreme end of education is expert discernment in all things - the power to tell the good from the bad, the genuine from the counterfeit, and to prefer the good and the genuine to the bad and the counterfeit." A “complete” education needs to be an education which includes the basics such as reading, writing, maths, science (the proper science, not the modern, man-exalting, ear-tickling, bad behaviour-justifying, evolution promoting “science”), locally useful practical skills, the classical elements of education, such as art, music, and then, one could argue most importantly, Christian, Bible-based theology (knowledge of God and His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ alone, available through faith alone, given by God's grace alone). The modern world more and more seeks to remove religion, especially all Christian influence, from every public sphere, with arguments that suggest everyone can have input into society except Christians, that all ideas are welcome and equal in the public square, except anything to do with the God of the Bible (the only true and living God, who has revealed Himself for us in the Bible so that we do not have to speculate and make up false gods). Young people should be encouraged at school to have a true freedom-of-enquiry and encourage personal investigation into the big issues of life, rather than be bullied into the deception that they should remain ignorant and overlook and avoid an honest search for truth regarding God. I agree with G.K. Chesterton, who wrote in 1914: “Because the elementary school doesn't teach theology, it must be excused when it doesn't teach anything. The bias of the modern world is so enormous that it will allow a thing to be inefficient as long as it is also irreligious.” Students should be encouraged to be able to think for themselves and to openly be able to investigate religious and theological matters, starting with the objective truths revealed for all mankind in God’s Word the Bible. The Western world lives under a government imposed secularism. Many people today turn their noses at the suggestion of including the Christian religion in a child’s education. They would rather that children be taught to believe in nothing (things without any hope, such as the "theory" of evolution), or everything (relativism), or to be taught to just remain ignorant, to leave God out of the picture, to grow up refusing to ever investigate the great questions of human existence, to see for themselves if there is any truth. “Don’t talk about religion” they tell children. To borrow a response from Chesterton: How absolutely absurd! Those who demand religion and religious people be kept out of contributing to society, those who demand to "keep religion and politics separate" are trying to get their own way without being open to having their own beliefs or agendas investigated. Their beliefs are often indefensible when honestly investigated, which is why they so vehemently push for ignorance to reign, rather than honest and open intellectual enquiry into religion, into atheism and into evolution. They are therefore in effect "anti-education," they do not want people to have a complete education. Without an honest and open-minded investigation of the biggest selling book of our world, the Bible, a person cannot be completely educated. Those who hate God hate His word and demand that the Bible be ridiculed and ignored. Why should we be so ignorant though? Ironically some of the biggest haters in our modern Western societies are the radical atheists, and the militant promoters of sexual deviancy and immorality, who fiercely demand that the God they insist doesn't exist be silenced. Why is that? "It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything." G.K. Chesterton. Below are some further interesting quotes from Chesterton on education: “The whole point of education is that it should give a man abstract and eternal standards by which he can judge material and fugitive standards.” (Illustrated London News 3-29-30) “The only real object of all education is to teach people the proportions of things, that they may see what things are large and what small: we seem bent on teaching to prefer in everything what is small to what is great, what is doubtful to what is certain, and what is trivial to what is eternal.” (ILN Aug. 24, 1912) “The truth is that the modern world has committed itself to two totally different and inconsistent conceptions about education. It is always trying to expand the scope of education; and always trying to exclude from it all religion and philosophy. But this is sheer nonsense. You can have an education that teaches atheism because atheism is true, and it can be, from its own point of view, a complete education. But you cannot have an education claiming to teach all truth, and then refusing to discuss whether atheism is true.” (The Common Man) “About half the history now taught in schools and colleges is made windy and barren by the narrow notion of leaving out the theological . . . Historians seem to have completely forgotten two facts - first that men act from ideas; and second, that it might, therefore, be as well to discover which ideas.” (ILN 5-13-11) “Because the elementary school doesn't teach theology, it must be excused when it doesn't teach anything. The bias of the modern world is so enormous that it will allow a thing to be inefficient as long as it is also irreligious.” (ILN 7-18-14) “There is something to be said for teaching everything to somebody, as compared with the modern notion of teaching nothing, and the same sort of nothing, to everybody. For what we force on all families, by the power of the police, is not a philosophy but the art of reading and writing unphilosophically.” (All I Survey) “Every education teaches a philosophy; if not by dogma then by suggestion, by implication, by atmosphere. Every part of that education has a connection with every other part. If it does not all combine to convey some general view of life, it is not an education at all.” (The Common Man) “The moment men begin to care more for education than for religion they begin to care more for ambition than for education. It is no longer a world in which the souls of all are equal before heaven, but a world in which the mind of each is bent on achieving unequal advantage over the other.” (The Common Man) “These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.” (ILN 8-11-28) “Great truths can only be forgotten and can never be falsified.” (ILN 9-30-33) “Teach, to the young, men's enduring truths, and let the learned amuse themselves with their passing errors.” (ILN 10-15-10) “A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching.” (What's Wrong With the World) “Education is only the truth in a state of transmission; and how can we pass on truth if it has never come into our hand?” (What's Wrong with the World.) 11 June 2015
The Hon Tony Abbott MP Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Prime Minister Re: Bills to redefine marriage so as to allow ‘same-sex marriage’ As leaders of Australia’s major religions we write to express the grave concerns that we, and those who share our various faiths, share regarding Bills that have or will be introduced into the Federal Parliament to change the definition of marriage in Australian law. The definition of marriage enshrined in the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 – "the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life" – reflects a truth deeply embedded across diverse communities, faiths and cultures. To uphold marriage as the mutual love of a man and a woman, open to the gift of children, is not bigotry or prejudice. At many times throughout history, and sadly still today in some places, people with same-sex attraction have suffered injustice. This is to be deplored. We should do more to ensure that our brothers and sisters who are same-sex attracted are treated with the dignity and respect owed to every human being. But this does not require the further deconstruction of marriage as traditionally understood. Vast majority of nations and cultures share our understanding of marriage Because of the crucial role marriage plays as the nursery for the future of the community, and its responsibility always to act in the best interests of children, governments everywhere recognise and regulate marriage. Far from being unusual in the international community for not supporting ‘same-sex marriage’, Australia’s definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman is consistent with that of the vast majority of world nations, who represent over 91 per cent of the global population.1 To date, only 21 of the 193 member states of the United Nations have changed their legal definition of marriage to incorporate same-sex unions.2 International courts continue to recognise the truth that marriage is a union of a man and a woman oriented to the begetting and nurturing of children. 3 Page | 2 As the United Nations Human Rights Committee has affirmed, the "right to marry and found a family", expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elsewhere, "implies, in principle, the possibility to procreate".4 This highlights a crucial way in which marriage between a man and a woman is different from a relationship between two men or two women. Stating this belief publicly and upholding it in law is not bigotry, but an acknowledgment of legitimate difference. The link to children is essential to what marriage means For the sake of children and to encourage men and women to commit to one another and to their offspring, marriage between a man and a woman has always been given the special recognition and support of the state. This proposed legislation undermines that shared understanding of marriage and places the wishes of adults above the interests of children. It fails to acknowledge the truth that children constitute the very basis for the state’s recognition and regulation of marriage. We acknowledge that, sadly, some marriages and families break down. But a stable, loving marriage provides the best conditions for raising children. Marriage between a man and a woman gives children the best chance of being loved and raised by their biological mother and father. This is the family structure most consistent with a child’s right to know who they are and where they have come from. It is the family structure associated most strongly with positive child outcomes.5 Any adult person can love and care for a child. But, as a couple, two persons of the same sex are not able to provide a child with the experience of both mothering and fathering.6 Only the institution of marriage between a man and a woman has this inherent capacity to provide children with both of these relationships that are so foundational to our human identity and development. The proposed legislation would send confusing messages to the community about marriage. At a time when marriage is already under significant strains and pressures, we urge you to do all that you can to support marriage – not undermine its meaning and importance, most of all, for children. Consequences of redefining marriage As overseas experience shows us, redefining marriage will have consequences for everyone, as the truth about marriage becomes increasingly a truth which cannot be spoken. It will create legal vulnerabilities for the millions of Australians who will always believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and who entered into marriage on that basis. In overseas jurisdictions where the definition of marriage has been changed, the public manifestation of this belief has resulted in vilification and legal punishment of individuals and institutions.7 This violates not only freedom of religion, but also the rights of conscience, belief and association, and the right of parents to educate their children according to their own beliefs. The experience of these countries Page | 3 which have redefined marriage demonstrates that attempts to address these concerns through legislative "exemptions" have proven to be worthless.8 We urge you and your fellow Members of Parliament to uphold the law of the Commonwealth of Australia regarding marriage as the union of a man and a woman and to continue to support the common good of our community by supporting true marriage. We would be happy to meet with you and other MPs to discuss this matter further in person. Yours sincerely For the full list of 41 faith group leaders who are the signatories please see the following link: https://www.sydneycatholic.org/pdf/Letter%20to%20PM%20from%20Faith%20Leaders%20Supporting%20Marriage%2005%2006%2015.pdf By Ian Goodenough
The rights of children are paramount. In an ideal society, every child has the basic human right to be raised by a father and a mother. Unfortunately, this is not always the case even in traditional marriages. However, children should be sheltered from the complexities of same-sex marriages that will involve third parties. By legalising same-sex marriage, these arrangements will become commonplace. Parliament will be creating a range of consequential social and legal complexities with which society will be forced to contend. There will be an enormous cost to society in terms of dealing with social dysfunction, psychological and mental health issues arising from introducing more complicated relationships in an already complex society. The proponents of same-sex marriage are yet to provide a compelling argument as to why civil unions are inadequate in protecting their legal rights. Marriage is not a romantic notion — it is an important social institution that deals with progeny. As an elected representative, I stand by the traditional definition of marriage as being a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. It has evolved as an institution, providing children with the security of a father and mother, a family unit in which to grow up into well-adjusted adults. In an era of political correctness it requires courage and resolve to stand up for traditional marriage, even though it may seemingly be against popular opinion. Ian Goodenough is the Liberal member for Moore https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/28328840/complexities-of-gay-marriage-are-too-risky/ |
March 2020
Categories |
|
RSS Feed