http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24554498-5005941,00.html
Originally I had intended not to blog on the latest attempt to banish even the mere invocation of the Lord from the corridors of power, but then I read this remark by the Hon. Harry Jenkins M.P., Speaker of the House of Representatives:
Reading the comments at the on-line edition, I was interested to see secularists speak of Christian belief in a ‘sky-god’ (Zeus, perhaps?), like MgS’s resort to puerile talk of a ‘cloud being’ when it became clear that she had no clear idea of what justice was. Obviously these childish little outbursts of name-calling are intended to belittle Christian belief, but it’s interesting to look a little more closely at these terms. They reveal the humanistic immanentism of the secularists, whereby there is no deity ‘out there’, and so with humans the closest things to gods ‘in here’ we can strut about like the Giants and Titans (reference to Iota Unum intended) and create our own morality; thus MgS spoke for her fellow secularists when she said that “I do not reject metaphysical constructs as a way to frame thought”, while rejecting them in truth and picking and choosing according to her whim, case by case, which of these concepts she wants to borrow. Sadly, it is clear that thinkers (such as they are) like this exert a great influence on social, political and judicial outcomes.
Reginaldvs Cantvar
27.X.2008 A.D.
Originally I had intended not to blog on the latest attempt to banish even the mere invocation of the Lord from the corridors of power, but then I read this remark by the Hon. Harry Jenkins M.P., Speaker of the House of Representatives:
"One day we'll get to the level of maturity where this can be discussed without being divisive," he said.Is he saying, then, that to be fervently for (or for that matter, against) the Our Father is to lack the ‘maturity’ to move in the enlightened, genteel circles where all are glib, syncretistic irenicists who don’t really feel too strongly one way or the other? The glaring contradiction in his remark, though, is that any debate with clear-cut affirmative and negative sides will be, of its nature, divisive.
Reading the comments at the on-line edition, I was interested to see secularists speak of Christian belief in a ‘sky-god’ (Zeus, perhaps?), like MgS’s resort to puerile talk of a ‘cloud being’ when it became clear that she had no clear idea of what justice was. Obviously these childish little outbursts of name-calling are intended to belittle Christian belief, but it’s interesting to look a little more closely at these terms. They reveal the humanistic immanentism of the secularists, whereby there is no deity ‘out there’, and so with humans the closest things to gods ‘in here’ we can strut about like the Giants and Titans (reference to Iota Unum intended) and create our own morality; thus MgS spoke for her fellow secularists when she said that “I do not reject metaphysical constructs as a way to frame thought”, while rejecting them in truth and picking and choosing according to her whim, case by case, which of these concepts she wants to borrow. Sadly, it is clear that thinkers (such as they are) like this exert a great influence on social, political and judicial outcomes.
Reginaldvs Cantvar
27.X.2008 A.D.
1 comment:
"One day we'll get to the level of maturity where this can be discussed without being divisive," he said.
General Secular weeniness.
What he means is, when you religious fanatics learn to think exactly as I do, we'll all get along just fine.
Secularists, for all their touting of "diversity" do not like it in the slightest.
Post a Comment