[T]he Greens will receive Labor Senate preferences in every state and territory, and Labor will receive Greens preferences in more than 50 marginal seats.
[http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/fear-mongering-over-greens-deal-20100720-10jjw.html?skin=text-only]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/heterosexual-marriage-is-societys-bedrock/story-e6frg6zo-1225894778178
I seem to recall that Mr. Muehlenberg had a response to Mr. Rodney Croome's recent piece on 'gay marriage' rejected by Fairfax, so I was glad to see this piece published in The Australian today. It is a mostly good summary of the arguments against this curious thing.
Mr. Winders's father was a Freemason
Occasionally one sees letters or comments in the papers or on-line by Mr. Lewis Winders; some of you might be familiar with these. Here is a revealing recent comment by him which I wish to keep for future reference:
Lewis Winders of Tasmania Posted at 3:28 PM July 20, 2010
Glad you mentioned the Freemasons, Henk (a group which, at the last tally, had a record of sexual assaults, infant rapes, violent crusades, tortures and burnings at the stake totalling absolutely zero). My late father was instrumental in introducing women to some of the formerly male-only ceremonies in the Lodge at which he was GM. It certainly rocked a few people's boats at the time but they soon noticed that the world continued to revolve on its axis, so the Great Architect was obviously not too enraged at the idea. Many of the members even grew to appreciate the ladies' company. Just imagine: a group of men enjoying the presence and contribution of women! How misguided is that?
Comment 14 of 14
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mindless-misogyny/comments-fn558imw-1225894270061]
Mind you, I don't want to read too much into the younger Mr. Winders's Masonic connections; our society is so thoroughly liberal, naturalistic, and anti-Catholic that Mr. Winders could just as easily have picked up his tenets from extra-domestic/extra-parental influences.
Blog comments by me
At Mr. Schütz's blog:
Cardinal Pole
July 21, 2010 at 5:18 am
“precisely because Latin doesn’t have articles, if the sense of “one god, but not the one God” was intended, the text would need to include something to point to this.”
Which simply tells us that the sense of “one god, but not the one God” was presumably not intended.
” [I]Nobiscum Deum adorant unicum[/I] means that they adore the unique God along with us”
As would all monotheists (at least those who hold that God can and ought to be adored, of course), yet as we agree, the fact that two persons or sets of persons are monotheists does not mean that their respective monotheisms have the same God.
“the preceding sentence, which [I] don’t quote ”
Because I’m interested here in Islam in particular rather than monotheism in general; indeed, that first sentence reinforces my case to the extent that it reminds us that not everyone who holds that one god is the creator adores the same god.
“You can’t have [I]a[/I] unique God”
Why not? Each of us has, for instance, a unique Tax File Number.
“If the author wanted to say that Muslims and Christian each worship a god which they conceive to be unique, he would need to say that.”
Assuming, of course, that that was indeed what he wanted to say! If he just wanted to say that Muslims are monotheists and to list some of the features of their monotheism, which is presumably all the author in fact wanted to do, then he can do that by saying what was indeed said.
“In short, the [I]Deus unicus[/I] adored by Muslims is the [I]Creator[/I].”
As is the unique god adored by any monotheist who adores a god as creator.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/bill-muehlenberg-takes-issue-with-my-post-on-cadburys-chocolate/#comment-15902]
Cardinal Pole
July 21, 2010 at 6:16 am
Just to clarify the sentence taking up text lines 4-5 of the body of that comment: What I mean there is that the author presumably just wanted to say that Muslims worship one God, while neither affirming nor denying that that one God is the one God, i.e., the same God we Christians worship.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/bill-muehlenberg-takes-issue-with-my-post-on-[cadburys-chocolate/#comment-15904]
Cardinal Pole said...
"Is it just for the State to compel [you] to vote in elections"
The onus is on whoever says that it is unjust to prove the alleged injustice.
July 21, 2010 5:01 AM
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
[http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-it-is-on-australia-goes-to-polls-on.html]
No comments:
Post a Comment