tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post391252110678913701..comments2023-12-28T01:11:49.188-08:00Comments on Cum Lazaro: On being open to the Church’s teaching…Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-81316175427241924502011-11-02T02:30:48.030-07:002011-11-02T02:30:48.030-07:00The Solas document is a bit of a rant -a product o...The Solas document is a bit of a rant -a product of that Protestant mind set which sees it as important to witness to God's commands rather than try and persuade others by truths available to natural reason and, I suspect, a sense that the Government's mind here is already made up and you might as well go down fighting.(On the Scottish government's mind being already made up see http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Politics/article/18249/snp-fringe-debate-reignites-same-sex-marriage-row.html.) But it is a rant directed not against homosexuality but against a specific social measure -the rewriting of marriage law- and against the marginalization of Christians in Scottish public life. From an evangelical Protestant point of view, Solas could have argued that homosexuality was an abomination. (They didn't.)They could have argued for the abolition of civil partnerships. (They didn't.) All they did was to denounce a proposed legislative change that needs to be considered on its own merits as a contribution to the common good and not simply as a question on the rightness or wrongness of homosexual activity, and to complain (loudly)that Christians and Christianity were being 'ostracised and discriminated against'. If Wilson's denouncers had a shred of humour, they might at least enjoy the irony of that.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-27892775481425877892011-11-01T19:11:50.276-07:002011-11-01T19:11:50.276-07:00Well-written post. I have some sympathy for the si...Well-written post. I have some sympathy for the situation Gordon Wilson found himself in, but at the same time I can understand why the CAB chose not to re-elect him. The issue was probably not so much that he opposed same-sex marriage, but the language in which he attacked it, which one CAB board member describes as "vocal and vitriolic" (see http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/i_fell_victim_to_gay_marriage_lynch_mob_claims_ex_snp_leader_1_1937333 ). Reading through the controversial Solas document which Wilson co-authored, I tend to agree with her (read the report at http://www.solas-cpc.org/SolasResponse.pdf ). The CAB is an organisation which is meant to serve the community as a whole and make everybody feel welcome. If its board members are very publicly behaving in a way which seems to contradict that objective, then a conflict of interest emerges.Scouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00843758098631948181noreply@blogger.com