Commentator: Ireland will pay heavily for Gay Unions

Traditional beliefs about marriage will be equated with racism if the Irish Civil Partnership Bill becomes law, a newspaper commentator has warned.

David Quinn, writing in the Irish Independent, warned that the Bill if passed “will treat belief in traditional marriage as a form of prejudice, to be outlawed under certain circumstances.”

Mr Quinn also cautioned that “over time, more and more Christians are going to discover that through this Bill the Government will equate their belief in traditional marriage with racism.”

The commentator also went on to illustrate how churches could fall foul of the law.

He said: “For one thing, a parish will be required by law to rent out its hall to a same-sex couple if they want to use it to hold their reception there following a civil-union ceremony.

He added: “Everyone knows that the Catholic Church believes in traditional marriage, as do Muslims, and traditional-minded Jews and Protestants. But for holding to this belief, and by refusing to facilitate a same-sex civil partnership ceremony and any attendant events, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc will be breaking the law.”

“They will be found guilty of discrimination. They will be put in the same boat as people who refuse to facilitate inter-racial marriage. That is, they will be treated as the exact functional equivalent of racists for believing in traditional marriage.”

The Irish Civil Partnership Bill goes even further than UK legislation as it lays out fines and a potential prison sentence for registrars who refuse to carry out same-sex civil partnerships.

Mr Quinn’s comments reflect a previous attack on the Bill by three Irish Roman Catholic bishops who described it as an “extraordinary” attack on freedom of conscience and religion.

Speaking at a press conference earlier this month the bishops warned that the Bill “represents a fundamental revolution in our understanding of marriage and the family and cannot go unchallenged”.

Last month the Irish Justice Minister revealed that Irish registrars who ask not to carry out same-sex civil partnerships due to their religious beliefs will have no “freedom of conscience” clause to protect them from punishment.

Please click here to read full article.

The Christian Institute

Possibly Related Posts (automatically generated)

Unity or Uniformity?

“The promotion of unity at the expense of truth is satanic; it is demonic; it is not true unity. It is not the unity of the Holy Spirit for He is the Spirit of Truth. The Scriptural command which we have in Ephesians to promote the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace is given to those who have a common foundation of truth.   Truth by its very nature divides.  Where you have appeal to unity at the expense of truth all you can produce is uniformity.”

- William Webster

Possibly Related Posts (automatically generated)

To Judge or Not Be Judged

By Ray Yungen

With regard to the current spiritual deception coming into the church, let us ask two questions:

  • Is it right to judge? And do all paths lead to God?

Jesus Christ foretold in Matthew 7:22-23

Many will say to me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” And then will I profess unto them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

I find it most interesting that people who were doing “many wonderful works” or miraculous works in His name were, in reality, working “iniquity” or evil. This leads me to believe that a great deception is occurring.

These verses also tell me that all paths do not lead to God and, because they do not, one had better judge which path is correct. Many people, of course, counter with, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” However, taken in context, this verse (Matthew 7:1) is talking about hypocrisy in human behavior and not about withholding critical examination of spiritual teachings. Galatians 1:8 bears out the necessity to evaluate spiritual teaching with proper discernment. Paul warns:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

And II John 1:9-11 says:

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

And again in Ephesians 5:11, “…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

How may we reprove something if we don’t determine whether or not it fits the bill of “unfruitful works?” In II Timothy 3:16-17, we read:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect [complete], thoroughly furnished [fully equipped] unto all good works.

For more on this area: “For Many Shall Come in My Name” by Ray Yungen.

Article received and posted courtesy of Lighthouse Trails Research.

Possibly Related Posts (automatically generated)

  • No Related Posts

Inexcusable Irreverence and Ingratitude (1)

They are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful.”  Romans 1:20-21

This first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is a dreadful portion of the Word of God. I should hardly like to read it all through aloud; it is not intended to be so used. Read it at home, and be startled at the awful vices of the Gentile world. Unmentionable crimes were the common pleasures of those wicked ages; but the chapter is also a striking picture of heathenism at the present time. After a missionary had gone into a certain part of Hindostan, and had given away New Testaments, a Hindoo waited upon him, and asked him this question: “Did you not write that first chapter in the Epistle to the Romans after you came here?” “No,” replied the missionary, “I did not write it at all; it has been there nearly two thousand years.” The Hindoo said, “Well, if it has not been written since you came here, all I can say is, that it might have been so written, for it is a fearfully true description of the sin of India.” It is also much more true, even of London, than some of us would like to know. Even here are committed those vices, the very mention of which would make the cheek of modesty to crimson. However, I am not going to talk about Hindoos; they are a long way off. I am not going to speak about the ancient Romans; they lived a couple of thousand years ago. I am going to speak about ourselves, and about some persons here whom my text admirably fits. I fear that I am speaking to some who are “without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful.”

I. The first charge against those who are mentioned in my text is, WANT OF REVERENCE. “They knew God,” but “they glorified him not as God.” They knew that there was a God; they never denied his existence; but they had no reverence for his name, they did not render him the homage to which he is entitled, they did not glorify him as God.

Of many this is still true in this form, they never think of God. they go from year to year without any practical thought of God. Not only is he not in their words, but he is not in their thoughts. As the Psalmist puts it, “The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not at all in his thoughts.” The marginal reading is very expressive: “All his thoughts are, There is no God.” Whether there is a God, or not, makes no practical difference to the wicked; they have so little esteem for him that, perhaps, if we could prove that there were no God, they would feel easier in their conscience. There must be something very wrong with you when you would rather that there were no God. “Well,” says one, “I do not care much whether there is a God or not; I am an agnostic. “Oh!” I said, “that is a Greek word, is it not? And the equivalent Latin word is ‘Ignoramus’.” Somehow, he did not like the Latin nearly as much as the Greek. Oh, dear friends, I could not bear to be an “ignoramus” or an “agnostic” about God! I must have a God; I cannot do without him. He is to me as necessary as food to my body, and air to my lungs. The sad thing is, that many, who believe that there is a God, yet glorify him not as God, for they do not even give him a thought. I appeal to some here, whether that is not true. You go from the beginning of the week to the end of it without reflecting upon God at all. You could do as well without God as with him. Is not that the case? And must there not be something very terrible in the condition of your heart when, as a creature, you can do without a thought of your Creator, when he that has nourished you, and brought you up, is nothing to you, one of whom you never think?

These people, further, have no right conceptions of God. The true conception of God is that he is all in all. If God is anything, we ought to make him everything; you cannot put God in the second place. He is Almighty, All-wise, All-gracious, knowing everything, being in every place, constantly present, the emanations of his power found in every part of the universe. God is infinitely glorious; and unless we treat him as such, we have not treated him as he ought to be treated. If there be a king, and he is set to open the door or do menial work, he is not honoured as a king should be. Shall the great God be made a lackey for our lusts? Shall we put God aside, and say to him, “When I have a more convenient season, I will send for thee: when I have more money, I will attend to religion,” or, “When I can be religious, and not lose anything by it, then I will seek thee”? Dost thou treat God so?” Oh, beware, this is high treason against the King of kings! Wrong ideas of God, grovelling thoughts of God, come under the censure of the text, “When they knew God, they glorified him not as God.”

C.H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

Excerpt from sermon “Inexcusable Irreverence and Ingratitude” delivered on Sunday, July 13, 1890.

Possibly Related Posts (automatically generated)