London, England, Dec 10, 2019 / 06:01 pm (CNA).- Every voter and politician must resist attacks on the right to life, and Catholic politicians must do so as both a human rights matter and as a “fundamental matter of our faith,” Northern Ireland’s Catholic bishops have said ahead of the Dec. 12 U.K. general election.
“We have consistently said that the equal right to life, and love, of a mother and her unborn child is so fundamental to the common good of every society that citizens deserve the fullest participation in the democratic debate about the legislation which governs it,” Northern Ireland’s bishops said Dec. 5.
Northern Ireland’s strong laws against abortion were drastically weakened Oct. 21, under an act of the U.K. Parliament that took effect due to the absence of a ruling executive in the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly.
“This was a tragic day for the unborn children who will now never bless our world with their unique and precious lives,” the bishops said. “It was also a sad day for our local democracy as this draconian Westminster abortion legislation was introduced over the heads of local citizens.”
“The right to life is not given to us by any law or government, and any law that removes this right is unjust and must be resisted by every voter and political representative,” they continued. “For Catholic politicians this is not only a matter of protecting the human right to life but also a fundamental matter of our faith. Voters have a duty to inform themselves on the position of election candidates in respect of their willingness to support and cherish equally the lives of mothers and their unborn children.”
The general election will be the U.K.’s third since 2015. Normally they would be held every five years.
The elections in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland will determine who will fill a total of 650 parliamentary seats in the House of Commons.
Brexit is a central issue. Prime Minister Boris Johnson hopes the early election will increase the number of Members of Parliament for his Conservative Party, making his Brexit plans easier to achieve.
The Conservative Party currently leads a governing coalition, with confidence and supply from Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party. The Conservatives Party has not mentioned abortion in its most recent party platform.
Sinn Fein, a nationalist party putting forward MP candidates in Northern Ireland, backs legal abortion up to 12 weeks into pregnancy. However, its MPs do not take their seats in parliament.
Two U.K. opposition parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, have made the full decriminalization of abortion part of their party platforms. Recently, the Liberal Democrats deselected a former MP as a candidate because of his Catholic faith and views on same-sex marriage and abortion.
Party members are required to support these party platform stands on abortion. The move has drawn criticism from Church leaders like Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury.
“As Christians, we must express the gravest concern that a number of political parties have dispensed with considerations of individual conscience making unequivocal manifesto commitments to deny the unborn child the right to life,” Davies said Dec. 5.
“I cannot fail to draw your attention to this further radical assault upon the sanctity of human life, presented as a program for government and the danger of discarding the rights of individual conscience in determining the right to life of the unborn child,” he said.
The bishop asked for prayers for candidates and for “light in making the difficult choices which an election involves.”
Both Catholic and Anglican leaders have criticized the pro-abortion rights party platforms.
Christine Hardman and James Newcombe, who are Church of England bishops, have written an open letter on behalf of the House of Bishops promising the Anglican bishops will “vigorously challenge any attempt to extend abortion provision beyond the current 24-week limit.” Their letter responded to 383 clergy and laity who in their letter to The Times objected to the manifesto promises to decriminalize abortion.
The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales issued a Nov. 29 statement urging voters to consider issues of human rights and the dignity of human life.
The English and Welsh bishops laid out several criteria for voters to consider when choosing their new MPs, foremost of which is respect for human life, including in the womb, and including care for those who are terminally ill and dying “while resisting the false compassion of assisted suicide or euthanasia.”
The fate of Northern Ireland as the United Kingdom prepares to leave the European Union was another major focus of Northern Ireland’s Catholic bishops. They said the outcome of Brexit will have “a significant impact on our fragile peace and on our political, economic and social life.”
“Competent voices are needed to enunciate our concerns and we encourage voters to choose candidates who value positive relationships within and beyond these islands,” they said.
Other topics of the bishops’ letter included welfare reform, housing and homelessness, and human trafficking.
The major significance of the approaching election “brings an even greater responsibility on us, as followers of Jesus, to reflect in a conscientious and informed way on the breadth of issues involved,” the bishops said. They called for prayers for political candidates and respectful discussion about the issues at stake.
The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland also stressed the right to life as fundamental. The bishops’ pre-election message did not endorse any political party or candidate, but said abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are “always morally unacceptable,” and that all politicians should be urged to resist the decriminalization of abortion, which leads toward abortion on demand for any reason.
The Catholic Parliamentary Office, an agency of the Scottish bishops’ conference, also reports on its website the votes of politicians on several bills, organized by parliamentary constituency.
These votes include the decriminalization of abortion, which the office said would clear the way for “abortion on demand, for any reason, up to birth.” MPs’ votes on a bill to legalize assisted suicide are also recorded, as are how MPs voted on the parliamentary act which imposed permissive abortion laws and same-sex marriage on Northern Ireland.
Distributions of a leaflet version of this information by priests in the Angus area prompted accusations of favoritism towards the local Conservative Party candidate because the leaflets noted the Scottish National Party candidate’s pro-abortion rights stand, the newspaper The National reports.
A spokesman for the Scottish Catholic Church rejected this claim.
“As you will be aware 59 different messages were sent out each one referencing the voting record of the incumbent MP. They show a range of voting behavior and do not indicate support or otherwise for any candidate, rather they offer publicly available information to parishioners on the most fundamental moral issues … addressed in the last parliament,” the spokesman said.
[…]
Where are the voices of moderate Muslim leaders condemning the violence of Islamists?
“Moderate Muslim Leaders”?
How to Tell the Difference Between Radical Islamic Doctrine and Moderate Islamic Doctrine
The terms “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam” have been bandied about in the Western world for many years, and the presumption in the use of these terms is that “radical Islam” teaches violence and terrorism and anti-Western values while “moderate Islam” teaches peace and harmony and pro-Western values. Below is a handy comparison chart so you can actually see some of the differences for yourself.
Radical Islam Teaches the Following
1. Muhammad is the ideal human being. One way we know this is because he married Aisha when she was 6 years old, but he considerately waited until she was 9 before consummating his marriage to her.
2. Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.
3. Muhammad is superior to Jesus Christ who was only a prophet and not God.
4. Jesus Christ was not crucified.
5. Sharia Law should be the law of every land.
6. Death is the punishment for apostasy from Islam.
7. The Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah that was dictated word for word to Muhammad.
8. All true Muslims follow the commands of the Qur’an.
9. Muslim husbands are commanded to beat disobedient wives.
10. Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against non-believers in Islam. This includes killing them, torturing them, and humiliating them…unless they convert to Islam.
But on the other hand….
Moderate Islam Teaches the Following
1. Muhammad is the ideal human being. One way we know this is because he married Aisha when she was 6 years old, but he considerately waited until she was 9 before consummating his marriage to her.
2. Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.
3. Muhammad is superior to Jesus Christ who was only a prophet and not God.
4. Jesus Christ was not crucified.
5. Sharia Law should be the law of every land.
6. Death is the punishment for apostasy from Islam.
7. The Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah that was dictated word for word to Muhammad.
8. All true Muslims follow the commands of the Qur’an.
9. Muslim husbands are commanded to beat disobedient wives.
10. Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against non-believers in Islam. This includes killing them, torturing them, and humiliating them…unless they convert to Islam.
__________________
Now that you know some of the “differences,” it should be easy to understand what people mean when they refer to the teachings of “radical Muslims” and the teachings of “moderate Muslims.” It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? No wonder many people declare that Islam is a “religion of peace.” They are basing this claim on the significant “differences” between the teachings of “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam.”
It should also be easy to now understand why we are not at war with Islam itself or “moderate Islam,” nor should we even criticize or question any of its doctrines. It’s only “radical Muslims” with their “different teachings” that we in the West can oppose. Otherwise, we are simply bigots engaging in Islamophobia. Clear?!
While considering the listed differences between “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam,” recall a similar distinction between “radical Nazism” and “moderate Nazism” that was prevalent during the Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Thank God we only went to war with “radical Nazism” and not Nazism or “moderate Nazism” – the “ideology of peace.”
But let us not use these isolated and very uncommon acts of inexplicable violence, perhaps motivated (as per Francis) by a generic religious fundamentalism (you know, the attacker could have just as easily have been a Latin Mass attendee) as an excuse to even think about curbing migration from the Muslim world. These young men of military age are simply looking for a better life for themselves and their families (wherever they may be). Besides, there are a couple million residents of Gaza whom, we are being told by supporters of the only democracy in the Middle East, will be looking for a new home in Europe or North America. Now is absolutely not the time to shut the door, not that ever would be a good time.
Dr. Veritatis above – I realize the problem of trying to differentiate between moderate and radical Islam.
However, I am of the understanding that there are two parts of the Koran, the first when Mohammed was in Mecca and the second when he was in Medina. It is the second part in which he stopped trying to play nice.
I agree that Pope Francis’ references to Islam as “a religion of peace” are naive/dishonest/dangerous – take your pick or combinations.
Gilberta:
In and of itself, there is only Islam; not a radical nor a moderate Islam. As such, there is no legitimate distinction between a so-called radical and a so-called moderate Islam, and no real problem in trying to make such a bogus distinction that should not be tried (just like there is only Catholicism; not a radical nor a moderate Catholicism). People who push the false distinction do so in order to pretend that the fundamental doctrines of violence in Islam are only a fringe part of Islam practiced only by “radical Muslims” who have “hijacked the religion of peace.” This narrative is pure rubbish, but way too many gullible people continue to drink this Kool-Aid.
With respect to the so-called Meccan/earlier part of the Qur’an and the Medinan/later part of the Qur’an, note the Islamic principle of abrogation wherein later passages and teachings (in time; not how they are often arranged in popular selling Qur’ans) take precedence and abrogate or make null and void earlier passages and teachings on the same topics. As such, the more violent or Medinan passages take precedence over and abrogate the more peaceful passages on the same topics.
A great irony: the most fervent and faithful Muslims are those who practice and/or support Jihadi terrorism and seek to impose Islam on the world via a worldwide Caliphate. Many ignorantly refer to these Muslims as radical and not representative of true Islam when in point of fact they are among the best representatives of Islam in many respects. At the same time, the less fervent and less faithful Muslims are hailed as the best representatives of true Islam when in point of fact they do not fully practice their religion as they are commanded to do by Islam.
Book Recommendation:
1. “What Catholics Need to Know About Islam” by Dr. William Kilpatrick.