Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent

, , , , ,

Sarkozy loss in French Presidential election would lead to dramatically leftward social changes

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits
Image

PARIS, France, May 1, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) -  The French presidential election next Sunday could result is a dramatic political realignment of French political control to the left. Rapid advancement of social leftist goals such as same-sex marriage, greater access and full funding of abortion, legalized euthanasia, suppression of parental rights regarding education of their children and religious persecution would likely occur with a leftist win.

The election designates the country’s president for the next five years. The second round will oppose Nicolas Sarkozy, the incumbent head of State, runner-up - with 27.18% of the vote - to socialist candidate François Hollande in the first round. Hollande was 1.5 points ahead, with 28.63% of the vote.

While a large proportion of France’s laws and regulations are now made in Brussels in the name of the European Union - and interfere with practically everything, from the size of septic tanks for houses located in the countryside, to immigration and asylum policies or changes to value added tax - societal affairs such as abortion, euthanasia, schooling and marriage law remain largely within the competence of the member States. As do labor legislation, fiscal law, family policy and other domains to which pro-life and pro-family electors are sensitive.

The result of next Sunday’s vote is still quite open, given the uncertainty on the transfer of votes from electors who favored one of the other eight candidates in the first round.

On the left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon - 11.1% in the first round, with a largely communist and revolutionary rhetoric - has openly called on his electors to vote for François Hollande and although he is not officially asking for anything in exchange, the sheer weight of his first-round result is expected to induce Hollande into radicalizing his left-wing stance if he is elected.

Mélenchon is a self-proclaimed admirer of Robespierre who personally organized and watched over the genocide of the “Vendéens”, catholic peasants in the West of France who rose up in arms to defend persecuted priests, their local rights and the traditional political order during the French Revolution and its secularist dictatorship.

Mélenchon is not so far removed from Hollande himself who has promised to inscribe the law of separation of State and Church of 1905 into the French Constitution, should he be elected to the presidency. The beginning of the XXth century in France saw the exile of religious orders, the confiscation of church buildings and assets, the tracking of Catholic officers in the French army and other restrictions on religious liberty which declined in the common effort of World War I. Enshrining the largely unapplied law of 1905 in the Constitution is seen by many as a declaration of open hostility to Catholic and Christian rights, in the name of securalism.

Apart from heavy taxation, massive State spending and extended rights for the non-European immigrant population - including voting rights for those immigrants in local elections and political overtures to the Muslim population - François Hollande’s program contains many unacceptable promises from the pro-life viewpoint.

He has promised the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, albeit in guarded tones. The French senate can be expected to vote for such a measure since the socialists gained a majority there last September. The National Assembly is expected to follow suit in the legislative elections next June if François Hollande wins on Sunday.

All of these potential developments would create a dramatically dangerous new political situation for France since, until now, the Senate acted as a brake on leftwing policies even under socialist presidents with a majority in the National Assembly.

François Hollande has also promised to make abortion more widely available and to create abortion centers in all State hospitals. 80% of abortion costs are paid for by the State budget; he has promised to drive up that figure to 100%. He wants to make contraception free and anonymous for minors. He has promised to legalize embryo research, homosexual “marriage” and homosexual adoption.

Hollande also wants to make schooling compulsory at three years of age (against the currently age six) and has committed himself to reducing State funding of Catholic schools and reversing legislation that allows parents to choose a State school outside their particular territory.

Attempts by socialist representatives to put an end to tax deductions for donators to independent school funds (a growing number of schools which receive no public subsidy whatsoever) are expected to be implemented and, under socialist governance, to succeed.

Fearing such threatening, radical developments, pro-life and Christian voters are expected to pronounce themselves “against” Hollande next Sunday with a “Sarkozy” vote, even though the incumbent president is far from an ideal candidate from their point of view.

Sarkozy has sent out signs of sympathy to the homosexual lobby during his campaign, promising to transform the current civil union contract (“PACS”) into a more marriage-like commitment to be concluded in the townhouse. But - under growing pressure from the conservative population - he has promised not to legalize homosexual “marriage” and has spoken out clearly against same-sex parenting and adoption. He has also committed himself against euthanasia, promising not to modify the largely acceptable “End of Life” act voted into law in 2005, which includes some room for “euthanasia by omission” in allowing withdrawal of feeding tubes (but not of hydration).

Sarkozy, a liberal, is not expected to thwart freedom of education in France more than it already is.

The “Sarkozy vote” is being promoted by Catholic groups and the small but active conservative press as the lesser of two evils, or even the lesser of two “worses”, experience having shown that under Sarkozy’s first period of office the right to life and the stability of natural marriage neither progressed nor receded.

What has changed, though, is the increased pressure from traditional values forces on Sarkozy who cannot hope to be re-elected without a massive transfer of votes from the electors of Marine Le Pen of the Front national.

Le Pen’s unprecedented score of 17.9% on April 22nd has spurred Sarkozy to speak about patriotism, the French identity, family values, national frontiers and other themes which he already brought to the fore during his campaign to try to limit Marine Le Pen’s vote. During his major rally at the Trocadéro in Paris today, Sarkozy even proclaimed the “Christian identity of France” - receiving wild applause.

Marine Le Pen is the only candidate who has promised more support for French families and stay-at-home parents, a partial stop to public funding of abortions - although she does claim to favor the “right to abortion” - and to move out of the European Union which promotes and imposes hate-crime laws, anti-discrimination laws and a homosexualist agenda which heavily influence French law-making.

Pro-lifers and promoters of traditional values have had no real champion during these presidential elections, but on the positive side some of their themes have gained public visibility and recognition.


Advertisement
Featured Image
The Romanian Orthodox Church's Patriarchal Cathedral in Bucharest Wikimedia Commons
Bogdan Stanciu

Romanian news outlet sanctioned for discrimination in attacking pro-life initiative

Bogdan Stanciu
By Bogdan Stanciu

BUCHAREST, Romania -- A decision of CNCD, Romania's Council Against Discrimination, has recently become definitive, recognizing the right to dignity of all Orthodox Christians in the country.

Last year, PRO VITA Association - Bucharest branch, one of the main nonprofits in Romania defending life, family and religious liberty, filed an official complaint with the Council, showing that a blog post dated May 17, 2013 and hosted on the Adevarul.ro platform prejudiced the image of Christian Orthodox believers.

The article, signed "Alex Dumitriu," challenged the support given by the Romanian Orthodox Church to the “One of Us” European initiative, which required a ban on public funding for the destruction of embryos during research and medical procedures.

The blog post described the Romanian Orthodox Church as an “anti-human, criminal and anti-life organization, whose purpose is spreading suffering and abjectness, mysticism and ignorance for their own profit.”

The applicant argued that these allegations created a degrading and hostile atmosphere for Orthodox Christians in Romania, thus harming a whole community.

The Council agreed that the affirmations in the article referred to both the clerics and the simple believers and discriminated against the Christian Orthodox community. It concluded it was discrimination, infringing upon the right to dignity granted to persons of Christian Orthodox confession.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The council cited the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that freedom of expression is not an absolute right in Europe, carrying with it duties and responsibilities. Also, the Adevarul.ro platform was fined a symbolic sum of 2,000 RON (approximately 445 EUR).

It is for the first time in Romania that a media institution is sanctioned for discriminating against Christians.

As a brand, the Adevarul newspaper has continued the tradition of a title established in the 19th century, but after 1989 it took over the infrastructure and human resources of the recently-deceased communist newspaper Scanteia, the official propaganda channel of the Romanian Communist Party. Today it has also developed Adevarul.ro, an online platform that is one of the most popular media channels in Romania.

Adevarul.ro has recently made it a habit of harassing the Romanian Orthodox Church with almost daily frequency, presenting negative aspects in the church and tendentious articles of opinion about this institution and about Creationism and Christianity in general, in what looks more and more like an ideological guerrilla warfare.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Paul Russell

Nitschke heads a suicide cult that must be stopped

Paul Russell
By Paul Russell

Following The Australian's news story today about another young life lost that was related to Philip Nitschke and the Exit organisation, senior journalist, Angela Shanahan says that Nitschke and Exit must be stopped.

Shanahan opens: 

PHILIP Nitschke, contrary to his claims as an advocate of euthanasia for the terminally ill, is the chief mover of something resembling a suicide cult.

The case histories of Lucas Taylor, 26, and Joe Waterman, 25, who committed suicide after being in contact with Nitschke’s group, Exit, leave little doubt of that.

Lucas Taylor was the subject of the other article in today's paper while Joe Waterman's story was covered earlier in the ABCs 7:30 Report that created the original furore leading to the medical board suspending Nitschke's practicing licence today.

Covering the information Judi Taylor found on her son's computer after his death the story adds: 

His heartbroken mother realised that her son was not the only young person on this site. Nor was anyone on the site interested in the motivation for his thoughts of suicide, nor in helping Lucas to overcome his feelings.

“They were only interested in the ‘endgame’,” she said, including detailed advice about where and when and how to go about it.

Again, this destroys any pretence that Nitschke and Exit are only involved in advising sick and dying people about how to commit suicide. This is a macabre and clandestine death industry. Hope joins with Angela Shanahan in calling for this organisation to be stopped and is joined now in our call for a National Inquiry into Exit and other euthanasia organisations by the mothers of both of the young men mentioned in this article.

Shanahan closes by saying: Nitschke’s claim of political persecution is risible. He and his organisation must be stopped.

Reprinted with permission from NoEuthanasia.org.au.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

,

Leaving the Matrix: what is the cost of conversion?

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

What do you do when you decide to leave a sexually disordered lifestyle? What do you do, when all the people you have contact with, all your friends, even your family, have accepted and embraced a way of living and thinking about life that you have realized is harmful, psychologically and morally destructive, and which you know you must leave? What is the cost of conversion?

We can easily get caught up in the tumult of the ever-escalating legal, political, and cultural war against the traditional worldview and anthropology, so much that we forget that the “issue” is about real, individual human beings and how they should, concretely, order their lives. We culture warriors must remember that what we are asking people to do is difficult, that it can incur huge sacrifice and loss and will often require enormous upheaval and change. We are asking people to leave not only a “lifestyle” of sexual activity, but an entire world, populated with family, friends, co-workers, colleagues, and an entire global culture that embraces and aggressively promotes it.

I include not only the experience of leaving the “gay lifestyle,” but of leaving a worldview, a cultural paradigm that accepts and promotes sexual license of any kind in general. It is more than the questions surrounding the so-called “ex-gay” movement, and more than the issue of living chastely in an increasingly sexually obsessed world.

How ought a person who experiences same-sex attraction react when it begins to dawn on him that, for whatever reason, he cannot continue to live according to the world’s paradigm? We know how the homosexualist movement says he ought to react, and we know that the secular world (nearly all the world, therefore) is in more or less complete agreement. He should reject such self-negating thoughts. He should embrace his “orientation” and start to seek out same-sex sexual relationships, and carry on in the way that they tell us life is now normally lived.

He should engage in sexual encounters with various people, sometimes setting up “relationships” for varying lengths of time, breaking up, moving on, finding someone else, perhaps cohabitating, and maybe, some day, “settling down” with one person, either in “marriage,” or not, as the mood strikes. This is what the world now presents to us as normal. Nearly every television show and movie set in our times says this is just how people live nowadays. 

It is only too easy for those of us who live out here in The Real to forget how totally different our lives are from that of the majority of our fellow men. We shout, “jump!” because we see a whole other lush, green and happy world, but they see nothing but the shadows on the cave wall.

But those few of us left who think this is not a very good way to live, that it is morally and psychologically destructive, have in large part to forge our own way in life, figure out a set of rules and standards to live by alone, all the while fighting the pressure to conform. Even for those of us not plagued by sexual feelings towards people of the same sex it isn’t easy.

It is particularly not easy for those of us who have decided later in life to try to embrace a different path, but who had previously followed the world’s advice, and who had never known any other way of living. What does it take to totally change a worldview, a method of organizing one’s life and all social relationships? How hard is it to reinvent a way of life that the world has not only abandoned, but aggressively rejected and condemned?

The cost will usually be, at least, the loss of nearly all one’s friends, sometimes even very close friends. Very often it will include alienating, sometimes permanently, one’s own family. Since the Sexual Revolution’s paradigm has now been embraced by three or four or more generations, it will often mean alienation from parents and siblings.

It will sometimes mean the loss of good relations with co-workers and colleagues, and sometimes even the loss of jobs and careers. I know a man, a previously highly respected author, who was totally rejected by the entire literary establishment of his home country, a heavily secular nation, when he embraced Catholicism, including its sexual moral teachings. He told me that he expected he would never be published again outside the Catholic niche press. None of his previous friends would speak to him and for the first two years his mother had refused to take his calls.

He had been asked again and again why, if he felt he had to become a Christian, he could not have become an Anglican. And why this “sudden obsession” with “outdated” and “retrograde” sexual morality? He said that, in essence, he was treated as he would have been in the 19th century had he “come out” as a homosexual. Chastity, in other words, is the new perversion.

It is a momentous decision to leave that world, and people who make that transition compare it to leaving the Matrix: a painful, shocking and revelatory experience of a totally new and previously unguessed-at world that can leave the person disoriented, feeling as though he is now living in a kind of “parallel universe” in which he is alone and alienated from friends and family and fellow citizens.

There is an increasing number of us “converts” to a more morally sane life, who often find that once we have made the transition we are alone again. And even when we find others, a new community and friends – usually in a church – we learn that we must keep the door to the past closed. It’s not that we fear rejection, far from it, and it is not even a matter of shame.

But we understand that in a civilized society, no one wants to hear about barbarity, and we learn that to keep our past life closely in mind is to allow it to continue to rule the present. Close friends will know about our past, but, outside the most intimate circles it is passed over silently. We have reinvented ourselves and moved on, but the price is sometimes to become people with no past. To be wholly remade, it is necessary to leave behind the person we were.

It works. I can say that it is possible to be radically morally rebuilt, that one can reconstruct an entire personality, consciously dismantle past habits of thought and approach to life and replace them with better ones. The damage from the previous life, whether physical or psychological, can be permanent, but it is possible to construct a way of living that is morally and psychologically and physically healthy, and reorder a life in such a way that the damage does not rule your present. 

But it’s expensive. For me, it started when I was still living in British Columbia. I felt something new beginning in my mind and felt a yearning spring up that could not be satisfied by anything I’d experienced… the usual convert’s tale.

I’d been aware all my life that the kind of world we lived in, and the kind of life we lived in it, was somehow just not right. I loved old films and television shows that depicted a totally different way of living. I was close to my grandparents and wondered why we no longer lived that way. When I moved to the mainland in my early 20s, I somehow started going to Mass again, and that was when the real struggle began. I knew full well that the way I lived and thought about life was deeply at odds with the Church.

But I was alone. None of my friends were Catholic and none of them could begin to understand what it was I had begun to talk about. And I had made no friends at the large inner city parish I attended. I had tried to join a few things, and had volunteered a bit, but I could see that I had nothing in common with them. It seemed as though these people lived in another universe, one I could not even want to enter. A priest suggested I get involved in the pro-life movement, and I rejected this idea out of hand as totally absurd.

I thought I could only ask God for help. I prayed for “Catholic friends.” This brought no change, so I scaled down and said, “All right then, just one. Just one Catholic friend.” In the end, I simply got up and left one day. I’ve written elsewhere that I just got in a car and went “on holiday” out east, and never returned. When I landed in the far-eastern Canadian town where I was to undertake my own radical conversion, I only stopped there because I had run out of continent.

And it was there I discovered a whole new world, a moral universe of whose existence I had been previously totally ignorant. I met my “Catholic friends,” and was able to start the painful task of first deconstructing and then rebuilding my entire worldview, my character, my beliefs, my total understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

“Painful”? I barely survived. It took a year but I emerged a new kind of person in a new kind of world that I had never suspected existed. I met a group of other people who had undergone the same experience and we traded war stories. We agreed that it was like living in a parallel universe, and we bonded over the loss of previous friendships and family relationships. We helped each other, this little group of Catholic refugees on the rain-washed East Coast, to figure out a way to live in a world to which we no longer belonged. 

We talk about the programs set up by various individuals and groups that propose to help people, (mainly men) leave the homosexual lifestyle. We defend the right of psychotherapists to offer healing and help for people who have been damaged by their own choices and by the violence and sins of others. We lobby our Parliaments, we write articles, we even argue in comment boxes on the internet. We sometimes get brave and give talks and engage in public debates where we confront our ideological opponents in public venues. In all this, we rightly speak against the New Paradigm that the world has embraced and we urge people to reject it. It’s a form of evangelization.

But I think we need to keep in mind, while we are doing this good work, that what we are asking people to do, concretely, is momentous. Indeed, from the point of view of heaven, it is of cosmic significance. In less exalted terms, however, we are asking something almost unimaginably difficult of people ensnared in a way of living and thinking that they may not even completely understand themselves.

So much of our anti-culture, our death-culture, has been simply absorbed unconsciously, so much of it has been fed to us with our Fruit Loops and Saturday Morning Cartoons from earliest childhood, that we often have no way of knowing anything else exists. We have become people trapped in Plato’s Cave, knowing only the vaguest shadows of reality.

It is only too easy for those of us who live out here in The Real to forget how totally different our lives are from that of the majority of our fellow men. We shout, “jump!” because we see a whole other lush, green and happy world, but they see nothing but the shadows on the cave wall.

Ultimately, the Matrix is not only unreal, it is designed to make men miserable, but in such a way that they are hardly aware of being miserable. It not only enslaves, but tortures its victims. There is a reason that suicide, divorce, drug use, violent crime, self-harm, eating disorders, depression, … misery, in short, have grown to such colossal proportions in our societies.

If I may make a suggestion, maybe we could start writing and talking about how much better it is to live in The Real. How much happier it is possible to be when living a morally integrated life of self-control, not being pushed around either by lust or by the merciless demands of a lust-worshipping culture...a life of real freedom, in other words. It might help make the jump less frightening.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook