‘Catholic’ Siobahn McDonagh’s MP cringeworthy response to my letter on the re-definition of marriage.

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when I received this letter back from Siobahn McDonagh MP. It is so embarrassingly ignorant on her part I genuinely feel sorry for her. She claims to be a regular church attending catholic – yet is in full support of gay marriage. See for yourself…

Siobhain McDonagh MP Shameful Letter.doc

Enjoy!… (or not!)

Please sign the C4M petition to keep marriage between 1 woman and 1 man – http://c4m.org.uk/ and don’t forget to sign up for my blog, ‘like’ my Facebook page, or follow me on Twitter @FaithIOFamilies.

24 thoughts on “‘Catholic’ Siobahn McDonagh’s MP cringeworthy response to my letter on the re-definition of marriage.

  1. I found Claire Short’s response to Siiobhain McDonagh’s letter to be truthful, and very informative. I pray that Ms. McDonagh will read Claire’s response, and then high tail it to the confessional…when you are in a position of leading and governing people,as is Ms. McDonagh, doing so in TRUTH is of the utmost importance. England deserves the truth…not some watered down version of the truth. Truth does not have versions…and God’s order for living life in his graces must not be mocked in this way…

    • Ohhh…I bet that response ended up in the shredder really quickly. I bet she is keeping tabs on Youcat as a ‘homophobic organization.’ I am guessing out of her pride, that she will probably say something to the effect I refuse to listen to some old fashioned outdated religion…blah blah blah..my guess. Just my guess from experience with liberal politicians. Don’t forget, money often drives their political persuasions, not morals. .

  2. God will not be mocked. His truth is absolute and unchanging. I feel so sorry for people who claim to be Christian and then live a life in conflict with Christ’s teachings. The words of Romans 1:24-27 spring to mind. God will not be mocked.

  3. If parents stopped having gay kids taht would solve all the problems! I think Siobhan’s letter is right and I look forward to the day that my gay friends will have the same rights as me.

    • Please elaborate on what you mean Gemma .That your Homosexual friends will have the same rights as you .What rights does society absolve them from i must confess i do not know of any acts Sexual or otherwise that Banns them from taking part in any activity in or outside the bedroom .In my part i just wish they would stay away from our local swimming and Turkish Baths and stop bothering people with their disgusting habits .

      • As Graham Norton said during Saturday’s Eurovison ‘if you are offended by gay people kissing…. Grow up!’

  4. Gemma, your sarcastic response is not helping. Christ forgives every person, who sincerely calls out for that forgiveness. This includes homosexuals as sin is sin to God. The woman caught in adultery was forgiven by Jesus, but he also said, “Go and sin no more.” All Christians have been saved by grace and grace alone. We therefore cannot regularly sin with intent as this removes us from God’s grace.
    Please remember that we are here for a blink in time and eternity is forever.

      • You are the perfect example of disrespecting others for their religious beliefs Gemma. Catholics are happy to live along side those with different beliefs and values. Shame you can’t do the same.

  5. I have not mentioned religion in any of my posts. This law change is a civil law, it leaves religions to make their own choices on this topic, which I agree with. But I believe within civil law gay people should be allowed to be married.

  6. Gemma, it is with great sadness that I read your posts. It is apparent in the world today that the “great falling away” from God’s Truth is happening. This is but one of the signs of the end of time. It would be to your great advantage to actually study the Scriptures and ask The Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the absolutes of God.

    • You are presuming I haven’t read the Bible. Why is it acceptable to ignore certain passages these days but not others? For example passages that are pro-slavery (not that I am for slavery at all).

  7. However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    • Gemma that is a great question and highlights a very easily misunderstood section of the Old Testament. Taken out of context of the other books of the old testament it seems on the surface to be condoning slavery – as we know it. However this is not the case.

      First, New World slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite. What about in the case of Old Testament (OT) slavery? The ‘slavery’ of the OT was essentially designed to serve the poor!” Yes, you read that correctly. This is a fundamental and profound difference between New World and Hebrew slavery.

      Consider this other important text from Leviticus 25:35-43 on Hebrew slavery:

      ‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

      ‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.’

      Notice that the sole motive–in the primary text before us– for allowing ‘slavery’ is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER ‘forever’ (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most!). This is radically different than an elitist-motive.

      Second, New World entry into slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders. What about OT slavery? In the OT, this relationship was overwhelmingly voluntary, and forced, non-negotiated . . . enslavement was a capital offense.”

      Four specific points need to be made here:
      1.“Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death” – see Ex. 21:16 and Deut. 24:7.
      2.“The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the person himself initiating the transaction” – see Lev. 25:39; Lev. 25:47; Deut. 15:12.
      3.“Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in length (e.g., Deut. 15:12 above), continuation of this relationship was possible, but ONLY AS a strictly voluntary act of the ‘slave’” – see Ex. 21:5-6; Deut. 15:16-17
      4.“The only clear case of involuntary servitude was in the case of a thief that was too poor to make restitution for good stolen, and here is was strictly an economic measure” – see Ex. 22:3

      I hope you can already understand that Hebrew “slavery” is radically different from the slavery of (for example) the southern United States.

      The third characteristic of New World slavery has to do with the treatment of slaves. From modern history we know that “the treatment of slaves was harsh by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.”

      What about OT slavery? The Law forbade harsh treatment, set stipulations for positive treatment, and set tight boundaries around punishment/abuse of servants.

      This difference is fleshed out in multiple ways:

      1.“There are several general admonitions in the Law against harsh/abusive/oppressive behaviour toward Hebrew servants” – see Lev. 25:43; Lev. 25:46; Lev. 25:53; Deut. 15:18.
      2.“In fact, the Law assumes that the situation may be lucrative enough for some servants to decide to stay with their masters for their lifetime” – see Ex. 21:5; Deut. 15:16
      3.“The general scholarly assessment is that this domestic ‘slavery’ was not very atrocious, went way beyond ‘property only’, and instead created family-like bonds.” 1.Here is an example quoted from the book The Israelites : “However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household–there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the later Roman world.”

      4.“Interestingly, when a servant was to be released at the Sabbath year (without payment of money!), the master was to send him out with gifts of material possessions!” – see Deut. 15:12-14
      5.“ALL servants were required to take the Sabbath day off–just like the masters. ” – see Ex. 20:9-10; Ex. 23:12; Deut. 5:13-15
      6.“Not only was abusive treatment of servants strictly forbidden, but the Law held masters very accountable!” – see Ex. 21:20; Ex. 21:26-27

      The fourth characteristic of New World slavery is legal status. Recall the following: “Slaves were considered ‘property’ in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners as to how they treated their ‘property’. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.”

      What about OT slavery? In keeping with the ‘variableness’ of notions of property in the [ancient near east] (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel’s notion of ‘property’ was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability.

      A couple additional points must be made:
      1.Servants were never considered property in the sense of New World slaves. Accordingly slave “‘property’ is therefore seen not as ‘owned disposable goods’ but as economic output (including labour)” – see Lev. 25:14-16; Ex. 21:18-19; Lev. 25:49-53
      2.Therefore, “as a ‘managed, but not owned’ human resource, servants were NOT thereby rendered ‘disposable, non-human goods’. They were still legal agents in the culture and their masters were legally accountable for how they were treated.”

      Finally, the fifth characteristic of New World slavery was the fact of no exit. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a ‘bare bones’ release–no property went with the freedman.

      What about OT slavery? One of the more amazing things about Hebrew servant-status was how ‘easy’ it was to get free! Here are some things to consider:
      1.“Freedom could be bought by relatives” – see Lev 25:49
      2.“The servant could buy his own freedom, whether the master WANTED to let him go or not” – see Lev 25:49
      3.“Every 7th year (the Sabbath year), all servants were to automatically go free–without ANY payment of money to the master” – see Ex.21:2; Deut. 15:12
      4.“Minor injuries due to abusive treatment automatically resulted in immediate freedom (this is actually labelled as ‘to compensate’, implying rights/duties/debt)” – see Ex 21:26-27
      5.“When freedom was granted at the Sabbath year or Year of Jubilee, the master was obligated to send them out with liberal gifts–to allow them to occupy the land in sufficiency again” – see Deut 15:13

      Wow! a lot to take in! But you must now understand that Hebrew “slavery” in the OT is absolutely nothing like New World slavery. God’s primary purpose for this institution was to help the poor in Israel. It was to provide a safety net for families that had landed on hard times and there were strict rules about how this poverty program was to be executed. It is simply incorrect to charge that ancient Israel instituted the same kind of slavery that was found in the New World.

      Thank you for bringing up that point Gemma and I hope this answer goes some way to beginning to understand the (sometimes very confusing) Old Testament.

  8. Gemma, it seems to be a habit of some to cherry pick a particular verse to try to sustain their argument. You are making the mistake of looking at biblical times through today’s eyes. The Holy Spirit did not indwell men at that time, that was later at Pentecost. You may look at where God ordered the Israelites to “kill every man woman and child.” This had me worried until I understood that there was a “bent” in that people that would cause a thorn in the side of the Jews. He chose His people and was out to protect them.
    If The Lord God told them it was ok to have slaves, who are we to question it?

    God is God. His ways are above our ways, His thoughts are above our thoughts. He tells us He is the potter and can do with the clay as He wishes.

    Getting back to your original post, I again ask you to read Matthew 1:24-27 and also Matthew 18:7. There is a severe punishment for whosoever causes someone to sin, unless there is repentance.

    But don’t stop there, check out the sidenotes and read corresponding passages from other books, both old and new testament and ask The Holy Spirit to illuminate it to you.

    I pray for you that you will see that God’s Word is not based on emotions but on it’s infallible truth, Bless you.

    • Gemma was correct to ask the question and i’m glad she did as most people just read something, don’t understand it properly, and then make an incorrect judgment. Hopefully my answer above can go someway to explaining the different social and sociological elements of ancient Hebrew society that are so easily misunderstood by one who has not studied the OT.

      • We should not need to explain common decency to people -But alas we live in very queer times .O by the way Gemma if you read my above comment about the incident in the Public Baths and dont believe me i am sure it wouldnt be hard to get the citation as it is on the sex offenders list. You see Gemma -or you dont see -That is Norton and his fellow Homosexuals trying to water down our morals so that when it goes the next step they will say the exact same thing like -Anyone who is offended by Homosexuals giving blow jobs in public should grow up .

  9. William, I’m with you on that one, sexual acts should be performed in public. I myself witnessed a straight couple on an escalator, on a Saturday night in London bridge tube station engaged in the same act. I should not have seen that either. But what has you witnessing this act got to with the civil right of marriage and couples keeping such behaviour where it belongs – at home and within a loving and stable relationship.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s