Friday, January 16, 2009

South Africa: DA (Democratic Alliance): in support of Homosexuality: addition to previous reviews

(Scripturelink Voters guide; c.f. IOL (Independent; Secular; South African) 12 / Jan / 2009; c.f. Archive 03 / Dec / 2008; c.f. Archive 12 / Dec / 2008; c.f. 23 / Dec / 2009; DA Support, on their own website 11 January 2008 (see such))

(Note, while this is not to justify the stance they took on this issue, they have replied to our request for a response via email, we have recorded their response, from Helen Zille: in another post: in which they reaffirm party policy, to allow in the SA Parliament: Freedom of Conscience, on moral issues: Response of the Office of Helen Zille (DA Leader) on concerns over homosexuality statements: http://southafricancatholic.blogspot.com/2009/01/response-of-office-of-helen-zille-da.html )

Article by Marc Aupiais

The DA, who have previously gained a relatively good rating from us, have done something, which calls into question their dignity. Tony Leon, their Foreign Affairs spokesperson, has asked, via questions submitted in parliament: the ANC's Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who is South Africa's foreign minister, why RSA ("The Republic of South Africa"); did not vote for a UN (United Nations) push, considered as anti-religious discrimination, by the Vatican: which affirmed "Gender Theory", and attacked religious: in a move, claimed to be aimed at legalizing homosexuality throughout the world.

Their stance, if with an understanding of the document: would seem to insinuate support for Gay marriage: a definite seeming change in policy on the issue.

This note is based on an article in IOL: stating that Tony Leon Stated:

""Our failure to translate our domestic constitution and legislation into international support for human rights is clearly motivated by a desire not to offend some of the most retrogressive and authoritarian countries in the world," Leon said."

9IOL (Independent; Secular; South African) 12 / Jan / 2009)

The DA's previous record on "claimed" neutrality on moral issues, seems somewhat broken in this recent escapade. The UN resolution, fronted by France, was apposed by 60 nations, via a direct, joint statement, and in a addition,in a statement, which also rejected calls by those 60 nations: linking homosexuality to child molesting: as incorrect, the Vatican also rejected such: saying that they rejected it: due to clauses which encouraged anti-religious persecution.

66 nations, including the EU: supported the initiative.


The wording of the resolution, was thought by the Vatican to contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in it's affirmation of Gender theory: in so far as the Vatican directly stated: that it would likely lead to persecution of natural, universally accepted marriage: and put pressure on nations to accept "Gay Marriage": something, which the church considers an objective evil. Attacks on marriage: which the church considers the union between one man and one woman, aimed at unity and childcare: are considered enough to disqualify a party: so far as voting is concerned: unless voting for such a party: consists of supporting the lesser of two evils; so as to prevent greater evil.

4 out of 5 (80%) of South Africans, consider homosexual acts to be always wrong.

We have sent an electronic communication to the DA's Guateng Representation, asking for comment on this issue, and informing them of the "Gender Theory" bias of the proposition, they seem to be raising issues about. We will hopefully have a response, or update on this issue soon.

We have also informed the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference of this, we shall hopefully be able to keep you up to date on such things.

The ANC, which is seemingly, politically speaking: "radically" in support of the pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage camps, as compared definite opposition in South Africa: and their choice to force these issues through (i.e. "radically" when nine out of ten South Africans (90%) appose abortion, and 4 out of 5 think homosexual acts are always wrong: they still chose to force MPs (Members of Parliament) to support such,something which makes them different in this issue, than South Africa's norm in demographics), responded, saying that they simply had not gotten around to signing it, but supported it. The South African ambassador to the UN (United Nations), Dumisani Kumalo, stated that it was not signed: so as not to offend other African nations: of which 6 alone sign it. 47 African Nations did not sign the December 18th proposal.

Abortion laws in South Africa: are considered in Catholic theology, to violate the right of conscientious objection, to participating in the killing of the yet to be born baby.

January 18th, is set forth as a day for the sanctity of Life, in the United States (Of America), under outgoing US (American) President George W Bush, who is doing so, in a stance by the White House against abortion. US (American) President Elect Barak Hussein Obama, has vowed to overturn laws requiring parental consent for abortions, and recently voted to allow a child which survived abortion, to be killed. His most clear promises, seem to be in this field: where he plans to get more funding to abortionists, and wherein, many appointees to vital positions in his administration: are ideologically pro-abortion, raising questions, as to his purpose in appointing these people to such positions.

His vowed legislation, is radical, and seems biased. Many American Catholic bishops, outright apposed him, including a senior Vatican aid. Vatican Representation, say that if legislation, he has promised to pass, passes, such would be seen as an act of war.

One the DA Issue, their own website states:

"TONY LEON, MP
DA SPOKESPERSON ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

On receipt of the news that South Africa refused to support a declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day in December 2008 calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality I submitted on Friday 9 January 2009 the following questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

1. Whether she can indicate why the South African government failed to support a declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day, calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

2. whether her Office has considered the ramifications of the South African government’s failure to support this declaration for the South African government’s reputation, both internationally and domestically, in terms of being committed to (a) upholding its Constitution and the values enshrined in it and (b) promoting the freedom of its people as well as the people of other countries; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Our failure to translate our domestic Constitution and legislation into international support for human rights is clearly motivated by a desire not to offend some of the most retrogressive and authoritarian countries in the world. This contradiction between what we practise at home and preach abroad is entirely and unhappily consistent with our role call of dismal votes on the United Nations Security Council during our ill-starred tenure there which ended in December 2008."


(DA (Seular; South African; Political party: Press Release 11 / 01 / 2009; no copyright listed)

Monday, January 12, 2009

Our Contact point: at the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference, has seen, in the press: the recent judgement on the arms deal curruption case

(Scripturelink Voter's Guide)

Article by Marc Aupiais

I, and others on their press releases list: have received an email basically showing that representation of the Bishops, has heard the recent judgment, and seem to be watching events unfolding in the press. We have not, however, had therein: a direct statement clearly on a perspective. So far, they simply brought attention to the verdict, to us, and others who were emailed by our contact there.

I do not endorse the following link, but a source in the hierarchy, sent it to me, so I thought it likely is somewhat accurate (The article), the full judgment (linked to in the article, and indirectly in the email), also: I do not guarantee, nor does this mean that our contact guarantees such.

To my knowledge, they have yet to make any statements as to the current judgment. Representation of the hierarchy, certainly has seen, and is clearly interested in it's importance. It means Jacob Zuma can be retried in court.

On our own analysis, this is ours, not theirs:
It also puts into question the disposing of previous President Thabo Mbeki, who was made to resign, by a Zuma lead ANC, and has implications for the upcoming elections: expected this year.

I do not endorse the following links to the Secular, and Independent : South Africa's "Mail and Guardian": We have not vetted these for accuracy, nor can we guarantee content: These are based on communication with a source within the Hierarchy in South Africa: who simply wanted to alert us and others as to the goings ons occurring, and so: we cannot say either us, or them endorse this source: as we do not have enough information to know how they feel about it. We ourselves do not endorse such, our view is in our article on this: we have not yet read this other article, and therefore cannot endorse it: however, we generally trust much of the accuracy of the facts, in the Mail and Guardian, due to their history, even though we do not guarantee such, nor endorse them, or any of their articles, whatsoever: Also, their world view, and perspective, is not always in line with ours; nor do we endorse their columns nor do we endorse their columnists, or credibility via this:

Mail and Guardian Article (not an endorsement):

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-01-12-court-opens-way-for-new-zuma-charges

Full judgement: Mail and Guardian (not an endorsement):

http://www.mg.co.za/uploads/zumajudgement.pdf

We do neither endorse article content, nor can we endorse these perspectives and views. They are purely the views of those expressing them, and we cannot be held responsible for them. They are not ours, and do not necessarily reflect our views, nor can these perspectives be said to represent those of the Bishops, or any affiliated with them. Nor can we as yet give you their perspective, we can only speculate, which we may do later, and did in (Bloemfontein; South Africa: Zuma Trial Back On: NPA wins: previous judge had no right to submit his "political" opinions 12 / Jan / 2009 ).

Should they desire a press release: we will of course inform you of this: however, there does seem to be interest in this issue: and they do seem to be watching events, as a church hierarchy should be doing in such circumstances.

Bloemfontein; South Africa: Zuma Trial Back On: NPA wins: previous judge had no right to submit his "political" opinions

(Scripturelink Voters Guide; c.f. E News (South African; Secular; Independent)12 / Jan / 2009)

Article by Marc Aupiais

The judgment of a previous Judge : had dethroned South Africa's president: and caused a political crisis. Now the prosecution's case against ANC president Jacob Zuma, by the NPA, has been allowed to proceed. Many of Zuma's actions have been called into question, as well as the previous judgment. Shabir Shaik, Zuma's financial advisor was sent to prison: for a "Generally" "Corrupt" relationship it is alleged he has had with Jacob Zuma. Following this, and recent evidence, as well as Zuma's chances of becoming president heightening: the NPA (National Prosecuting Authority) decided to prosecute Zuma, a choice which had been overturned by a lower court, and was upheld today.

Accusations against South Africa's President, at the time, and others of conspiracy against Zuma (discounted as baseless in legal terms: by the overruling judge in the case), during a previous proceeding, under a judge in a lower court, by a certain Judge Nicholson, who had ruled to curb proceedings at the time: of prosecution, had been used by Zuma allies to purge their party of Thabo Mbeki, the president of the country at the time, and of his supporters, even resulting in By-Elections, in which the ANC lost many wards, despite voter intimidation, in areas where they took it apon themselves to register late, and in areas: where they competed for wards, where ANC leaders had once been voted in.

A woman was stoned during other previous proceedings against Zuma, allegedly by his followers, in a case of mistaken identity, when they believed it was the woman (Now in Exile), who accused the current communist affiliated ANC president of rape. If she retracts her statements, and only then, according to local news: will the ANC guarantee her safety in South Africa.

Zuma supporters, have also called for the "annihilation" of the DA, South Africa's current main opposition, also: ANC members have been accused of threatening, or intimidating voters, of political violence, and have said they are prepared to seemingly take up arms and "Kill for Zuma", statements promptly mimicked by Afrikaners, who said they would take up arms to protect the Constitution of South Africa. A judge was accused of meddling in the Zuma trial, by approaching two different judges, and new political Party: COPE, found it odd, when police would not allow them to take to the streets in promotion of their conference: after the ANC, suddenly decided to hold an event nearby: riot police turned up to keep COPE in check.

COPE, gets much of its support, partly from supporters of dethrowned ANC president Thabo Mbecki: who had been resident president since previous elections, in which he got into power: until such time, as Polokwane, when Zuma supporters Voted Jacob Zuma as ANC preident: the officials of the elected ANC, where often replaced.

Many of the members of COPE, like those of the ANC: were previously staunch ANC members, under Mbeki: and perhaps prior this: what is interesting: is that we have not been able to find any objection by leading current members of COPE, such as "Terror" (nicknamed for soccer performance: former defense minister) Lekota, when the ANC forced all Members of Parliament in their party to vote for allowing mass, and radical legal abortion, which violates the "rights" of conscientious objectors to object to partaking in abortion, and they also were not vocal enough, if vocal or absent at all to even be heard by Scripturelink, should it have been possible: when the ANC forced through "gay marriage", if they objected at all: we have no record of such: and which we have no record of, has not had any major statements to the contrary, from these men, as far as we have heard. 9 in every 10 South Africans appose abortion, and 4 out of every 5: consider homosexual acts to always be wrong.

The ANC recently disbanded the Scorpions; in a time, when several ANC members were under investigation for serious crimes. The Constitutional Court of South Africa: recently upheld the move to disband the Scorpions: South Africa's FBI: as constitutional.

All my facts are based on proceedings aired on E Television, and local secular news sources: ETV is South Africa's independent news, and entertainment channel (i.e. the other three are government controlled; while DSTV, is satellite and paid audience). Contact them for any errors, but tell me also.

A South African Bishop, recently also said that due to the actions of men: in which he included the Zuma scenario: that South Africa was on the slide to "Sin and Ruin", this was by Archbishop Buthi of the Archdiocese of Johannesburg.

South African Catholic

Scripturelink Latest!

Search the Vatican online: Effectively and Efficiently!

Search our specialized (VaticanSearch.Scripturelink.net) search site

Search the Vatican in general

Search the Vatican State (country, history, tourism, museums, local structures, media, landmarks etc)

Search Papal information and speeches on the Vatican Site

Search News, media and information on Vatican sites + Vatican vetted Jesuit Newspaper

Search the Second Vatican Council on the Vatican Website

Search inter alia Liturgy, Papal Calendar, blesseds, saints on the Vatican Site

Search Saint, Blesseds, canonization Information on the Vatican Site

Search inter alia the New American Bible (and other languages versions, and Pontifical Biblical Commission) on the Vatican Site

Search Catechism and Compendium (and Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church) on the Vatican Site

Search the 1983 Codification of Canon Law (and Pontifical Council for Legislative (Ecclesiastical) Texts) on the Vatican Site

Search the Roman Curia (Bodies set up to act on behalf of the papacy on matters)

Search the Pontifical Academies (Cultorum Martyrum, Ecclesiastical, Life, Sciences, Social Sciences)

Congregations (Faith,Oriental Churches, Worship / Sacraments, Saints, Evangelization, Consecrated Life / Apostolic Life, Catholic Education, Bishops)

Commissions (Cultural Heritage, "Ecclesia Dei", Archeology, Biblical, Theological, Catechism of Catholic Church, Latin America)

Tribunals (Penitentiary(sin), Roman Rota; Supremo Tribunale della Segnatura Apostolica)

Councils (Laity, Chrst. Unity, Family, Justice + Peace,Cor Unum, Migrants + Itinerants, Health,Church Law, Inter-rel. Dialogue, Culture, Soc. Comm.)

Chorus Sistine Chapel, Basilica Excavations Office, "Latinitas",Publishing House,Equestrian Order , Pilgrims, Sacred Music, Vatican Press

Synod of Bishops

Offices: mostly Vatican Finance / economic issues

Secretariate of State : Diplomacy, Peter's Penance etc (Secretary of State deals largely with foreign issues)

Pontifical Committees e.g. Eucharistic Congresses, Historical Sciences; Labour Office of the Apostolic See; Swiss Guard

Section: Copyright Marc Aupiais. All Rights Strictly Reserved!