Tag Archives: Referendum

News

Over 99 percent of people in southern Sudan vote for succession

1 Comment
Map of Africa
Map of Africa

Great news in Sudan. (H/T Muddling Towards Maturity)

Excerpt:

More than 99 percent of Southern Sudanese voted to secede from the north, a referendum official said Sunday in the first official preliminary result announcement.

“The vote for separation was 99.57 percent,” said Chan Reek Madut, the deputy head of the commission that organized the referendum, to a crowd in the South’s capital of Juba, according to Reuters.

Voter turnout in the South was 99 percent, Madut said. And over 60 percent of Southern Sudanese living in the north turned out to vote, with 58 percent voting to secede, he stated.

Mohamed Ibrahim Khalil, chairman of the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission, said 99 percent of the Southern Sudanese diaspora in eight nations also voted to secede.

After decades of civil war and ongoing tension between the northern and southern governments, it looks like the south will finally become its own country. The weeklong referendum, which began on Jan. 9, is called for by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended more than two decades of civil war.

[…]Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir, who is expected to lead the independent South, has called for Southern Sudanese to forgive the North for the years of violence during the civil war. Some 1.9 million people died during the war between the North and South and more than 500 churches were destroyed in the South.

“For our deceased brothers and sisters, particularly those who have fallen during the time of struggle, may God bless them with eternal peace,” said Kiir at Catholic Cathedral in Juba on Jan. 16.

“And,” he continued, “may we, like Jesus Christ on the cross, forgive those who have forcefully caused their deaths.”

Southern Sudan is the more Christian part of Sudan, so this is good news for Sudanese Christians.

Here’s a close up of southern Sudan:

Map of Southern Sudan
Map of Southern Sudan

Muddling linked to an interesting post providing more historical context for the referendum.

I’m still very worried about what is going on in Egypt and Pakistan. I am still trying to catch up on Egypt but the two posts linked by Gateway Pundit are the two best that I’ve seen.

Podcasts

New Jennifer Roback Morse podcast on the California prop 8 trial

Leave a comment

Right now there is a trial going on in California in which some plaintiffs are challenging the result of the recent referendum on marriage. California voted to recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman, and some people are complaining about that. Jennifer Roback Morse was interviewed about this trial on the Christian radio show “Issues, Etc.”, and she explained some of the issues they are debating in the trial and what it all means.

Here is the MP3 file.

And here’s my summary of what she and the host talked about:

  • Rosie O’Donnell’s twelve-year lesbian relationship is over
  • How children are affected by unstable relationships between partners
  • what do the statistics show about the stability of same-sex unions?
  • what is the purpose of marriage?
  • what characteristics define child-centered marriage?
  • what characteristics define adult-centered marriage?
  • who gets custody of the children when same-sex couples split?
  • how are parental rights understood today under the law?
  • how would same-sex marriage change parental rights?
  • what is the agenda of family law radicals for marriage?
  • what are the consequences of this California trial?
  • why does the judge want to broadcast the trial on TV?

I find her a real delight to listen to! I would be delighted if more people learned to talk about these issues the same way that she does. I find her blog is very helpful as well. In fact, she has an interesting post up about some “expert” testimony from a sociologist who testified in favor of same sex marriage. (H/T Lex Communis)

She cites this post from Protect Marriage:

UCLA social psychology professor Dr. Letitia Peppeau opined that, among other things, same-sex couples are “indistinguishable” from heterosexual couples in terms of their relationships, and that legalizing same sex marriage would not harm traditional marriage. However, she could offer no studies to prove her contention that there would be no impacts on traditional marriage.  On cross examination, she also admitted that the available studies do, in fact, show significant differences between gay couples and heterosexual couples. For example, one study reported that a significantly lower percentage of gay men think that monogamy is important in their relationships (only 36%) than do those in heterosexual relationships. Of those gay men who say that monogamy is important in their relationships, 74% still engage in sex with multiple partners. When pressed, she admitted that sexual exclusivity among gay men is the exception rather than the rule.

My previous post on why people favor traditional marriage explored the research on the differences between traditional marriage and same-sex unions. If we agree that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the children, then it’s clear from the research that these two arrangements are not the same.

Related posts

Commentary

Understanding the effects of moral relativism on New Zealand schools

5 Comments

Previously, I had discussed why atheism is not able to ground the minimal requirements for rational moral behavior.

Now let’s see  an example of  the effects of not being able to make moral judgments about good and evil.

An example from the education system

I was reading over on the MandM blog, which is based in New Zealand and I found a post about the bullying problems that their 14-year-old son was having in his school. Schools are notorious breeding grounds for moral relativism – that is where young minds are brainwashed with “values clarification” programs. Students learn to make up their own values based on personal preferences.

Here is what happened to their son Christian:

Christian began attending Liston at the start of 2008 as a Year 9 student. Since that time he has been repeatedly bullied by other students. This bullying included being called names, threatened, being taunted about his medical condition (he has Aspergers Syndrome – see the attachment “medical condition”); he has been shoved, choked, hit, punched, knocked over, kicked, had his pants pulled down and has been dragged across the concrete while a student filmed him on his cell phone. During class, he has had objects thrown at him, he has been hit, punched, kicked, he has been knocked out of his desk, has had people steal his belongings, call him names and taunt him about his condition.

And this is what the teachers did:

Frequently the response of the teachers in these classes to these incidents has not been adequate, often it has been [to have] him moved instead of the bully.

To our knowledge, no student has been stood down, reported to the board of trustees or even had their parents phoned over the assaults and harassment they have committed against our son in his year and a half at Liston, including the repeat offenders.

And here’s what it means:

It seemed to us (aside from the repeat offenders) that as each bully was dealt with another one popped up to take his place. This suggested to us that a culture of bullying had developed within the school; that to the other students, bullying didn’t come with serious consequences: your parents didn’t get told, you were not at risk of being stood down and the teachers didn’t really view it as anything serious anyway when it happened in the classroom.

This is the problem with the moral relativism, which has become dominant as Christianity has retreated. It is irrational for an atheist to stand up to evil and injustice if it involves possible unpleasantness for them. The moral relativist, believes that there is no distinction between the victim and the bully – and this prevents the relativist from standing up to the bully and stopping their bullying.

You can see an example of this moral relativism going on right now with Obama and the Iranian dictators.

New Zealand’s anti-smacking law

It has been argued by family-values advocates that children need to form their conscience and moral sense by relating to their parents, especially their mother, at a very early age. Anxiety and aggression in children increases as the family is weakened or broken up by things like day care and no-fault divorce.

The disintegration of the family is aided by many progressive policies enacted by the political left. The left is wedded to moral relativism, because the left is secular. And they even desire to force moral relativism on families. What that means to parents is that the state can criminalize moral judgments with hate crime laws, restrictions on speech and even restrictions on parenting.

In New Zealand, the country is actually having a referendum about their “anti-smacking” law. The current law is that parents are prohibited from physically disciplining their children. I would think that this law would exacerbate the bullying problem in the schools. [Note: I fixed this paragraph to reflect the fact that the law is already in place, and the referendum is non-binding!]

UPDATE: I noticed a post about how Christians are allowed to make moral judgments, including judgments against bullies, also on MandM.