CONFERINTA AFR –IMPRESII SI NOUTATI

Conferinta anuala AFR s-a desfasurat anul acesta la Cluj pe 9 aprilie. A fost un succes. AFR ia in serios conferintele pe care le organizeaza, atit la nivel regional cit si la nivel national. Toate ne sunt la fel de importante, fara deosebire de locul unde se tin si de numarul participantilor. Scopul lor este informarea publicului privind pericolele, unele dintre ele institutionalizate, care privesc familia si valorile, cunoasterea noastra reciproca, si discutarea metodelor pe care fiecare dintre noi le putem folosi si eforturile pe care le putem face impreuna pentru apararea si promovarea valorilor. Cautam sa organizam conferintele noastre imbinind aspectul informativ cu cel pragmatic. De aceea invitam la conferintele noastre personalitati impozante atit din Romania cit si din alte tari care au experienta in promovarea si apararea valorilor. In acest sens, conferinta din anul acesta nu a fost o exceptie si a beneficiat de vorbitori cu prestigiu, atit din Romania cit si din strainatate.

Nu avem cuvinte suficiente sa multumim tuturor celor care s-au implicat cu abnegatie in transformarea conferintei noastre intr-un real succes. Multumim in primul rind participantilor la conferinta. De-a lungul conferintei au participat aproximativ 100 de persoane. Au venit din Cluj dar si din toata tara. De la Arad, Timisoara, Oradea, Baia Mare, Tirgu Mures, Bucuresti, Bistrita. Unii au fost in trecere prin Cluj si s-au oprit pentru o vreme sa audieze conferinta, sa ne cunoasca, sa ne incurajeze si sa ne spuna cit de mult ne apreciaza, atit actiunile cit si eforturile pentru informarea familiilor romane despre pericolele care le pericliteaza. Iar altii ati venit in grupuri, cel mai numeros fiind cel de la Baia Mare care au venit in grup de 10. Multe aprecieri! Citiva participanti au fost si romani de peste hotare (Chicago).

Multumim deasemenea gazdelor. Gazdele au dat dovada de o ospitalitate rara si recomandam aula catedralei oricarui grup sau organizatii care doreste sa organizeze conferinte la Cluj. Au fost la inaltime. In plus, membrii AFR care au organizat conferinta au fost si ei la inaltime. Nu s-au plins de dificultati, nici nu au dat inapoi. Cuvintele “nu se poate” nu au fost rostite de nici unul ditre ei. Mentionam aici cu multa apreciere pe Leonard Farauanu (AFR Cluj), parintele Emil Ember (AFR Baia Mare), Adrian Iov (AFR Arad), Niculina Ciuperca (AFR Bucuresti), Bogdan Mateciuc (Director Executiv AFR), Petre Costea (Presedinte AFR), Florin Vasiloni (AFR Caransebes), Danile Tut (AFR Timisoara), etc.

Multumim deasemenea conferentiarilor. Toti au fost la inaltime. D-l Titus Corlatean (senator PSD) a vorbit cu pasiune despre importanta Scripturii in educarea copiilor intr-un spirit de respect si apreciere fata de valori, citind diverse pasaje din Cartea Proverbelor/Pildelor. Ne-a informat deasemenea ca sotia dinsului are pozitii pro-viata si ca a participat, impreuna cu dinsul, la marsul pro-viata organizat de Pro-Vita Bucuresti pe 26 martie. D-l Pavel Horj (Deputat PNL) a tinut o prelegere despre bioetica si valorile crestine. A fost o prezentare foarte buna, d-l deputat dind dovada de o cunostinta aprofundata asupra subiectului. Intreaga audienta a fost bine informata asupra subiectului. D-l Adrian Papahagi (Fundatia Crestin-Democrata PDL) a vorbit cu pasiune si elocventa despre importanta valorilor in politica romaneasca si a pledat ca valorile crestine sa fie reflectate in legislatia tarii. A mentionat si proiecte legislative curente dar nepotrivite care, afirma dinsul, nu se cuvine sa fie initiate sau promovate intr-o tara crestina, si mai ales de un partid politic care se considera a fi de dreapta. D-l Bogdan Mateciuc a identificat mai multe organizatii neguvernamentale din Romania care se profileaza pe promovarea antivalorilor si modul in care actioneaza in acest scop cu fonduri primite din partea Uniunii Europene.

AFR a acordat d-lui Titus Corlatean un mic semn de apreciere, o carte despre diplomatie si relatii internationale (Joshua Ramo, The Age of the Unthinkable, 2009), avind in vedere pozitia dinsului ca Presedinte al Comisiei de Afaceri Externe a Senatului Romaniei. AFR deasemenea a transmis, prin intermediul d-lui Adrian Papahagi, un mesaj de apreciere fata de d-l Teodor Baconshi, Ministrul de Externe al Romaniei si fondator al Fundatiei Crestin Democrate din Romania. In toamna anului 2010 d-l Baconschi a publicat o carte “Crestinism si Democratie” in care prevede ca un imperativ indispensabil pentru viitorul Romaniei promovarea valorilor crestine in viata politica a tarii. Suntem de acord. Recomandam tuturor cartea dinsului.

Multumim deasemenea preotilor si pastorilor care au vorbit, preotul Todea, preotul Matei Boila (din partea Forumului Civic Roman) si pastorul Rei Abrudan. Preotul Matei Boila a prezentat un subiect cu un titlul foarte interesant si captivant – “Casatoria: Contract sau Taina?” Iar d-l Abrudan a discutat subiectul “Menirea Casatoriei,” punctind ideea ca inainte de a demola o structura, in cazul nostru casatoria si familia, trebuie gindit de ce structura a fost creata in primul rind si cu ce scop. A vorbit deasemena d-l profesor Juhas Tamas, profesor la Institutul Reformat din Cluj, sintetizind ideea, bine argumentata, ca atit maghiarii cit si romanii au avut in comun, de-a lungul istoriei, un aspect social foarte important – familia, importanta si rolul ei in formarea si dezvoltarea natiunilor. D-l Tamas a punctat deasemenea idea, foarte interesanta, ca doar familia poate asigura supravietuirea noastra in societatea post-moderna.

Cuvinte speciale de apreciere trebuia facute fata de musafirii nostri internationali. Am fost privilegiati sa avem trei oaspeti internationali. Primul oaspete care a conferentiat a fost europarlamentara Anna Zaborska (Slovacia). Am apreciat la dinsa seriozitatea cu care a pledat cauza familiei crestine ca si fundament esential in viitorul Uniunii Europene si necesitatea mentinerii familiei naturale in rezolutiile si directivele unionale. Dupa masa a vorbit d-l avocat Sam Webster din partea lui Christian Institute (Institutul Crestin) din Marea Britanie. Vreme de 45 de minute a captivat audienta cu o prezentare clara, concisa, si foarte bine pregatita despre modul in care tribunalele engleze submineaza valorile crestine si libertatea religioasa in avantajul “drepturilor” homosexualilor britanici. Iar ultima prezentare a fost facuta, prin modalitate video, de catre Pat Fagan, Sr. Research Fellow la institutul Family Research Council din Washington, DC. Subiectul dinsului a fost extinderea la nivel mondial a unei ideologii sexuale seculare care nu doar ca submineaza si ia in deridere, intentionat, castitatea si relatiile monogame, dar deja are un efect dezastruos in societatile unde e promovata cu asentimentul autoritatilor. Titlul prezentarii lui a fost “Christian Chastity vs. Sex in the City,” lung de 45 de minute. Adaugam in plus ca oaspetii straini au participat la conferinta de la inceput pina la sfirsit, dind dovada de multa atentie, interes, si rabdare. Am fost mult impresionati de aspectul acesta.

Mentiuni speciale trebuie adresate d-lui Ionut Bruma (voluntar AFR Bucuresti si membru al Asociatiei Arsenie Boca) care a subtitrat materialul video al d-lui Pat Fagan. La asta l-a ajutat si d-l Bogdan Mateciuc. In puls, d-l Bruma a facut o mica prezentare pe tema “De ce sunt voluntar AFR”? care a captivat interesul participantilor. D-l Bogdan Mateciuc trebuie mentionat inca o data pentru ca a tradus impecabil prezentarea d-lui Sam Webster din engleza in romana, la fel ca parintele Emil Ember care a tradus, la fel de impecabil, prezentarea d-nei Anna Zaborska din franceza in romana.

Finalul conferintei a consistat din prezentari scurte de pina la 5 minute din partea persoanelor care au participat la conferinta. S-au inscris la cuvint si au vorbit cu multa pasiune si intelepciune d-na Natalia Muresan (Baia Mare), Niculina Ciuperca, Cornelia Mateciuc, Miorita Sateanu (Presedinta Uniunii Femeilor din Bihor), Maria Dunca Moisin (medic, Bucuresti), Marius Crisan (Cluj), Costel Batranu (Bucuresti), Mihai Titean (Chicago).

Pe linga vorbitori, prezenti la conferinta noastra au fost si alte personalitati impozante ale luptei pentru valori din Romania, printre ei d-l Bogdan Stanciu, Presedintele Pro-Vita Bucuresti; d-l Corneliu Szekely-Hategan, presedintele miscarii Saptamina Casatoriei in Romania; si d-na Maria Neagu, editoarea publicatiei online Viata Cultelor. Din partea mass media am remarcat interesul deosebit aratat de catre Radio Maria si redactorul ei sef, d-l Claudiu Ardelean.

Poze de la Conferinta pot fi vazute aici: http://dl.transfer.ro/AFR-transfer_RO-11apr-8bf11f.rar

Daca ne-a scapat din vedere vreun amanunt sau detaliu important despre conferinta, ne cerem scuze, suntem singuri responsabili pentru asta, si ne asumam raspunderea. Eventualele lacune, insa, nu au fost intentionate.

Din Partea Participantilor:

Din partea participantilor am primit multe mesaje de apreciere dinter care publicam unul.

Buna seara: Sper ca ati avut o calatorie linistita si ca ati ajuns cu bine acasa. Imi dau seama ca a fost un efort mare pentru dumneavoastra si pentru cei care v-au sprijinit in realizarea acestei intilniri, dar va asigur ca a meritat din plin tot ceea ce ati facut. Fiecare conferentiar a transmis cite un mesaj valoros si amintesc doar citeva: criza spirituala si sociala, cu rasturnarea de valori pe care o traim, poate fi depasita prin actiunea fiecaruia de a se opune faradelegii; subminarea libertatii religioase devine tot mai evidenta si de aceea nevoia de modele crestine in societate este imperioasa (fiecare poate sa devina model pentru copiii lui, pentru elevii lui, pentru vecinii lui, pentru colegii lui, traind si rostind in mod natural si liber valorile crestine); importanta casatoriei sacramentale si implicatiile casatoriei contractuale; speranta intr-un tineret care ar putea sa devina conservator, ca reactie la adresa acelor parinti care si-au ignorat rolul de a transmite copiilor adevaratele valori ale vietii si sensul adevaratei libertati. Mesajul transmis prin documentarul “Christian Chastity vs.Sex in the City” l-as recomanda sa-l descopere si cei care nu l-au ascultat. Toate cele bune, va doresc. MDM (Bucuresti)

PREZENTARI

Am primit multe mesaje din partea d-tra in care ne cereti sa publicam prezentarile care s-au facut in candrul conferintei la Cluj. Publicam astazi, in intregime, prelegerea avocatului Sam Webster din Marea Britanie, intitulata: “Faith, family and freedom” (“Credinta, familia si libertatea”)

I am very grateful to have been asked to address this conference and appreciate your warm welcome. This is my first visit to Romania, a country which has been shaped by Christian values and teaching. Whilst I do not claim to have any extensive knowledge of Romanian history, I appreciate that this is a country which is enjoying freedoms which have been re-engaged relatively recently. Religious freedom is at the foundation of a free and open society. But we cannot take our religious freedom for granted. If you read or listen to global news you will surely be aware of an active atheistic assault on religious liberty.

There are some people in positions of authority and influence who would gladly silence Christians. They use smooth-sounding arguments about ‘equality’, but often this is just a pretext for dismantling the structures of the traditional family and taking away those corresponding liberties which allow us to live our lives in accordance with our Christian beliefs. This is a battleground in which The Christian Institute is currently engaged in the United Kingdom.

The Christian Institute, founded in 1989, is a research and campaigning organisation based in the North of England. We are an evangelical organisation seeking to equip Christians to engage in the public square. We provide comment to the media, assist politicians in Parliament and run major court cases. Our work focuses on the fundamental issues of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and religious liberty. Our website: http://www.christian.org.uk has now become one of the leading Christian news sources in the UK, receiving over 107,000 visits every month. As Christians, we expect government to provide a framework for individual citizens and families to flourish, to fulfill their responsibilities and to ensure that the preconditions for liberty are protected. That has certainly been the traditional UK model of law.

Constitutionally, the United Kingdom is a Christian country and we have an established church. Our Queen, making laws in parliament, is the highest source of law. She is required by her coronation oaths to uphold the Christian faith and the law of God as revealed in the Bible. Every day, business in parliament still starts with Christian prayers and the teaching of Christianity still pre-dominates in religious education in state schools. Within this constitutional framework, the traditional family has enjoyed autonomy, but also privilege, as that is what the state has promoted, whether through education provision, public policy or the tax system.

Sadly, however, over recent years we have seen a systematic attempt in parliament to dismantle this traditional framework. As the model of the traditional family has been deconstructed and then reconstructed, religious liberty has been undermined. At times, some changes have gone hand in hand with judicial activism, involving the European Court of Human Rights, to which the UK (just like Romania) is bound through being signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention and its court in Strasbourg have undoubtedly brought freedom and liberty to many people across many countries. However, the Convention has not always sat comfortably with the traditional notions of “rights” in the UK. English law has traditionally been cautious of defining or codifying rights because it risks effectively limiting rights. Instead, the UK has pursued a notion of “residual rights”. In other words, we are free to do anything that the law does not expressly prohibit. And, of course, until relatively recently, many prohibitions centred on the various alternatives to the traditional family.

The European Convention, however, sets out prescriptive principles of rights which, in my view, can be interpreted widely. You will know that the Convention is held out to be a “living instrument”, open to reinterpretation and development in the light of changing public morality. For example, in one recent case involving a homosexual couple in Austria, the Strasbourg court held that there is no right under the Convention to same sex marriage. However, we should note its reasoning. According to the court, there is no right to same sex marriage because there is not yet a European consensus for it and so it still falls to be regulated by the laws of individual states. However, it is important to note that the court accepted that the right to marriage enshrined in Article 12 of the Convention could include same sex marriage. Clearly, the Court is paving the way for future decisions.

“The margin of appreciation” is a concept which recognises that where there is no European wide agreement on an issue the European Court of Human Rights should not intervene. This can be helpful. It was certainly helpful in the recent Lautsi v Italy case (the so called Italian crucifix case in which Romania along side 10 other countries intervened). However, it is a concept which can ultimately be trumped by changing views of morality. The broad principles of the Convention permit judicial activism and this judicial activism can too easily create a conflict of rights. This conflict of rights in the courts is especially seen where changing notions of the family conflict with traditional religious beliefs. And so, the right to a family life in Article 8 of the Convention has developed to protect homosexual rights, often in opposition to the right to manifest religious belief as held in Article 9.

In recent years, this model has been reflected – in fact sometimes taken further – in the laws passed by the UK Parliament and the decisions of UK courts. As Parliament has acted in the name of equality to dismantle the traditional family, orthodox Christian beliefs have been trumped by laws which enforce the new morality and model of the family. We are now seeing the courts in the UK implement the new moral framework rather than the old Christian order.

So, what steps have been taken in the past ten years to undermine the family in the UK? 2001: The age of consent for homosexual acts was reduced from 18 to 16. 2002: Homosexual adoption was legalised. 2003: A law banning public authorities and schools from promoting homosexuality was repealed. Also in 2003 Parliament implemented the European Framework Directive by enacting new laws granting rights in employment, including the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation (similar rights were also granted at the same time not to be discriminated against on the ground of religion or belief). Then, in 2004, legislation was enacted to create ‘civil partnerships’, granting all the legal rights and privileges of marriage to homosexual couples. In 2004, the Gender Recognition Act was also brought in, allowing a man to become a woman “for all purposes” in law. He could then legally marry another man, because in law the couple would be of opposite sexes. In 2006 a new Equality Act was enacted outlawing discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief and sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services. In 2008 a new Human Fertilization and Embryology Act permitted same-sex couples the right to conceive children together using sperm and eggs from donors, and for both of the same-sex couple to be the legal parents of the child on the birth certificate. Currently the UK government is consulting on whether to legislate for full same sex marriage in the UK.

The Christian Institute has done a lot of work in Parliament and the media to oppose these laws and to build into them some crucial safeguards to protect religious liberty. Chiefly, within the narrow confines of internal church life there are exemptions from various equality laws which protect the rights of churches and religious bodies. Such exemptions seek to build into legislation a balance between Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention. However, in the wider public sphere, new laws which promote homosexuality are redefining the family in society and are restricting religious liberty for Christians who disagree. The best way to illustrate this is to explain three recent cases, two of which I have been involved in personally.

The first case funded by The Christian Institute involves Lillian Ladele. She is a committed Christian and she lives in London. Until a few years ago Lillian was a council registrar as such, Lillian’s job involved registering births, deaths and marriages. After the UK’s Civil Partnership Act was passed in 2004, Lillian politely asked to be excused from carrying out civil partnerships because of her Christian beliefs. To be excused from carrying out this one service would have been a practical solution to the moral conflict she, as a Christian, would have faced had she had to perform civil partnership services. In fact she worked in a large team of other registrars which included many others who were willing and able to conduct same-sex unions. However, rather than agree to this, her employer, the local council, disciplined her. As a result, Lillian was forced out of her job.

With our help, Lillian brought a legal case against her employer for religious discrimination. Although she won in the lower court, she later lost her case in England’s Court of Appeal. In December 2009, the Court of Appeal, sitting in London, held that the council could justify forcing Lillian to perform civil partnership services, so as to enable the council to comply with its own Diversity and Equality policy which committed the council not to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation. Bizarrely, it made no difference to the court that no homosexual couple had ever, or would ever, be denied a civil partnership had Lillian been excused from carrying out this particular service. The head of the civil courts in England and Wales said in his judgment that the law against discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services: “takes precedence over any right which a person would otherwise have by virtue of his or her religious belief or faith, to practice discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.”

It is clear from this case that what started out as a permissive move – new liberal laws to permit same-sex couples to enter civil unions – has turned into a coercive law, requiring submission by all, including religious believers, to its agenda of redefining marriage and the family. Although religious discrimination laws were brought in at the same time as sexual orientation discrimination laws, it is clear that where the two are in conflict, the courts require sexual orientation rights to trump religious rights. This reasoning is now being applied in other cases. For example, a Christian couple who faced difficulties in their application to become foster carers because of their views on homosexual conduct, have just lost a case against their local council.

Here are Eunice and Owen Johns, who have been supported by another Christian legal team in the UK. As Christians, they believe that sexual relations other than those within marriage between one man and one woman are morally wrong. Mr and Mrs Johns applied to their local council to become foster parents, looking after children who are under the care of the local council. However, the Johns were told by social workers at their local council that they would have difficulty in being approved for fostering in the light of their views.

During the application process, the Johns were asked questions about how their beliefs on homosexuality might affect their behaviour as foster carers. In response, the Johns said that they could not tell a child that a homosexual lifestyle was right. As a result, their application was unsuccessful. Following this Mr and Mrs Johns brought an action in the High Court in London challenging the council’s approach. In the judgment handed down in February, two High Court judges ruled that: “the attitudes of potential foster carers to sexuality are relevant when considering an application for approval”. “The local authority is entitled to explore the extent to which prospective foster carers’ beliefs may affect their behaviour, their treatment of a child being fostered by them”. Much of the court’s reasoning was based on the Lillian Ladele registrar case which I have just mentioned. It is clear that the courts are entrenching a position where rights pertaining to sexual orientation take precedence over rights pertaining to freedom of religion.

The government funded Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in the Johns’ case, arguing that views disapproving of same-sex relationships and lifestyles have a harmful impact on the well-being of children and young people. In fact the Commission talked about the risk of children being “infected” with views disapproving of homosexual conduct, almost as if such views are a disease to be eradicated. It is becoming apparent that the state is now calling evil good and good evil. The institutionalisation of new family structures inevitably impacts upon the rights of those who disagree.

In Cornwall, in the south west of Britain, I have been defending a Christian couple who run a small seven room hotel. As Christians, Mr and Mrs Bull seek to run their small hotel on Christian principles. They make no secret of their Christian faith. In the reception area is a huge sign stating that “Jesus Christ is Lord”. They also have a high view of marriage. Their booking form states that that they only permit married couples to book double bedded rooms. In September 2008 a homosexual couple, in a civil partnership, booked a room in the hotel but failed to disclose this to Mrs Bull. When the couple arrived at the hotel, they were politely informed that it was the policy of the hotel only to allow married couples to have double room accommodation.

The homosexual couple subsequently sued Mr and Mrs Bull under the UK’s Equality Act. Mr and Mrs Bull denied discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation. Rather, their policy was based on sexual conduct outside marriage. Indeed, Mr and Mrs Bull had consistently applied their policy to heterosexual unmarried couples for over 26 years. Again, the court was faced with needing to balance conflicting rights. In its judgment in January this year, the judge said: “I am … acutely aware of the importance of this case to both sides and the deeply held views on both sides. Both can legitimately claim the right (Article 8) to have their private and family life (and in the case of the defendants their home) respected. The claimants [i.e. the homosexual couple] are a family in the eyes of the law just as much as are the married defendants. Both are entitled not to be discriminated against (article 14) and the defendants have the right (article 9) to manifest their religion or beliefs.”

However, when all was said and done, the court held that Mr and Mrs Bull had unlawfully discriminated against the homosexual couple on the ground of sexual orientation. The key to the court’s decision was that the law treats married couples and civil partners as having the same rights. If Mr and Mrs Bull accepted married couples, it followed that they were discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation by refusing a double room to a homosexual couple in a civil partnership.

Encouragingly, even two well known pro homosexual commentators criticised the decision. One, a former senior politician who supports gay rights, warned against the dangers of creating a “secular theocracy”. And, a well known academic (who is also a practising homosexual and an atheist) criticised the judgment in strident terms. This decision has been a wake up call to many Christians in the United Kingdom about just how far the homosexual agenda is redefining the family and marginalising the rights of Christians who disagree. In so doing, the courts are overturning the Christian basis for our laws. This significance was certainly not lost on the judge who decided Mr and Mrs Bulls case. In fact he started his judgment by referring to the fact that the Royal Courts of Justice in London (the Appeal Court for England and Wales [SLIDE]) has three statues on the façade of the building, namely statues of Moses, King Solomon and Jesus Christ: “Moses, to whom the 10 commandments and the law was given; King Solomon who exercised unparalleled wisdom as a judge-king; and, of course, a statue of our Lord himself. The judge noted that: “A great deal has changed since Moses, King Solomon and Jesus Christ walked upon this earth. Those Judaeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted.” “The standards and principles governing our behaviour which were unquestioningly accepted in one generation may not be so accepted in the next. In our parliamentary democracy it is for parliament to frame laws which reflect these changes in attitude or which give a lead to such changes. Whatever may have been the position in past centuries it is no longer the case that our laws must, or should, automatically reflect the Judaeo- Christian position.”

That is where the United Kingdom and many other nations now find themselves. The ‘equality’ agenda is having a broad and deepening impact on Christians throughout the UK. It is redefining the family. This trend is reflected in two of the main political campaigns in which we are currently engaged.

Firstly, we are committed to fight the slide to a redefinition of marriage to include full same-sex marriage. Secondly, we are seeking to stop the growing attempts to sexualise children through the teaching of ‘sex education’ in state schools, as our opponents seek to normalise the rejection of the traditional family by starting with the youngest in society. Everything I have described relates to a country which is a strong and stable democracy, which has had no significant political upheaval since our ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688. It is also a country which has had a very strong Christian heritage which has nurtured its political and legal development. Yet, what we have seen in recent years is nothing short of a cultural revolution in which legal rights have been refined, the family has been reconstructed and the Christian faith has become marginalised. In many respects it has been an unconventional revolution – incremental steps and democratic in origin – but a revolution no less significant in terms of its consequences.

VESTI BUNE!
Materialul publicat saptamina trecuta, “Vesti Bune!” a suscitat un numar mare de reactii din partea d-tra. Publicam doua.

Doamne-ajuta! (asa se saluta oamenii buni – ori cei care se straduiesc sa fie buni – in Moldova) Va multumesc din toata inima pentru ca mentineti o corespondenta care incalzeste inima familiei mele, care numara patru copii, de 19 – 24 de ani. La randu-ne, impartasim informatiile acestea altor cunostinte cu frica si dragoste de Dumnezeu. Sunt profesoara de latina si, vremelnic, conduc, in Pascani (unde s-a nascut M. Sadoveanu, in urma cu peste 130 de ani) Casa de Cultura. Daca veti avea vreodata intentia sa organizati conferinte, expozitii, intalniri in Moldova (Moldova aceasta, saraca si bogata!), va rog, nu ocoliti orasul nostru! Post cu folos, timp de mantuire, M.P.

Dumnezeu sa va binecuvinteze si El sa fie slavit pentru aceste vesti bune. Sa stiti ca la marsul contra avortului in Madrid au participat multi romani. Anul trecut a fost scris si un articol in ziarul Romanul despre acest lucru.Va felicit pentru ceea ce faceti si Domnul sa fie cu voi acolo si cu noi aici si cu toti cei ce se incred in El. Cu dragoste in Cristos, Monica.
MAMA SUROGAT – DECE SPUNEM NU!

D-l Mihail Neamtu, a publicat pe blogul sau un comentariu pe care ni l-a impartasit ca reactie la materialul ce l-am publicat acum 2 saptamini privind proiectul legislativ de mama surogat in Romania. Redam citeva paragrafe, urmind ca articolul in intregime sa poata fi citit de cei interesati in linkul alaturat: http://www.contributors.ro/cultura/nimic-despre-cultura-vie%C8%9Bii-bioetica-si-mo%C8%9Biunile-pdl/

Dreapta post-comunista se confrunta cu un paradox: tace chitic atunci când vine vorba de chestiunea demnitatii umane si abandoneaza cu nonsalanta orice initiativa venita dinauntrul miscarii pro-vita. Desi multe la numar (PDL, UDMR, PC sau PNL), partidele care ar trebui sa promoveze ideile liberalismului clasic, ale crestin-democratiei sau ale conservatorismului evita sa transeze dilema bioeticii contemporane: cum poate fi salvata viata pruncului nenascut fara a încalca demnitatea femeii?

În România, exista milioane de aderenti la mesajul pro-vita. Un sondaj recent arata ca 42% din concetatenii nostri considera avortul drept „o crima”. Nu stim daca aceasta parte din populatia tarii este activa sau pasiva electoral. Cert este ca reprezentantii unui corp politic matur si responsabil nu-i poate ignora. Fireste, retorica discursului pro-vita e mult mai greu de ambalat în România decât în Statele Unite. Câti dintre noi au uitat oare anii dictaturii în care autoritatile comuniste tinteau explozia procentelor demografice?

Cercetatori ai perioadei totalitare au aratat (cel mai recent în volumul intitulat Politica pronatalista a regimului Ceausescu. Vol. 1: O perspectiva comparativa, Ed. Polirom, 2010 si coordonat de Corina Palasan, Luciana Jinga si Florin Soare) metodele abuzive de control biopolitic al corpului feminin. Nu respectul pentru demnitatea copilului, nici grija pentru copilul nenascut, ci abordarea cantitativ-utilitarista a chestiunii maternitatii Si delirul de grandoare al lui Nicolae Ceausescu se aflau în spatele politicilor PCR din România anilor 1966-1989. Lipsit de orice tenta propagandistica, filmul „4,3,2” de Cristian Mungiu a scos la iveala dimensiunea sordida a natalismului totalitar.

Frazarea atitudinii pro-life trebuie sa plece, asadar, de la respectul libertatii de constiinta a fiecarui cetatean. Persuasiunea – un exercitiu fundamental în orice angajament politic – are drept scop redirectionarea alegerii catre respectul pentru viata umana, de la stadiul conceptiei pâna la moartea naturala. Cultura pro-vita deplânge faptul ca, în plina criza demografica, societatea româneasca a ajuns sa banalizeze avortul. Dupa 1989, numarul chiuretajelor voluntare a depasit cifra de 15 milioane. Relatarile din presa ori informatiile obtinute colocvial arata ca, pentru o fata de 17 ani, este mult mai greu sa cumpere un pachet de tigari decât sa recurga la întreruperea sarcinii. Nici vorba de acord al parintilor, co-implicare a sotului sau a partenerului, consultarea psihologica sau contact cu organizatiile pro-life (care doresc sa sustina material si sufleteste orice mama-purtatoare de sarcina). Revolutia sexuala precoce (prin care înteleg tentatia promiscuitatii, decuplarea sexualitatii de eros si afectivitate, prelungirea psihologiei adolescentine si, mai ales, degrevarea responsabilitatii paterne) conduce la situatii tragice: la Constanta, bunaoara, o tânara de 15 ani a decedat în urma unui chiuretaj angajat în absenta oricarei consultari cu rudele sau prietenii. O idila traverseaza rapid socul hemoragic si sfârseste la cimitir. Parinti devastati, familii îndoliate, colegi sub stare de soc – totul pentru ca nimic, sub raport legislativ, sa se schimbe.

Evident, nu toate cazurile ajung în aceasta situatie limita, regretata de toti participantii la „actul medical”. Oricât de eufemistic am prezenta tabloul general, situatia este dramatica. Într-un tulburator reportaj jurnalistic, Dan Gheorghe de la România libera arata cum si de ce „numarul întreruperilor de sarcina care au avut loc între 1958 si 2008 este mai mare decât populatia actuala a României”.

Cu o medie de trei avorturi pentru fiecare femeie, agenda pro-life n-ar trebui sa fie una periferica. Adaugati la criza natalitatii si perspectiva îmbatrânirii populatiei. Desenata cu penita sociologilor, imaginea României din 2050 arata deprimant: spor natural negativ, datorii fiscale masive si o populatie cu multi seniori. În total, 16 milioane de locuitori. Dimensiunile socante ale acestei contractii demografice depasesc cu mult amenintarile unui razboi extern sau pericolul unei catastrofe naturale. Chiar daca Statul liberal modern este miop metafizic, decidentii nu pot ramâne orbi în fata riscurile sistemice reprezentate de propagarea si generalizarea actualului stil de viata.

Te-ai fi asteptat ca doctrinarii dreptei, mai putin progresisti decât ideologii stângii, sa scoata la iveala acest subiect. Redactarea unor motiuni interne este momentul privilegiat pentru reflectia sistematica asupra valorilor si asupra principiilor unui Partid. Desi consistente la capitolul politici sociale sau economice, toate motiunile prezentate de membrii marcanti ai PDL tabuizeaza subiectul avort.

Nu se astepta nimeni, fireste, la o pozitie similara Vaticanului. Ti-ai fi putut îns imagina un discurs favorabil recunoasterii demnitatii vietii înca de la stadiul embrionar. Ar fi o utopie sa ceri politicienilor români sa-i semene parintelui Nicolae Tanase de la Valea Plopului, ori sa stârnesti campioanele feminismului la un concurs filantropic în compania maicii Tereza de Calcutta. E drept ca nici spatiul academic din România nu se lauda cu bioeticieni de patrundere, precum filozoful Leon Kass sau teologul Tristram Engelhardt Jr. Totusi, respectul acordat valorilor traditiei crestine si grija pentru viitorul natiunii române ar fi impus o reflectie staruitoare asupra demnitatii persoanei (mult mai ferm angajata de popularii germani). Vor sparge oare tacerea vocile identificate distinct cu doctrina crestin-democrata?

ANUNT PENTRU ROMANII DIN ITALIA
Vineri, 15 aprilie, de la ora 09.30 la ora 13.00, la sediul Grupului Abele din Corso Trapani n. 91 in Torino, va avea loc un seminar dedicat modelului de familie romana intitulat “Parinti si copii: familie, educatie si intercultura”, transmite Romanian Global News, care citeaza Primaria din Torino. Vor interveni: Cristina Govor (mediator intercultural) – Familie in/migrate din Romania; Ioana Antoniu (profesor de limba romana LCCR) – Italia – Romania: sisteme scolare fata in fata; Cosmin Ghircoias (psiholog) – Integrarea in societatea italiana – punctul de vedere psihologic. Seminarul are loc in cadrul unui ciclu de intalniri ale proiectului “Parinti si copii” reunite sub titlul “Experiente de convietuire: o calatorie printre familiile romane, marocane, peruane, albaneze si chineze la Torino”. Seminariile sunt gratuite, insa este obligatorie inscrierea. Mai multe informatii se pot obtine de la Progetto “Genitori&Figli” del Gruppo Abele Tel. 011 3841083, fax 011 3841091, genitoriefigli@gruppoabele.org Aceasta adresa de e-mail este protejata de spamboti; aveti nevoie de activarea JavaScript-ului pentru a o vizualiza .

DECLARATIA DE LA TIMISOARA
Continuati sa semnati si sa dati mai departe Declaratia de la Timisoara pentru a fi semnata de familiile d-tre, colegii, vecinii, rudeniile. http://www.alianta-familiilor.ro/decl_timisoara.php

Cum se Semneaza Declaratia?: Semnarea Declaratiei se face in doua etape. Bifati linkul si semnati Declaratia. http://www.alianta-familiilor.ro/decl_timisoara.php Dupa aceea veti primi un mesaj care va va cere sa confirmati semnatura apasind pe un link de confirmare. Fara confirmarea semnaturii, numele si semnatura d-tra nu vor apare in lista semnatarilor. Linkul de confirmare a semnaturii apare in limba englaza cu urmatorul text: “Thanks for filling out our petition, you’re almost done! Please confirm your signature by clicking on the link below:” (Adica: “Multumim pentru ca ati completat formularul petitiei. Semnarea petitiei e aproape gata. Va rugam confirmati-va semnatura apasind pe linkul de mai jos.”)

Declaratia accepta doar o singura semnatura pe adresa electronica. Ca atare, sugeram ca in situatiile unde doua persoane folosesc aceasi adresa electronica, de exemplu sotul si sotia, semnatura sa fie data in numele ambilor soti, de exemplu “Ioan si Maria Ionescu.”

Rugaminte: Va rugam semnati Declaratia cu numele intreg nu doar cu initiale. Va multumim.

AFR VA SOLICITA DOI LA SUTA
Va rugam directionati 2% din impozitele d-tre catre AFR completind fisierul alaturat. Sunt pentru o cauza buna si banii sunt folositi pentru scopuri de care beneficiaza intreaga tara. Procedura este simpla: http://www.alianta-familiilor.ro/doilasuta.html. Aceasta procedura nu inseamna ca veti plati ceva in plus sau ca veti plati ceva ce n-ar trebui sa platiti. Suma indreptata catre AFR provine din impozite deja retinute de Stat.

VRETI SA FITI INFORMATI?
Buletinul informativ AFR apare in fiecare Marti si e dedicat mai mult stirilor de ultima ora, iar publicatia AFR online apare in fiecare Joi si e dedicata mai mult comentariilor si opiniilor. Cei care doriti sa primiti saptaminal stiri si comentarii la zi privind valorile si evenimentele legislative, politice si sociale care va afecteaza familiile, atit la nivel national cit si la nivel unional si international, sunteti invitati sa va abonati la buletinul informativ saptaminal AFR. Cum? Inregistrindu-va numele si adresa electronica pe pagina home a sitului nostru electronic http://www.alianta-familiilor.ro.

FACETI-NE CUNOSCUTI!
Faceti-ne cunoscuti familiilor si prietenilor d-tra. Dati mai departe mesajele noastre si incurajati-i sa se aboneze. Va multumim.

ANUNTURI
Cei care doriti sa faceti anunturi prin intermediul AFR privind evenimente legate de familie si valori va rugam sa ni le transmiteti la contact@alianta-familiilor.ro.

Alianta Familiilor din Romania
http://www.alianta-familiilor.ro

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.