Un gran maestro de la Gran Logia de Francia, Pierre Simon, ha confesado que todas esas leyes estaban ya preparadas en las logias antes de ser votadas por los diputados.

Aborto, eutanasia, matrimonio gay... son leyes «preparadas en las logias», afirma un ex masón
by Carmelo López-Arias / Aleteia



Muchas personas abandonan la masonería, pero muy pocas lo cuentan. Es el caso de Serge Abad-Gallardo, arquitecto francés que tiene ahora 60 años y pasó 24 como miembro de una de las obediencias más importantes de Francia, Derecho Humano. 

Su libro Por qué dejé de ser masón (LibrosLibres), publicado ahora en español, relata su apasionante experiencia. Tras su conversión al cristianismo (estaba bautizado, pero alejado de la Iglesia), percibió la incompatibilidad entre la religión católica y la ideología masónica y decidió irse. El proceso de vuelta a la fe resultó largo.

-¿Por qué ingresó en la masonería?

-Tenía la edad y la situación social ideales para la masonería: tenía 33 años y era alto funcionario municipal como director de urbanismo. Estaba alejado de la Iglesia y mi fe era bastante tibia. Un amigo que yo no sabía que era masón me propuso entrar. Me atrajo la curiosidad por los secretos que la masonería dice tener.

-¿Cuándo empezó a ver o saber cosas que le desagradaban?

-Al principio algunas palabras del ritual masónico (Rito Escocés Antiguo y Aceptado) me sugirieron una relación entre la masonería y la Iglesia. Por ejemplo, en la iniciación hay frases como “busca y encontrarás” o “llama y se te abrirá” que se encuentran en los Evangelios. Pero poco a poco me di cuenta de que su sentido no era el mismo. También escuché expresiones muy anticlericales. Eso no me gustó, pero me adapté, porque yo me encontraba lejos de la Iglesia. Además, en la masonería se hablaba mucho de fraternidad, pero me di cuenta de que detrás de esa “fraternidad” se encontraban algunos “arreglos” y luchas por el poder dentro de la misma masonería. Por último, cuando volví a la fe, comprendí las incompatibilidades entre el catolicismo y la masonería.

.................

Leer más aquí: www.religionenlibertad.com

• Dos masones recibieron en Lourdes una gracia extraordinaria y sensible para su conversión católica
• Un masón francés, maestro grado 14º, explica por qué dejó la masonería tras 25 años en las logias
• Dejó la masonería porque no encontraba a Dios: «Comprendí que Cristo me buscaba más que yo a Él»
• Un ex masón pide rezar por el cura excomulgado: «Nada es imposible para Dios, yo soy la prueba»

Marriage laws: highlights of points that the Court should consider

The Key Supreme Court Briefs Supporting State Man-Woman Marriage Laws

by Gene Schaerr

The briefs are in—over 150 in all—and today the Supreme Court will hear the arguments in the cases on states’ freedom to make marriage policy. Here are highlights of points made in the amicus briefs supporting man-woman marriage laws that the Court should consider:

• More than 50 million Americans voted to retain the man-woman definition of marriage—61 percent of those who voted on the issue. The Supreme Court should not disregard their votes. Removing important and sensitive issues like marriage policy from democratic deliberationwould weaken our system of self-government.
• Marriage as the union of a man and a woman long predates our nation. That recognition has not been solely motivated by moral values. It is supported by long-accepted secular reasons tied to human biology, procreation and the needs of children.
• Laws recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman are not like laws that outlawed interracial marriages. A couple’s gender diversity has always been a fundamental, defining characteristic of marriage. By contrast, laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unrelated to the definition of marriage and therefore wrong.
• Man-woman marriage laws do not infringe the liberty of gay and lesbian Americans since they are free to engage in intimate relations and start a family with whomever they want without fear of civil or criminal sanctions. Man-woman marriage laws also allow gays and lesbians to marry someone of the opposite gender and rear a family together, as many have done.
• On the other hand, as explained in a brief by 100 academic marriage scholars, a decision forcing the States to redefine marriage as “an any two adults” would erode or erase many important social norms that flow from man-woman marriage. The result, as history, theory, and social science confirm, would be a weakened institution of marriage that stands for what adults want rather than what children need—which is to be raised by a mom and a dad, preferably their own. In the end, if the man-woman definition is removed from marriage nationwide, fewer heterosexual men and women will wed—with significant long-term harmful effects on children and society.
• Indeed, marriage is like an ecosystem that nurtures and protects a particular species: alter the ecosystem and it likely will not support the species nearly as well, if at all. Marriage is the social institution or ecosystem that society has long maintained to nurture man-woman marriages and children. And just as no-fault divorce altered the institution to the detriment of both marriage and children, so too removing the man-woman definition of marriage would compromise the marriage ecosystem, likely producing similar results.
• Disrupting marriage norms would particularly disserve children and women from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Just as no-fault divorce contributed to the deterioration of the marriage culture among this population, transforming marriage into a genderless institution would harm these more vulnerable populations the most.
• Of the dozens of studies of the impact of same-sex parenting, only four have met social science’s methodological and data-related standards for drawing inferences about the population at large. All four ultimately show that, compared to the acknowledged gold standard of family structures—being raised by one’s married biological mother and father—on average, children’s outcomes are not as good when raised by same-sex couples. Furthermore, the only well-designed study to assess the impact of marriage on children raised by same-sex couples shows that children’s outcomes may be worse if the same-sex couples raising them marry.
• The legal arguments for subjecting man-woman marriage laws to some form of constitutional “heightened scrutiny” are implausible. But regardless of the standard the Court chooses, such laws satisfy the demands of the Constitution because they advance the states’ compelling interests in the welfare of children and their mothers. Further, there is no way for states to retain all the benefits flowing from the institution of man-woman marriage without keeping the man-woman definition.
• Redefining marriage would adversely affect First Amendment freedoms. As amicus briefs from Catholic, Protestant and LDS leaders point out, imposing same-sex marriage on the nation would threaten the religious liberties of individuals and institutions who continue to believe in traditional marriage. Such a ruling would also exacerbate the erosion of free speech rights of cultural dissidents, as same-sex marriage has already done in Canada.

These are just some of the many reasons the Court should leave the definition of marriage where, under the Constitution, it properly belongs—in the hands of the People.


Read more: dailysignal.com

Argentina: Economic Opportunities and Challenges of the Demographic Transition

As Time Goes By in Argentina

by Michele Gragnolati, Rafael Rofman, Ignacio Apella, and Sara Troiano


Preface 

This book was written as part of a World Bank project coordinated by Michele Gragnolati, Rafael Rofman, Ignacio Apella, and Sara Troiano, who are also the volume editors and coauthors of the opening chapter.

The book follows the line of research initiated by Daniel Cotlear on population ageing in Latin America. This book’s development benefitted from valuable contributions and comments from Daniel Heymann, Fabio Bertranou, Maria Eugenia Bonilla-Chacin, Cristina Massa, Marta Novick, Jorge Paz, and Axel Rivas, received during a preliminary results workshop in Buenos Aires, May 27–28, 2013. 

In addition this book was enhanced by comments and suggestions from Diego Ambasz, Penelope Brook, Daniel Cotlear, Rafael de Hoyos, Ariel Fiszbein, Roberta Gatti, Joana Godinho, Margaret Grosh, Sabine Hader, Peter Holland, Christine Lao Pena, Anibal Lopez, Eugenia Marinova, Zafer Mustafaoglu, Luis Perez, Hannah Sybille Nielsen, and Cassio Turra. 

The authors extend special thanks to the team at the National Transfer Accounts project, led by Ronald Lee and Tim Miller, for their support and cooperation in the development of the projection methodology used for the majority of this book, as well as their suggestions on how to use the information generated by the project. 

This book consists of 12 chapters that discuss and analyze the potential economic impact of the demographic transition in Argentina. 

• The first chapter summarizes the book’s findings. 
• Chapter 2 presents Argentina’s demographic forecasts up to 2100. 
• Chapter 3 estimates national transfer accounts and consumption profiles and labor income by age. 
• Chapter 4 presents a basic forecast model for social spending on education, health care, and pensions from 2010 to 2100. 
• Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 analyze the potential impact of the demographic transition on the pension, health care, long-term care, and education systems, respectively, according to different public policy options. 
• Chapter 9 analyzes the fiscal impact of the demographic transition and the trade-offs among social sectors. 
• Chapters 10 and 11 study the dynamics of the labor market in the context of ageing and the potential impact on global labor force productivity. All of 2 Preface As Time Goes By in Argentina 
•  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0530-1 these analyses are performed considering different public policy tools. 
• Chapter 12 studies Argentina’s macroeconomic performance in relation to international experiences and the challenges and opportunities created by the demographic transition. 

The authors hope that your reading this book will not only open up space for ideas and public policy debates, but that it will also be enjoyable.

Download .pdf here

Read more: openknowledge.worldbank.org

There are a few reasons why this oil price collapse could be different, but the risks are high that we’ll repeat our prior follies.

Why this oil price collapse could be different

by Michael Webber


Unlike the 1980s, electricity prices should hold firm, but we should not be complacent about fixing our energy policy.

The recent oil price collapse seems like a replay of a bad 1980s movie that we’ve seen before. If we are not careful, we’ll be doomed to make the same mistakes we made last time, allowing our domestic oil and gas producers to wither, watching energy imports soar, prematurely stunting the growth of alternative fuel sources, and tossing conservation and efficiency by the wayside. If we are smart we’ll seize this opportunity to double-down on good energy policies and support all of our domestic energy producers so that we’re prepared for the next time oil prices spike.

After the energy crises of the 1970s, there was a brief resurgence of domestic energy production through the mid-1980s. Production grew, wages increased, profits soared, and the Rolls Royce dealership in Midland, Texas enjoyed a brisk business. But eventually, with OPEC in disarray, Saudi Arabia made the decision to keep its production high to reclaim lost market share, causing global oil prices to plummet in the span of just a few weeks. Sound familiar?

The scars from the 1970s and 1980s run deep. Competing in a vibrant global market, domestic U.S. oil companies were gutted by cheaper producers around the world. Our production shrank while consumption increased. Imported oil—much of it from countries whose foreign policy goals do not align with ours—filled in the gap. Our domestic oil and gas operators were in the doldrums for over a decade, with a shrinking, aging workforce and declining production.

Oil producers weren’t the only victims. Renewable energy technologies and a cultural mindset of conservation and efficiency got lost too. President Reagan famously removed the solar panels from the roof of the White House, speed limits were increased nationwide, fuel economy standards stagnated, road taxes froze, SUVs grew in popularity, and attitudes about saving energy went the way of bell bottoms. Experimental wind farms and solar panel development slowed down and national R&D funding for energy dropped from a high of $8 billion annually to less than $2 billion.

..........

Read more: fortune.com

Ce pays est chrétien, mais il n’ose pas dire son nom sous couvert de laïcité

"Nous sommes laïcs parce que nous sommes chrétiens"

A quarante ans, Jean-François Chemain a quitté tout son environnement professionnel pour devenir professeur d’histoire en zone d’éducation prioritaire. Il a acquis depuis une forte expérience qui lui a offert un certain regard sur la laïcité.

C’est ce regard qu’il a offert à RCF Corsica :


"J’ai bien creusé la question de la laïcité et je crois être capable d’apporter un point de vue original qui me paraît, en toute immodestie, relativement juste par rapport à un point de vue officiel qu’on nous martèle un peu partout et qui me paraît moins en place que celui que j’ai essayé de développer.

Enseignant dans une zone d’éducation prioritaire, j’enseigne à un public qui est dans son immense majorité musulman ou en train de le devenir. C’est un perpétuel challenge que d’enseigner des questions relatives à notre civilisation comme la laïcité. Mes élèves interpellent cette question de la laïcité comme du christianisme qui n’ose pas dire son nom. Je peux vous prendre un exemple tout simple : si on leur dit que la France est laïque, que c’est la neutralité religieuse qui impose qu’on mange tous la même chose à la cantine, eh bien, pour eux, ils me diront : « non, manger n’importe quoi à la cantine c’est chrétien car les chrétiens n’ont pas d’interdit alimentaire. Il n’y a pas de neutralité ». Et j’entends ce même genre de raisonnement dans les cours de géographie et beaucoup dans ceux d’éducation civique aussi.

Mes élèves me disent donc que ce pays est chrétien et qu’il n’ose pas dire son nom sous couvert de laïcité. Toutes ces réflexions m’ont ainsi amené à creuser ces questions et à en faire un livre.

Comment doit on alors répondre aux élèves qui vous interpellent ainsi ?

Je crois qu’il faut répondre en tout franchise mais rester très prudent surtout quand son discours est trop différent du discours officiel. Mes élèves sont prêts à entendre que oui, ils n’ont pas tort : ce pays a été infusé par au moins 15 siècles de christianisme. Et finalement tout ce qu’ils y trouvent est très largement imprégné de christianisme, comme la laïcité.

J’ai essayé de démontrer qu’elle est une exigence chrétienne qui n’est pas, comme on nous le raconte, le combat de l’Etat pour se libérer de la tutelle de l’Eglise mais le combat de l’Eglise pour se libérer de la tutelle de l’Etat. Dire je suis laïc, c’est dire je suis chrétien. Nous sommes laïcs parce que nous sommes chrétiens. Ces jeunes qui ont un sens religieux très marqué, qui ont un sens très marqué de la vérité sont parfaitement capables de l’entendre : à leurs oreilles, ça sonne juste, alors que dire qu’on est laïc parce que neutre ou inversement, pour eux ça sonne faux. La laïcité, c’est pas neutre et ils ont raison.

........................

Lire la suite: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

Une unité politique qui n'est pas soutenue par un peuple doté d'une identité nationale commune est intrinsèquement instable

«Le risque de guerre civile paneuropéenne est réel»
Par Alexandre Devecchio



À l'occasion de la sortie de son livre, Thierry Baudet insiste sur la nécessité de renforcer nos frontières et restaurer l'État-nation pour éviter l'implosion de l'Europe.

Le titre de votre livre, Indispensables frontières fait écho au drame des migrants en méditerranée. En quoi celui-ci est-il révélateur des failles de l'Europe?

Ce drame montre que l'UE ne parvient pas à s'affirmer politiquement, et qu'elle ne le peut pas parce qu'elle n'a pas le soutien du peuple. Or ce soutien ne viendra jamais puisqu'il n'existe pas de «peuple européen».

L'UE, par conséquent, est, et sera toujours, fondamentalement incapable de se doter d'une personnalité politique. Elle ne peut pas être un véritable acteur politique. Elle ne peut fonctionner que dans l'ombre, en se contentant d'une gestion administrative, quasi-universelle, en toute sécurité dans les brumes technocratiques de Bruxelles. C'est d'ailleurs ainsi que le voulait Jean Monnet. Lorsque l'UE veut se montrer en pleine lumière, comme elle l'a fait en 2005 en soumettant honnêtement ses projets réels aux suffrages populaires par le biais de référendums, c'est l'échec. Les gens ont rejeté massivement la Constitution européenne, comme ils rejeteraient une «politique européenne d'immigration». Par conséquence, nous sommes maintenant reclus sur une terre désolée: l'UE ne peut agir, et les États membres ne le peuvent plus non plus. L'abandon des frontières nous a rendu impuissants.

.................

Lire la suite: www.lefigaro.fr

Ayn Rand was no fan of C.S. Lewis.

AYN RAND REALLY, REALLY HATED C.S. LEWIS

by Matthew Schmitz


Ayn Rand was no fan of C.S. Lewis. She called the famous apologist an “abysmal bastard,” a “monstrosity,” a “cheap, awful, miserable, touchy, social-meta­physical mediocrity,” a “pickpocket of concepts,” and a “God-damn, beaten mystic.” (I suspect Lewis would have particularly relished the last of these.)

These insults and more can be found in her marginal notes on a copy of Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, as printed in Ayn Rand’s Marginalia: Her critical comments on the writings of over 20 authors, edited by Robert Mayhew. Excerpts appear below, with Lewis’ writing (complete with Rand’s highlighting and underlining) on the left and Rand’s notes on the right.

...................

Read more: www.firstthings.com