>Australia’s Human Rights Commission, an unneeded organisation if ever there was one, has released a report saying that there’s a general fear of religion in the community.
By way of example they use only Islam to make their point, as outlined below in this piece from The Australian:
THERE’S a pressing need to use education to reduce ignorance and fear about religions in Australia, a new report says
It said there is a current anti-Muslim discourse that suggests entrenched hostility which is often related to overseas events.
The report, entitled Freedom of Religion in the 21st Century, was prepared for the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The researchers said some Christians fear the introduction of sharia law in Australia and believe that governments appease Muslim communities by giving Islam preferential treatment.
Some people told the researchers that evangelical Christians demonise Muslims partly because of “high levels of ignorance by churches about Islam”.
It also said some Muslim children see themselves as outsiders because they see their religion vilified at every turn.
“They see how they are viewed as Muslims, which in turn affects how they view themselves,” the report said.
The report’s conclusion said the commission needs to “foster a discussion about the place of religious rights along side other rights”.
It said the commission must allow “for the view to be heard that religious rights are absolute, and then to allow that view to be tempered by other views”.
It urges religious leaders to play a key role in overcoming ignorance about religion in the community.
There are currently only three groups who have issues with religion:
1. Anyone with half a brain who understands that more than 90% of the world’s terrorist attacks (excluding in Iraq and Afghanistan) are carried out in the name of one religion – Islam – in order to promote Sharia and create a new Ummah and is wary of all of those who say that it’s a small minority that carry out the attacks and they don’t represent the religion.
2. Secular fanatics who worship at the feet of Richard Dawkins’ and Christopher Hitchens’ post modern atheism that disguise their contempt for Christianity and Judeo-Christian values under the umbrella of rejecting religion completely.
3. The left and its rank anti-Semitism disguised as opposition to Israel.
When the Australian Human Rights Commission says there’s a fear of religion then do they include Buddhists? Sikhs? Hindus?
Why would we be afraid of the Mormons? Are they going to be sickeningly nice to us until we’re dead?
What about the Rastafarians? Afraid of reggae music and a little weed?
And why didn’t they include being a Green as a religion? They’re hardly any different to animists, if you ask me.
The reason that people in Australia are afraid, though ‘concerned’ is probably a better description, of Islam is two-fold:
1. Most terror attacks in the world are carried out in its name (as outlined above) and every, single person indicted for planning terrorist attacks in Australia has been Muslim; and
2. People understand that Sharia is a barbaric, restrictive, misogynistic, homophobic relic that controls people’s lives and has no place in a modern, progressive society.
Why am I not surprised that the folk at the Australian Human Rights Commission think that genuine and legitimate concern about the practices of one group of people, Muslims, is the same as a blanket fear of religion?
>This is hilarious.
Apparently, the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Firouzabadi, has written a letter to the Hidden Imam, aka the Mahdi, asking him, basically, to quit with the occulation and return to earth in order to help Islam take over the world.
I have a question.
What address did he put on the envelope?
Would the Tehran post office treat it the same was as the US Postal Service treats letters addressed to Santa c/- North Pole?
Did he send it via email to email@example.com?
On July 12, 2009, the Iranian news agency ISNA published a letter written by Iranian chief of staff Hassan Firouzabadi to the Hidden Imam (the Shi’ite messiah, also called the Mahdi). In his letter, Firouzabadi depicts the post-election protests as a conspiracy against the Iranian regime by the West and the reformists in Iran. He also rejects accusations of Basij brutality, saying that the group did not act against the Iranian people in suppressing the protests, but rather tried to protect them. He concludes by urging the Hidden Imam to come speedily and launch a worldwide Islamic revolution.
Following are excerpts from the letter:
“O Lord of Time, peace be upon you… I wish to speak to you once again… [In 1979,] as the celebrations and rejoicing over the Islamic Revolution still reverberated [in the streets], America, the West, as well as the [Iranian] infidel parties on orders from their masters, [were already hastening] to turn every corner of Iran – including Kurdistan, Gonabad, Khuzestan, Amol and Tehran – into arenas of brutal psychological warfare and hotspots of secessionism, essentially striving to annihilate the Islamic Revolution and [its] regime…
“[Today] another round has begun in the cultural attack [on Iran]… In the current round, some of those involved [meaning Mousavi and his supporters] turned their backs on the glorious past of the [Islamic] Revolution, and wished to join Uncle Sam, thereby bringing shame upon the sacrifice and istishhad of our nation. They wished to launch a dialogue with those who attack the rights of the free [peoples] and condemn and assault the values of the [Islamic] Revolution, [i.e. those who attack] freedom, the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini], the rule of the jurisprudent, and the clerics…
“Those [Iranians] who constantly spoke of tolerance towards the dissidents, chanting [pluralistic] slogans like ‘long live those who oppose me,’ [actually] wanted the Basij philosophy dead. The essence of the reforms that they wanted was to eliminate the Basij and its philosophy… They targeted the very foundations of the regime, viewing the Basij, and all the revolutionaries and believing [Muslims] in the nation, as an obstacle in their path. They brought about a catastrophe, harmed [the regime] and violated its sanctity, started fires, and fanned the enemy’s hope. They blamed the Basij for crimes that they themselves had committed [a reference to allegations of Basij brutality during the suppression of the protests]…
“When the Arrogance [i.e. the U.S.] saw its hope of toppling the regime dwindle, it mobilized the anti-Basij front, composed of old anti-revolutionary [Iranian] forces and fragments of [groups] that had been disbanded, whose common denominator is hostility towards the Basij and its philosophy, and towards [Iran’s] national awakening.
“This front began its war, orchestrated by [the West], under the guise of [participation in] the presidential elections. When it failed to win, thanks to the praiseworthy participation of 40 million voters, it became enraged, and instigated a bitter civil war. This civil war, which from the outside looked like a ‘velvet revolution’ but from the inside was harsh and brutal, targeted the culture and people of my homeland.
“[O Hidden Imam], you are my witness that [the members of] the armed forces and the Basij regarded all the [presidential] candidates as [honest] revolutionaries, and [some of them] voted for [these candidates]…, as did [other] Iranians, according to the dictates of their conscience. Despite this, you witnessed the curses and accusations that [these presidential candidates] hurled at us. They harmed the people’s security, and when we stood up to defend the people, they called us dictators and tried to disgrace us…
“Dearest Mahdi, we have taught our children and our grandchildren to await your arrival, and to raise the banner of this holy regime until you do… O lord, please beseech God, as we do, that the Islamic Revolution take root alongside the worldwide revolution that you [will bring]…
“Awaiting your arrival,
How does the left react when they see such stuff?
These are the same people who excoriate anyone who proclaims religion while in the service of the state in any capacity.
Why is it that nutjobs like those at the top of the Iranian heirachy do everything in the name of Islam but still receive the support of the Western left?
The world is surely upside down.
Whatever way up it is the regime in Tehran is not one that can be negotiated with in a normal manner.
>Good on Sarkozy for having the balls to say what too many of today’s multi-culti cowards will not.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says the Muslim burqa is a sign of subservience for women that undermines their dignity.
For clarity. This is a burqa:
And for the nitwits who think a hijab and a burqa are basically the same thing here’s the difference:
Mr Sarkozy made the comments during a historic address in a special sitting of both houses of the French Parliament at the Palace of Versailles.
For more than a century, French presidents have been banned from speaking directly to Senators and MPs.
The argument has always been that parliament should preserve its independence from the president but Mr Sarkozy changed the rules.
That was controversial enough, but perhaps not as controversial as what he used the address for: stating that the burqa was an affront to women.
“The burqa is not a sign of religion. It is a sign of enslavement. It is a sign of subservience,” he said.
The French leader spoke in favour of a recent call by 65 French MPs to create a parliamentary commission to study a small but growing trend of wearing the full body religious garment in France.
“I want to say officially, it will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic,” he said.
“We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind netting; cut off from any social life, deprived of any identity.
“This is not the idea the French republic has of a woman’s dignity.”
Some parliamentarians boycotted Mr Sarkozy’s historic speech, dismissing the President’s address as nothing more than a public relations stunt.
But Mr Sarkozy struck a chord among the French population, who voted overwhelmingly in favour of his centre right UMP party in the recent European elections.
The head of European research at the Global Policy Institute at the London Metropolitan University, Jacques Reland, is a keen observer of French politics.
“I think a lot of people in France feel really ill at ease with the burqa,” he said.
“I am pretty sure that a lot of French people are saying yes, [what Mr Sarkozy said] is the way it should be.”
Sarah Joseph is the editor of Britain’s only Muslim lifestyle magazine, emel.
She says many Muslim women use the burqa as an expression of their faith and are not forced to wear it by anyone else.
“I mean, I colour my hair. I don’t wear [some forms of Islamic dress] myself but I will defend someone’s right to do so or not to do so,” she said.
“If you deny a woman’s right to choose, that is denying them dignity and denying them their freedom, and it won’t create a society of more integrated French citizens, it will create a division in France which will be very unfortunate and deny women their right to participate fully in French society.”
Mr Sarkozy says he is just defending a secular state.
France is home to an estimated five million Muslims. In 2004, the country passed a law forbidding any conspicuous religious symbols from state schools, including veils, which were also banned in government offices.
Charles Johnson at LGF used a very appropriate quote from Christopher Hitchens the other day, “The secular state is the guarantee of religious pluralism. This apparent paradox, again, is the simplest and most elegant of political truths.”
>How many people do you think will be killed by Islamists in 2009?
I’ll be using The Religion of Peace’s count as the data source.
This poll will be open until 31 December at which time I’ll publish the result.
>Dutch former Muslim Ehsan Jami has decided that simply being an apostate is not dangerous enough and has decided that making a movie in which he interviews Muhammed decreases his personal safety.
>While the mainstream media’s and liberal arts world’s heads spin around trying to blame the latest Islamic atrocity on some policy or other of the United States in order to shift blame from their murderous soulmates to those they see as being the root cause of all of the world’s problems, those with greater wisdom are trying to work out where the next attack will take place.
For there will be another attack, make no mistake about it.
These people are in it for the long term.
New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Bali and Mumbai have all suffered from an ideology whose prime objective is the return of the Caliphate and Islamification of the world not through that most liberal of avenues, diplomacy, or through the semi-annoying, overly polite method of door knocking the world and looking to convince people to come on board in the way that the Mormons do but through violence, murder and terror.
So what next?
The world’s serious people will now be assessing what the risk is to their assets and areas of responsibility.
What odds of a copycat attack at another major hotel or shopping centre?
Surely, cities with large Muslim populations from which young, radicalised ideologues can be sourced must be sleeping more nervously tonight?
The Mumbai attack must have been planned for many months and it probably started before Barack Obama had won the Democratic Party nomination and the timing can only be seen as a shot across the new administration’s bow.
But there is an even bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
How will India respond to the attack when it is clear that it was carried out by Pakistani nationals trained by the Pakistan based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba?
In searching out American, British and Jewish victims the murderers ensured that they would be seen as heroes among the anti-West, anti-Zionist Middle East, as well as ensuring that the West’s leftist apologists devote many column inches to blaming America.
By attacking inside India they also inflame tensions between India and Pakistan.
Thus, India is in the difficult position of having to be seen to avenge the deaths of so many people while at the same time avoiding open war with Pakistan.
All in all, they’re in a bit of a political pickle.
Why don’t they call on the United Nations for support?
Or have Barack Obama sit down with the terrorists and have a bit of a chat?
Actually, I think that terrorist networks around the world are in for a great, fat surprise if they attack the United States or any of its assets around the world.
Unconstrained by having the media or political elites against him, Obama’s response to an attack may be much more aggressive than expected.
>This disgusting ideology is not brave and is not morally supportable.
It is nothing but destructive and evil.
These people are nothing but…