Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

>Fear of religion actually means fear of Islam

March 21, 2011 5 comments

>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?

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Australia, Islam, Religion

>Sarkozy is right to abhor the burqa

June 22, 2009 7 comments

>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.

Exactly correct. There are few greater symbols of oppression than the burqa. It’s up there with the swastika, the hammer and sickle and the KKK insignia.

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 went to the local shopping mall on the weekend and there was a woman dressed in a burqa. It is a confronting sight. How it can be defended as a personal choice when it’s clearly not is yet another sign of the cognitive dissonance of the left.
“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.”

Cognitive dissonance on full display in all its glory…

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.”

The burqa is a symbol of a backward, unenlightened society.

If we in the modern world accept such a symbol of oppression then do we advance our society, do nothing to our society or diminish or society and values?

Paradoxically, those on the left think that accepting the burqa is an example of our advancement.

Clear thinking people have a different view.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: France, Islam, Politics, Religion

>Top Gear Muslims

>During last night’s Australian version of Top Gear during Warren Brown’s interview with swimmer Liesel Jones I took the following photos:

Is it just me or is the presence of a couple of obviously Muslim kids in the background (one is just in shot in the 3rd photo) look staged?

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Australia, Religion

>The Discovery Institute’s wilful destruction of Christian values

>Last year I wrote a series of posts being a list of the Top 10 Institutions That Ruin The World.

#10 on that list was the Intelligence Design Movement, Discovery Institute, as outlined in the re-post below.

Without their multi-decade push, starting with Creation Science and transforming into Intelligent Design such loopy spokespeople as Richard Dawkins (who I used to admire tremendously; The Selfish Gene is a terrific book) and Karen Armstrong etc would not have been able to so successfully influence people against religion with the major negative consequence being that Christian values are increasingly dismissed as illegitimate.

Ben Stein’s recent movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, rivals the worst of Michael Moore’s error riddled, quotes out of context drivel.

The fact is that scientific theories need to be able to make predictions that can be tested. If they are tested and shown to be false then the theory falls over.

Intelligent Design makes NO PREDICTIONS that can be tested…!!!

It is therefore not science. Get over it.

The fact that science can not yet explain aspects of the world or universe does not validate crackpot theories like Intelligent Design any more than it does Scientology.

I’m sure that the Discover Institute and its supporters don’t understand, or even believe, the damage they are doing to Christianity. They also don’t understand how much power they give to the Euro-left, one of the most malign influences in the world.

#10 – The Intelligent Design Movement, Discovery Institute

Intelligent Design postulates that the world is too complex to have evolved naturally, that there seems to be an order to things and that this order was created by a Designer. Intelligent Design (ID) is a product of the Discovery Institute, a Christian think tank that aims to counter what it sees as today’s materialistic and immoral society through a recovery in the strength of Judeo-Christian values.

To the casual observer that might reduce to ‘Christians believe in God as the Creator’. Big deal. Unfortunately, it is a big deal and a really big one at that. Let me explain.

In order to garner public acceptance of Creationism (that the world is 6,000 years old and the Old Testament is the literal truth et blah) it was renamed Creation Science, with the term first being used way back in the 1960s. The Creation Science movement tried hard for a long time to establish its bona fides and even attracted some high profile scientists to argue for the cause. However, the oxymoronic name and fundamentalist dogma were simply too great a hurdle to overcome and so acceptance of Creation Science remained largely confined within the Christian evangelical movement.

Enter the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design. Understanding that Creation Science was a dead duck, the Discovery Institute sought a successor, one that would not just be a rebadged version of Creation Science but would be promoted as having the same legitimacy as Evolution. In order to deal with its opponents, a set of arguments were prepared that strongly countered the criticism of Creation Science. The aim was to have ID taught alongside Evolution in the biology classes of America’s schools.

In 2004 the Discovery Institute was in a position to push ID into the school system and chose the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania. In summary: it stacked the School Board, raised the concern of Evolution being taught exclusively, took advice from the Thomas More Law Center, advocated teaching ID alongside Evolution and put it to a vote, which was carried 6-3. The situation ended up in court and in September 2005 Judge Jones issued a 139 page finding of fact stating that ID was no different to Creation Science, that it was therefore unconstitutional and that the ID proponents were pretty much a pack of lunatics. It could not have been a worse result for the Discovery Institute.

The reason that the Intelligent Design movement is an institution that is ruining the world is that the case became so high profile it polarised people against Christianity that would have otherwise held neutral or respectful views. It became a lightning rod for the worst, and loudest, groups in society such as the ACLU to hold up as proof of a Christian conspiracy to take over America. For the devout non-believer in society whose major value is narcissism and who believes in this same Christian conspiracy the ID movement ensured that the Christian Values baby got thrown out with the God bathwater. The fact that there’s even a supposed Christian conspiracy is due to non-believers not being able to separate Christian values from Christianity and when they hear people talking about positive Christian values they equate that with God, which they’ve rejected.

Values are what bind a society together and without them we need to give government the task of making laws about how we’ll conduct ourselves. Every time government passes a law that forces us to act in a particular way we give up a piece of our personal freedom. This is one of the reasons socialism is so destructive. It’s no fluke that those countries with strong Judeo-Christian values made the greatest progress in the last two hundred years or that those that have rejected those values are now facing the greatest challenges. The difference between Western Europe and the USA in terms of societal values has never been starker. Europe is now almost completely secular, mostly socialist in the way it taxes society, passes laws seemingly as sport and has a birth rate that will see the population decline by 20-30% by 2050. No wonder countries like Germany and Holland have net positive emigration rates (i.e. more people are leaving the place than moving in).

The US and Australia retain their sense of cultural identity and values but there is always an ongoing battle against the socialist forces in society wanting to bring those down and replace them with the State. To people like me that are profoundly atheist (surprised by that?) who appreciate the strength of Judeo-Christian values, understand their role in making our countries great and wish to see society continue to be guided by their wisdom the Intelligent Design Movement’s decision to act in the way it did seriously harmed the public’s positive view of Judeo-Christian values – to our great detriment.

The Intelligent Design Movement and the Discovery Institute are #10 on my list of Institutions That Ruin The World.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Religion, Top 10 List

>Christian leaders look to Doctor Who for guidance

>You know that non-Catholic Christianity in Europe has hit rock bottom when its leaders have forgotten what their mission is and are reduced to watching the sci-fi series Doctor Who to work out what the kids want.

Note to church leaders: Kids need you to give them direction, you do not get your direction from teenagers. Last time I checked, you get your direction from God.

Unless I’ve missed something.

Being a fan of the Doctor Who series (and being one of those people who can name all of the actors that have played the Doctor in order) I must confess that the parallel between Christianity and the scripts of the show had eluded me.

Episodes of hit TV show Doctor Who have been examined by church leaders in Britain as part of an attempt to make Christianity more appealing to teenagers.

A conference of Church of England vicars watched a handful of episodes from the sci-fi series to study its religious parallels, particularly its themes of evil, resurrection and redemption.

Similarities between the Doctor and Christ, as well as whether the evil Daleks are capable of changing, were also examined.

“There are countless examples of Christian symbolism in Doctor Who, which we can use to get across ideas that can otherwise be difficult to explain,” The Sunday Telegraph in Britain quoted Andrew Wooding, a spokesman for conference organising group Church Army, as saying.

“Clergy shouldn’t be afraid to engage with popular culture as for many young people television plays a large role in their thinking.”

Not that it’s unusual for the church to call on TV shows to help their cause. Just last year the Church of England enlisted the Simpsons

The Church of England is getting help from the Simpsons to provide a more relevant way of teaching children about theology and to give a boost to dwindling congregations.

Mixing it Up with the “Simpsons”, a book to be released by the Church of England’s publishing company, will be sent to youth advisers in every diocese across the country next week, the Sunday Telegraph reported, with the hope of showing how Christianity is relevant to life today through issues tackled in the popular U.S. TV cartoon series. Clergy will be urged to show episodes of “The Simpsons” that focus on Christian themes such as love and punishment.

None of Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Catholicism or the Baptists have to resort to such populist drivel.

No wonder the Church of England is slowly dying in Western Europe.

It has forgotten what it stands for and where it gets its guidance from.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Religion