Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (12)
We might be close to the end times; the end times of common sense, of common decency, of self-respect and of self-esteem. I have been pondering on the Christmas Eve editorial in The Australian – you know the right-wing rag. God knows what’s in the SMH or The Age or the Guardian, let alone in the Green Left Weekly.
Under the heading of “The Christmas message of hope in challenging times,” the editor reports on a Mass held in St Catherine’s church in Bethlehem for victims of terrorist attacks. It was presided over by the Catholic auxiliary bishop of Jerusalem and attended by Jews, Christians and Muslims. “The event was permeated with peace and goodwill,” apparently. But wait on; no other than Mahmoud Abbas (above) reportedly instigated this kumbaya event.
Pardon me for being discordant at Christmas time, but isn’t this the same Abbas who in September announced that Jews had no right to defile Al Asqua mosque with their “filthy feet” and who claimed Muslim ownership of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? Will some Catholics and Jews invite anyone home to share supper these days?
Here is a man who celebrates the lives of terrorists who randomly kill Israeli citizens, yet he is feted by his putative victims. And, the only mainstream Australian newspaper of any worth can’t spot the bitter irony. Incredibly, The Australian contrasts the faux bonhomie in Bethlehem with the crass words of Islamic activist Zaky Mallah of Q&A infamy. It got me thinking the way The Australian evidently thinks. If only Zaky were more like Mahmoud what a wonderful world this would be. Whoever wrote this editorial evidently comes straight from la-la land.
Sticking to its theme of misleading the gullible, British rabbi Jonathan Sacks is seemingly fitted up. He is quoted – from The Wall Street Journal – as pointing out that interpretative traditions within Christianly, Judaism and Islam have in the past led to violence. Well and good. But the lead-in to his quoted remarks credit him with saying that passages in the scriptures of each of the Abrahamic faiths, interpreted literally, could lead to hated, cruelty and war. I haven’t read Sacks’ article but I somehow doubt he said that. In any event, it simply isn’t true. Only a literal interpretation of Islamic scripture has nags of any pedigree and staying power in that particular race to Hell.
By the way, it is about time we dismissed this business of Islam being an Abrahamic religion. Judaism is the Abrahamic religion. Christianity builds on it through Jesus, who was a product of Judaism. Islam is a cobbled-together, parasitical artefact which attempts to hijack Abraham and Jesus for its own as, for example, it did the Hindu numbering system and the Temple Mount.
There is more maudlin stuff in the editorial leaning on the remarks of the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney – “to find room in the inns of our hearts” – about welcoming 12,000 Syrian refugees. Where can we find Christian leaders willing to stand up for Christians, who will never be confident of finding religious freedom and peace in the Middle East?
The 12,000 should all be Christians. What’s hard about that? What’s hard about saying it? They form the most persecuted minority and they are likely to make the most productive contribution to Australia. And none of them or the children or their children’s children will turn out to be terrorists or require anti-radicalisation counselling. It is a no-brainer unless you happen to be filled with limp-wristed cant that Jesus would want us to be door mats for followers of a false prophet or, alternatively, if you are a green-left creep and believe that we should voluntarily commit cultural suicide to atone for past Western sins.
We have to stop being defensive and get on the offence. This doesn’t mean being disrespectful to Muslims who are here. It means reasserting and standing up for our values. You don’t do that by getting all schmalzy when an Islamic despot pretends to be chummy with those who he actively despises.
Nor do you do it by having an immigration policy which is blind to the importation of clashing values.
Well said Peter. Many readers of the Oz would be very pleased to have you write Oz editorials.
Many readers of the Sydney Anglican monthly Southern Cross would be pleased to see published in this current December issue a letter to the editor vigorously answering in the negative the ‘Can we take more?’ question on refugees. The principal of Moore College had lead a ‘Yes’ response with the ill considered reason that ‘This nation of ours is obscenely wealthy’. The letter reminded him that unabated borrow and spend policies of Australian governments will see our indebtedness descend into penury or national insolvency. It was suggested to the Rev Dr Mark Thompson that ‘Christians administer charity best on an individual level with modesty, because displays of conspicuous compassion might be seen to spring from moral vanity’.
Other points were made such as the need for all, including clergy when speaking of refugees, to honor the Jesus defined doctrine of the separation of church and state and acknowledge that separation is the antithesis of what Mohammed later advocated.
[The Dec issue of SC can be read online in January]
I particularly like the idea that the 12,000 refugees should be Christians. I do indeed. I think it is shocking that they are.
I understand the idea that a secular state gives help to all equally. Hence religion shouldn’t matter.
There’s more than one kind of help. And there’s more than one player in this game. We are not the only lifeboat and we do not share equal connections with all parties.
Our connections are clearly with the Christians.
There’s Muslim lifeboats like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Turkey to help a hand with those they are closest too.
That’s all perfectly simple and obvious, reasonable.
Why get all mealy mouthed and sanctimonious and claim non-discrimination? It helps who, exactly? This high minded attitude of ours? Who benefits from this? And who pays?
Daesh benefits. Christians in Syria will pay, probably with their lives. And our fatuous politicians preen.
Good points, Peter Smith, and it is more than time that The Australian started to name the persons who write each editorial. As it is, ridiculous and refutable proposals are often put forward under anonymity in The Australian which ultimately lowers the standard and reputation of this usually balanced publication.
I always have to laugh heartily when I hear Australia described as a “wealthy country”. This comment always suggests to me the huge economic illiteracy of commentators who don’t understand that massive debt does not equate with “wealth”. It’s like looking over the road to the man with the expensive house and car, all of it owned by the bank and repossessed at the slightest hint of inability to pay. I’d never describe that kind of person as “wealthy”, merely a debtor who is owned by the bank.
And, of course, the very people who describe Australia as “wealthy” (and the US for that matter) don’t have the slightest understanding of balance sheets, turnover, capital investment and other such terms relating to wealth acquisition and business. These are one and the same individuals who encourage governments to keep borrowing. Well, the day of reckoning has arrived. Our income doesn’t match our expectations but don’t expect the illiterates to understand that any time soon.
Well said. And the banks are not that well off either. Prof.Steve Keen says they are technically insolvent
now which is why the Govt. is desperate to ensure the housing bubble doesn’t burst. Hence the Chinese
purchase of homes and units is not discouraged.
Australia borrows over one hundred million dollars each and every day to pay the interest on the debt (heard listening to parliament, and no mention of it in the press).
Derivative investment arms of the big four are exposed to trillions in derivative gambling…we are looking at 2008 again but this time much worse because the economic can has been kicked down the road over and over until we have just about reached a cul de sac. But not yet…the superannuation is in their sights.
All in all we will add to the unemployment figures….the stats show many coming to this country (around 80%)from North Africa in particular remain on welfare….this is not good for them or for us.
Being politically correct is not being correct when politically they have blinkers on to the simple arithmetic supplied by the ABS.
Hi Peter
I agree with the thrust of your comments but I must correct an incorrect impression you leave.
Christ and Christianity may have had roots in the Hebrew religion but both entirely reject all of the precepts of vengeance, misognyism and the other attitudes of superiority in Judeaism to the point that mark Christianity as an entirely different religion.
It is also a religion at fundamental odds with the Hebrew beliefs. It is based in forgiveness, loving one another without judgment, and finally of the fundamental belief being the ‘Golden Rule’.
I agree with you entirely about the Muslim religion.
There is however Bishop Spong. His talk on The Terrible Texts of the Bible is relevant.
Yeshua (Jesus) was a Jew who was keenly aware that the Roman occupation was unbearable and
that being powerless as they were as a people at that time to counter the Roman influence on the people
he sought to bring them back to the fundamentals of their faith and trust in their God that
the second coming would put things right, and they had better be spiritually ready.
I doubt Yeshua would recognize his short ministry in evidence in our so called Christian society today.
Doubtless he would perceive us as Romans.
He would be however stunned at the Islamic religion which stole much of his own history and the inventions and twisted much of it around to suit a more adventurous and militant spread of the Koran.
Although the Jews did take up arms later with disastrous results.
I think we are in deep trouble over Islam.
Arithmetic is against us.
So is our own attitudes.
Democracy and freedom, along with downright common sense, are under constant attack here. The Left is pretty bad in the UK and Europe (to wit the charming George Gallaghers, the comical Livingstones and the rabid Corbyns), but all could learn from our 5th. columnists here.
I think when it gets to our very own ASIO chief singing the praises of this religion from hell, we must recognise that we are in dire trouble here. And it doesn’t appear that there is any cavalry on the horizon.
From our uni’s to ‘our’ ABC, to our ‘conservative’ PM and the fringe dweller Greens, this country is slowly sinking under the dung heap of political correctness and multicultural madness.
Discrimination is a much used/abused word that has long been distorted in an Orwellian sense primarily to slander those who oppose leftist totalitarian goals. The dictionary says that to discriminate is to CHOOSE, i.e. it means to be given a choice. To have a ‘non discriminatory’ immigration policy means that we are forced to accept anybody and everybody who wants to come here, and accept even those who are sent here by third parties. To be forced to accept anybody and everybody and not be given a choice on the matter puts us on a level of being slaves or that of a totally subjugated people.
Perhaps that is the aim of the totalitarians, both of the secular variety [i.e. leftists of all shapes and shades] or the theological variety [i.e. the Islamists of different sects]. I don’t accept that situation and want all Australians to be given a say on the matter of immigration, both on the levels and on who can come here, and not have it imposed on us.
I taught my high school English students the important distinct between “discriminating against” somebody and “being discriminating” in one’s personal affairs. They nearly rioted, such was their thoroughgoing brainwashing and indoctrination by the finger-wagging moral army.
Have you ever considered how very closely these same brigands of bigotry resemble their armed and vicious fellow travellers in the middle east who’ll murder a woman for showing her breast while feeding an infant? They are cast from the same mould – only difference is that our particular breed of moralizing crusaders and politically correct militants don’t actually kill.
Yet
Well said peter Smith. Reality usually impacts policies built on hope rather than experience after it has become too late. Then Australia will perhaps, like Norway, introduce lessons for Muslim migrants to teach them that raping women is wrong.