Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (26)
I was (pleasantly) taken aback by the recent Essential Research survey which found that half of those polled favoured a ban on Muslim immigration. Apparently half of my fellow citizens have a deep concern about the threat that Islam poses to our way of life. Alas, and unsurprisingly, this is a stretch. Another survey points to fewer Australians having this level of concern. Roy Morgan research (26 October) reports as follows:
In a special Roy Morgan survey conducted over three nights last week, clear majorities of Australians signalled their support of Muslim immigration (58% cf. 33% oppose) and Asylum-seeker immigration (66% cf. 25% oppose). This applies to the majority of all major political parties’ supporters (including L-NP voters). These results are in stark contrast to Essential Research’s recent poll, which claimed that half of the population would support a ban on Muslim immigration.
The report went on to criticise surveys based on internet soundings – which I assume refers to the competitor poll. There it is then. Sixty per cent or thereabouts of Australians are quite happy to welcome Muslim immigrants; only one third are opposed. Hold on, only one third? This ain’t bad.
Despite determined and concerted efforts to sanitise the problem on the part of the political and media class, and on the part of many ‘wets’ among Christian church leaders, one third of Australians have seen through the BS. This is striking as only a handful of people know anything at all about Islam. At a guess, 99.99 per cent would not have been within cooee of a Koran. And the BS would make Goebbels proud.
See also ‘People Can Hear You‘
First, Islam is described as religion of peace by the great and good Western political leaders; particularly (and gallingly to those not taken in) after each barbaric Islamic terrorist attack. Second, the welter of Islamic hate speech and barbarities are ascribed ad nauseam, by politicians and the MSM, to those who have a perverted their religion, in contrast to the overwhelming moderate majority. It doesn’t matter what Pew poll comes out vouchsafing the fundamentalism of vast swathes of Muslim populations worldwide. These are all ignored in favour of the moderate-Muslim narrative.
Third, there is no MSM outfit in print or on TV which would ever refrain from pillorying and marginalising those who call for banning Muslim immigration. Finally, those who rely on ABC and other TV stations for their news commentaries are routinely presented with so-called moderate Muslim community leaders or angelic-looking hijabed ambassadors.
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15). “Tch, tch!” The Archbishop exclaimed. “We can’t take that Jesus chap literally,” he said, as he welcomed a kindly looking mufti to the latest inter-faith dialogue over afternoon tea in the vestry.
It bears repeating: one-third of those polled oppose Muslim immigration. This means that millions of Australians have the presence of mind to see through the fog of incognisance, misinformation and disinformation that surrounds Islam. Therein is hope. Spreading knowledge is the key to realising this hope. The more people know about the litany of intolerance, violence and supremacism which characterises its scripture, the more they will come to appreciate the threat Islam represents to our way of life.
Sophistries stand in the way. One of these is the argument that Islam needs time to undertake the kind of reformation undertaken in Christianity – as though the Catholic Church has ceased to exist. Such nonsense never seems to die. I will have another go.
Reforming Islam is silly talk. The Christian Reformation is an irrelevancy. The very words of Allah and his prophet cannot be reformed. The Reformation, whatever ructions it caused, was trivial in essence and changed not one word of scripture. The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is to this day ceremonial.
The only way that Islam can be given a civilised face (be so-called ‘reformed’) is to discard large parts of the Koran and canonical hadiths. This (crazy) untenable idea is given some recent and misguided airing by Hirsi Ali in Heretic. Don’t misunderstand me, Heretic is an informative read, but it is clear that Ali herself is deeply sceptical of her five-point plan, one of which involves Islam denying that the Koran contains “the last and immutable word of God.” Really?!?! And pigs might fly.
Islam cannot be reformed. It is as it was. It will always be as it was. It will always be incompatible with Western civilised values. At question is whether sufficient numbers of people will catch on quickly enough. Because, make no mistake, Islamists want to take over. This is realism not paranoia. Let me quote a refreshingly perceptive and outspoken Christian cleric, Cardinal Raymond Burke (Catholic News Service, 8 September):
While our experience with individual Muslims may be one of people who are gentle and kind and so forth, we have to understand that in the end what they believe most deeply in their hearts, demands that they govern the world. [Amen]
In the first instance, the way to protect Western values is to keep on revealing and hammering the truth about Islam to counter the narrative of useful idiots among the political, media and religious class and Islamic propagandists practising taqiyya. John Quincy Adams, US president in the late 1820s, cut to the chase. “While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” It is a wonder, is it not, that our knowledge in this enlightened age has regressed since 1830. And, I add, that our leaders have become so feckless.
Reading this article once again brings to the surface the searing frustration one feels concerning the yawning ignorance of Islam in our society. The impotent anger towards our political, civic and religious leaders for not merely supporting but actually promoting such ignorance causes one barely able to resist the urge of going out into the public square and scream at all and sundry condemning their dangerously misguided attitude. Short of such drastic action, it is incumbent on those of us who are better acquainted with the dire threat of Islam to use every opportunity to wake up our fellow citizens from their stupor.
As an atheist I regard all religion as largely superstitious/spiritual nonsense. However it is patently evident to all, except those who refuse to see, that one particular religion is a bigger threat to civilisation than all the others combined. As I have posted earlier/elsewhere on Quadrant – The lethal dangers to civil society presented by Islam would be significantly less to most western countries if the would be totalitarian leftists dominating our institutions like the media and academia did not have sadomasochistic suicidal delusions that they can weaken the west to the extent that they can establish their mythical secular socialist Nirvana. The biggest reason that the ABC and other socialist media units attack Christianity so enthusiastically is that Christianity is so closely aligned to capitalism and freedom.
We must fight/oppose ALL totalitarianism, whether it be the theological variety – most lethally represented by Islam, or secular totalitarianism, in its various guises such as communism, Nazism, and the other varieties of socialism masquerading as ‘democratic socialism’ and ‘environmentalism’. We must resist totalitarians both physically – with force of arms [mainly defensively but also if needed pre-emptively for offensive reasons] and intellectually – by promoting the value of freedom and reason in the media and in academia as much as possible.
Of the two, the intellectual struggle is the most important. People only fight physically really effectively if they know what they are fighting for. Intellectually we must stress that unless we have free markets we don’t have complete, or even meaningful freedom. Today’s article by Gabrielle Lord and Asiya should be promoted as much as possible, and disseminated as widely as possible.
I regard atheism as superstitious nonsense. You believe in self-creating, self sustaining nature. You reject causality when it’s causality which allows you to choose atheism. It’s really the most base form of nature worship.
pgang: while I’m quite certain as to my own confusion over your comment, in order to ascertain yours I thought I’d ask one question: as for this “causality” of which you speak: who, or what, is “causing” what to whom?
Are you saying that whose who don’t worship some deity or other must be worshipping nature?
Why is it I must worship something at all?
Once again an excellent treatment by Peter Smith of this diabolical movement. There is so much ignorance about but the One Nation Party is helping dispel it now with its higher profile.
Unfortunately many Christians, apart from Fred Nile and the well known other few including Peter, are also often in ignorance or in denial. The energetic Anglican preacher and university lecturer John Dickson, a founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, is not above writing that Islam is a religion of peace and that particular denial of evidence has done no harm to his book sales to school students. Politically he is in the SMH reader-and-contributor camp which makes it very difficult for him to be politically ‘on the side of the angels’!
I used to go to the Anglican Church at Dulwich Hill and box with the minister there. But I really started to tire of his sermons about Syria and Islam. And I also tired of having to break bread with Muslims every other week while singing Kum Ba Ya. And his preaching about welcoming refugees. Is there any church in Australia with the guts to stand up to these people?
“Is there any church in Australia with the guts to stand up to these people?”
The short answer appears to be no!
Christianity in Australia is dying for no other reason that Christianity in it’s Aussie form is weak and absolutely muddled. Being “nice” and “accepting” has become the substitute for being truthful.
The truth is that Mohammed is a “competitor” to Jesus, not a “friend” or “partner” in morality or a bulwark against the encroachment of the evils of secular, socialist totalitarianism. He offers a way to the Mohammedan God which is diametrically opposed to the way to the Christian God. Mohammed stands in the place of Jesus and is a “false” saviour. Apart from the fact that he was very much a pervert, murderer and abuser of innocent children he offers no other earthly or eternal comfort than this; be good if you can and with a bit of luck, your good deeds might just outweigh your bad deeds when judgment day comes – but you’ll never know until you get to see Allah face to face. But then, who knows just how many good deeds will placate the implacable Allah? If Mohammed’s own deeds are any guide, then heavens doors are permanently closed – unless of course you use Mohammed’s shortcut! Die a martyr while murdering Jews, Christians and everybody else (including fellow Mohammedan’s of whichever sect you happen to disagree with)and 70 virgins in the rose garden await….hmmm….under or over 16?
Nothing could be further away from the Christian concept of Jesus as our personal substitutionary atonement – a doctrine which has comfort for this world and the next. Christ’s merits rather than our own are all sufficient both to steer us through the “changes and chances of this fleeting world” and salve the conscience for judgment day. But hey…who cares about that stuff, even in the Christian churches (or what’s left of them).
When light and dark mix, you get a shadow land of grey; a twilight where reality is blurred. But I must say, this is for the appeasers of the Mohammedan’s. Once the shadowy, grey stupor well and truly sets in and unopposed they have sufficient power to broker political outcomes in their favour, I’d like to know where, Jews, Christians, Hindu’s, Buddhists, LGBTIQ’s and just about everyone who disagrees with Mohammed’s way will stand.
How true it is! If you love the darkness, it will indeed master you. It’s looking grim but there is hope….other-worldly wrestling is required.
It’s all pretty silly, when you consider it without the concept of gods.
Was Mahomet psychotic, and hallucinating when he heard voices? Or did he really hear the words of a god?
Let’s face it: if you were the god who had created heaven and earth, mankind etc. and seen how the civilisations of ancient Greece and Rome had progressed, you would surely have noted Socrates and Plato, and how logic and reason had become a feature of humanity. If you then decided on revealing new knowledge, would you have picked an illiterate peasant in the desert as the best candidate to disseminate it? And of course you would have instructed him in the best way to spread that knowledge: kill anyone who doesn’t accept it without question, rape his wives and daughters, steal his possessions.
Pretty logical, really. But of course gods move in mysterious ways.
So was Mahomet a prophet, revealing the divine words of a god? Or was he psychotic, and hallucinating? Or just a nasty thief and murderer, using a lies to further his career?
The choice is simpler without the confusing presence of gods.
You have to be careful with that line of reasoning, gogs. Religion is about faith, not intelligence, open to all not just the elite. Parable: widow, two mites, eye of needle etc
I think the facts are that Islam adopted Mohamed rather than the other way round. There was a long pause between Mohamed’s death and the birth of islam. Can’t remember my source for that but it is striking. Anyway, matters not. Mohamed or one of its variants is now the most popular name for newborn males in UK. Islam is doing pretty well, however disgusting it may be.
If you read about the temptations of Christ where Satan came to Jesus to make him a worldly offer and then read the Koran and the Haddiths it is very obvious who was talking to Mohamed.
The fact that our church leaders are cosying up to the disciples of the anti Christ suggests that they have read nothing at all of the Islamic scriptures.
Maybe using the current situation in France as an example of how an Islamic Takeover will unfold should be highlighted.
Tell how the Islamic world at large is funding the building of Mosque’s throughout France at an alarming rate. Arab Petro dollars are pouring in for this reason. Then suggest that they read ‘Submission’ by Michel Houllebecq for a description of the actual Takeover and its aftermath. Those lovely ‘ABC’ ladies might then ‘Wakeup in Fright’ as their husbands proceed to take a much younger second wife which is encourage/allowed under Sharia Law
Sam Harris is another great read.
Better reading: “The mosque on Notre Dame”, Remnant Press published English translation of a Russian authoress Elena Chudinova
“On a plurality of civilizations” by Feliks Koneczny (written around ww2), one can try http://opoka.giertych.pl/ksiazka2.pdf
2 years ago I read an account (“Islam past the gates”) of the surroundings of The Cathedral of Notre Dame with the remains of 42 French kings including one and only Charlemagne! inside and hardly French population, shops selling Koran and merry-go-round close to the entrance to The cathedral…
Thanks for these I’ll check them out on Amazon
Saudi Arabic is now w running deficits.
I have no children and have no idea what is actually taught in schools but it is tempting to suggest that Islam should be taught in schools. But how could it be taught truthfully? More likely it would just be political propaganda. Christianity I guess is taught more or less truthfully – if at all. That is because it is not a political issue. If Islam were made compulsory one would have to show in truth the superiority of Christianity. That would be politically unacceptable and, for all I know, illegal. The enabling law would inevitably require religions to be shown to be equivalent and no discrimination between them would be allowed.
Try writing anything anti-Islam in the SMH and see how the moderators block you. I wrote this today in response to the apologists opposed to the Libs plan to ban Muslim immigration:
Those nasty Liberals! I think we should be ENCOURAGING Muslim immigration. Islam is such a beautiful peaceful religion. And tolerant too! It’s the Buddhists and Mormons who fly planes into office towers.
Of course it never saw the light of day.
Good try Lacebug with the SMH, and at least we appreciated your submission. Buddhists, Hindus and Christians have a non violence ethos quite the opposite of Mohammedanism.
Keith Kennelly had another letter in The Oz today which gave a useful serve to the ABC. However one hopes KK saw the article in the same paper referring to Indonesia and conservative Islamic groups ‘chipping away at Indonesia’s secular constitution for decades’. The sobering article defies the rosy view expressed by KK previously that Islam in Indonesia and elsewhere is becoming ever more tolerant!
I think you’ll find the supposed non violence of Buddhism and Hinduism something of a myth also. Have a look at India’s recent past for starters.
Is it a form of postmodernism Peter, this need to justify Islam? All cultures are equal (though some are more equal than others, particularly the non western ones and the ones that involve tasty food).
I agree with your point about the reformation being trivial, mostly. I don’t know much about Catholicism but it appears to me that there still remain some important differences of theology that go beyond the ceremonial. As a reformist I would say that the pope and his underlings are vested with far too much earthly and heavenly authority, undermining that of the true king. And there remains the issue of the immaculate conception of the virgin, which gives this ordinary woman a god-like status that can never be reconciled with true theology. Having said that, I have no real problem with Catholics or Catholicism. Although it is time for the papacy to wake up to the scientific non-necessity, stupidity, and wholesale destruction of Biblical authority from Darwinian evolution and its worldviews.
pgang, I suppose transubstantiation is a bit more than ceremonial but even then it seems to me to an inconsequential difference in the practise of Catholicism and Protestantism. In any event, my main point is to distinguish between the Reformation – which, while it did admittedly change the behaviour of Catholic Church as well as giving rise to various versions of Protestantism, did not change scripture or the core Christian message and beliefs – and what would be required to put a benign face on Islam. Hirsi Ali suggests basically that Islam needs to be stripped of its core beliefs. I agree with her about that. I do not agree that it is even remotely possible. And I suspect she doesn’t either. But, hey, it sold a book.
Much in agreement with pgang of 12:28 pm but suspect a flippancy is indicated by his suggested taste test to prove ‘all cultures are equal’.
However much in disagreement with pgang of 12:30 pm who shows scant knowledge of Buddhism, Hinduism, and ‘India’s recent past’. The two peaceful religions mentioned were annihilated from Afghanistan and Northern India by the militant and unspeakably cruel Mohammedans from Arabia.
Billboards in present day India claim with justification that in its 6 000 year history India has not invaded another country. Quite true.
Bran Dee, Buddhists and Hindus have a violent history towards each other and towards Muslims. The Muslims you mention weren’t from Arabia, they were from India. Ipso facto, Muslims were also annihilated from India, and India and Pakistan will likely soon be at war again. Buddhism may not be overtly violent but there is nothing that particularly rules it out either. Hinduism is a disgraceful worldview that has subjected countless people to misery.
I assume that Bran Dee was talking about the original Muslim invasions of Afganistan and India. This will give you an idea of the scale of the slaughter of Hindus and Muslims during these invasions and the centuries after them. https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/
Correction, Should read “–the scale of the slaughter of Hindus by Muslims–“.
The opportunity must be taken here to disabuse pgang of his unsupported negative views of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Indian restraint. Hinduism can be seen as proverbially silly because of its sacred cows but its vegetarianism has been respected. The British made it shed the intolerable practice of sutee, and the cast system continually erodes not least because the low class find release in Christianity. In Australia the considerable migrant community of Hindus is hard working and integrating.
India does not expand its borders but for centuries has shrunk with the forced conversion of Hindus to Mohammedanism in the Hindu Kush and Northern India which became Pakistan and South-east India which became Bangladesh.
Buddhism was an indigenous Indian movement which expanded peacefully into the Hindu areas of Asia from Afghanistan to Indonesia, Malaya, and Burma. Militant Mohammedanism has since supplanted these two peaceful movements in most of these areas except Bali and Burma where the Burmese now strongly oppose Mohammedan expansion in their country.
Presently there are about 200 million Mohammedans in India and they retain some sharia indulgences such as polygamy and triple talaq divorce. Hindus being monogamous resent this but to avoid communal violence refrain from changing their constitution to prevent Mohammedan polygamous practice.