This year Isabel Thomas Dobson, the Moderator of the Uniting Church, decided to devote her column to the cause of refugees. I couldn't help but notice one line of her column in particular:
there are unsubstantiated fears of them being violent
Why was that line so striking? Well, just a few pages prior to this was a story about a group of men charged with plotting a terrorist attack in Australia. Three of the five are Somalian refugees.
One of these men was caught on tape celebrating the death toll from the Black Saturday bushfires:
The next day fires broke out in the whole country ... Allah bring them calamity.
The bushfires was all good, man, Allah willing. No Muslims.
No Muslims died in the fires, but 173 others did. Our Somalian refugee thinks that is "all good".
The same Somalian refugee described Australians as "filthy people".
But is this just a one off? Well, in the same week Dutch police arrested 12 Somali terror suspects, British police arrested 9 terror suspects who had planned a London Christmas bombing blitz, a suicide bomber launched an attack in Sweden and two embassies in Rome were attacked.
We are relying right now on our security services to keep the violence in check.
I'm not suggesting that most of the refugees will become involved in such activities, but it does show that our kumbaya Christian leader is being way too trite in her claim that fears of violence are "unsubstantiated".
Here's another odd feature of Isabel Thomas Dobson's call for open borders. She has lamented elsewhere the decline of Christian worship in Australia. What does she think will happen, though, as Australia's intake of Muslim refugees increases?
You can't have it both ways. If you want a large, indiscriminate refugee intake then you have to accept a declining Christianity. Christian churches will be replaced with mosques. In effect, Isabel Thomas Dobson is calling for a lesser future for her own faith in this country. Is this really the responsibility she is charged with?
She is a Christian leader but she wants to give up on the idea of Australia as a Christian country. Would you really do this if you sincerely felt that Christianity had something important to offer that other faiths did not?
I liked Cardinal Pell's Christmas message criticising Atheists and talking about the impact of the floods.ReplyDelete
My old man is a bus driver in the Western suburbs of Melbourne, here is his break down of the civility of nationalities in his 30 year experience.ReplyDelete
Asians are the most polite, trustworthy and considerate.
Middle class whites.
Arabs/Africans, will lie, cheat, prone to violence and throw false accusations at the drop of a dime.
The way these Churches have embraced the refugees, year after year, is pathetic.ReplyDelete
A simple test of these "Uniting" churches: where do they stand on Scripture, i.e. the Old and New Testaments? Do they regard Scripture as the infallible, divinely inspired word of God, or as books with interesting stories and some advice that doesn't have to be taken literally?ReplyDelete
I wager that I can ask my own question in advance with regard to this particular example. Interesting that a Yank term like "Kumbaya Christianity" is being used (correctly, by the way) by an Australian.
Even if you don't think Australia should be a Christian country, you sure as hell don't want it to be a Somalian country. Hello, Somalians are the reason Somalia sucks.ReplyDelete
Interesting that a Yank term like "Kumbaya Christianity" is being used (correctly, by the way) by an Australian.ReplyDelete
I remember singing kumbaya as a kid in Sydney in the late 1960s.
As I sit here I'm watching House Hunters in America...a South African couple from Johannesburg is moving to Sydney. The first half of the episode is about the crime and gates of South Africa.ReplyDelete
Why on earth do these Kumbaya Crazy Christians want to Import These People?
And you know what I'll offend you all and say it...ReplyDelete
Adopting 3rd world children like my crazy christian friends is Just As Bad.
Because then that african child grows up to and becomes a "Diversity Officer" in government because they are black and Christian. Then they work to make society more inclusive and work to bring more of their people into the country.
Did you guys see the Queen's Christmas Message? Every single scene showed Africans.ReplyDelete
I don't even know how to explain it.
It was a weak Christmas message. The Queen rightly identified racial diversity as one of the biggest issues facing England but could only offer sport as a mechanism for bringing us together. The Queen though is required to be PC.ReplyDelete
I'm not suggesting that most of the refugees will become involved in such activities, but it does show that our kumbaya Christian leader is being way too trite in her claim that fears of violence are "unsubstantiated".ReplyDelete
Majorities are not required for revolutions or insurgencies. It goes without saying that the numbers of violent jihadists are very small compared to the non-violent Moslems who support them. And a non-violent Moslem simply has no reason to condemn a violent one if it furthers the cause of Islam and brings the country closer to sharia.
I hate to sound jaded, but I don't see any Western country taking a serious look at Islamic immigration, legal or illegal, until we have a serious massacre. Until then, more of the same: endless foiled plots, endless individual murders in the name of Allah, and endless braying of liberals about the evils of profiling.
Adopting 3rd world children like my crazy christian friends is Just As Bad.
Yes. Christianity is not a panacea.
Van Wijk wrote,ReplyDelete
"Yes. Christianity is not a panacea."
What, but the truth, can solve any problem? If Christ is the truth, then he must have answers for all of our problems, even the most difficult.
Mr. Richardson's point was that a person who works toward the destruction of Christianity cannot properly be called a Christian. Since that's apparently what many modern church leaders are doing, their Christianity is uncertain.
I don't see any Western country taking a serious look at Islamic immigration, legal or illegal, until we have a serious massacre.ReplyDelete
What do you call 9/11 and 7/7? I call them serious massacres.
They are proof positive that the political elite will not oppose Islamic immigration even if there is a serious massacre. The political elites in the US, UK and Australia are the enemies of their own nations and peoples.
Van Wijk said,ReplyDelete
"And a non-violent Moslem simply has no reason to condemn a violent one if it furthers the cause of Islam and brings the country closer to sharia."
"They are proof positive that the political elite will not oppose Islamic immigration even if there is a serious massacre. The political elites in the US, UK and Australia are the enemies of their own nations and peoples."
The power construct in political religions works like this: The ruling class, acting as God use ideas to serve themselves. The ruled are forced to serve the ideas.ReplyDelete
Where in the annals of history do we observe migrations of people resulting in peace and harmony? How many wars haven't been primarily caused by mass movements of people?
What's unusual about present history is our being ruled by a hostile elite who somehow think they will continue to retain power once the native majority have been dispossessed in Western states. Civilization level treason; no living organism willfully commits suicide.
Liberexia nervosa, a long, slow and painful suicide driven by cultural image distortion.
The elite in part define themselves by their lack of loyalty to the general population.ReplyDelete
"The elite in part define themselves by their lack of loyalty to the general population."
The elite goes on and on about how loyal it is to mankind in general, which they define as a lack of loyalty to their own people.
I shake my head at them and am just bemused. I don't even know how much of what they say they take seriously and how much just provides additionally legitimacy to their personal status. I mean we don’t have an aristocracy of birth anymore and we have to have something to show we’re better. Why not an aristocracy of sentiment tied to “brains”?ReplyDelete
Go to a Uniting Church.ReplyDelete
The first thing you will notice is that there is no-one in the room under 40. Churches tend to skew to older people as they have throughout time [closer to the final door] but with the Uniting flock it is almost funny just how old the average parishoner is.
The second thing you notice is that there are not all that many older folks to fill the pews, and those who do look like they came from before the Uniting Church was so "Uniting". Most have the look of old Scots Presbyterian types.
The Third thing you notice is the pastor, he is either Aussie and older than his Parishoners or an import and younger than their pacemakers.
The UC is in reality a bunch of clever folk who decided that if they managed to take over a dying Church it would give them the chance to a] use its resources and b] use it's good name to advance their own agenda.
And amazingly very few people know about this, mainly because very few people care enough to look.
What do you call 9/11 and 7/7? I call them serious massacres.ReplyDelete
A fair point. 9/11 caught everyone off guard. The West of 9/10 was not only not concerned with Islam, it was only dimly aware of its existence. The "only a small number of extremists" theory had not yet been put into use, so it was not yet discredited. 7/7 happened after 9/11, but only 56 people died. I know that sounds incredibly crass, but evidently 56 bodies wasn't enough for most of the British people to sit up and take a serious look at just what they were importing. The end result was a Great Britain more appeasing to Islam, not less.
The people might force the state to reevaluate its position on Islam in the aftermath of a jihadist attack that kills thousands or tens of thousands of people. I don't think 10 7/7's would do it.
If that were to happen we'd go out bombing mosques.ReplyDelete
Why not an aristocracy of sentiment tied to “brains”?ReplyDelete
Throughout history, intellectuals have rarely had leadership positions in society. The 20th century shows what a dreadful mistake it is to put the intellectuals in charge,
""Throughout history, intellectuals have rarely had leadership positions in society. The 20th century shows what a dreadful mistake it is to put the intellectuals in charge""
Theres 100 million dead bodies out there as a result of these insane idiots getting to try and play God.
And yet they still clamour to the high moral ground.
Makes me sick.
Its not just this century either, hello French Revolution.ReplyDelete
I don't think it's just the political elite. The population is brainwashed and turning liberal (or is already somewhat liberal). Liberalism needs complete destruction. Kind of what needs to the happen to the British (their ''false personality'' needs to be eradicated like Lawrence Auster said). A couple of minutes ago I was reading leftist websites and blogs and the atmosphere was repelling. It was twisted, odd, ugly and even in some ways inhuman and evil. In a way it reminded me of myself when I was evangelical. I thought the health, wealth, prosperity gospel (and other heresies) was the best thing in the world and that I was healthy spiritually. That I was being a true Christian and doing good. I'm still a Christian but post-evangelical (at least the modern version of it). I understand how liberals feel. They think they are doing the work for good when in reality they have fallen into a huge heresy.ReplyDelete
Most people I think are fairly short term in their thinking, content, or intimidating against expressing opposition. There is a general consensus that as long as our society keeps getting richer then things aren't going too bad or else they're allright. Its therefore when the economy starts to dip that people are more willing to express outrage.
If liberalism offers "freedom" and traditionalism offers "order", most people I think would tend towards freedom. However, they need order and are distressed without it. All our political thinking has been expressed in terms of freedom so people look around in frustration if there's a problem and say "we need more freedom, that’s our solution". The freedom urge has been able to be indulged historically because it grew out of an ordered society and a lot of social capital could be taken for granted. That capital is going.
In reality this helps the left wing state. The left wing compassionate state steps in to "solve" the problems and fill the breachs in society, created by too much confused freedom.
We need people to understand the importance of “order” and to start expressing support for it, as well as their desire for freedom.
Elizabeth Smith wrote,ReplyDelete
"I understand how liberals feel. They think they are doing the work for good when in reality they have fallen into a huge heresy."
This is exactly right for the sincere ones. I was right there with you, and thought I was right the entire time.
It's not enough for us conservatives to show liberals that they're factually wrong; we've got to show them that they're morally wrong.
It's not enough for us conservatives to show liberals that they're factually wrong; we've got to show them that they're morally wrong.ReplyDelete
Neither one matters. They will tune out either message.
"Neither one matters. They will tune out either message."
Well, I didn't. And it looks like Elizabeth didn't either.
Elizabeth Smith wrote...ReplyDelete
"I understand how liberals feel. They think they are doing the work for good"
I used to be a liberal, which is why they scare me so much. I remember what I was like. I remember the combination of self-righteousness and hate. And I remember that warm fuzzy feeling of being better than non-liberals.