Yes, the third post on Anglican Apostolicity is coming ... meanwhile ...
Horrible news out of Cairo this morning about a bombing of a Coptic chapel complex. We must not diminish our political will and will to pray that Islamic (and all other forms of) terrorism would cease.
Bill English is all but signed in as our new Prime Minister. He is our first active Catholic Prime Minister since our last one, which actually means that between Jim Bolger (1990-99) and now we have had three Prime Ministers, two of whom were well known for being at least agnostic if not atheistic, and the third, well, I cannot recall a strong declaration of active faith. BUT ...
... as Bill is being interviewed late this morning, we are learning that he was against but now is in favour of gay marriage, not least because he realises that it is not damaging to straight marriage. Also he is against voluntary euthanasia but for a conscience vote on it when and if it comes to parliament. I wonder what his bishop makes of these views coming as they now do from the highest profile Catholic layperson in the land!
I notice on Taonga today an item which closes and clarifies an awkward situation which arose in our church over the past year. (I mention this because not all is perfect in our church and from time to time I will notice that here. HOWEVER I will take no comments on this particular matter, and will not publish a comment on another matter which nevertheless mentions this one. You can always comment at Taonga if you choose).
Finally, an unashamed appeal for consideration of this fundraising venture by our darling daughter Leah as she seeks funding for two dance performances she and a small team are working on for 2017. This particular way of raising funds has just eleven days to go as they seek a further $4250 ... thanks for reading this paragraph!
... as Bill is being interviewed late this morning, we are learning that he was against but now is in favour of gay marriage, not least because he realises that it is not damaging to straight marriage. Also he is against voluntary euthanasia but for a conscience vote on it when and if it comes to parliament.
ReplyDeleteThis is why he failed as Leader of the Opposition all those years ago and was easily thrashed by Labour - he is a self serving, two faced politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth - a dreary little man with the spine of a jellyfish and the charisma of a dead mouse who will not stand up for what he purports to believe in if he thinks it will give him bad press.
And you know as well as I do the so called "Death with Dignity" Bill will come before Parliament and another Godless Abomination will be rammed down our throats
It would be good if the Anglican Taonga web site could trouble itself to source news from a wider set of sources that just the hard Left Guardian and ultra-Liberal Washington Post sites. It is after all supposed to represent all Anglicans in NZ, not just Liberals and Leftists.
ReplyDeleteBut I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Andrei,
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that it would not have mattered who was leading National in 2002. They would have lost regardless. Labour had only been in power for a single term, the economy was reasonably good, and Helen Clark was still popular. National's loss was not a result of Bill being leader.
On conscience votes Bill has always had the courage to vote according to his convictions. He has a perfect record of voting according to his Catholic, socially conservative beliefs. In our system, that is all he can do. If social conservatives are not a majority in Parliament, that is a reflection of where society and the culture are at this time, for now. Bill cannot force his personal views on the country.
Politics is always down stream from meta-politics. If we want a majority of social conservatives in Parliament, the culture has to change first, and it is. More slowly than you or I would like, but it is.
Hi Peter
ReplyDelete“We must not diminish our political will and will to pray that Islamic (and all other forms of) terrorism would cease.”
You can pray all you like, but so long as Islam exists we will have acts of jihad like the most recent one perpetrated in Egypt against our Coptic brothers and sisters in Christ. To be fair, I’m only making this observation based upon the example of Islam’s founder, the teaching of its holy texts, and its 1,400-year history of bloodshed and violence.
Peter, may I suggest that you ought to cease perpetrating a utopian and hopeful narrative around Islam. If we are going to emulate Britain and Europe, and keep importing Muslims into New Zealand then we would be better served by your preparing us for violent persecution, and the bombing of our own church congregations. As you are no doubt aware we have recently imported several Egyptian Imams, and to my knowledge there is nothing in our drinking water that is likely to change their theology.
As Shawn reflected, culture trumps politics, and realistically Bill English can only affirm cultural norms when it comes to gay marriage legislation, especially now that it is history. He is wrong however in stating that ‘gay marriage’ is not damaging to marriage. It depreciates marriage and makes of it something other than the God of Scripture intended. There are a host of other downstream issues in respect to gay marriage relating to employment for Christians who seek to affirm the Biblical view of marriage in their workplace (schools for example), and eventually it may challenge what is spoken from the pulpit.
Are we as Christians prepared to be labelled ‘culturally unsafe’ over the definition of marriage?
Is that too much to hope for?
Hi Brendan
ReplyDeleteI am always hopeful!
Muslims and Christians in various places have co-existed peacefully for centuries.
Something is going on which is breaking that co-existence down. It may or may not be intrinsic to Islam but the peacefulness of centuries suggests it is less to do with what is intrinsic and more to do with some havoc wrought within Islam.
Step forward Salafism (also know as Wahabism).
I see no reason to generally restrict or even ban Muslims immigrating to NZ.
I see plenty of reason to be alert to the agents of terrorism and the theology which supports it.
As for Bill English, he didn't say he felt he ought to go along with the prevailing view of the majority on gay marriage. He said he had changed his mind.
I am not at all clear how Christians being prepared to be labelled culturally unsafe over the definition of marriage forwards the progress of the gospel. It may forward the progress of a particular kind of conservatism among Christians but I do not see how it forwards the progress of the gospel. For that progress to occur Christians need to be seen to be offering good news to the majority of society, not preserving and protecting increasingly minority views on marriage. (In order to not be misunderstood: I am not advocating that Christians change their minds a la Bill English on marriage; I am advocating not making our views on marriage the distinctive, headlining beliefs for which we are known. No one was ever converted to Islam or Judaism on the basis of their refusal to eat pork!)
"Politics is always down stream from meta-politics. If we want a majority of social conservatives in Parliament, the culture has to change first, and it is"
ReplyDeleteNo Shawn we need leadership - that quality exhibited by men like George Washington and Charles de Gaulle, a quality sadly lacking in Bill English as demonstrated for example when he did not lead the charge against the abomination that is gay "marriage". He did not even participate in the Parliamentary debates to explain why this is a very bad thing and today he flicked it off when pressed by changing his position
I support leaders not wimps who duck for cover to protect their political ambitions when they are likely to receive opprobrium for their positions
When it comes to showing the backbone required of a leader Bill English has failed time after time
And of course it is that lack of mettle that led to his defeat in the election and loss of the National Party leadership all those years ago
"You can pray all you like, but so long as Islam exists we will have acts of jihad like the most recent one perpetrated in Egypt against our Coptic brothers and sisters in Christ."
ReplyDeleteIt is not Islam Brendon, it is Salafism and its heartland is Saudi Arabia.
And since WW2 the West has used Salafism to advance its imperial ambitions from Afghanistan to Bosnia which is why it is out of control now
Believe it or not, Shawn, Anglican Taonga represents the majority of Anglicans in ACANZP. The reason it may not suit your own conservative spiritual outlook is that it seeks to feed the faith of the majority in these Islands of the Pacific.
ReplyDeletePeter, I wonder if Andrei's insult to our new Prime Minister is actually ad hominen if not actually libellous? Could you be sued for allowing it on ADU?
ReplyDelete"Muslims and Christians in various places have co-existed peacefully for centuries. Something is going on which is breaking that co-existence down."
ReplyDeleteNo Peter, they haven't. Wherever Islam reigned supreme Christians were persecuted regularly. This is nothing new. I had occasion to speak with a Coptic priest many years ago who told me about the history of the horrific persecution of Egyptian Coptic Christians, and he was clear that it has been going on for centuries.
What we are seeing today is not new, it's not "radical" Islam, it's just Islam doing what it has always done.
Islam repeatedly tried to invade Europe for centuries, and was partially successful in the Balkans and the East, right into the 19th century.
Peaceful Islam has never existed, anywhere.
"I am not at all clear how Christians being prepared to be labelled culturally unsafe over the definition of marriage forwards the progress of the gospel."
God forwards the progress of the Gospel. It's in His hands.
"For that progress to occur Christians need to be seen to be offering good news to the majority of society, not preserving and protecting increasingly minority views on marriage."
Christians were an "out of touch" minority who opposed what the majority thought on most issues during it's first four hundred years in the Roman Empire. The Empire eventually bent the knee to Christ. We don't need to massage the Gospel to make it palatable to modern secular liberals and pagans, we need to trust that Jesus is King and in charge, and preach the Gospel without compromise. He will call whom He wills to call. Compromising or massaging the message never works.
ReplyDelete“Muslims and Christians in various places have co-existed peacefully for centuries.”
I suspect this is a somewhat dubious assertion as you provide no evidence to support that claim as to the specific peoples, location or the centuries.
On the other hand, there is well documented evidence of Muslim conquest and forced conversion throughout North Africa, and Europe, with well documented Muslim violence against Christians in Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the Philippians and frankly anywhere were Muslims have been represented as a dominant or even a minority religion.
Global expansion:
http://www.howardbloom.net/militant_islam_timeline.htm
Europe:
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html
Sorry Andrei, violent jihad has been a feature of Islam for 1,400 years. It’s not a post WWII phenomena. Just ask the people of Spain who endured Islamic occupation for 700 years.
There are a lot of popular myths about the peaceful co-existence of Islam with Christianity which have found currency with the advocates of multiculturalism and mass immigration. There are peaceful Muslims of course, but they are not setting the agenda for Islam, and I suspect they never have. Besides, if you or a family member were to become a victim of violent jihad does it matter that there are peaceful Muslims?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322308/Number-people-killed-terrorists-worldwide-soars-80-just-year.html
"Believe it or not, Shawn, Anglican Taonga represents the majority of Anglicans in ACANZP."
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt that Ron. It represents the hard Left on political issues, and based on the large number of Anglican lay people I have talked to over the last ten years, most were not hard Left, or Liberal. On political issues most I have talked to were moderate center or center Right. I have no doubt many are Left or hard Left, but not the majority. And even were it close to 50-50, AT would still not be representing a large number of Anglican lay people. Any Anglicans who vote National or NZF, and there will be many who do, will not find their views represented in AT.
"I suspect this is a somewhat dubious assertion as you provide no evidence to support that claim as to the specific peoples, location or the centuries. "
ReplyDeleteThe city of Kazan is an obvious example Brendon. And it has been relatively peaceful since at least the time of Catherine the Great.
Hi Andrei
ReplyDeleteKazan in Tatarstan?
I'd never heard of it before today however, I’m pleased you managed to find one city, but perhaps not so much these days.
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/tatarstan-to-treat-church-torchings-as-terrorism-30083
http://www.forbes.com/sites/annaborshchevskaya/2014/11/30/russias-ongoing-battle-with-radical-islam/#1b0d2779447e
http://rbth.com/articles/2012/07/19/terrorist_attacks_has_shaken_tatarstans_religious_community_16511.html
http://www.rferl.org/a/tatarstan-attack-spar-fears-that-islamist-threat-is-spreading/24650674.html
Shawn, your last protest against our ACANZP publication 'Anglican Taonga', based on the number of Anglicans you haved spoken to over the past few years, may just be skewed by their conservatism being matched by your own. When did you last converse with an averagely liberal Anglican - apart from me on ADU?
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting...
ReplyDelete'Out-of-Touch Church of England Does Not Understand Brexit Voters, Says Bishop'
"The Church of England is run by out-of-touch academics and elites who are scared of patriotism and failing to protect the family, a bishop has said.
Philip North, Anglican Bishop of Burnley, said the church would not be surprised by Brexit if it had listened to the concerns of those who feel “frozen out”. Instead, it has become “so disconnected from many of these communities that it no longer hears what they are saying, let alone amplifies their voices to the nation.”
In an outspoken attack on his church, the bishop said that during the past few decades, the Church of England’s agenda had been set “not by the poor, but by academia, the moneyed elites, and certain sections of the secular media.”"
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/03/touch-church-of-england-not-understand-brexit-voters-says-bishop/
"In an outspoken attack on his church..."
ReplyDeleteHere is the source and it is far more interesting than Bretbart's precis
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2016/2-december/comment/opinion/heeding-the-voices-of-the-popular-revolution
Hi Ron/Andrei
ReplyDeleteRon: you have a point, in that Andrei has made an assertion about Bill English which is not backed up with evidence (re failing to show backbone repeatedly).
Andrei: do you give any credit re Bill English's failure in 2002 that he might have grown and developed in ability since then?
"Andrei: do you give any credit re Bill English's failure in 2002 that he might have grown and developed in ability since then?"
ReplyDeleteHe showed it yesterday when he resiled from his position on the "Marriage Equality Act" with a wry smile on his face when he did it - and that is what got the headline
True leaders stand firm in what they believe in, put forth strong and compelling arguments as to why they hold that position and in so doing bring people around to support their positions.
The next fight is coming with the "Death with Dignity" bill, another Orwellian title like "Marriage Equality" and he has already signaled that he wont stand in its way, though he may make the token conscience vote against it.
Bill English is a typical Western technocrat, not a warrior for those things that are of concern to people like me (us?)
Hi Andrei
ReplyDeleteI don’t run defence for anyone who commits the kind of atrocities you have outlined. The problem for Islam (and for us) is that such atrocities are commended by their prophet’s example and their holy texts. That is not the case for Christianity as you well know.
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has recently stated publically that we must stop saying Isis has nothing to do with Islam, and that it was essential to recognise extremists’ religious motivation in order to get to grips with the problem.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/18/welby-time-to-stop-saying-isil-has-nothing-to-do-with-islam/
Is Justin Welby guilty of dehumanising Muslims as a precursor to herding them into barns and burning them alive, or is he simply stating the obvious?
The British home secretary, Amber Rudd, pledged $17 million on Wednesday to provide guards for every Jewish school, college, synagogue and nursery school in Britain.
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/1.756445
Does anyone seriously believe these measures would be necessary if their population was not 4.5% Muslim? What do think life will be like in Britain when their Muslim population reaches 10%?
For once I’m with the Archbishop of Canterbury. It’s time for honesty when it comes to Islam, and especially the stark reality of Muslim immigration into the west. How much more of this ‘diversity’ do we need in order to enrich our lives?
Ron,
ReplyDeleteNo I don't exclusively talk to conservatives. I have talked to many Liberals over the years, and do I so regularly. But you have missed my point, as in relation to AT I was not talking about conservative vs liberal, I was taking about Left and Right, and Right can just as easily mean pro-gay Liberal Right.
My point is simply that in it's news sources, and the general slant of it's political and "social justice" articles, AT is skewed almost exclusively to the Left.
And all I am asking for is that AT practice a little more inclusive diversity and also cater for the thousands of Anglicans who vote National, NZF or Act.
That is not an unreasonable request.
It is difficult to talk about a complicated history in a few words, but I maintain the following:
ReplyDelete- there have been centuries of peaceful co-existant Christian and Islamic communities (India, Egypt, Jerusalem, Lebanon, Kazan, Iraq, etc);
- such communities have also had periods of pain, conflict and oppression;
- sometimes the tables have been turned and then overturned (we might think of Spain, in particular);
- sometimes the rural areas have seen more conflict than urban areas (I think this is true of Egypt; thus the bombing this week is especially disturbing to Copts);
- there are signs that formerly moderate Islamic countries are shifting to a greater radical implementation of Islamic law (e.g. Turkey, mentioned above; arguably Malaysia; also parts of Indonesia);
- there is intense bitterness between Islams (Shariah v Sunni; Taliban v ordinary Muslims in Afghanistan, etc) which means that we have a refugee problem in the world in which fleeing Muslims are glad to find a haven in the West.
ReplyDeleteThe Buddist monk,Ashih Wirathic,leader of the anti-Muslim movement of Myanmar,said:"You can be full of kindness and love,but you can't sleep next to a mad dog."
Hi Peter
ReplyDeleteWe need to avoid implying there is a moral equivalence between the treatment of Christians by Muslims and vice versa, especially in today’s context. Second, while some ‘fleeing Muslims are glad to find a haven in the West’ as you suggest, far too many of those who arrive despise us for a variety of reasons, most of which are inspired by Islam itself.
Consequently, Britain remains on ‘high terror alert’ this Christmas because of its restive minority Muslim population.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202172/Britain-high-terror-alert.html
Consequently, France, a nation that has thwarted 17 Islam inspired terrorist attacks this year has extended its state of emergency for another six months.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1301793
These events are solely due to Muslim immigration into those nations. Our political elite it seems would like us to accept this as the ‘new normal’. That limitations on our freedoms and the loss of personal security resulting in high terror alerts and states of emergency are just the price we must pay to live in a culturally diverse society.
But this is absurd surely. Why would any rational person choose this for their country, for their children and for their grandchildren? Both Britain and France have turned a blind eye to the problem of Islam for decades, and now they are only beginning to pay the price for their foolishness. The real cost will be paid by future generations.
Obama thought that by ‘changing the narrative’ he could change domestic reality. How well did that work out at Boston, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando, and most recently at Ohio State University? We need to avoid emulating his foolishness.
Peter
ReplyDeleteIn case you have forgotten we fought a war against Nazi’s and interned German citizens whom we considered, not unreasonably, may have constituted a threat to our security. Why did we intern them? Because we could not tell by interviewing them who was a Nazi sympathizer and who was not.
Despite the assurances of our Government, we cannot tell which Muslim immigrants are hot for jihad and those who are not. Else how do explain the 40+ Muslims on our SIS terrorist watch list?
Some may be second or third generation Muslims. No amount of parental screening could detect the disposition of their yet unborn offspring when the parents arrived in the country.
Currently in NZ the ratio of all Muslims to those on the SIS terrorist watch list is about 1000:1.
This leads me to ask hypothetically, would we be safer from terrorism if we replaced our 40,000+ Muslims with 40,000 Buddhists, or Jews, or [insert another minority here]. The obvious answer to that question is yes.
Would Britain and France be safer if hypothetically they could do the same? Again, the answer is obviously yes.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that all Muslims are problematic with respect to Islamic inspired terrorism because we cannot tell which individual Muslim in any group of 1,000 is going to pose a substantive threat to our safety and warrant the attention of the SIS.
This is where your analogy with the Nazi’s fails. We are not suffering a real or existential threat from Nazi’s today as we did 70 years ago. We do however face such a threat from the followers of Islam.
Now let’s love those that are here already and pray that in the mercy of God we may not suffer an act of Islamic inspired terrorism on our soil. However, can you explain to me why it is rational to invite more Muslims to live here when we know that for every 1,000 that enter, we add another one that would actively seek to do us harm? Especially when we don’t need any more Muslims here. What would another 40,000 Muslims add to our cultural diversity that we don’t already have?
The first duty of any government is to protect its citizens, and knowing the numbers why would we import a people who are ‘problematic’ the world over unless we harboured a secret death wish?
ReplyDeletePeter,
Would you have said that about the Germans in 1940 ?????
"A great difficulty I have with what you say Brendan is that it conveys an impression (even if not intended) that all Muslims are problematic with respect to terrorism.
ReplyDeleteIn fact countries such as Britain, France, Germany, the USA have millions of Muslims within them around 99%+ cause no troubles nor intend to cause any troubles."
It's not 99%. Polls show much larger percentages who believe in Sharia Law, hate Jews, want to Islamise the West, and support terrorism. They may not resort to terrorism themselves, but that does not make them any less of a threat.
A poll in Britain after the 7/7 bombings showed that 20% of Muslims supported the terror attack. Read that again. TWENTY PERCENT.
Have a look at these polls of Muslim opinion.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx
With respect Peter, on this issue you are living in a fantasy world.
The problem, as Brendan has shown, is that where large scale Muslim immigration occurs, terrorism follows, as do a large number of Muslims who have zero intention of assimilating and who's values are incompatible with Western values, liberal or conservative.
What is truly draconian Peter is that the voters in France, Britain, Sweden, Germany or the US were never, ever given a say in this. Not once was large scale Muslim immigration ever put to a referendum. And polls showing deep concern and/or opposition have been ignored. The peoples of those countries have been told to shut up and not resist, and called racist when they spoke up. THAT'S draconian.
In Columbus Ohio, my Father's home state, there have been three violent, terror related attacks by Somalian Muslims in the last 12 months alone. That was inflicted on the people of Ohio without their permission, without their consent, and with total disregard for their safety and their lives. THAT'S draconian Peter.
And we have had enough. The nationalist populist revolution occurring in the West, from Brexit to Trump to Geert Wilders and Marine le Pen is just the start. Our leaders on both the Liberal Left and the Liberal Right have betrayed us, and forced this nightmare on us against our will. Mainstream political parties will either listen and change tack, or what will come later will be vastly more worrying than a Trump or a le Pen.
The liberal/globalist/multicultural project is over. It's only a matter of whether it goes quietly through democratic means, or through violent civil war and military dictatorship. I prefer the former. But if the people are ignored for much longer, then the later will come.
What amazes me about this anti Muslim sentiment is how blind people are to what the USA and NATO have been doing in Arab lands
ReplyDeleteThe USA conducted a secret dirty war against the Yemenis for years using drones and occasional cruise missile strikes - killing several thousand Yeminis in the process
And if you heard about it it would be claimed that they were killing "terrorists" - a fact you would uncritically accept
But I know, for example, a Bedouin family was struck leaving two survivors and they were zero threat to citizens of the USA and in fact were Shiites not Sunnis so they were not Islamic terrorists of any stripe - why they were hit I don't know
But I do know incidents such as this do not endear the citizens of Yemen to the West
The only reason you are not outraged over things like this, as you should be, is that you feel more affinity with the denizens of Parisian night clubs than you do with tribal Bedouins who are no threat to you but stand in the way of some great geopolitical chess game.
There will be an accounting on the Day of Judgement though - that I do know
Andrei, this stuff goes uncommented upon because it's Obama that's doing it. The rule among the press for the last eight years has been:
ReplyDeleteKilling by Bush = VERY BAD.
Killing by Obama = What killing? Nothing to see here.
The Saudi Arabian Government is murderous scum, behind most of the killing in Yemen and in Syria. When Boris Johnson told the truth about this, he got slapped down by Theresa May. The UK Got is in hock to the Saudis and sells them billions in arms to kill other Arabs.
Undermining the vile Saudis is one of the main reasons I am a strong advocate of fracking and Western self-sufficiency in oil.
"What amazes me about this anti Muslim sentiment is how blind people are to what the USA and NATO have been doing in Arab lands"
ReplyDeleteFighting terrorism. That's not something I accept uncritically, it just happens to be the truth. The claim that Shia Muslims are not involved in terrorism is not credible. Hezbollah is a Shia terrorist organisation, and Iran funds them and other Shia terrorist groups. Sunni Salafism is just one part of the wider Islamic terrorist world.
If the US has made a mistake, it was in democracy promotion, which is a pointless and useless waste of resources.
But fighting the terrorists themselves is not wrong. It is necessary. I understand that you believe in this anti-US and anti-Western conspiracy theory that purports that everything the US and the West do with regards to Islamic terrorism is part of some nefarious plan that has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, but I don't find that credible, and have never seen any credible evidence for it.
As the quotes I posted above from the Koran show, Islam is the problem, and always has been. It is by it's very nature at war with the rest of the world, and always has been. I have not come to that conclusion lightly, or by reading Breitbart and Fox news. I have come to it by actually reading the Koran, and dozens of books on Islam and Islamic history.
One of those, which was a real awakening for me, was 'The Sword of the Prophet' by Srđa Trifković, who is a Serbian-American, a supporter of Serbia, and a fierce critic of NATO's role in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. In other words, someone you can take seriously.
I strongly recommend reading it. It pulls the mask of the notion of a peaceful Islam and details the massacres, terror and genocide that Islam has engaged in throughout it's history.
https://www.amazon.com/Sword-Prophet-History-Theology-Impact/dp/1928653111
Andrei
ReplyDeleteQuite obviously, none of us reading or responding to Peter’s blog have any meaningful influence over the events in Yemen regardless of how we might feel about them, your assumptions notwithstanding. Conversely, the followers of Islam whom we have critiqued are entirely responsible for their religion, their ideology, and their jihad.
But you are partially correct at one level. I have not wept over the killings in Yemen, whereas I did weep over the slaughter in Paris. I wept over the loss of young lives, those who were maimed and the merciless barbarism of their killers. But I also wept over our cultural blindness, our denial, appeasement, timidity, liberalism and failure to understand or to publically acknowledge the motivations of jihadists, all of which contributed to the slaughter of these young people.
In other words, it’s not just about Islam, as barbaric as it is - it is ultimately about us. It’s about how we choose to respond to those greater existential questions that are now confronting us.
"One of those, which was a real awakening for me, was 'The Sword of the Prophet' by Srđa Trifković, who is a Serbian-American, a supporter of Serbia, and a fierce critic of NATO's role in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. In other words, someone you can take seriously."
ReplyDeleteOf course Shawn - the Balkans were under the Turkish yoke for hundreds of years and they were very cruel
But the Turks behaviour in the Balkans was no different from that of the Catholic Poles on the Right Bank of the Dnieper, maybe even less savage
Let us not forget than in our lifetimes more innocent people have been killed in Great Britain by Catholic IRA bombs than Islamic ones
"it is ultimately about us. It’s about how we choose to respond to those greater existential questions that are now confronting us. "
ReplyDeleteIndeed Brendon - we come to common ground
The mass influx of Muslims into Europe is an existential crisis and one which the peoples of Europe have every reason to feel concern over
The question is what is it to be British, French, Dutch, Walloon, Flemish, German, Polish, Serb or Russian etc?
And it is clear the powers that be want to dilute if not eliminate these identities all together
And this same or very closely related question drives this blog - What is it to be Anglican?
Europeans, particularly North Western Europeans have abandoned the Faith of their fathers, have lost interest in raising families and into that vacuum something will flow...
Hello
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am naive but I once lived in a Muslim country and never felt safer in my life (e.g. walking its main city streets in the middle of the night).
Yes, there are dangers to consider and right thinking people are considering them. I note even in (relatively) peaceful Indonesia this disturbing report: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/86128930/Thousands-of-Muslims-gather-in-Jakarta-to-demand-jail-for-Christian-governor
No, I do not favour uncontrolled migration, so I am support proper political debate in each country about immigration policy.
Some countries appear to both have limitless immigration and a lack of democratic accountability about that: they are not my country and that is not my policy.
Nevertheless I continue to assert that the vast majority of Muslims living in the West are peaceable.
Hi Peter,
ReplyDelete"they are not my country and that is not my policy."
No, it was not my intention to suggest it was your policy, so apologies if I gave that impression. But for obvious reasons what happens in the US is of concern to me. NZ does tend, with some caveats, to have a more rational immigration policy than the US or Western Europe, and I note that the tide is turning towards more a more restricted policy, with National tightening certain rules, and both Labour and, shock, even the Greens moving closer to NZF on immigration issues.
"Nevertheless I continue to assert that the vast majority of Muslims living in the West are peaceable."
Possibly a majority, to some degree, but not a "vast" majority. But the question that we must start asking is, so what? If bringing in 1000 means even just 1 terrorist, we have seen the damage that only a few can do in Paris and on 911.
Governments are responsible to their own nations and their own people first. They are responsible to those that elect them and the people they are supposed to represent, not the UN or Amnesty International. And it seems to me, given the clear and undeniable risks, that radically restricting Muslim immigration at this time is the only moral and rational course.
"According to CNN this is a "humanitarian catastrophe""
ReplyDeleteYes, the Clinton New Network would say that. Thankfully most American do not take CNN or the New York Times seriously anymore. They threw what shred of journalistic credibility they may have had out the window to back Clinton and trash Trump, and the fact-free hysteria emanating from them post-election has sealed their fate.
'Clinton News Network: Breitbart/Gravis Poll Shows Majority Thinks CNN Does Not Provide Objective Reporting'
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/08/28/exclusive-clinton-news-network-breitbartgravis-poll-shows-majority-americans-think-cnn-not-provide-objective-reporting/
ReplyDeletePeter,
With the accepted figure of 20% of Muslim refugees being prepared to do the hosts harm,do I understand that if five of them were being billeted to your Church members homes,you would play "Russian Roulette" and accept that your billet was not the danger man????
"2,125 people sexually assaulted
ReplyDelete199 were raped
380 were molested in swimming baths
59 terror offences
112 incidents of arson"
And that's just Germany alone. Similar problems can be found in Britain, France, Sweden, and parts of the US.
I don't think most Kiwis, especially if they rely on the mainstream media for information, are really aware of the scale of the problem. It goes well beyond just notable acts of terrorism.
No civilization has ever survived inviting it's enemy within it's borders. Ask the Romans how well that worked out.
The destruction of the "Free Syrian Army" - AKA Western jihadis and their Saudi allies - is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
ReplyDeleteIt was "journalists" in the despicable BBC and other media outlets that were originally banging the drum for the West to go to war with Assad. Fortunately, MPs in Britain - and Congress in America - wouldn't let this happen.
Meanwhile, the mass emigration of Syrians into Europe - actively abetted by the traitor Merkel - has destabilised the continent. And Britain continues to arm the Saudis in their war in Yemen.
Can anyone wonder why so many of us have lost faith in oldline politics? The stinking Augean stables of politics and 'journalism' needs a river through it.
Peter
ReplyDeletePermit me if I may one more detailed experience of an Austrian 10 year old boy who was raped by an Iraqi asylum seeker in a swimming pool toilet where he had been pushed by his attacker, claiming it was a ‘sexual emergency’.
Somewhat surprisingly the offender had his conviction squashed by the courts:
“The Supreme Court yesterday overturned the conviction, accepting the defence lawyer's claim that the original court had not done enough to ascertain whether or not the rapist realised the child was saying no...”
As Mark Steyn reflected:
http://www.steynonline.com/7567/descent-into-evil
“You might think the screams would have been a clue there, but apparently not” The appeal court said the initial ruling should have dealt with whether the offender thought that the victim had agreed with the sexual act, or whether he had intended to act against his will.”
And…
“I believe in Austria the minimum age of consent is 14, so, by definition, a ten-year old cannot "consent" to a "sexual act", if violent anal rape can be dignified as such.
Or at least that's the way we used to understand it in the civilized world. Of course, in much of the rest of the planet - and especially in the Muslim world - children are obliged to "consent" to all kinds of things. Once upon a time, when the unfortunate denizens of such societies came to the west, we were culturally confident enough to require them to assimilate with us.
Instead, in an age of civilizational self-loathing, we assimilate with them. So the same sexual license young Muslim men enjoy in, say, Kandahar now extends to Linz and Salzburg .”
If this indignity were not enough, I note that the case has now reopened which will mean the boy must relive this experience of anal rape all over again:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/743076/Migrant-guilty-rape-Austria-swimming-pool-retrial-defence-claims-boy-consent
The court heard that Amir A. confessed to the rape, saying he knew it was wrong but did it anyway because it was a "sexual emergency" as he had not had sex for four months.
This is one example of the lived experience of Europeans subjected to Angela Merkel’s immigration insanity.
Yes, we cannot condemn all Muslims based on the behaviour of one rapist, but as I demonstrated in my previous post, this 10 year old victim is just one of many children who have suffered at the hands of Muslim migrants.
Our cultural failing is twofold. First to presume that our civilizational inheritance is shared by people of all faiths and cultures when it is quite obviously not the case, and second to excuse their behaviour on the basis of cultural ambiguity, or some other pretext.
It is about them, but it is also about us.
"Can anyone wonder why so many of us have lost faith in oldline politics? The stinking Augean stables of politics and 'journalism' needs a river through it.
ReplyDeleteFrom many of the comments on this story, one cannot exempt blog commentators from spreading messages of hatred - which is the basis of many of the world's current problems. "O Come, O Come Emmanuel!"
Hi Shawn. I discovered I had missed a comment you posted and then promptly made a mistake and pushed "delete" instead of "publish." Here it is:
ReplyDelete"Speaking of the tide turning, the presidential elections in France next year are telling. The two candidates who will face off in the second round of voting are Marine Le Pen and François Fillon. On issues of national identity vs multiculturalism, immigration, and Islam, the differences between Fillon and Le Pen are paper thin. Both are nationalists. Both want to promote French identity in education policy. Both want radical reductions in immigration and better border control and security. Both want an aggressive policy towards radical Islam. And both, like Trump, have a positive view of Putin and Russia and want to work with Russia and Assad to end ISIS.
The only major difference between them is on economics, with Le Pen being a centrist and protectionist, and Fillon an unabashed Thatcherite. Oh, and Fillon is the more socially conservative of the two!
That these are the two candidates that the French will choose between in a few months is remarkable.
"
Hello Again
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of NZers are peaceful and have no intent to become terrorists.
That statement is true whatever the rate of criminal activity in this country.
Ditto, Muslim migrants.
That is, I am arguing that we should not reject Muslim migration on the basis that a very tiny proportion have terrorist intentions in the West.
If you want to argue that Muslim migration should be rejected, or at least constricted to a bare minority because of actuality and potential for criminal activity, then do so. But please do not confuse that discussion with what I am arguing for here.
While you are at it, perhaps you could also - in simple fairness to all peoples - argue against all migration by peoples with criminals among them. Has anyone noticed how e.g. kidnapping has become a relatively frequent crime in NZ in the past decade? I do not recall any Muslims being arrested for that crime. Another people group is involved. I look forward to arguments for the banning of further migrants from that people group ...
Hi Peter
ReplyDeleteI cannot fault your generosity of spirit towards the followers of Islam.
However, those of us living in the west are on a long journey of discovery about the nature of Islam and how it shapes the lives of Muslims. Prior to 9/11 you and I would have been forwarding the same arguments about ‘tiny proportions’ and the predisposition of all races and creeds towards criminal offending. However, to focus on criminality is to miss entirely the point several of us have been making.
First, it is questionable if Islam is a ‘religion’ in the way that we in the west understand religion. Our understanding is shaped largely by Christianity which has developed a theology of separation of church and state. Islam has no such separation, and is therefore at its core a political construct with its own set of civil / religious laws as expressed by the Sharia.
Consequently, you have Muslims who will not stand in court as recently as this week in Australia because they do not recognize the authority of man-made laws. They will only be judged by the Sharia.
A recent Channel 4 Survey in Britain fronted by former Equality and Human Rights Commissioner Trevor Phillips, and reported by the Guardian had this to say:
“Many British Muslims “basically do not want to participate in the way that other people do,” and have different views on gender, sexuality, Jews and terrorism. The poll found only 34% of British Muslims would tell the police if they thought someone they knew was getting involved with supporters of terrorism in Syria.
Muslims are a “nation within a nation”, Phillips told Today, saying this was extremely concerning: “For example one in six Muslims say they would like to live more separately, a quarter would like to live under Sharia law, it means that we have, as a society, a group of people who basically do not want to participate in the way that other people do.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trevor-phillips-muslims_uk_570b5d63e4b0ae22c1dff5aa
It is indisputable that Islam teaches:
Muslims are superior to people of other faiths and no faith.
Women are inferior to men.
Homosexuals, apostates and infidels are deserving of death.
You must not befriend Christians and Jews.
The Sharia is Allah’s will codified for all people.
This other ‘nation’ that lives within Britain as described by Trevor Phillips is not like the nation of Australia or NZ, it is more like the nation of Pakistan or Bangladesh or Yemen. You cannot have such a ‘nation within a nation’ and not understand that this is a precursor to civil war.
Many would suggest that this war has already begun and we in the west are simply experiencing the early stages of the conflict. If this is true, and I suspect it is, then we would be foolish indeed to replicate the Muslim immigration policies of Britain and Europe here in New Zealand.
Hi Brendan
ReplyDeleteHere (at last!) we might be on more common ground. Yes, Islam is a totalising way of life and not a "religion" if that means (a) a general moral code (b) a commitment to take a small amount of time out each week to gather to worship God or the gods.
So, yes, any society welcoming Muslim immigrants is wise to assess the nature and extent of the Muslim community developing within it.
But, remember, not all Muslims are keen to develop and remain in an enclave within their new society.
Conversely, some societies seem "better" than others at providing conditions which foster the development of such enclaves, within which Salafism finds a home.
Hi Peter
ReplyDeleteEncouraging to find some common ground.
“But, remember, not all Muslims are keen to develop and remain in an enclave within their new society."
That’s true, but with around 20% wishing to live separately under the Sharia, a figure which seems to have some currency in the west generally, on what possible basis should we extend the invitation?
We are already at risk in the west of losing the sense of ‘we’ that is necessary to the maintenance of trust and acceptance of our neighbour; a precondition to living in a peaceful society.
Are you suggesting we should overlook the experience of Britain and Europe and risk exacerbating the problem by encouraging further Muslim immigration on the unproven thesis that we can do a better job of integration?
We should learn from the experience of others, Brendan!
ReplyDelete(Of course British experience of immigration of Muslims is a little different to ours as they have had some responsibilities as an ex-colonial power, especially over Pakistan, i.e. less choice about policy restricting migrants who have a historical connection to Britain).
Arguably we can do a better job of integration because, well, we Kiwis often do better than the brits etc at various things!
My specific concern re Muslim welcome in this country is that we consider welcoming those Muslims who are fleeing other Muslim forces. Surely our welcome of such refugees is an acting out of the Parable of the Good Samaritan?
Instead of worrying about Islam and conflating the issues raised by mass immigration, wars in the Arab world and religious disharmony how about worrying about the parlous situation our own Faith is in due to local antipathy from our own
ReplyDelete"Religious instruction in a North Otago primary school will be reviewed in the new year after parents complained.
The review at Oamaru's Fenwick Primary School will address ''continuing community concerns surrounding religious instruction, the roles of chaplains and some perceived conflicts of interest''.
Board chairman Damien Goodsir, who is also a pastor at Oamaru's House of Breakthrough, was publicly questioned this week for a sermon he gave saying ''sports teams ... boards ... businesses ... clubs or groups, neighbourhoods, work places, schools or churches ... all need to be infiltrated with the kingdom of heaven''.
He told the Otago Daily Times this week he regretted his choice of words."
https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/north-otago/chairman-regrets-churchy-message
Hi Andrei
ReplyDelete(Working only from your comment - in a bit of a rush).
That is a bit "bridge too far" is it not from the pastor?
It is hard to think of any era in which such comment would be well received within our secualr education system!
Hi Peter
ReplyDelete“My specific concern re Muslim welcome in this country is that we consider welcoming those Muslims who are fleeing other Muslim forces. Surely our welcome of such refugees is an acting out of the Parable of the Good Samaritan?”
Unfortunately Peter, you are perpetrating an all too common misunderstanding of Scripture.
Luke 10:34-35
“He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
The Good Samaritan did not welcome the injured man into his home, or into his community. He took him to a safe ‘third space’ which in this case happened to be an inn, and provided for his needs there.
Setting up nearby safe zones for refugees of war is a much closer fulfilment of the parable. This enables them to return home again after the war is over, just as presumably the injured man in the parable could return to his home and family when he had recovered from his wounds.
Contrary to your assertion, there is no Scriptural mandate for inviting people from an alien culture to live amongst us, especially on the scale that his happening now in the western world, and Europe in particular.
"That is, I am arguing that we should not reject Muslim migration on the basis that a very tiny proportion have terrorist intentions in the West."
ReplyDeleteYes I get that that is what you are arguing. I think your'e wrong for three reasons. One is that it only takes a very tiny number to kill a lot of people. Secondly, polls show that a much larger number, anywhere from a quarter to a half in some polls, do support terrorism, even if they will not, for now, engage in the act themselves. And thirdly, as Brendan has pointed out, terrorism is only one of the problems that Muslim immigration brings. The Arab attitude to women, and Western women in particular, has led to the epidemic of rapes and sexual assaults that Europe is experiencing. Not to mention child rape.
No matter how you slice and dice it, Muslim immigration at any level brings terrorists, terrorist supporters, and a host of other serious problems that lead to Westerners being victimized. Thus, imo, there is is no justification possible for governments doing so. Putting their own citizens at risk, regardless of the numbers involved, is a violation of justice and a violation of their responsibility to their own citizens.
Sooner or later, even with the smallish numbers coming to NZ, we will see terror in this country. The lives damaged or snuffed out as a result are not worth the risk. They have rights to, as do their families. The West is sacrificing it's own people on the altar of a liberal, globalist ideology.
On the parable of the good Samaritan, that is a call for how Christians as individuals should behave. The state bears the sword. It exists to defend the lives and property of it's citizens, and it must asses it's policies with that as it's central mandate.
Andrei,
ReplyDelete"Instead of worrying about Islam and conflating the issues raised by mass immigration, wars in the Arab world and religious disharmony how about worrying about the parlous situation our own Faith is in due to local antipathy from our own"
Because they are both connected. They stem from the same root cause, which is Modernity and it's political ideology, Liberalism. The parlous state of the Faith in the West, and multicultural toleration for Islamic immigration, are both symptoms of that root cause. In a real way, they are not different issues.
"First, it is questionable if Islam is a ‘religion’ in the way that we in the west understand religion." - Brendan -
ReplyDeleteThat may be so for some people, but anyone who is a member of a 'Religion of the Book' will know that even Islamic Religion can be said to share that particular distinction. This may be why even the Head of the Roman Catholic Church is willing to dialogue with his Muslim equivalent(s) to discuss world peace. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also met with his counterpart in the U.K. If Islam were not a religion why would these Heads of the Christian Church(es) be bothered to meet with those they see as their counterparts.
"There are none so blind as will not see" Like it or not, Ishmael was a son of Abraham - Promised and inheritance by God.
ReplyDeleteRon,
If our Lord and Saviour,Jesus Christ,was the Pre-Existent Logos through whom and by whom, all that is, was made;why did the Angel who supposedly visited Mohammed,not reveal Christ as the Son of the Living God,who had died on the CROSS and risen again,bringing eternal life to all those who believe in Him??
If Mohammed's message truly represents the gospel which all men must accept,why do they hate the CROSS with vengeance and deny Christ's RESURRECTION?
The last I heard,Mohammed was still buried in Mecca and our Lord and Saviour,Jesus Christ is seated on the RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER. "There are certainly, none so BLIND as those who will not see beyond the hatred in the Koran and accept the liberality of GOD'S LOVE.
" but anyone who is a member of a 'Religion of the Book' will know that even Islamic Religion can be said to share that particular distinction."
ReplyDeleteNot really. Islam is not a 'Religion of the Book.' Islams book is the Koran, not the Bible. Muslims reject the Bible, including the Old Testament, as they believe the OT was corrupted by the Jews. The idea of a "Religion of the Book' is an invention of secular academics that in reality is meaningless.
"Like it or not, Ishmael was a son of Abraham"
So what? The idea that Ishmael was the father of Islam, or the source of Arab peoples, is a purely Koranic/Islamic idea. It is not in the Bible, and therefore of no relevance. Even if the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, that is also irrelevant, as the issue is not Arabs, but Islam, and Islam is made up of far more ethnic groups than just Arabs. Not to mention the fact that some Arabs are Christians. You seem to be implying that Ishmael = Islam. That is not the case. The Koran may claim it, but the Koran is not a source of trustworthy history, and certainly not a source of Divine revelation.
Whatever God promised Ishmael, that promise has nothing to do with Islam.
"This may be why even the Head of the Roman Catholic Church is willing to dialogue with his Muslim equivalent(s) to discuss world peace."
They can discuss it all they like. The hard reality is that it will make no difference whatsoever.
""There are none so blind as will not see" Like it or not, Ishmael was a son of Abraham - Promised and inheritance by God."
ReplyDeleteBiblical fundamentalist - you clearly haven't kept up with the best liberal scholarship since T. L. Thompson, John Van Seters and the Danish School of ANE Historiography since c. 1970.
Don't you know that liberal scholarship has established that Genesis 12-25 is post-exilic fiction? That Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael never existed? Why can't you be consistent for once, instead of cherry-picking the bits you want to believe?
Peter, we can all choose a topic about which we can say "There are none so blind as will not see".
ReplyDeleteLook at this about liberals, for example.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/14/liberal-churches-in-decline-while-orthodox-ones-grow-says-study-of-protestants-in-canada/
Secondly, Christianity is an Eastern religion. The West produced paganism.
Nick
Same thing in the US Nick.
ReplyDelete"evangelical Protestant churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014 whereas the so-called mainline (liberal) Protestant churches declined by 5 million, meaning that evangelical Protestants now make up the largest religious group in the nation."
http://askdrbrown.org/library/why-conservative-churches-are-still-growing
John Spong claimed that unless the Church adopted liberal-modernist doctrinal and moral ideas to appeal to modern people it would die. Ironically those churches that did so are the ones dying, rapidly, while conservative Evangelical churches continue to grow.
Dear Peter,
ReplyDeleteContrary to all the Bad News filtering through many comments on this thread, may I draw your readers' attention to the excellent Advent homily given, this morning. on the Jesuit website's '3-Minute Retreat', containing this thought:
'The psalmist issues an invitation to all creation: Be glad and rejoice before the Lord. The Creator of all is coming—what other response can there be? In the deepest center of our being, all of creation recognizes the one who tenderly made us. When we get in touch with this awesome reality, there is only one authentic response—joy. As Teilhard de Chardin said, “Joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God.” God’s presence is everywhere. Follow the joy.'
Of course, this advice can only be taken when one realises that God is in control. Our negativity can never void the power of God's Love in Creation, but it could blind us to its possibilities!
Marana tha - Even so, Come Lord Jesus!
Hi Brendan
ReplyDeleteThe fact that a few terrorists might come to a country amidst an overwhelming number of other non-terrorists is not a compelling argument against immigration of the group people.
On that basis, for instance, no Irish should have been let into England for the decades 1970-2000. Nor should Jews have been allowed to migrate to Palestine in the 1930s and 40s. As for Russians moving around Europe in 1905 to 1917: no way.
Come to think of it, the only person dying through bombing by foreign agents on NZ soil/waters, was due to the French. But did we ban French imgrants from NZ?
No.
On what grounds would we be prejudiced against Muslims and not other people groups with potential terrorists in their midst?
Hi Peter
ReplyDeleteIf only it was a problem with a few ‘keyboard warriors’ who occasionally became excited about jihad then perhaps we could live that, although why we should contemplate the prospect remains beyond me. You have certainly not attempted to make a case for living with terrorism. Can we look forward to a blog post from you along those lines?
The problem is deeper, much deeper than that.
We don’t have a highly visible problem with Islam in NZ besides the 40+ jihadists on the SIS terrorist watch list. That’s because Muslims make up about 1% of our population. In Britain where it’s approaching 5% it is an entirely different story.
“Over a thousand British Muslims took to the streets of London on Tuesday in a show of force, blocking off a central London square to call for a caliphate while the crowd chanted ‘Allahu Akbar’.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/14/watch-british-muslims-gather-show-strength-demand-caliphate/
No doubt Peter you would have enjoyed a similar expression of ‘cultural enrichment’ on the streets of Christchurch while you undertook your Christmas shopping with the grandchildren? Keep up the advocacy and such experiences can be yours also.
In France where the Muslim population is around 10% they have lived with orchestrated acts of slaughter by Muslim jihadists and a state of emergency for 12 months now with no end in sight. Do your children attend rock concerns, café’s or sporting events Peter? Do they like to watch fireworks displays like those on the foreshore of Nice?
Do you detect any trend here that might disturb even someone as sanguine as yourself?
Do I have to spell out once again that it’s a numbers game? The more Muslims you import, the more your towns and cities begin to look like the Islamic hell holes from whence they came.
In your forthcoming post explaining how the benefits of Muslim immigration outweighs the risks, perhaps you could also explain, especially to Christians and Jews, why having the towns and cities of New Zealand become more like those of Pakistan and Somalia is a good thing.
Muslims bring with them Islam. Islam is a horror that has imposed itself upon unwilling peoples from North Africa to Europe and beyond for 1,400 years. If the streets of London on Tuesday are any guide, the aspirations for an Islamic Caliphate still run strong.
We Christians, along with Jews of all people should be alive to the horrors of Islam. As the demonstration in London explicitly reminds us, there is a solid core of Muslims who have no wish to integrate, but rather to conquer. I guarantee you this, very few if any of your ‘peaceful’ Muslims friends will come to the aid of Jews or Christians when the slaughter escalates, certainly if history is any guide.
None of the other groups you mention represent an existential threat to our existence. Islam does. I said earlier most of us in the west are on a journey of understanding about Islam. I don’t expect everyone to have arrived at the conclusions I and others on this blog have come to, yet.
ReplyDeletePeter,
On the simple grounds that all Muslims must accept the Koran and the Koran states that Muslims must perpetrate jihad against infidels.If you are a Muslim and do accept all of the Koran; you are no different from a person who claims to be Christian but wants to cherry pick the Scriptures.I,for one, have never said that no one from Muslim countries should be allowed to migrate here;only that true believers in the Muslim faith are never going to assimilate into our culture.
'Shocking Video: Muslim Immigrants Ban Women from Entire Neighborhoods in France'
ReplyDelete"Welcome to the land of Sharia law. No, I'm not talking about Iran or Saudi Arabia, but about France.
A documentary produced by French news channel France 2 has caused a major controversy in the land of the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre. The reason? The news channel sent a couple of female undercover journalists to neighborhoods and cities in France with large Muslim populations to see with their own eyes how women were treated in them. The results were downright shocking.
The women were told that they were not welcome in just about every single shop or café they visited in Saint-Denis. They were told to go home... and stay there. Of course, they were allowed to go outside, but then only if they were wearing a burqa."
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/15/shocking-video-muslim-immigrants-ban-women-from-entire-neighborhoods-in-france/
Liberalism = reality denial.
'Ami Horowitz Went Into a Muslim No-Go Area in Sweden and Got Beat Up by 5 Men'
ReplyDelete"Ami Horowitz went on a fact-finding mission to Sweden to see how much the tide of Muslim immigration has harmed the Scandinavian country. He highlights the extreme rise in rapes and violence, and shows areas that police will not go into. While in one of these areas, Horowitz got attacked by five men and can be heard yelling for help. He asks people to consider whether Sweden has simply offered too many social benefits to anyone living within their borders, and has made it too welcoming for immigrants. This video makes you wonder when Sweden and other European nations will hit their breaking point."
https://pjmedia.com/video/ami-horowitz-went-into-a-swedish-muslim-no-go-area-and-got-beat-up-by-5-men/
Hi Shawn
ReplyDeleteYou write, "Neither the French nor the Irish were members of a totalitarian religious-political ideology that harbored in it's heart centuries of anti-Western hatred. Neither the French or the Irish believed women and children were chattel with no rights. The comparison is absurd."
In response:
1. I do not find that all Muslims believe that women and children are chattels with no rights.
2. The Irish bombers were aligned with a totalitarian religious-political ideology because they could find no grounds for compromise with those who thought differently to them, Prots/English/non-Republicans, and they harboured centuries of Irish hatred towards the English (in England) and the Scottish Protestants who had migrated to Northern Ireland.
I am not disagreeing with all you are saying but wish to make the point that my argument for not preferring (say) Irish migrants in Britain in (say) the 1970s over Muslim migrants to Britain in 2016 is stronger than you are making out.
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteI think we are starting to go around in circles so I'll make this my last comment on the issue.
Numbers matter. If our Muslim population in NZ is allowed to grow much beyond the current level we will see terrorism, gang rapes, sexual assaults, no go zones, attacks on our Christian cultural heritage, and all the other problems associated with Islamic immigration. It matters not one bit if such acts are carried out only by a minority. They are supported by far more Muslims than your claim of "tiny" suggests. And there is simply no justification for allowing it to happen at all. The state has no right to play Russian roulette with it's citizens lives in this way.
And given the long list of problems over and above notable terrorist acts highlighted by Brendan and myself, I don't buy the comparison with the French or the IRA. This is a radically different threat with a radically different enemy. My last two posts gave examples of that. That is not what we want in NZ.
Hi Shawn
ReplyDeleteI agree that "numbers matter"!
Peter
ReplyDeleteIt is absurd to conflate the localized Irish and English violence that goes all the way back to Cromwell in the 17th century and bloody Sunday in the early 20th century with the predations of Islam across the planet for 14 centuries and that are still occurring today as we engage on the subject.
In any event, Britain is free to make its own rules about who, and who may not settle in their country. Well, they will be once Brexit is enacted.
You say:
“I do not find that all Muslims believe that women and children are chattels with no rights.”
Fine. So just to be clear, what percentage of Muslims who do believe that women and children are chattels and who are living in NZ is fine by you? Is it 10%, 40%, 60%?
While we are on the subject, where are you at with forced marriage and child rape? Radio NZ reports girls as young as 10 are being forced into marriage in New Zealand. Somehow I doubt the participants were Irish immigrants.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2016/12/new-zealand-forced-marriage-victims-young-as-10.html
Seriously though, does this not alarm you? yet Muslims are fine with it because their so-called prophet married his wife Aisha when she was six or seven, and he consummated the marriage when she was nine.
Mohammad being the ‘perfect man’ sets the example for all Muslims. Do you think Peter that the Muslims who engage in forced marriages and child rape here in New Zealand give a damn about your feelings in this matter? Do you think they care less about our laws? Do you believe they are on the fast track to integration, or ever will be?
Would you concede that your statement ‘not all Muslims believe women and children are chattels’ is frankly little more than pious blather for 10 year old victims of child rape performed in the name of Islamic marriage right here in New Zealand?
And while we are on the subject, where are you at with the practice of female genital mutilation? FGM is so popular here in NZ that we now have our very own website about it: http://fgm.co.nz/fgm-in-nz/ and the Government has produced a handbook for health professionals who are forced to deal with the complicated aftermath. How very helpful.
http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/populations/refugee-health/health-needs/physical-health
We don’t make our FGM numbers public but England with 5% Muslim population had nearly 6,000 reported cases of FGM, usually followed by a party of course, so I’m guessing it’s not all bad news for the girls, right? The most common age for FGM is between 5 and 9 according to the Guardian. They probably get a day or two off school, assuming it’s not the holidays.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/21/england-fgm-cases-recorded-2015-2016
Do you know how many prosecutions there have been in New Zealand and Britain combined for those parents who have FGM performed on their children?
Zero.
How many prosecutions there have been in NZ for participating in forced child marriages?
Zero.
Why? Because we are integrating with them Peter, and not the other way around.
But all I’m hearing from you is that you are fine with this, and can see no reason why any New Zealander should have an objection to Muslim immigration. Good Samaritan and all that.
Muslim immigration is just a disaster on so many levels that it beggars belief that one has to keep peeling back the layers in order to get the point across. Strangely enough the Jews don’t need convincing. A significant number of Jewish schools in Australia now have armed guards to protect them from the predations of their Muslim neighbours. I’d say this is normal at around 2% to 4% Muslim population. Britain is there now, and France has been there for a long time.
http://ilasecurity.com.au/2015/09/07/first-victorian-school-to-have-armed-guards/
What is going to make our experience with Muslim immigrants any different Peter?
Hi Brendan
ReplyDeleteFor the life of me I cannot understand why or how you make the leap of logic from my disputing that all Muslims treat women and children as chattels to my being fine with forced marriage, FGM, etc.
I have no truck with forced marriage, under age marriage, FGM, etc none of which our law has any truck with either.
If people who should have been prosecuted have not been prosecuted then that should be taken up with the non-prosecuting authorities whose duty is to administer the law of our land.
Peter
ReplyDeleteI’m assuming you have been fine with FGM and forced marriages to 10 year olds, and the subjugation of women, the persecution of Jews, and the odd terrorist in NZ because that’s what you have been arguing in response to the concerns many of us have raised in response to Islamic immigration on this blog.
Yes, Peter you have been running defense for Islamic immigration.
If you are not fine with this, then why not express your disgust that we are not only inviting these people into New Zealand, but we are turning a blind eye to their 7th centaury barbarism in our midst?
In other words, why not get angry, assuming we Anglicans are permitted such feelings?
All I hear from you is a defence of Muslim immigration. There is no sanitised Muslim immigration as Britain and Europe has discovered. It's all an unfolding nightmare and it will be no different for us if we continue with their example. I would rather you accepted this, as un PC as this reality is, and were prepared to own it. I'm not holding out for that however.
I think I'm done with this discussion also.
Hi Brendan
ReplyDeleteI assume that in a vaguely Christian country our immigration policy might reach out to welcome displaced persons of this world who find they have no safe homeland.
If some of those persons we welcome bring barbaric customs we must work on that as a society.
But I trust that your argument does not amount to prejudging people that they will do bad things because they adhere to the Islamic faith. There are many good Muslims in this world who have nothing whatsoever to do with FGM, forced marriages etc, yet your approach tars them all with the same brush.
I find that sweeping generalization difficult to go along with as a follower of Christ. I also find it hard to square with the Muslims I have met along the way of my life.
ReplyDeletePeter, Wikipedia defines a Muslim as a person who follows the Islam Faith.The Islam faith is based on following the teachings of Muhammad in the Koran.Unless you accept that ALL of the Koran, teaches an ideal basis for community life; then those who do not live by jihad are not "good Muslims".
They may be 'good people" but they are not good Muslims; unless you are saying
that the only way to be a good is by denying some of the teachings of the Koran. You appear to be contorting your logic to square your argument off with some preconceived conclusion,i.e.Muslims you have met along the way.
Peter, here's an interesting - and disturbing - comment on the historical and contemporary experience of Copts in their own country. Did you know, BTW, that Egypt had a Jewish Finance Minister in the 1920s? How prejudice and hatred have grown, incubated in Islamicist ideology.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/egypt-copts-muslim-christian-isis/511007/
Obviously, Peter, on this thread we can take it that not all 'Crusaders' are followers of the Christchurch Rugby fraternity,
ReplyDeleteIf Jesus had followed the philosophy of these nouveau-Crusaders, there would never have been any Samaritans - or other outsiders coming to Him for life.
Merry Christmas to ALL your readers - not only Crusaders.