Archives For Socal Media

Avi Yemini was banned from Twitter after a tweet addressed to climate change activist Greta Thunberg, was flagged as being in breach of Twitter’s EULA.

Yemini’s criticism wasn’t without merit. He was responding to Greta’s widely publicised, scripted speech, performed before the UN summit on Climate Change. Her performance appeared manufactured, and forced.

Emotionally distraught, Greta appeared to be intimidated and scared. She repeated the words ‘’How dare you” as part of her claim that the UN (aka the world) had “stolen her dreams and childhood with empty words”, and that “people are suffering, people are dying” and that “entire ecosystems are collapsing.”

Greta preached from the official socialist narrative on “climate justice.” The 16 year old passionately asserted that we’re “in the beginning of a mass extinction”; and that instead of inciting panic and forcing irrational change, all the UN does is “talk about money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.”

Her shaky performance prompted Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire to point out that Greta comes from a family of talented performers. Citing The Washington Examiner, Saavedra explained that her parents are ‘stage-parents’. Her mother sang opera internationally, and her father and grandfather both gained fame through acting and directing.”

Matt Walsh chimed in saying that Greta Thunberg was a victim of child abuse:

‘If any grown up in Thunberg’s life really cared about her psychological and emotional well-being, they would sit her down and explain that climate change is not going to destroy human civilization. Yes, the climate is changing. Climates tend to do that. But whatever role humans play in that process, and to whatever degree, it is not going to result in the end of all life as we know it. Talk of a 10-year, or 12-year, or 20-year, timeline before planetary catastrophe is all an invention of politicians and media personalities. Scientists don’t speak this way.’

Walsh wasn’t the only person to show serious concern for the teenage activist. Social media feedback, both for and against, has #Greta mentioned in over 1.21 million tweets since her speech.

Avi Yemini was among them. It seems that someone behind the scenes took a dislike to his criticism and decided hit the big, red, shiny, hammer and sickle button. His alleged crime against the people’s republic of Twitter was “manipulation and spam.”

Given the large amount of voices on social media speaking out in concern for Greta’s role and how she is being treated by her handlers, Twitter’s beef, is apparently not so much with what was said, but who, and how they said it.

Yemini wrote:

“I hate the UN more than you could imagine, but they didn’t steal your dreams or childhood – your parents did. They should be jailed for the sickening child abuse they put you through. They’ve scared you into an extremist.”

TR news posted Avi’s Youtube response to the Twitter ban, where he accused the social media platform of concocting “an excuse to silence him.” Though the ban is now under review, Avi asked for support saying, “use hashtag #FreeAvi because whether you agree with me or not, this is a freedom of speech issue”, and if “they can come for me” on a bogus charge, “they will come for you.”

Earlier this year, Yemini was also permanently banned from Facebook, after Jim Jefferies had tried to set him up, using the dishonest journalistic practice of re-engineering interviews, through cut and paste sound bites to perpetuate a particular narrative. Yemini alleges it was an attempt to ‘brand him as far-right and somehow link him to the atrocities committed during the Christchurch shooting.’

Facebook banned Yemini for “hate speech” because he posted hidden video footage of Jim Jefferies, ‘mocking Mohammad and drawing him as a ‘wobbly ghost’.’

The Facebook ban coincided with Yemini being blocked from entering the United States back in April. His entry was stopped after Comedy Central reported him to American authorities, due to concerns they had about him walking into Comedy Central and ‘confronting producers’ An interview resurfaced around the time of the Christchurch shootings featuring Yemini, who had said that he only agreed to do the original interview with the ‘proviso they didn’t put him in the same story as neo-Nazis.’

Yemini told 10 Daily that his concern was due to Comedy Central not sticking to that arrangement, and instead, ‘editing and context were manipulated. Ergo he was planning to walk into Comedy Central and confront producers, [because they] weren’t responding online.’

Avi Yemini wasn’t wrong in showing concern for Greta. Nor was he wrong in his criticism of her handlers.

It’s important to note that Greta isn’t on trial, neither is science. What is on trial is the misuse and manipulation of science for political and financial gain, via a bandwagon fallacy. Apocalyptic climate change does violence to the scientific method, because it silences questions. It is a narrative built on fear and groupthink.

Greta’s speech shows us that kids are under immense psychological and emotional pressure to process what they’re being sold. All of which is generated by apocalyptic climate change extremists. That is why I disagreed with Tim Costello when he supported the climate strike calling it a Christian duty. Kids are being over-burdened with fears of the world ending. All based on an hypothesis, turned-vicious-dogma. Apocalyptic climate change is politics veiled as science. It’s immoral and unchristian to stand by and applaud such manipulation. It is child abuse.

Greta’s speech today proved that her handlers are the ones betraying her. Not Avi Yemini. Not the majority who join him in questioning the narrative of fear, used to push apocalyptic climate change, and the marketing package it’s encased in.

#bewaretheauctioneers

UPDATE: Twitter reinstated Avi’s account on the 26th September, after the review.


First published on Caldron Pool, 24th September, 2019

Photo by Kelli McClintock on Unsplash 

©Rod Lampard, 2019

As it goes with the internet, “anything you do, and say, can, and will be used against you” in the court of social media opinion. This is of course only if the wolves which fill the ranks of online lynch mobs, smell blood. This rule applies to everyone regardless of status.

Although desperate, anti-Trump Leftists have Brett Kavanaugh now back in the top spot on hash tag algorithms, one of the latest social media meltdowns concern Beatles drummer, Ringo Starr’s support for Brexit.

The meltdown was triggered by a Stephen Smith interview Starr did for the BBC back in 2017.

Ringo Starr’s alleged great crime against humanity?

He said, had he been in Britain at the time of the Brexit referendum, he would’ve voted for it and that the government needs to make Brexit happen:

“The people voted and they have to get on with it, but suddenly, it’s like, we don’t like that vote. And I’m like, what do you mean you don’t like that vote? You had the vote. This is what won. Let’s get on with it. I would have voted for Brexit. I would have voted to get out…”

Starr, who now lives in America also said,

“Brexit was a great move. To be in control of your own country is a good move.”

RT.com headlined the melodramatic hash tag meltdown as “Ringo Get’s Cancelled: Ex-Beatle Starr savaged online for calling Brexit a ‘great move’ in 2017.

The Guardian didn’t seem to have anything new to add. However, Harriett Gibsone’s article from 2017 mentioning Starr’s interview did add that Paul McCartney hadn’t voted because of a US tour at the time, but had said “even if I had been able to, I was so confused. You were hearing what seemed to be good arguments on both sides.”

If I was a complete cynic I’d immediately link the timing of the social media meltdown with news of Ringo Starr’s soon to be released new album called ‘What’s My Name’. I’d start to wonder if his genuine views on Brexit, in 2017, were brilliantly used as a catapult for free publicity.

If true, it shows how docile and empty minded people easily offended have become; easy enough for publicists to manipulate so as to generate (stir?) interest under the “any publicity is good publicity” banner, via the 24 hour outrage cycle, driven largely by the Leftist propaganda machine we call Twitter.

The internet meltdown, which included hate from Remainers (anti-Brexit voters) and a fierce defence from Brexiteers, provided free online publicity for the new album. For Starr the temporary irrational heat generated over his Brexit comments in 2017 is a win. The Beatles drummer and Narrator of Thomas the Tank Engine, gets the last laugh. From a marketing point of view, it’s pure genius. Whether intended or not, Ringo Starr’s support for Brexit won the internet this week and hardly anyone noticed why.


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th September, 2019

©Rod Lampard, 2019

American conservative media organization, PragerU, is facing an uphill battle against an increasing trend towards censorship of conservative content.

Founded by Dennis Prager in 2009, and currently run by CEO, Marissa Streit, PragerU provides commentary and information on a wide range of subjects, from prominent thinkers and doers. PragerU also considers themselves to be a platform for the preservation of Judeo-Christian values, and “the concepts of freedom of speech, a free press, free markets and a strong military to protect and project those values.” (PragerU ‘What we Do)

In an official Facebook post from January 26th, 2019, PragerU admins wrote:

“PragerU has officially filed a new lawsuit against Google and YouTube in the state of California [over unjustifiable censorship].

Adding that, streaming service, Spotify:

“has completely banned PragerU from advertising its content. This is clearly in line with the censorship we’ve experienced on Youtube, Google, and Twitter.” (PragerU Facebook)

According to a PragerU Twitter post, Spotify’s reason for blacklisting the organization, was because their content didn’t ‘comply’ with Spotify’s editorial policies. Consequently, Spotify “stopped all existing ads, and stated that they will not be approving any new ones.” (PragerU Twitter) Not only this, but as of the January 26th, PragerU, “still hadn’t received any explanation from Spotify as to which specific policy we didn’t comply with.” (PragerU Facebook)

PragerU’s battle against censorship began in 2016[i], with decisions from YouTube to place some PragerU content in the “restricted mode” category. Videos like ‘Don’t Feminists Fight For Muslim Women?’ and ‘Are the Police Racist?, among 100 others, such as the counter Marxist, Jordan Peterson, information video, ‘Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids’ and ‘The Suicide of Europe’, are deemed by Google as being “inappropriate for the younger audiences.”[ii]

Since 2016, PragerU has experienced controversy after controversy, with other social media platforms also restricting PragerU content. Facebook removed videos from PragerU’s three million plus, strong Facebook page, only later reinstating those videos, along with an apology, because “the videos in question were mistakenly removed. While we continue to research what caused this error, we have restored the content because it does not break our Community Standards[iii]

If you’re up to date with the developing concerns over big tech companies threatening to censor conservative content, and big tech companies actually censoring conservative content, you’ll know that an ambiguous reason like, “mistakenly removed”, in all probability means, “removed by an employee, who took personal offence to the content, acted unanimously, making a subjective (highly unprofessional) decision to delete it.”

Although, in this case, Facebook deserves kudos for acknowledging the error and fixing it; the increase in uncalled for restrictions on content that challenges the overarching ideological predisposition of the big tech companies, should be of deep concern to everyone. It is a direct threat to the right to freedom of information, freedom of speech, and the right to come to conclusions independent of those who may seek to make us co-dependent on them.

For now, PragerU, and organizations like Caldron Pool are free to publish content in line with the values and faith that made, and still makes, the West a destination for many.

For now, PragerU stands as a city on a hill, at the forefront of a conflict that is unnecessary, unethical and uncalled-for. Even though doors are being shut on PragerU, as long as PragerU stands by its mandate, as outlined in their mission statement, they will continue to be that city, providing an open door for discussion, which runs against the stream.


References:

[i] The Federalist, sourced 4th February, 2019

[ii] PragerU Petition, YouTube Continues to restrict many PragerU videos, sourced 4th February, 2019

[iii] Business Insider, sourced 4th February, 2019

Also published @ The Caldron Pool, 4th February, 2019 under the heading: PragerU’s Uphill Battle Against Censorship As Ads are Permabanned by Spotify

78 year old, actorvist, James Cromwell, has predicted that “if we don’t stop Trump now, there will be blood in the streets.”

The actor and activist, most famous for his role as farmer, Arthur Hoggett in the 1995 movie ‘Babe’ (et.al), inferred that Trump was a fascist dictator, and that America was dangerously close to losing its democracy.

Variety reported that Cromwell made the “candid comments” during a quick Q & A, while walking up the red carpet. He was attending an award ceremony where he was also “honored for his work as a character actor.

According to Variety, Cromwell said,

“This is nascent fascism. We always had a turnkey, totalitarian state — all we needed was an excuse, and all the institutions were in place to turn this into pure fascism […] If we don’t stop [President Trump] now, then we will have a revolution for real. Then there will be blood in the streets.”
“We’re living in very curious times, and something is coming up which is desperately important to this country and to this planet, and that is an election, in which hopefully in some measure we are going to take back our democracy.
We will have a government that represents us and not the donor class. We will cut through the corruption, [and] we won’t have to do what comes next, which is either a non-violent revolution or a violent one, because this has got to end.”

If Cromwell is right, and America is heading for totalitarian rule, it’s difficult to see how Cromwell was able to freely speak his mind in public. Let alone be free to give a speech. All while moving without hindrance into an award ceremony where he was honoured for his work. This was all achieved without a special security detail to ward off any potential harassment from the alleged fascist dictator and his totalitarian minions.

Cromwell gave his speech in relative safety, was celebrated by his peers, and spoke his mind in public without fear of harassment; inferring that a bloody revolution needs to take place, in order to restore America to democracy.

It’s a pity that the same cannot be said for Conservatives like Ben Shapiro, who, when giving a speech at UC Berkley in 2017, saw the “Campus pay an approximate $600,000 for security, in order to anticipate violent protests” from the allegedly anti-Fascist, Leftist movement, Antifa.

If we add onto this, examples of people being assaulted for wearing MAGA hats, public personalities advocating for the assassination of Donald Trump, or the calls for people to harass Trump supporters and Trump administration officials, perhaps Cromwell is looking in the wrong direction.

If the fires of fascism are being stocked, Trump isn’t stoking the fire.

Exhibit A): 15 Stars Who Imagined Violence Against Donald Trump.

Exhibit B): 12,000 Assasination tweets: Trump’s Social Media Presence is a new challenge for the Secret Service

Exhibit C): Two Years of Democrats Calling for Assassinations & Hate

And who can forget the September 13, 2016, Washington Post article by Shalom Auslander, headlined:

‘Don’t Compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. It belittles Hitler.’

Or more recently, Democrat, Maxine Waters calling for the public harassment of men and women in the Trump administration:

“Tell them they’re not welcome.”

If James Cromwell is right, the “nascent fascism” isn’t coming from opponents of the Left, it’s coming from those on the Left.


Originally published, 1st November, 2018 on The Caldron Pool, under ‘Hollywood actor-vist warns: “There will be blood on the streets” if Democrats lose.’ 

©Rod Lampard, 2018

Photo by Hasan Almasi on Unsplash

This YouTube post from Lindsay Shepherd is captioned, “I’ve come to the realisation that I am no longer a leftist. Here’s why.” It’s worth sharing because, as one commentator suggested, “it’s not so much that you’ve moved away from the Left; the Left has moved away from you.” I’m not certain that I agree, but the sentiment in that statement describes something that I think is happening to a lot of people who traditionally associated themselves as ideologically progressive.

You might remember that Lindsay was at the epicentre of outrage, when she used a video of Jordan Peterson disagreeing with transgender-ism. Lindsay, a teaching assistant, was attempting to present the opposing side of gender theory in order to open up a broader discussion of the issues.

In true, cult of modern liberalism fashion, Lindsay was brought before a tribunal and punished for doing so. What the University didn’t know at the time, was that Lindsay had secretly recorded the socialist people’s court and their charge of blasphemy against her. The rest is now well documented internet history.

Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont. and the professor directly involved have since apologised. This was after Lindsay had been hit with a wave of the all too predictable harassment and abuse, from many who proudly wave Leftist flag/s.

Has the Left moved away from people who have traditionally associated themselves with the Left? It’s a fair question, and if allowed, it’s a question that needs to be asked by those who’ve invested so much into holding the front-line against enemies of the Left, both real and imagined. An offshoot of this question would be, in light of Lindsay’s experience, how much of those enemies of the Left are in fact, real and how much are in fact the product of an overly sensitive imagination.

The coming great awakening may not be as abrupt as Lindsey’s has been. If anything it’s a classic case of Plato’s Cave. The one who is set free, returns to say to those remaining, that life exists outside the chains and the cave; life isn’t the shadows they see bouncing off the walls. Life isn’t lived in the imagination; life exists in the wonder and the investigation into what (and Who) inspires the imagination. The cave dwellers are being called to a fullness of humanity; freedom from the very thing that chains them. Attempting to silence the truth of the freedman, the remaining cave dwellers reject the summons and address. They see the freedman as foolish and refuse to leave because they’ve found the truth that encounters them from outside the cave to be offensive. They are happy in their ignorance.

Sometimes waking up to the slow boiling of the pot, in which some get stuck, takes time. Sadly, more often than not, it doesn’t happen at all.

In Lindsay’s case, I’m not suggesting that she is a prophet or that she’s now a republican, conservative, “christian traditionalist” (whatever that means), who is ready to live out all the negative stereotypes applied to all three groups.

What I am saying is that the significance of this event, and the many that parallel it, such as  recent attack on Chik-Fil-A’s, ‘Christian traditionalist” (whatever that means)  ”creepy invasion of New York“, is that the genuine prophets of our age, who’ve long been lovingly calling out the tragic trajectory of the Left, in it’s post-modern manifestation, are constantly being justified.

Kudos, Lindsay:


References:

Kierkegaard, S: ‘There is a view of life which holds that where the crowd is, the truth is also, that it is a need in truth itself, that it must have the crowd on its side.There is another view of life; which holds that wherever the crowd is, there is untruth, so that, for a moment to carry the matter out to its farthest conclusion, even if every individual possessed the truth in private, yet if they came together into a crowd (so that “the crowd” received any decisive, voting, noisy, audible importance), untruth would at once be let in.’

‘The Crowd is Untruth’ 

What people think matters; how people see us matters. We anchor ourselves to the opinions and values of others. Men and women latch their value to the people we see as giving us value. Our worth is then neatly packaged into the confined space of that other person’s thoughts and whims. This is all okay up to a point. Humans were built for community, we need good government and organisation; men and women, living in fellowship, not in isolation, are human together.[i]

However, people tethering themselves to the thoughts of others without caution, spells potential disaster. For example, when we get down to the bottom line of Social Media, unless a person is selling something, the heartbeat of those platforms is either genuine sharing, or sharing because of a lack of belonging and self-acceptance; fear of loneliness and isolation. What makes these platforms thrive is the role they play in anchoring one person to a community, whereby that person gains some form of self-worth, validation and completeness as a human. If none of this were true, there would be no rhyme or reason for social media.

It doesn’t seem to matter whether or not the foundation of that self-worth, validation and completeness is at its core faulty and dysfunctional.  If a person gets the feeling that they are accepted and wanted, that’s all that matters. Questions like, “What if that anchor isn’t locked in the right place? What if that anchor only has the appearance of providing safety and isn’t actually safe?” aren’t considered.

What doesn’t seem to matter is whether or not the opinions and values of others are valid, just or holy. These factors seem to be rarely considered. Questioning those who cross-examine us in such a way, is something very few are brave enough to do. Most people would still agree that in all relationships, honesty is still the best policy. Better a wound from a friend, than honey from an enemy. As Solomon put it: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.” (Proverbs 27:6)

Few want to be a source of healthy conflict. Few want to cut loose an anchor for fear of getting tossed on to rocks and being carried away by violent seas.  Even when deep down they know that the anchor is dragging them down into the abyss, most don’t see it, or want to see it, for fear of losing the very thing that they think grounds them to a sense of worth, purpose, community and inclusion. Even if it’s toxic. Oblivious to the false security the anchor provides, when the storm hits, the ship goes down or gets carried away regardless of how they or others feel. If the harbour isn’t safe, it’s best to head for deep water. Finding ourselves stuck in the wrong port can be dangerous.

The reality is that people set standards and draw opinions about us behind our backs. People talk. We are looked at, measured, weighed, judged and then valued. Our position in any community is just as good as our appearance, and our last great performance.  Our worth in those communities is just as good as our silence, compliance and applause for those in positions of power. Sometimes this is done willingly. We want to appease those in power because they have the ability to thrust us into power.

The reality is this: the ambitious, conform. The covetous, charm. The selfish, betray. The prideful play power games; the greedy, lie, and the jealous, manipulate in order to gain. Social media platforms can be just another tool for anyone like this to gain superiority over others. If you can be used as a pawn in this process, you will be.

As stated by Jeremiah, the “weeping” prophet, who had a firsthand experience with rejection and abuse from within his community, the heart is deceitful above all things…who can understand it?’ (Jer. 17:9)

In a recent post to their Facebook wall, Sanctuary International Matrix posted the question:

“Dear Pastor Bob Beeman: I’m tired of trying to be a good Christian. As hard as I try, I still get criticized for what I do wrong. My Christian friends keep reminding me that I’m not a very good example. I’m considering leaving the faith. I’m just too miserable.”

Beeman’s response was on point:

“Sometimes the best examples to me, have been the people who fight the hardest. That fall down the most and get up every time. Because I identify with them, and I want the hope that they have. That’s what the Bible says: First Peter 3:15, “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.”

It’s worth stopping to think about what anchors us. It’s worth asking what our anchor is secured to; investigating to see whether or not our anchor is secure, or if our anchor only has the appearance of being secured. If it doesn’t, or the harbour isn’t as safe as it looks, best to pull the anchor up and relocate. Sometimes pulling up anchor and moving the ship, although hard, may be exactly what God is calling for [ii]. We serve whatever our hearts are tethered to.

If I measured, or tethered my membership criteria in the Church by the standards of others, and not by what God had set for us all, in Jesus Christ, I’d have quit a long, long time ago.

‘Be attentive to God’s Word…Guard your heart diligently, for from it flows the well-spring of life’ – Proverbs 4:23

The struggles are real, but keep both eyes on the prize because inhaled grace ignites.[iii]

‘…Therefore, we who have fled to him for refuge can have great confidence as we hold to the hope that lies before us. This hope is a strong and trustworthy anchor for our souls. It leads us through the curtain into God’s inner sanctuary.’ (Hebrews 6:18-19)


References:

[i] ‘With the creation of woman God expected man to confirm and maintain his true humanity by the exclusion of every other possibility [of a partner].’ (Karl Barth CD. 3:1 p.294)

[ii] “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Jesus Christ, Matthew 6:21, ESV)

[iii] ‘there is no more intimate friend of sound human understanding than the Holy Spirit’
(Karl Barth C.D. IV.4:28).

Photo credit:  Ksenia Makagonova on Unsplash

Treating the slippery slope argument in the SSM debate as if it were a fallacy is to commit a fallacy.

It’s ridiculous to discount the slippery slope argument as reactionary, backward, uncouth and pessimistic. It is valid and has value.

Most of us who live by a monetary budget use the slippery slope approach, for instance: “if I spend ‘x’ amount on this, the consequence is that I cannot, or may not be able to afford this”.

With very few exceptions, most “Yes” voters in the SSM debate who dismiss the points made by the slippery slope argument, generally do so based on reductio ad absurdum – whereby they reduce the “no” side to the absurd; dehumanising “no” voters by way of labels and slogans ( = classic Marxism).

This goes hand in hand with employing an identity politik that somehow grants “yes” voters a divine right to make judgement on others through a doctrine which brazenly declares, that there is life not deserving of having an opinion, or the freedom to responsibly support or respectfully share that opinion. It would seem that all attempts to do so, must be policed, shouted down and violently resisted.( = classic fascism).

Emergency laws and the threat of a fine up to $12,600, only bolster this. If anyone is proven to have vilified on the basis of sexual preference, religion, or politics,  they will be potentially crushed by the weight of this law, all judged case by case by the Attorney General. Although, this emergency law is only in place for the duration of the plebiscite on Same-Sex marriage. The immediate question it raises is this, will some on the Left find exemption from this law, since some appear to have broken them already?

With all of the abuse from “yes” campaigners, it makes me wonder whether those voting “yes”, actually know what it is that they are voting “yes” to? What this, and things that have been said to me indicate, is that the culture of repudiation will bring with it a culture of silence.

I don’t see how any thinking person can vote “yes” to this, and so willingly align themselves with those who only throw abuse, instead of reasoned and respectful argument.

Some of which has been well documented. One such high-profile example includes Mothers, who, featured in a vote “no” advertisement. Since they did have been slammed, publicly insulted and threatened.

Other, more recent examples, include the poor treatment of celebrated Australian athlete Margaret Court, the questionable firing of Royal Australian Army Veteran Bernard Gaynor and the ridicule endured by Christian Democrat leader, The Rev. Fred Nile, who sought to bring together politicians to have a reasoned discussion on SSM. In response, Jeremy Buckingham, a member of the Greens, posted a video on his Facebook wall, vilifying Nile as bigoted and showing Buckingham shredding Nile’s invitation.

Even I’ve coped some flak for raising questions & expressing valid reasons for why I am voting “no” to SSM. Not once in my discourse in regards to this matter, have I engaged in, or encouraged abuse, slander, homophobic rants, emotional manipulation or tried to bully people into voting the same as me.

In response some people have taken to social media, and rather than discuss the issues or answer any of the questions I have posed, they’ve decided to troll me, attacking me and my faith. I politely disengaged  when it became clear the person had never read any of what I’d written on the issue.When someone else tried to carry the conversation on in a civil way, it ended with this:

 

Contrary to popular sentiment, being a Christian doesn’t make one ignorant or blind. Faith seeks understanding. Therefore, I am open to hearing disagreement, I draw the line at mockery, reductio ad absurdum, and the cherry of picking of bible verses; the taking them out of context, to show how supposedly ignorant, unloving and unChristian I am. For good reason, this isn’t tolerated when racists do it, so why shouldn’t it be pushed back on, when members of the LGBT community or their supporters do the same?

Misusing the bible in the service of a political, or even personal, advantage is the equivalent of burning the Quran. It does violence to the text. This was the heresy committed by the puppet apparatchik, German Christians, in their pro-Nazi opposition to the Confessing Church, which stood firm against Nazism in Germany during the 1930’s.

 

 

Why are the Left so okay with practising what amounts to anti-Christian bigotry, when they wouldn’t attack a Muslim in the same way? Two very good reasons. First, they know that Christians are more likely to respond with a forgiving answer. Second, Muslims, in Australia have a close relationship with the Left. This connection was made clear when Ali Kadri from the Islamic Council, said in an interview for the ABC, “We are afraid that the LEFT may abandon us, if we speak out and express our opinion.”

Ali Kadri’s concern is that the Left will abandon Muslims to the “Right”. I acknowledge that concern. There are extreme elements who do not differentiate between Islam and Islamism; along with the fact that some of their policies appear to breach freedom of religion. Because they do, those policies require rigorous consideration, as all legislation should.

Nevertheless, if we have read the Quran and understood Shari’a Law, through countries who practice it, the SSM debate shows that our Australian Muslim neighbours should be more fearful of the Left, than the Right. The alliance between the Left and Islam surely cannot be a happy one.

It’s helpful to remember the often quoted words of German Pastor, Martin Niemoller, who was imprisoned by the Nazi’s: “First, they came for…”

All claims, in this debate, that Christians are haters or bigoted, are negated, by the very fact that the Left launches an assault on them. In addition, some advocates, like the  Van Vuuren Bros  have taken to essentially, bashing Christians with the bible, and committing the very crime they say ALL Christians are guilty of. It seems the only ignorance and hypocrisy here, although some can exist on the Christian side from time to time as well, is coming from those on the Left.

From what we’ve witnessed this week, we can be certain that any “yes” to SSM, is a diminishing, if not an outright denial of rights. It is therefore a “no” to freedom.

This makes its reverse all the more important. Not just for us, but for future generations.

Any “no” to SSM, is a “yes” to freedom, not a denial of it.

“To the good Nazi not even God stands before Hitler”. [i]

Beware the auctioneers.


References (not otherwise linked):

[i] Julien Bryan, Henry Luce & Louis de Rochermont, 1939 March Of Time 

Brave German Pastors, The Argus, Melbourne, Australia 14th August 1934 Sourced 15th May 2017 from  http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/10953135

German Pastors Sent to Concentration Camps,  The Sydney Morning Herald, 30th March 1935, Sourced 15th May 2017 from http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/17157115