SAINT MARY OF THE CROSS
Sunday’s “Reclaim Australia” rallies are receiving very predictable media coverage.
The ABC and much of the other media want us to think:
(i) that most people unhappy about the effects of “Islamisation” are motivated by race-based animosity.
(ii) that Reclaim Australia supports Nazism.
Not all of us are fans of Reclaim Australia — but we resent lies and misrepresentations.
ISLAM NEEDS CHANGING. ONLY MUSLIMS CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN: are there enough Muslims who believe (really believe ) it is a “religion of peace?
What to do about the Friday 13th Paris massacres?
“Containment” — plus recitations of the mantra “Islam is a religion of peace”, plus or minus a few bombs but no soldiers fighting in Syria, Iraq and wherever — as per USA and friends?
That won’t work.
What about real military fighting as threatened by France and Russia? That might inactivate the Islamic State group – but for how long?
The violence recommendations in the Qur’an will still be there.
Other Muslim groups will bob up and do much the same as ISIS does now.
Progress towards permanent non-violent coexistence between Islam and the rest of the world will need fundamental changes in attitudes – including the attitudes of Muslims (all Muslims).
Many Muslims who already want real peace and might perhaps consider a revised understanding of Islam – a new Islam-for-a-sustainable-future.
A detailed “Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding” has been worked out:
It needs to be proposed to all Islamic leaderships as something the rest of the world is willing to go along with and invites them to as well.
Does it all sound too good to be true?
But I haven’t come across any better suggestions.
ARCHBISHOP PORTEOUS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN AUSTRALIA: a freedom soon to be ended by the same-sex-marriage brigade?
Catholic Archbishop of Tasmania, Father Julian Porteous, is facing prosecution for distributing a booklet entitled “Don’t mess with Marriage” in Tasmanian Catholic schools.
The booklet explains the Church’s reasons for believing Australia will be best off leaving the legal definition of marriage as in the current Federal Marriage Act — i.e. marriage being a man-plus-woman union.
The complaint has been laid by a “transgender” Greens Party political candidate, on the basis of Section 17 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits “any conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person” on the grounds of sexual orientation etc.
If the prosecution succeeds, then in the lead-up to Prime Minister Turnbull’s plebiscite on marriage, no Australian will be able to safely speak out against legalising “same-sex marriage”.
Freedom of speech in Australia will be at an end.
To avoid Australia becoming a totalitarian nation, the federal government has no choice but to over-ride state anti-discrimination laws in so far as they are, in fact, anti-freedom-of speech laws.
Anybody wanting to read exactly the Catholic booklet says can visit:
We keep being told that what progressive persons call “diversity” is not something to be feared.
But it is something to be feared.
Many parents live in fear that their children will, from a young age, be exposed to pro-homosexual propaganda at school.
Many ordinary people fear to say out loud that anal sex is less normal than the kind of sex that can produce babies.
And they fear that anybody suggesting traditional marriage is a better environment for raising children than same-sex coupling will be subjected to censorship, name-calling and perhaps worse.
Think about it.
Last weekend’s episode of the ABC-TV show “Q and A” could have been more accurately entitled “P and I”
As in “Propaganda and Indoctrination”.
It seemed almost like a monologue from Mr Denton.
Especially if you add in Dr Syme and the lady with breast cancer and Mr T Jones who spoke only ideas that supported him.
Dr Karen was treated badly. She tried to make the simple point that euthanasia is intentional killing. The response was that you can’t say that there here.
The Wesley Hospital doctor said that in a lifetime of Palliative Care practice he had never been asked persistently by any patient to be killed. When challenged about this he backed down.
Personally I practised medicine for over 50 years (in the third world and elsewhere) much of it in situations where no palliative care practitioner (and at times no other doctor at all) was available to discuss near-death matters.
I had one request for euthanasia. Before this one was discussed very much, the patient did find another doctor to go to. I never heard what became of him.
Overall I thought this week’s Q and A was a poor program and likely to do harm.
All participants, even the audience, seemed to agree that religion was out of bounds in this field.
Yet they all purported to hold patients’ rights as kind of “sacred”. Why? In the absence of God, such a notion becomes purely a matter of opinion, doesn’t it?
Utilitarians cannot even address the issue of what a human being is, and whether one’s life and/or death has any meaning anyway.
The show can be watched at http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/qanda/FA1407H041S00#playing
We are all now under pressure to consider “voluntary euthanasia” and “assisted suicide” as acceptable, even desirable, things.
A letter from one wheelchair-bound disabled Canadian man to Canada’s new euthanasia-approving Prime Minister is worth reading:
“Dear Prime Minister,
“ . . . I have been incurably ill with aggressive multiple sclerosis (MS) for more than thirty years. Its degenerative nature gradually stripped me of physical function from being healthy and athletic to living in an electric wheelchair. If assisted suicide had been available during the mid-1980s I might have opted for it at a low point. I’m so glad I did not seek out a Jack Kevorkian. I never would have known my grandchildren.
“You see, Prime Minister, quality of life changes. What gave my life quality in 1984 is not what gives my life quality in 2015. Physical function is not so important to me anymore; it is love that brings quality to my life now: To love and be loved.
“You did the right thing in 2012 by supporting a national suicide prevention strategy. Do the right thing again . . . .
“A national suicide prevention strategy must be for all Canadians, not just the healthy. Support increased emphasis on palliative medicine in medical schools . . . .”
Isn’t he right? True quality of life is sharing love, palliating where possible and then giving even more love.