‘Lifestyle’ Category Archives
by Arnold Jago in Australia, Celebrities, Common Sense, Education, Faith, Family, Lifestyle, Media, Women
1. Australia’s “progressive” media are making a celebrity of a woman who calls Islam a “feminist” religion.
Don’t they know that in the countries where Islam is practiced most, women are stoned for alleged infidelity?
Didn’t an official Islamic spokesperson recently tell Australia’s Sky News that sometimes it’s OK to beat one’s wife?
Islam needs to “progressively” convert its own traditionalist adherents away from violence-prone fundamentalism.
2. Some Australians consider themselves “progressive” when Sydney streets are filled with persons promoting anal sex as normal.
Many Australians let their youngsters go to “progressive” schools which groom them to condone (if not to practise) that kind of thing, and to vilify anybody discouraging it?
Perhaps Australia needs to “progressively” eradicate those ideas.
Perhaps the Australians loudest in their claims to be progressive are progressing down the wrong track.
CHILD CARE IS A MOTHER’S JOB: or should we replace mothers with “expert” mercenaries at child care centres?
Many or most Australian women believe they should care for their own children as their main care-giver.
Probably 99 per cent-plus babies would agree.
Any government putting pressure on mothers to abandon that role is thus their enemy.
A government ideologically dedicated to squeezing parents out of the child’s life is able to use financial coercion such that a caring family can’t survive.
To offer funding, subsidies, benefits and allowances for children left in the care of strangers at a child-care centre — while withholding them from carer-parents — is unjust.
The government’s Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, about to be voted on by the Senate, will aggravate these problems.
It should be rejected.
Sadly, Australia’s major parties all seem to have the mentality of treating work-at-home carer-mothers as second-class citizens.
A good reason for families never to vote for those parties.
An Australian judge has refused to allow a Muslim woman to wear the niqab while testifying in court.
Too harsh? I don’t think so.
A judge must form opinions concerning witnesses’ truthfulness or otherwise. Body language, including facial expression, is part of that.
If we’re worried about harshness, consider the senior Muslim last week advocating beating women as “step three” in a process of dealing with relationship issues — after counselling, buying chocolates etc.
Joumanah El Matrah, of the Australian Muslim Women’s Human Rights Centre has testified that there are “significant problems” in how Islam was interpreted…and that Muslim women would be “extremely disadvantaged” by any form of sharia court… and that Islamic orthodox interpretative frameworks allocate women “an inferior status to men” rendering them “vulnerable to violence and abuse”.
Personally, I must say I admire some aspects of Muslim’s commitment to prayer, belief in modesty etc….
But there always seems something wrong — Allah seems to come over as un-loving.
When described as “merciful” it seems not to be “mercy” in the usual sense of the word.
The “Our Watch” organisation recently had an opinion piece in multiple regional newspapers including Ballarat Courier, Sunraysia Daily, Bendigo Advertiser etc.
The topic being “For Everyone’s Sake, let’s talk about Sex”.
It’s full of research statistics.
Surveys quoted show that many people hold the views that:
1. “if a young man wants to have sex with a young woman, it’s up to the woman to make it very clear she doesn’t want to….”
2. “the victim (is) at least partly responsible for the unwanted sex if she is drunk or affected by drugs…or wearing revealing clothing….”
“Our Watch” organisation is committed to talking people out of those two opinions.
The fact that they are both obviously true apparently doesn’t matter to them.
by Arnold Jago in Abortion, Australia, Beauty, Celebrities, Common Sense, Contemplation, Family, Lifestyle, Truth
The proposed law to legalise “same-sex marriage” is dishonestly worded.
Even its title, “Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill”, is a deception.
The term “Same-Sex”, in this context, is meaningless – intentionally so.
“Sex” is something defined in terms of anatomical structures – chromosomes within body cells, genital organs, breasts, whiskers etc. – definable things.
“Gender” is more about how you feel and identify (at least for the moment) — which is un-definable.
Gender-talk is complicated by endless arbitrary variations and name-confusions.
A while back, Facebook was listing up to 58 “gender” identities for customers to choose between.
If this bill ever passes, pressure will immediately be applied to expand it to include transgender-identifiers.
Realistically it won’t be “Same-Sex Marriage” it will be “Same-Sex-And/Or-Today’s-Choice-Of-Gender-Label Marriage”.
The whole project is a plot against personal responsibility and an insult to everybody’s intelligence.
Back to school?
Good news. You’ve been looking forward to it for weeks.
Good old school. Friends. Social life. Gossip. Idiots attention-seeking.
Judeo-Christian religion disappeared from the curriculum.
Replaced by the superstition of gender-fluidity with its yummy diet of emotivism, deconstructionism, utilitarianism and associated promiscuity-is-OK-if-you-feel-like-it mentality.
Not much to base real-life decisions on there.
Doesn’t sound very good actually.
Maybe get your mum to home-school you after all.