‘Multiculturalism’ Category Archives

31
Mar

HOW TO LOSE YOUR JOB? try being a Christian in the wrong place at the wrong time.

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Faith, Lifestyle, Modern Church, Multiculturalism, Suffering

Homosexual-lifestyle activists are picking off, one-by-one, people associated with the so-called Australian Christian Lobby.
The message is, “quit your connection with this religious group or lose your job”.
Notable victims have been a Mr Allaby and a Mr Chavura – an engineer and a university lecturer.
Jesus Christ did warn people that being his follower means “denying yourself” – going without certain things. (Matthew’s gospel, chapter 16)
Perhaps, in these days, going without your job.
Jesus himself, due to his commitment to God, had to go without the freedom to move his arms and legs when they nailed him to a cross.
We, too, would do well to willingly undergo suffering in God’s cause.
Not to go looking for it, but to accept it and offer it up to God — if and when it happens.

Share This
13
Mar

FEAR STALKS AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY WHILE WE DROWSE: too soon it will be too late.

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Family, Media, Multiculturalism, Persecution

Coopers Breweries are currently in panic mode – terrified of being boycotted by the homosexual lobby.
They’re busily disclaiming any support for a televised polite discussion between two politicians about same-sex-marriage (SSM) — which happened to advertise their product.
What might be the attitude of ordinary NON-homosexual beer-drinkers to SSM? It’s on them that Coopers depend most of all to make money.
Nobody knows for sure.
However, their attitude to spineless inhibiting of free speech by big-moneyed corporations — I think we can guess that.
The debate itself was wishy-washy and missed the main point.
Isn’t the worst thing about SSM that such couples will use their being “married” to reinforce their claimed “right” to adopt children – thus unnecessarily depriving children of a mother-father-based family unit to belong to?
That aspect didn’t get a mention.

11
Mar

RACE RELATIONS LAW, SECTION 18C: striking the right balance….

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Common Sense, Multiculturalism, Persecution, Politics

In Australia it’s illegal to say, write or draw anything that offends anybody regarding their background.
We have bureaucrats paid to decide whether the offended-ness is justified — or if the expression of opinion was legitimate.
The bureaucratic decisions seem usually biased (towards the complainers).
Instead should we have panels of reasonable, typical, un-biased citizens — not bureaucrats — to decide?
Bondi tram passengers? Pub patrons?
But are not many pub-dwellers regular alcohol-drinkers? A possible worry, brain function-wise?
Tram-travellers could be a more reasonable cross-section.
Am I allowed to mention that people younger than 30 shouldn’t be eligible?
It’s well known that brain development is incomplete until at least one’s late twenties.
We could argue all day.
But it’s really not so complicated.
Best simply scrap Section 18C and deal with intimidation etc. under other already-existing legislation.

3
Feb

MR. TRUMP BEING HARSH AGAIN: and getting criticised again, rightly or wrongly.

by Arnold Jago in Celebrities, Justice, Multiculturalism, Politics

President Trump plans to restrict entry of immigrants from certain Muslim-majority countries.
Harsh?
There is, of course, a “harsh” side to Islam itself.
The Koran (chapter 2) says about unbelievers: “Kill them wherever you find them….”
And (chapter 47): “When ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, strike off their heads….”
Harsh?
In the countries which Mr. Trump has in mind, pre-teen children are used as soldiers and those at school learn to operate automatic weapons.
Harsh?
In the same countries girls must cover up from head to foot – Western-style female attire being considered degrading.
Harsh?
Or is that one something they’ve got right and we haven’t?
In those countries, school-children even miss out on the West’s gender-fluidity theories and brainwashing….
With the West as decadent as at present, are we in any condition to criticise anybody about anything?
Meanwhile Mr. Trump’s little experiment will be interesting to watch.

31
Dec

MURDER OF CHILDREN: holy innocents, then and now.

by Arnold Jago in Death, History, Jesus, Multiculturalism, Persecution, Recent Developments

For Christians, December 28 is/was the Feast of the Holy Innocents”.
The “innocents” being babies murdered by King Herod, who feared a possible new-born alternative king.
“When Herod realised that he had been outwitted by the Magi (wise men) he gave orders to kill all boys in the Bethlehem region aged two years and under….” (Matthew’s gospel, chapter 2)
We know who killed those Bethlehem victims.
Who is murdering the hundreds of innocents being killed right now — daily, week in, week out?
Don’t we and our politicians and media bend over backwards to avoid suggesting that it’s mostly done by Muslims?
Is Islam, in fact, an ideology of violence dressed up as a religion?
We’d like that not to be true. Don’t we all long for a day when all Muslims renounce violence?
But we see little reason to expect it.
Denial and lies certainly aren’t helping.

14
Dec

A TREATY FOR AUSTRALIA? let’s not get rushed into it.

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Justice, Multiculturalism, Politics

Should Australia as a nation make a treaty with its Aboriginal inhabitants?
The Oxford Dictionary says a treaty is “a formally concluded and ratified agreement between states”.
Is the Aboriginal community a “state” in the sense that it isn’t part of the Australian state, and therefore is able to make a treaty with the Australian state?
Would making of some kind of agreement between the two — and calling it a “treaty” — in fact, alter what the Aboriginal community is?
Would it lead to those parts of the continent currently defined as “native title” being separated off to create a previously non-existent, now internationally recognised, “black state”?
Is that what “treaty” advocates really want?
Is it true that the land thus lost to the general Australian community could involve 60 per cent of the Australian continent?
Wouldn’t that be divisive rather than inclusive — the opposite of “reconciliation” which hopefully means the restoration of friendly relations?
It’s too easy to go on arguing forever about historical past events – or non-events – and worrying about who will corner whatever compensation-money will be claimed….
Looking to the future we seem to need treaty-free reconciliation.
That must start inside the mind of every Australian.