And I am not refering to localised areas like the middle east where Christians are being eradicated with extreme violence by Muslims with barely a western political voice being raised in protest, let alone any attempt being made to stop it.
No, I am thinking more of the marxist-dominated media and polity in the Anglophile countries. True, there are few political voices specifically denigrating Christians out loud as a matter of National Policy apart say from perhaps that gross chap Obama who seems to praise Muslims and condemn Christians with every other speech. But the rest of the Prime Ministers and Premiers, Presidents and Pissants fall over forwards to present their backsides to the Muslims, abjuring us to 'accept' them, invite them in, take them in, fund their Mosques and protect their sensibilities from the rational 'Islamophobia' of western peoples that arises from Islamic behaviour.
It is happening in the broad and in the particular, and two chaps stood in the bars, one is the US room and one in the Oz room to point out instances. First up was David Limbaugh.
Demonizing Christianity as a Global MenaceCan you believe anyone even organizes a "white privilege" conference these days — seven years into Barack Obama's presidency? Well, you'd better believe it, and you should also know that at least one of the speakers at this conference is militantly Christophobic.
The 17th annual White Privilege Conference was held in Philadelphia from April 15 to 17. Blake Neff of The Daily Caller attended the conference and reported that "activist and author Paul Kivel" actually claimed that "almost every dysfunction in society, from racism and sexism to global warming and a weak economy, is united by the ideology of 'Christian hegemony.'"
What's the problem, you ask? Well, in the United States, according to Kivel, between 7,000 and 10,000 predominantly white Christian men run the major institutions and "colonize our mind" with Christianity's core ideas, which leads to most of the world's problems.Kivel identified three particularly severe problems in the modern world that are caused or worsened by Christianity. First are wars in the Middle East, which he says are a result of Christianity's effort to spread Western ideas and influence.The Bible does direct Christians to spread the "good news" to the ends of the earth (Matthew 28:18-20). But Christianity started in the Middle East and spread outward from there. By A.D. 100, the Christian church had been established in regions throughout the Mediterranean, largely because of the Apostle Paul's missionary journeys (Acts 16-20) and the evangelism of Peter, John and others.The Middle East has switched hands countless times throughout history — Romans, Byzantines, Persians, Seljuk Turks, Mongols, Ottomans, British, French, Italians and others.Perhaps Kivel had in mind America's wars with Iraq in the past quarter-century and our effort to plant self-rule in the region.
Hmmmm. Nowhere else have I seen the 'invisible hand' of the Market, described as God-like. Still, straw men are the favourite men for leftists, especially the 'Patriarchal' straw one.Though the wisdom of our nation-building effort can certainly be debated, our involvement is hardly the reason for the age-old conflicts in the Middle East, which, in all likelihood, will continue as long as the world does.The second problem Kivel attributed to Christianity is the economic destruction it has caused because, wrote Neff, "it provides that God-like 'invisible hand' that supposedly drives market forces within a flawed capitalist system."
Hmmmm again. I have not seen even Christian churches speak out against the great AGW con. To the contrary. Another deception.It is tragic that the left has successfully rewritten history to demonize capitalism as the source of poverty rather than the great engine of unprecedented prosperity it has been for the United States, the Western world and beyond.Kivel identified the third problem as Christianity's conflict with "global warming," wrote Neff, "because under Christianity mankind has dominion over the Earth, rather than requiring that humans treat the Earth itself as 'sacred.'" Interestingly, Kivel is lexiconically challenged, as he failed to use the proper terminology for this vexing menace — "climate change."
Here we have to count the lies and attribute them. The Prince of Lies seems a likely candidate for Kivel's drivel.The Bible gives man dominion over all other living things (Genesis 1:28), but it does not sanction man's abuse of the environment or other creatures. The Bible does not exhort mankind to deify "Mother Earth" as radical environmentalists do. But it does promote prudent stewardship, from the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) to God's commanding that the fields and vineyards be sown and harvested for six years but left fallow in the seventh year to replenish the soil's nutrients (Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:1-7).Christianity, argued Kivel, also orients us to distinguish between good and evil, which forces us to adopt a "with us or against us" mentality. "There's nothing inherently good or bad about the weather or about people," Kivel insisted.
I'll concede that though the weather can be a destructive force, it is not capable of good or evil. But yes, the Bible definitely distinguishes between good and evil, and it is quite clear that all men are fallen.Next, Kivel made the irrational leap that to distinguish between good and evil leads to condemnation of various things as worthy of destruction. From my perspective, however,
it is not Christians but leftists such as Kivel who are most intolerant toward people and ideas of other religions or secularists.
Finally, Kivel castigated Christianity's "hierarchical" views that place "God over people, men over women, parents over children, (and) white people over people of color," which, in his view, inevitably leads to systems that justify or glorify oppression.The Bible does — big surprise — place God (the Creator) over man (the creature), and it places parents over their children for the purpose of raising them through their formative years — an idea no doubt shocking to such leftists.
But it does not teach that there are differences in human dignity; all people (male and female) are created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), which is intrinsically irrespective of race.
It was Andy Bolt's turn next. He is almost a lone voice trying to determine the difference between truth and lies, clarity and obfusction in a long running and nasty sore that inhabits the Oz political and Social marshland. The Child Abuse Bogyman.It is rich for Kivel to argue that the Bible glorifies racial oppression when Christians were the leaders in the anti-slavery movement.Before you dismiss all this as the thinking of a fringe leftist, please consider that it is a logical extension of "progressive" thinking that liberals, especially in the universities and the media, engage in every day. Indeed, it would be intellectually dishonest to deny that leftist race- and gender-baiting, as well as capitalism-bashing, permeate our university curricula throughout the United States. Everything involves identity categories — race, gender, income and the rest. Ironically, the left's obsession over race, gender and the like tends to diminish, rather than promote, human dignity and individuality.Despite the skewed thinking and propaganda of leftists such as Kivel, Christianity, as abundant evidence demonstrates, has been a force of good in this world and continues to be.
Kivel has big balls. He prefers the Big Lie and goes after every Christian for all the ills of the world. In Oz, the left is after just one, and then spreads the calumny to all the others by association. And it isn't the plethora of 'christians' that they have in the USA, with shades from lily white to the black-hearted businessmen pastors who rook millions from the sentimentally gullible. In Oz we have Catholics and 'other ranks'. In the military there are the 'Catholics' and the O.Ds, the 'other denominations'. The Catholics are the Officers.
Andy was almost alone in following objectively the saga of Cardinal Pell, who many will know was the main Catholic Churchman to tackle the scandal of abuse by priests. Other news reporters took and continue to take a biased and condemnatory stance, even to the point of presenting only one side of the story and tailoring the facts to fit their agenda.
He is particularly incenced by the attitudes of the leftist media which includes our National Broadcaster, the ABC. Not just he this time but Gerard Henderson too.
Do not trust what Marr and the ABC just said about Pell
I have said it before:
CARDINAL George Pell is the victim of one of the most vicious witch hunts to disgrace this country.
It is shameful. Disgusting. Frightening.
The latest appalling example? Not surprisingly, it’s from David Marr and the ABC.
Gerard Henderson explains:
""At issue was the question as to whether Cardinal George Pell – when an auxiliary bishop in Melbourne in the late 1980s/early 1990s – had been deceived by the Catholic Education Office (CEO) in Melbourne with respect to the pedophile priest Peter Searson.""
Pell had given evidence that the Catholic Education Office, which knew of Searson’s history of offending, had kept much of that information from him when he was the auxilliary Bishop in Melbourne.
Note that. Even within the Catholic Church there are 'political' divisions which mirror the secular sphere. Golly, I wonder how that came about !!He said his boss, Archbishop Frank Little, had also kept information from him while shielding Searson. Little and the Catholic Education Office, incidentally, were hostile to Pell as a conservative.
On April 27, four former members of the Catholic Education Office gave evidence - Monsignor Thomas Michael Doyle, Peter Charles Annett, Allan David Dooley and Catherine Agnes Briant.
""It is not surprising that all four did not agree that they had deliberately withheld information about Searson’s sexual crimes from (then) Bishop Pell. This led to the following excited report by David Marr in The Guardian Australia:""Now four retired executives of the Catholic Education Office have come to the royal commission to describe their shock, surprise, disappointment and anger at Pell’s evidence…All four men and women said the same thing: there was no conspiracy to deceive Pell, no understanding to keep the lid on the Searson scandal, and no reason to soft-pedal the ongoing crisis in Doveton. They wanted Searson gone but Pell was no help.Introducing the ABC PM program on Wednesday, presenter Mark Colvin made the following comment:Mark Colvin: At the child sexual abuse royal commission, several witnesses have contradicted George Pell’s evidence that he wasn’t briefed on the behaviour of a paedophile priest in the late 1980s and early ‘90s.Last month, Cardinal Pell testified that he’d been deceived by officials of Melbourne’s Catholic Education Office. He alleged they wanted to cover up concerns about Father Peter Searson. One witness today said the Cardinal was wrong. Another said he was angered by the evidence of Australia’s most senior Catholic…The reporting by both Mr Marr and Mr Colvin was completely misleading.
Moreover, neither reported that not one of the four witnesses said that they had informed George Pell at the time about Searson’s crimes with respect to children.
- Monsignor Doyle said that he “did not remember ever having a discussion or attending any briefings of Bishop Pell concerning Father Searson when he [Pell] was a Regional Bishop” in Melbourne.
- Mr Dooley said he never raised Searson’s sexual offending with (then) Bishop Pell.- Mr Annett said that he never raised any matter concerning Searson or the Catholic Education Office with (then) Bishop Pell.- Ms Briant said that she had never met George Pell or attended any meetings at which he was present. Moreover, Ms Briant said that, when employed by the CEO, she was not aware of any allegations of child sexual abuse with respect to Searson in the Doveton parish.The most telling part of the proceedings – ignored by David Marr, Mark Colvin and other journalists who reported the proceedings – was the following exchange between Sam Duggan [Pell’s barrister] and Monsignor Doyle (who acknowledged that he and George Pell disagreed on some issues of theology).MR DUGGAN: Monsignor, my name is Duggan and I represent Cardinal Pell. Monsignor, as I understand your evidence, your view, from about the mid-1980s, was that Searson should be removed from his parish; is that right?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: Yes, certainly.MR DUGGAN: And in fact, both you and other personnel at the Catholic Education Office had recommended to the Archbishop [Frank Little] decisive action to remove him?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: Yes.
|Colvin, ignoring the evidence.|
Now, you would think that any reasonable reporter would draw attention the all of that, for simply transparency's sake. But not the ABC. Not the lefties who are out to destroy the Catholic Cardinal. Ignore the evidence and paint him as an abuser.MR DUGGAN: And notwithstanding those recommendations, for more than a decade nothing was done by Archbishop Little to either remove him or suspend him; is that right?
MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.
MR DUGGAN: Can I suggest to you that the main problem was that the power to remove resided with one man – do you accept that?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: I accept that, yes.MR DUGGAN: And unfortunately, it wasn’t you because you would have removed him; is that right?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.MR DUGGAN: Now, you were still the director of the education office in 1996 when Archbishop Pell took over [from Frank Little]?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.MR DUGGAN: And you would have been aware that, in the first months of him taking that office, he appointed the Independent Commissioner?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.MR DUGGAN: And one of the roles of the Independent Commissioner was to investigate complaints of sexual abuse by priests?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.MR DUGGAN: And one of the first priests to be referred to the Independent Commissioner was Searson, wasn’t he?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: I would think so, but I couldn’t say that definitely, that I knew that.MR DUGGAN: Well, do you recall this: Archbishop Pell took over in mid-1996 and by March 1997 Searson had been suspended?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct. That’s right.MR DUGGAN: That was the sort of decisive action, wasn’t it, that you had been waiting a decade to occur?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s right.MR DUGGAN: So you must have been both pleased and relieved not only for yourself but, more importantly, for the people of Holy Family Doveton, that that action had been taken by Archbishop Pell; is that right?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: Mmm, yes.MR DUGGAN: Now, had Archbishop Pell been the Archbishop of Melbourne in the mid 1980s and you recommended to him, as you did Archbishop Little, that Searson be removed, based on those events, would you agree that Searson would likely have been removed a decade earlier?MONSIGNOR DOYLE: Yes.MR DUGGAN: I have no further questions, thank you.
|Omar wrote it better!|
Neither Justice Peter McClellan nor Counsel Assisting Gail Furness SC queried Monsignor Doyle’s testimony…
None of this evidence was covered by David Marr in The Guardian Australia or Mark Colvin on PM or by other journalists who reported the proceedings.
This suggests that George Pell is a target of so many journalists not because of what he did or did not do – but..
because he is a conservative Catholic of traditional belief.
I apologise to Henderson for lifting so much of his post, but what he reveals is important and the media misreporting needs maximum exposure.
You see, once the ABC is part of a Leftist witch hunt to destroy someone it is almost impossible to get the other side of story through to its massive audience.
Not to mention the massive budget coerced from the taxpayer.Injustice is done and is almost impossible to remedy, given the size, overwhelming bias and groupthink of the ABC.
This old Tavern Keeper has had his share of enemies over a long life. I say, 'Father forgive them' even though I know for a fact that many knew exactly what they were doing. But by crikey it is hard to be forgiving of ones enemies; nevertheless we much start with that intent and work toward it as best we can if we are ever to be Saints.
And, of course, defend ourselves and our reputations.
For a Catholic (and for other Christians too) it is worth asking.... If you were arrested and charged with being a Catholic, would there be enough evidence to convict you?
Try to answer that soon, because it looks as though it will not be long before you are arrested. 'Tis better to be hanged as a Saint than a sinner. The genocide of Christians in the middle east is not likely to be confined to that wasteland.