Tuesday, March 29, 2016

It is NOT Paranoia.

"You are not paranoid, son", said the shrink to the chap on the couch, "there really are people out to get you".

That was the punchline to a joke in the Oz room. And for some people it is not a joke but the realistic appraisal of their situation.

By the Lord Harry it was busy in the Tavern today. And here am I trying to get my packing done in readiness for my move down the mountain, too. That move will be next week and there is so much sorting out of 'stuff' to do, packing boxes of treasure and making piles of things to give away. It has to be, as the quarters I am moving to are tiny and cramped. I might have mentioned that already. It is on my mind ! 

The 'Movers' will be coming to get me in fewer than ten days now.

Meanwhile there are those who have noticed that far more violent movers are besieging nice folk all around the world. And it is time we all took more notice. Not just violent muslims but 'ordinary' people in our own Governments and down the road.
Enemy at the Gates

Two staunch fighters stood up to tell. One in the Oz room and one in the US room. Both were very clear about who was under attack, who the enemy was. 

Indeed, one, Angela Shanahan, (a fine Catholic gal) turned it around and looked at it initially from above the fray.
Christians: the real enemy 
of modern-day progressives 
Which religion is the most persecuted in the world? 
Today, Christianity is by far the most widely persecuted religion in the world.
Until recently, I thought most people knew this. Think about the number of countries in which Christianity has been oppressed to the point of near -extinction, particularly in the Middle East, where Christianity began and predates Islam; in Africa, where the Muslim-Christian fault line is most pronounced; or in parts of Asia, where Christianity has a long history of almost continuous persecution in places such as China and North Korea.
Recently, when reading about the reaction to John Allen’s book The Global War on Christians, I realised many people, especially the young, don’t know this. 
Even when they are given the facts, they seem loath to believe it and often cite the cultural dominance of Christianity, which they forget is a purely Western phenomenon.
The murder of Syrian Christians by Islamic State was the first many people knew of the existence of Christians in the Middle East. So why don’t we hear more about this persecution? 
More pointedly, what happened to the high-minded notion of accepting 12,000 mainly Christian refugees from the Middle East, especially Syria and Iraq? 
Where are they?
Then there are families such as the Naeems, a Christian family of nine that has been stuck in Beirut for more than a year and has a relative in Canberra. The Naeems have had their documents for refugee status tentatively approved but have been told they must wait another 12 to 18 months to get an interview. 
These are people trying to operate through legal channels. 
Can it be the liberal secular media, after showing due outrage about the persecution of Christians under Islamic State, has lost interest in the fate of these people?
I don’t think one can simply blame the media but many of us wonder why we are still not seeing more Christians in the intake. Perhaps there is victim overload. 
We live in a thoroughly libertarian milieu in which everyone is a victim, with their own rights ideology. 
Most of the time these rights are just wants, so real victims such as persecuted Christians challenge that hollow sense of entitlement.
But there is more. 
The Christian religion is seen by some political and social elites as the one great obstacle to the elevation of human wants into human rights. 
So who cares about them? It is easy to make noises about Islamic State, but for progressives the real enemy seems to be Christianity.
The result is the “soft” persecution of Christians in the West who speak out against progressive ideologies. 
Use is made of the human rights apparatus and anti-discrimination law. Look at the continuing persecution of Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous for merely enunciating Catholic teaching on marriage. Similar things have happened in continental Europe and Britain. This sort of soft persecution goes to the heart of freedom of religion.
And Christians from societies where the family is paramount, marriage is sacred and who have suffered real persecution for their faith are hardly likely to support things such as same-sex marriage.
To paraphrase Gough Whitlam, [St. Gough of the church of the Lefty Wannabe] people such as the Naeems would be seen by progressives in and out of government as “the Balts” (right-wing reactionaries) of the Middle East. 
No wonder the promised influx of Syrian Christians has not materialised.
What many may not realise is that religious freedom is the foundation of political freedom.
Last year at a conference on religious freedom, Attorney-General George Brandis said: “Religious freedom is every bit as important as political freedom. To those who are adherents of a religious faith — and in Australia, according to the last census, that was seven among every 10 of us — religion can be the most fundamental source of our sense of right and wrong, and of those beliefs about mankind and his place in the cosmos which transcend the everyday. It is often not appreciated in our Western tradition that modern notions of political liberty had their origins largely in the struggles for religious liberty.”
When a perverted idea of liberty, one that elevates wants to rights, strikes at religious freedom, it strikes at the heart of freedom itself.
One could easily see the put-upon Naeems thinking that someone is out to get them, and they could well be right. When they do get here they may need to see a friendly shrink to deal with their PTSD.

I feel the same sometimes. I get comments (the Bouncer deals with them) vociferously denouncing the Tavern for being Catholic !!

Then the words of Matt Walsh were heard down the corridor. He was more expansive. To him, War had been declared. I can see where he is coming from and who is out to get him.

Matt is a little annoyed that a State Governor is making an arsehole of himself.

No donkeys, no asses, just Arseholes
Make a note here to see that it is not Muslim mosques being discussed. Nor Temples for Buddha. The focus is tight.
Pay Attention, Christians. 
They’re Coming After The Churches Now.
It may be a matter of some interest to you that the American left is now openly declaring its intention to shutdown your church and outlaw your religious expression entirely. 
If you’ve been paying attention, you won’t be terribly shocked by this revelation. They plan to come after the churches. That’s what they’ve always wanted, and now they intend to do it.
The hysterical reaction to Georgia’s religious liberty bill can be interpreted no other way. 
Gov. Nathan Deal has now decided — just one day after Easter, no less — to veto the bill because the outrage was so severe, and because he has the resiliency and backbone of a dead slug melting in the sun. 
That's no Halo !
In his statement explaining his decision,  Deal insisted that religious liberty doesn’t  include the right to “discriminate against anyone.” 
He took a steadfast and courageous posture, declaring that he refuses to be intimidated by “insults and threats” from pastors, nuns, and his local baptist church. 
On the other hand, for gay groups and large progressive corporations, he will fall to his knees in trembling submission and polish their boots after they finish kicking him repeatedly in the ribs.
On a day when we hear reports of a Catholic priest being literally crucified by Islamic State because he refused to abandon his faith, perhaps we might hope Christians in this country could at least withstand mean insults and online petitions. But we’ve learned not to expect anything — not even one minuscule, microscopic shred of bravery — from Christians like Deal. 
They will surrender every time, without fail.
And that’s not to downplay the pressure he faced. It was substantial, though not enough to justify his shameful capitulation. Hollywood was leading the charge, with heavy hitters like Disney, Time Warner, Starz, The Weinstein Company, AMC, Viacom, Marvel, CBS, MGM, NBC and other companies threatening to boycott if the bill passed.
The NFL got into the action, promising to bar Atlanta from hosting the Super Bowl. Meanwhile, the league hopes to expand into China in the near future, where it’s illegal for gays to be depicted on television, much less get married in real life. But I suppose you can’t ask for moral consistency from a league that employs Greg Hardy.
Many other massive corporations like Coca-Cola and Apple came out swinging against the bill, and every major sports team in the area – the Braves, the Hawks, the Falcons — condemned it in no uncertain terms.
Naturally, all of the radical gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD shouted from the rooftops about the apocalyptic repercussions of allowing the First Amendment to continue existing in Georgia.
Virtually everyone was against this thing. And they weren’t just against it – they hated it. 
They wanted to kill it with fire and then raise it from the dead so they could kill it again. All of the most powerful leftist forces in the country despised the Georgia bill with an ungodly passion. It was dehumanizing. It was an indignity of historic proportions. It was accursed. It was anathema.
So, you’re wondering, what exactly was it?
If you didn’t know any better, judging by the universal conniption fit it provoked, you’d think the bill must have mandated that all homosexuals be drowned in the sea or deported to Mozambique. If that were the case, I’d understand why it worked dozens of billion dollar companies into such a fantastic tizzy. But, contrary to reports, that’s not what the bill was designed to do. Not exactly, anyway.

In reality, the bill that the left called “horrific” and “heinous,” would have primarily accomplished the following:
-Protect a pastor from being forced to perform a gay wedding against his will.
-Protect religious organizations from being forced to host gay weddings against their will.
-Protect religious organizations from being forced to hire someone who opposes their fundamental tenets, beliefs, and goals.
There you go. That’s all, folks. 
Please, please understand that this is not about 'Religion' An arsehole of the Islamic persuasion can go around in a parade with an ISIS flag and no State Gubbunor is going to pass a Bill forbidding it..

No, its about Christians.  Love thy neighbour, it seems does not cut it the way a muslim knife can.  It is a bit of a 'progressive' riddle.

That was the whole bill, or at least the relevant portion. And it was narrower than that, in fact, because it provided loopholes and escape hatches where a court could still potentially punish an organization for “discriminating,” even if they fell into one of the above categories.
Again, this is the bill that brought upon the wrath of every liberal in the country and resulted in threats of boycotts and other punishments from many major corporations. 
This bill.
This bill, which was so narrow, so toothless, so unremarkable that I could have easily made an argument for opposing it on the grounds that it inadvertently restricted religious liberty. After all, the legislation did not protect the religious rights of private companies and private individuals. It reserved religious protections only to pastors, churches, and other specifically religious groups. Yes, protecting them would be better than protecting nobody, but the unintended consequence is a precedent where only expressly religious entities can enjoy First Amendment protections. Obviously, that’s not what the Framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind.
In any case, that’s all academic now. The important fact is that liberals opposed granting basic religious protections to religious organizations. 
It wasn’t all that long ago — like, I don’t know, six months — when leftists were still insisting that only religious organizations should have religious rights. 
Remember, when the country debated the Indiana law or any of the various cases involving bakers and photographers and so on, liberals said over and over again that if the companies in question were conspicuously and officially “religious,” they wouldn’t have a problem with gays being “discriminated against” on religious grounds.
Many of us tried to point out, first of all, the First Amendment applies to everyone, and second of all, this would put us on a slippery slope. 
Soon, we warned, leftists would come after the churches and the pastors, too. Liberals said we were being ridiculous and paranoid.
And now here we are.
So, which part of this bill was everyone so upset about?
Do they think the government should force a priest to officiate a lesbian wedding at gun point?
Or do they think the government should be able to pry open the doors of a Baptist church and invite a couple of gays to hold their reception in the basement regardless of what the congregation thinks?
Or do they think a private Christian school should be shutdown if it refuses to hire a religion teacher who actively and loudly opposes the very beliefs and doctrines she’s being hired to instill in her students?
Which is it? All of it? These companies — the NFL, Disney, CBS, Apple, etc — must be advocating for one or all of those scenarios. 
They are repulsed at the notion that religious liberty would exist anywhere in the country, including inside churches and private Christian schools. 
They believe that a gay man’s basic human rights are being trampled and destroyed if he does not have the power to force his local Methodist preacher into indentured servitude. 
As I said, there is no other way to interpret the protests. 
If one objects to a bill, it must be assumed that one objects to the specific content of the bill. Therefore, liberals specifically object to churches, pastors, and religious groups being granted religious liberty. And if they cannot have religious liberty, who can?
There is no coherent Constitutional argument you could make against a bill that protects the right of a religious group to be a religious group. In no universe would it make sense to claim that a man has a right to use the facilities of, or be employed by, an organization whose fundamental tenets he actively opposes and defies. 
Leftists are smart enough to know this, but they find the Christian faith so abhorrent that they believe an exception must be made. That’s what really lies at the root of these controversies: 
their hatred for Christianity.
There is no question that a church, Christian school, pastor, etc has the Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion; and there is no question that exercising religion means abiding by the moral doctrines of your religion; and there is no question that a moral doctrine by its very nature excludes and discriminates against activities it deems immoral; and so there is no question that the free exercise of religion does absolutely guarantee “the right to discriminate.” Again, this is obvious and anyone who is not an imbecile can see it. But the left does not care. 
They simply hate Christianity and want it censored, dismantled, and expelled from the country.
The people who opposed this bill opposed, without a doubt, the very essence of the First Amendment. They just do not believe certain religions, in their current forms, should be given safe harbor anywhere within our borders. They could pretend otherwise back when they were “only” trying to strip rights from private, secular companies, but now that they’re passionately opposing the rights of religious groups to abide by their religions, the charade is over. They’re out of the fascist closet now — although they were never convincingly in it to begin with.
I didn’t quite expect our culture to make the transition from “only religious groups can be religious” to “every church must have their religious beliefs sanctioned by the government” so quickly, but I knew it was inevitable. 
This is why you cannot compromise with leftists. 
They do not want to come to an understanding — they want obedience. 
That’s all they will accept. 
Make one concession and they’ll demand another, and another, and another, unto infinity. 
Give them an inch and they’ll take your soul.
Now they want religious entities to amend their doctrines to make sodomy and same-sex “marriage” morally righteous. 
They want churches and religious organizations to strike Romans 1:26-28, Jude 1:5-8, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Corinthians 7:2, and many other passages from the Bible. 
They’ve always wanted this — they’ve always hated Christianity and they’ve never had any regard for the Bill of Rights — but now it’s all quite out in the open. 
This is not about photographers and bakers anymore. 
Christianity itself is bigoted and hateful, they believe, and those who practice it should not find shelter in post-Christian America. That’s the message you can take from the news surrounding this piece of legislation in Georgia.
Put another way: 
Batten down the hatches, Christians. 
War has been declared.
Everyone around needed some strengthening Grace after that so I was busy at the pumps for a good half-hour.

Will I ever get my packing done?

Barely had I wiped the bartop when another stout discussion start up, about Science being dependant upon Religious people. Phew ! You should have heard the commotion. But you will have to wait for the next post.



  1. I am an atheist and I value my freedom to be such I think religion is absurd and encourages sloppy thinking but I also value peoples right to believe what they choose. There is far too much PC victimhood going on these days .. if you are gay and want to get married do so but don't expect to do so in a church that does not accept such things ... if you want a wedding cake go to a friendly baker (never upset the people who deal with your food). Nothing could be simpler Let Christians be Christians let Muslims be Muslims but don't force your beliefs on others or persecute them ... that just makes everyone angry with you and that will eventually bring you trouble by the truckload ... you can bank on that.
    John Westfield aka Dingoanna

    1. I am not an atheist and I agree with you. So welcome to the Tavern and have a drink on the house. I do not see any Christians going around insisting that people do what they say. I do see a lot of people going around telling Christians what they can and cannot do. I would happily let many of those do as they wish and leave me alone but some go as far as to demand I be beheaded ! That is a tad too far, frankly. But even those who are elected to serve us seem to think they can ride roughshod over Christians. It has to stop before I get really annoyed. I am happy to discuss in a polite fashion almost any 'belief' and give it the respect it deserves (sometimes that is not a lot ! ) and even an atheist is welcome to come in here, have a drink and respect the carpets.

  2. This was always going to come and no one will come to a Christian's aid. Niemoeller had it right.

    1. Some muscularity is needed in the Chritian world. If we are to die by a sword to the neck, we may as well have one in the hand too and get in a few strokes first.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..