What you win them with is what you win them to (part Four)

Okay now   to get down right nasty and make myself a target for every gun totting toothless moonshine drinking beer swilling redneck in Australia and the USA. ( Sorry Britain, Ireland and Scotland don’t have rednecks  they have village  idiots) With all  the terrorism and anti Islam or Islamophobia going on I thought I  would really hit a nerve.

There are a number of small movements in Australia that want Islam gone… it’s that simple. There is no such thing as a moderate peace loving Muslim who  could actually really care about another human being if they don’t submit  to Allah. Muslims are only really concerned  with underage girls, multiple wives Sharia law and how  to properly kill an animal  for food… and don’t forget taking the Quran literally where it says kill all the infidels (that’s most of us in western culture)

In the Middle East you see a different picture of Islam. Radical Islam trying to dominate moderate Islam; radical Islamic extremists blowing up other Muslims kidnapping their children and throwing gay Muslims off the top of buildings. If you listen  to the redneck culture this is every other Muslim in the Middle East; not a few radicals  that  seem  to be able  to make a lot of noise and disrupt the lives  of large numbers of people… Of course we  don’t want that here in the west it’s barbaric! So the rednecks solution is  simply  to ban Islam out right, just run them all out of the country make their religion illegal.

Has any of these yokels ever stopped  to think that if Islam was banned by law in any western country what ramifications  that might have  for freedom of religion, freedom of thought or freedom of association? If a law was passed in Australia that banned the practice of Islam it sets a precedent that can be carried over into the practice of any religion in Australia. The Roman Catholic church  for example has had a problem with child abuse, The RC church was responsible for the crusades the Spanish Inquisition and numerous other atrocities throughout history. The Reformers burned the Anabaptist’s at the stake as heretics and played a large role in the politics of the Monarchy at different times… so it appears that every major religious group has had its moment of fanaticism… do we ban them all? No! But if  you ban one group, it opens  the door  to banning them all that is the precedent it sets.

Why stop there why stop with religion? Well it has already started but not with religion. The test case has been anti association laws for outlaw biker groups in Australia; the logic  goes like this, If you’re a member of an outlaw group then you’re a criminal by default. Of course that depends on who defined what is an outlaw group and what a criminal is.

I like using the example of George Orwell’s works animal farm and 1984 to illustrate how the pressure to conform can become a religious doctrine in itself and how power can become a form of totalitarianism. Have  you ever seen a benevolent dictatorship or a truly free socialist or communist regime? All of the above exert covert or overt pressure on its members to conform. Words and actions are either approved as set by the ruling class or the establishment or they are abolished and become anathema  along with those who endorse them. The supposed ideal is equality and sameness… sameness is true  but equality is a myth.

So back  to our original thought: If you remove  the right of one group  to worship or congregate you effectively remove the right for any group  to worship or congregate. No! They argue, this is only a specific case! Sure it is; that is until the precedent is generalised to cover other groups that are seen as being subversive or anti-establishment. Did you know  that Christianity is a subversive anti-establishment group by nature. Sure the bible says  that we are  to obey our leaders and honour  those who rule over us but that is only until  those who rule over us become corrupt or openly rebel against the laws of God and the inherent rights of the people. As Christians once a Government and society cross  that line we are no longer obligated to obey.

What is especially frightening is when politicians begin saying the same thing. It is a human trait  to hyper-focus  on the parts of something without considering how that makes up a whole world view or philosophy. This is how the thing  you win someone with becomes the thing  you win them to. We accuse that other group of being radical frothing out the mouth fundamentalists without realising that the doctrine  of freedom and safety we espouse carries many of same radical elements we despise in others. We simply can’t see it because we are right and they are wrong; we are the good guys  they are the bad guys! Well take notice because it doesn’t take much to become the very thing you despise.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

One thought on “What you win them with is what you win them to (part Four)

  1. Pingback: chrissymonds65

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s