Australia
While an Islamist blows up non-Islamists in Manchester, Australian television is consumed with former tennis great, Margaret Court’s
view on so-called same-sex marriage! Court quotes the Bible on this issue and the media goes crazy.
Why is this? The Bible and biology shows that a family can only be produced through a man and a woman! If two male sodomites wish to have children a woman MUST be involved. The same with two lesbians; a male MUST be involved! Nevertheless, the media seek to push this agenda upon society as if it is normal.
Many on the sodomite side are saying the majority of Australians are for same-sex marriage. That is yet to be proven but even if the majority is for such a thing does it make it right? It is interesting that Channel Ten which puts on The Project is having some financial problems and one wonders if those financial problems are due to programmes such as The Project?
What seems pharsical is when a Muslim on The Project derides Margaret Court for her view while others of his Islamic religion are throwing sodomites off 
roofs. Does The Project’s Muslim Waleed Aly really believe what is being promoted on The Project?
Perhaps, the issue of so-called same-sex marriage is really just a smoke screen for other issues that will raise their ugly anti-Bible head after so-called same-sex marriage is foisted upon society?
The humble ice cream man has gotten into the so-called same sex marriage lie. I do not believe they are correct but the Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Company in Australia say that ‘In Australia, 72% of the population supports Marriage Equality, so why haven’t our leaders acted? Before the next parliamentary sitting on June 13th, it is time to stand up for fair and equal rights for all by letting our leaders know that we demand Marriage Equality!
Imagine heading down to your local Scoop Shop to order your favourite two scoops of Cookie Dough in a waffle cone. But you find out you are not allowed – Ben & Jerry’s has banned two scoops of the same flavour. You’d be furious! Don’t live near a scoop shop – no problem! You can sign up through the Equality Campaign’s website here.
But this doesn’t even begin to compare to how furious you would be if you were told you were not allowed to marry the person you love. So we are banning two scoops of the same flavor and encouraging our fans to contact their MPs to tell them that the time has come – make marriage equality legal! Love comes in all flavours!’ http://www.benandjerry.com.au/whats-new/l
Two scoops of Vanilla, please!
What is it, if you tell a lie long enough people will believe it? The theory of Evolution has proven that true so now it is the LBGTIAUVWK crowd’s turn.
‘Silence from us pesky Christians is what elites want.
We have no business putting forward an alternative vision for marriage and gender, we were told not once, but twice this week.
The new Australia they are trying to create excludes a Christian worldview from the public square.
First there was Labor Senate Leader Penny Wong asserting that separation of church and state meant Christians should stay out of the marria
ge and “safe schools” debates.
Really? Why should one group of Australians be disbarred from debate about laws which affect children and freedoms while other Australians are allowed to participate?
Separation of church and state is important but it was never designed to exclude religious people from public policy debates. Penny Wong should know better.
All Australians should be free to have their say on any issue – especially marriage and “safe schools”.
But it is frightening for free speech in this country that no-one pulled her up.
Media were quite happy to report her critique of ACL, but our reply was ignored.
Secondly, news broke at the weekend that the Australian Medical Association is campaigning to redefine marriage because it is a mental health issue.
Dr John Hayes kindly provided me a copy of this letter he has sent to a major newspaper.
Dear Sir,
The Federal AMA leadership has lost credibility by claiming that denying homosexuals the right to marry is detrimental to their mental health. This is pure spin and has no scientific basis. The truth is the AMA has capitulated to intense Media pressure from the Gay Lobby, led by former AMA president, Dr Kerryn Phelps, whose comment that “Christians now have nowhere to hide” is sectarian bigotry unbecoming of a former AMA president.
Ordinary AMA members were denied a vote on this issue, whereas in 2016, members were given a say and overwhelmingly rejected Euthanasia.
Regards,
Dr John Hayes, AMA member
I’ve met Dr Kerryn Phelps. We were on the ABC1’s Q&A program together. Off camera, we got along well despite our disagreement about redefining marriage.
Her comment at the weekend that “Christians have nowhere to hide” is a worry.
We need to be determined not to hide. This is a time to have courage and to speak up for the truth about marriage and why gender diversity in it matters.’ http://www.acl.org.au/why_we_need_to_speak_up_while_we_can?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eNews%2023%20May%202017&utm_content=eNews%2023%20May%202017+CID_825f846005b996499a64ace7f659ec7f&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read%20Lyles%20blog
Andrew Bolt wrote ‘Westpac, freaked by green activists, says it won’t invest in mines in new coal regions to save the world from global warming.
But what hypocrites:
WESTPAC … a worse greenhouse gas polluter than some of Australia’s biggest manufacturers.
The bank released its latest climate change action plan on Friday, ruling out finance for mines in new coal regions such as the giant Carmichael project planned by Adani for central Queensland’s Galilee Basin…
Official figures reported to the federal Clean Energy Regulator show carbon dioxide emissions related to the bank’s operations totalled 148,723 tonnes in 2015-16, equivalent to 29,000 cars.
Most of it is indirect pollution from energy used to run massive data centres. That is the highest level of any of the country’s big four banks – 45 per cent more than the Commonwealth.
But it also overshadows manufacturing companies such as Arnott’s Biscuits, brewer Foster’s, frozen food producer McCain, dairy giant Parmalat Australia and even carmaker General Motors.
Westpac was responsible for more emissions than fast food chain McDonald’s and infrastructure operations including Gladstone Ports and the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal near Mackay.
Westpac has just proved that motly activists prepared to crash its parties can have a massive effect. It has now set itself up for further blackmail. What next? No investment in gas? Cancelling the back accounts of people who work in uranium mining? Banning finance for fatty foods?
Westpac has just declared it will not invest in money making things if activists claim (faslely) they are a sin. Is our future safe when a bank bans investment in projects that create jobs and revenue? Is the bank itself a good investment when it puts scare campaigns above reason?
Resources Minister Matt Canavan tries some pressure of his own:
Senator Canavan has called for a customer boycott of the bank.
“Apparently, everyone else should cut emissions but them,” he said.’
‘Mr Dreyfus has confirmed that if Labor is elected to government he will be considering
imposing a general standard for speech that infringes anti-discrimination law.
Under Labor’s proposal, advocates of same-sex marriage would be empowered, for example, to take legal action under 18C-style laws if they felt offended or insulted by those who publicly defended the traditional definition of marriage. Those at risk would include priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders who publicly oppose same-sex marriage.
Labor’s 
proposal also opens the prospect that debate over the cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme could be truncated because of the risk of litigation by those who might feel offended or insulted.
Mr Dreyfus outlined Labor’s thinking during a panel discussion on Wednesday last week with Liberal backbencher Tim Wilson, hosted by the Jewish Community Council of Victoria.
In the video of the event, Mr Dreyfus said a Labor government hoped to consolidate all federal anti-discrimination legislation and would consider whether there should be a general standard for the type of speech that would attract liability under that law. At the moment, separate federal laws make it unlawful to discriminate against people because of their race, age, sex and sexual orientation, disability and indigeneity.
When Mr Dreyfus was asked by an audience member if section 18C should be extended to cover gender and disability, he said Mr Wilson had reminded him of the “failed project which I hope to return to of consolidating the five anti-discrimination statutes when we are next in government”.
“One of the things we’ll be looking at is this very point of whether or not we should set a standard about speech generally,” Mr Dreyfus said.
“I want to have standards set in a community which respect the dignity of every Australian. I think it’s very important and something to be fought for.”
When asked yesterday about his remarks, Mr Dreyfus said Labor would never support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
“The consolidation of discrimination law was a policy of the Gillard Labor government,” he said. “My discussion of this issue last week was clearly hypothetical, and is not relevant to the current proposed changes to section 18C which will do nothing but weaken protections against racial hate speech in this country.”
Labor’s proposal has come to light at a time when the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with a surge in complaints by those claiming to have been offended and insulted under section 18C. Section 18C makes it unlawful to do anything that causes people to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour or national or ethnic background.’ http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/
In Australia the left leaning ABC’s ‘…Q&A panellists launched into an emotive discussion around freedom of speech, largely powered by the absence of controversial anti-Islamic activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was due to appear as a member of Monday night’s panel.
While the exact “security concerns”, among other reasons, that led to Ms Hirsi Ali’s 
cancelled Australian tour remain unconfirmed, Federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg blamed it on the need to reform Section 18C to “protect and promote freedom of speech”.
“It is very regrettable people have sought to prevent her coming to Australia because they see her as the enemy of tolerance. I see her as an enemy of intolerance,” Mr Frydenberg said.
“Personally I don’t agree with everything that she has said about Islam but … she sends a very powerful message as well about how secular laws should be above Sharia law.
“My view is she would have received a lot of support here in Australia for airing what are somewhat controversial views. And she should be allowed to speak her mind and people who disagree with her should be able to challenge that. That’s the point of a free country like Australia.”
But Q&A host Tony Jones suggested the security concerns were exaggerated, citing a petition which expressed “disappointment” in response to Ms Hirsi Ali’s Australian tour that attracted fewer than 400 signatories.
Mr Frydenberg said he was “shocked” that the petition had garnered the support of psychologists, doctors, lawyers and community activists; all in agreement that she should not visit Australia and speak her mind.
Shadow Human Rights Minister Linda Burney said she found Mr Frydenberg’s comments “ironic”.
“It seems a little ironic that the party that was arguing against freedom of speech would propose it here tonight,” she said.
The Australian editor-at-large Paul Kelly agreed Ms Hirsi Ali’s absence was “a great shame”.
“I do think that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people would have been prepared to welcome her to this country. I am disturbed at the fact we have a petition signed by about 400 people, some of them quite prominent, suggesting that she should not come to this country.
“I think this is contrary to the fundamental values of Australian democracy.
“This is a courageous and inspiring woman. Now I don’t agree with all her positions, but she certainly raised fundamental questions about Islam which we should be prepared to debate as a society, debate and confront frankly.”
Former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said freedom of speech should have no limits.
“Of course she should have the right to come to Australia to put her points of view across,” she said.
“This is what democracy is all about.”
While Nobel Peace Prize winner and social entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus said he agreed that everyone had the right to speak freely, he moved that there should be limitation when opinions were reduced to insults.
“You can come up with your opinion about certain aspects of Islam and so on. But that should not go into a level of inciting people, and kind of bringing intolerance into the discussion. The key thing is intolerance … You do it in a friendly way.
“Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the licence to insult somebody, cut down the respect and the feelings of other people.”
Ms Thorning-Schmidt argued that if freedom of speech was limited, it could silence people trying to bring about important social change.
“When women were fighting for their rights in the ’60s and ’70s, I think a lots of people thought they had a very insulting tone to some of the men they were fighting against,” she said.
“I think you have to use a language — not an insulting language if you can avoid it — but you can’t limit freedom of speech. But you can be responsible for how you use it … That’s what is lacking in the world.”’ http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/04/03/ayaan-hirsi-alis-absence-freedom-speech/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170404_TND
Is Ayaan Ali anti-Islam as much as she is pro-free speech and women’s rights? Australia has a very small percentage of Muslims but they carry a lot of clout and therefore people such as Ali and Gert Wilder receive death threats and much opposition when they come to Australia. So much for freedom of speech!
The following is thought provoking so some may find it hard to read just as they find thinking hard!
‘The United States has become a cesspool as it relates to the covering of women. However, the nakedness of women seems also to be a symbol of Americanism today as much as apple pie, kind of like the following, “Our women take their clothes off, and we’re proud of it.” As this relates to Islam, we’re not like those nasty Moslem countries that force their women to cover themselves either with the burqa or the hijab. The hijab brings an American gag reflex and the burqa induces all out vomiting. On the other hand, flag waving and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue now parallel one another. The patriotism of this goes back to wartime pinups of women, I guess, to motivate these men to sacrifice themselves or at least to provide distraction from their fears or anxieties.
The hijab and burqa are distinguishing garments in Islam. They reflect Moslem teaching on 
modesty for women. They don’t have identical rules for men, because they distinguish between men and women. Is this good? It’s not wrong for sure. You could argue from the Bible that it is right to do so.
As I think about what scripture says about female dress, the following is how I see these two articles of clothing. One, the Bible doesn’t require the hijab or the burqa. Two, the Bible doesn’t say that a woman would be 
superior or a better person or more moral because she wore a hijab or a burqa. Three, the Bible doesn’t forbid the hijab or the burqa. Four, there are similar principles in the Bible for the hijab or the burqa as there are in Islam. Five, the biblical principles themselves don’t require a hijab or burqa, but they do require something for women similar to the hijab or burqa.
I’m saying here that the hijab or burqa are not a good argument against Islam by Americans, either liberal or conservative. Neither of these are forbidden in the United States. Women can wear them if they want. Men
can’t force women to wear them in the United States. However, in European countries, those bastions of freedom and expression, that’s what they want to outlaw. They don’t want the burqa or the burqini, the Moslem beachwear.
Permit me to digress for a moment. I don’t like the burqa as apparel. It reflects a perverted belief and culture. As a result, I attach the hijab to the burqa, because they both come from the same source. I get a feeling of repulsion, looking at them, because I know from which they come. If I can separate myself from the religious aspect, the hijab can look nice, feminine and modest. As I tamp down the religious repulsion, as an item, I see it in a good way, because of the distinguishing nature of it. The hijab looks attractive to me when I get past what I see it represent. On the other hand, the burqa looks like something Cousin It would wear in the Addams Family. It would look stylish maybe on a weeble. I’m not for a hazmat suit as regular apparel.
I don’t think that Muslim covering on women should enter the argument against Islam. Why is it used? There’s nothing wrong with it. You shouldn’t use what’s not wrong as an argument. It presents a weak argument. There is something right about it’s underlying philosophy, distinction and modesty. I believe it is used as an argument because it’s emotional. Women will feel emotional about it. Men want to look at women’s bodies, so it works for them too. If the burqa took off as a fashion, men wouldn’t see anything except in the bedroom, and they don’t want to wait for that.
The burqa argument also works in the matter of men and women’s roles. What makes America great is that our women are free and equal to men — sure, after 1920. Before that, women couldn’t vote. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Women’s vote didn’t come up once in those books. It wasn’t even up for debate. Big laughter from Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton on the woman’s vote. Are. you. kidding. me?
The cultural degradation of America follows a trajectory that matches the dress of women. The more they dress like men and the more they take their clothes off, the more that things fall apart. We’re not better off from those activities. This is the slouch or slide toward Gomorrah.
Masculine and immodest dress on women are not better for intimacy. They are not better for solid marriages. They are not better for family cohesiveness. They are not better for family solidity. They are not better for role accomplishment. They are not better for protection for women from all sorts of crimes. Women are not better off because they can dress like men and take more clothes off.
People feel more American for opposing the burqa and allowing for the shredding fad, allowing for big rips in clothing to see through. Lingerie used to be bedroom wear alone, and now it is a regular feature of outer wear. If we replaced all of the masculine, immodest dress on women with the burqa, we wouldn’t be worse off. I’m not arguing for either. If we’re going to point the finger at one, we should be able to point the finger at the other, except that the burqa in and of itself isn’t wrong. Only women wear it and it is modest. Obviously modest. The only thing more modest are those moving blankets at UHaul, but not wrong. What I’m saying is that we’re wrong, and they’re not wrong. I’m not saying they’re right, but they are at least not wrong. We are wrong, and wrong in a big way.
The burqa isn’t what destroys Moslem society. They suffer for many other reasons. We are not helping them by using lame and hypocritical arguments against their covering of women.’ http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com
Genesis 1:26,27 ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’
Why all this recent gender questioning? Could it be open rebellion against the Creator God? What will be the result of all this gender changing in twenty or less years? God’s answer to all one’s burdens is in Matthew 11:28-30 ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light’ and accepting the truth of Psalm 139:14 ‘I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.’
This push for the LGBTQIA agenda will affect all of society and not for the better! All one has to do is see what is happening in the USA with the public restrooms! As one reads in Romans 1: 26, 27 it is “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
No, we are not stating that these who live this lifestyle should be put to death but their lifestyle is against God’s original intentions for man and woman. Therefore what they do in their own home is their business but should not be put forth as natural. It should also be understood that marriage is more than what some flaunt as “love”. Yes, the flying of the LGBTQIA flag in the lobby of the Finance Department has a political agenda and should be addressed.
whatyareckon 