More on the 'liberated' Christian peacemaker teams

The 'liberated' Christian Peacemaker Team memebrs who have recently been freed from captivity by British troops (possibly SAS) in a joint US-British operation have been doing a little hiding of their own. One of the members was back in the closet while under the barrel of an AK-47. The problem arises when the mix of Christianity, gay activism and left-wing politics is mixed in with terrorists, the War in Iraq and American as the Great Satan. A heady brew indeed, which exemplifies the falacy of mixing left-wing libertarian politics with Christianity. It makes a mockery of "Live such good lives among the nations that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." 1 Peter 2:12. In other words, the efforts of the CPT are not worth a pinch of cold water.

As Canadian columnist Charles Adler notes:

The Christian Peacemaker Team members have been called misguided and naive. But it's clear from here that Jim Loney is only selectively naive. He could not afford to talk about his [gay] partner while in captivity and didn't.

Homosexuality in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was punishable by death. Amnesty International says the current status of gay and lesbian rights is unclear. But here are few things that are crystal clear.
1) Jim Loney only feels free to speak his mind about his sexual orientation in a country with a government that protects gay rights.
2) Christian Peacemakers claim to have gone to Iraq to prevent the coalition forces from carrying out their mission.
3) Had the the Peacemakers succeeded in keeping Saddam Hussein in power, a homosexual in Iraq would have zero hope for having an openly gay life. We know from Loney's statement made here in Canada that even he knows that the threat to gays wasn't coming from Western Imperialism.

Best of the Web Today - March 23, 2006

Some good news from Iraq: "U.S. and British forces freed one Briton and two Canadians early Thursday in a military operation, ending a four-month hostage drama in which an American among the group was shot to death and dumped on a Baghdad street earlier this month," the Associated Press reports. The ex-hostages belong to the Christian Peacemaker Teams, a group that--well, let's let the CPT explain for itself in a statement issued today:

[The ex-hostages] were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the
people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace
to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They
knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their
Iraqi and international co-workers. We believe that the illegal occupation of
Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to
this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must
end.

Today, in the face of this joyful news, our faith compels us to
love our enemies even when they have committed acts which caused great hardship
to our friends and sorrow to their families. . . .
We pray that
Christians throughout the world will, in the same spirit, call for justice and
for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being
detained illegally by the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq. During these
past months, we have tasted of the pain that has been the daily bread of
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Why have our loved ones been taken? Where are
they being held? Under what conditions? How are they? Will they be released?
When?


It's not clear whom the CPT statement means by "our enemies." But
the only enemy they seem to recognize is the U.S. and its allies, whose
"occupation" of Iraq is the "root cause" of the ex-hostages' captivity, and
whose detention of "thousands of Iraqis" they liken to their own kidnapping and
(in one case) murder by terrorists.

But if the CPT is going to "love our enemies," the least it could
do is thank them. The statement does not acknowledge that the hostages were
rescued by U.S. and British servicemen, or indeed that they were rescued at all;
it refers mysteriously to their having been "released," as if the kidnappers
themselves had decided to let them go.

This seems to run deeper than a case of simple ingratitude. There is a whole strange worldview at work here--a theology, if you will. We don't claim to understand it fully, but it seems to equate America as the root of all evil and America's adversaries as Edenic creatures--innocents who know not good or evil and thus bear no culpability for their bad actions.

If we have this right, it follows that the CPT Christians see themselves, by virtue of their faith, as being forgiven for being American, or for being from another nation that America has corrupted. This is why they cannot be grateful to, or forgiving of, America: For them that would amount to thanking or forgiving sin itself.

What would we do without studies (1)

MORE than one in three Australians admit to knowing nothing about Islam and its followers, a study has found.

When people were asked to demonstrate what they did know, the proportion that revealed complete ignorance of the practices and beliefs of Muslims was even higher.

The findings are from a study carried out by Kevin Dunn, a geographer at the University of NSW, published today in Studia Islamika, the Indonesian journal for Islamic studies.
Understanding of the religion was so poor among some of the 1311 people surveyed that one person claimed Muslims believed in Buddha.

More

ONE person's inane comment does not equate to "poor understanding". However, what of the ignorance of Australians when it comes to Christianity? Unless Aussies are asked how Ricky Ponting is doing in the Cricket, or the chances of next Sunday's line up of their favourite football team (of whatever code) in an upcoming match, "studies" will always find ignorance heaped upon ignorance.

It's the Australian way.

Yet education does not necessarily lead to breaking down the barriers of prejudice. I'm sure every Sunni knows what the Shi'as are up to, and Hindus in India now what their northern neighbours profess, and every Tel Aviv schoolboy could tell you of the daily religious habits of the Palestinians down the road. Yet this doesn't make anyone more "open minded" "tolerant" or "accepting". It just might provide the tools to fuel the fires of hatred.

Give me the old Aussie head stuck in the sand attitude anyday. She'll be right, mate!

Dumb and Dumberer (Part 2)

[Update] This is a follow-up to a previous post Dumb and Dumberer. The similarities are that both the intiators of these grandiose schemes are female lefties. Is an ideological debate brewing that pits socialist-leaning women against conservative men? Perhaps it has already happened. Witness the RU486 debate, and the gender split on the conscience vote. maybe not so dumb and dumberer after all, but a concerted, systematic attack on Christianity with women parliamentarians in the front lines.


From the SMH.

Dumb and Dumberer (Part 2)
The Greens and the Democrats are at it again. This strikes me as a similar "politically correct effort" to attempts to produce gender inclusive language, but with a more Orwellian focus - eliminate all references to a despised group (from the Greens and Dems POV) by closing down their discourse. Cut off their 'power' and the Church, like the lefties' favourite arguments about the state, will 'wither away'.

And while Lyn Allison is at it, let's also scrap kickbacks, donations, funds and allocations of public money to political parties.

I wonder who will 'wither way' first?

This is simple confusion on behalf of the Greens and Democrats. Long may they writhe in minor-party obscurity.

PM wants to retain parliamentary prayers

2 March 2006

Prime Minister John Howard has dismissed as absurd a bid by minor parties to have prayers dropped from parliamentary proceedings.

The Australian Democrats and Australian Greens have attempted to abolish the official prayers which open every day of parliament.

Democrats leader Lyn Allison also wants religious references removed from statutory oaths and pledges and tax breaks for religious groups scrapped.

The Senate on Wednesday voted down her plan by 50 votes to seven.

Mr Howard said it had been based on a completely misguided understanding of the separation of church and state.

"What the separation of church and state means in this country is that there is no established church," Mr Howard told reporters.

"We don't have the ... Anglican Church as the official state religion, that's what it means.

"It doesn't mean that we abandon our Judeo-Christian heritage, it doesn't mean that we eliminate public ... references.

"I think it's an absurd proposition which shows a total misunderstanding of the nature of the separation of church and state."

Inner feminist? Inner Contradiction

Suddenly, our PM finds his inner feminist

Another Julia Baird article from the SMH, this time, taking the PM to task for his reamrks about "women of cover" (weaers of the hijab and the burqa) whom the PM finds "confronting".

The article presupposes that not only is the Pm taking a cheap opportunistic shot, but also that his comments are not as valid as a woman, or a Muslim woman, because he is a white, Christian male. While asserting:

"It is right to be proud of the equality of women in Western culture. It is also right to respect diversity - and faith - in a secular state."

she goes on to say...

"I'm not saying there is no validity to Howard's comments. There are aspects of the treatment of women in Muslim culture that are being vigorously debated by feminists, and women of that faith, with good reason. But it is their debate, and any change must be led by them, with arguments of reason, theology and equity, not those of judgement or disdain.

It's not as though the Christian religion is entirely sound - the Catholic Church and some parts of the Anglican Church still refuse to ordain women as priests, let alone bishops, and many prevent them from preaching or speaking at all. This is the religion of many of our leaders, and yet this is a subject on which they remain strangely mute."

Howard obviously does not the right to speak with authority on this issue because his own house is not in order. Will anyone be able to speak with authority on any matter on these grounds? It seems you either have to have no relationshio with the subject at all in order to be free of moral taint- but unfortunately this makes you less than authoritative. Or you are deeply concerned about the issue because it parallels your own concerns - but as you are not without sin, you are not free to cast any stones.

The only ones with legitimacy to comment on their own "oppression" seem to be the victims of same - and these are the least likely to be in any position to do so.