A New Authoritarianism

As any religion has its creeds, so too does Progressivism.

A new authoritarianism has descended. There now seems to be a list of official beliefs we are allowed to hold and no others; decided for us by the new establishment that has taken hold in government and the media, especially but not only in Fairfax, the ABC and SBS where there is now a uniformly censorious tone that colours everything. The very idea that you might hold a different opinion from the approved one is, to use the word that is now creeping into our discourse, ‘unacceptable’ and if you dare express it, what you get in reply is not a counter argument but a demand for an apology, the more humiliating and grovelling the better. You will also be forced to resign from whatever post you occupy. And behind the threats and intimidation lurks the spectre of the thought police to enforce the approved view of what is acceptable and what is not. The advocate of unapproved views these days is simply bludgeoned into submission. It is unacceptable that you might have a different opinion from the establishment on climate change, same-sex marriage, adoption by same sex couples, illegal refugees, abortion, the republic, the family, the sexual agenda in schools, foreign aid, religious freedom, government spending, freedom of speech, Israel, Islam and any proposal for changing the constitution. As views other than the official ones are unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that you should be allowed to express them. Indeed, you run a terrible risk these days, not that you will have to defend your case on its merits, but that you will be branded as a social leper, shunned, stopped from holding a public meeting or setting foot inside a university, blacklisted, abused and ridiculed simply because you hold a personal view different from the official one that has been sanctified by the new establishment. Were Voltaire alive he would find it easier to say: ‘I disagree with everything you say and will fight to the death to stop you saying it.’ The new authoritarianism has found a very fertile field in the denigration of Tony Abbott which has now reached an hysterical crescendo. He represents a separate strain of opinion from the mush that passes for policy in the Liberal party today and consequently must be stopped and silenced, not by logic, but by ridicule and abuse. He was probably doomed from the start by putting forward the uncomfortable truth in the 2014 budget that the country was living beyond its means and that surgery was needed before we went bankrupt. Given that the new establishment depends on government spending and handouts, it was inevitable that the budget would be unacceptable and Abbott with it. But by that time, it was known Abbott also had a real commitment to socially conservative positions that bind the society together, contributing to its stability. So he was doubly cursed and totally unacceptable. As the Age put it (before the staff went on strike and Fairfax shares went up), Abbott could not be allowed to stay in office and had to be ‘checked’. Eventually this led to his removal, but now, he has to be silenced, his legacy degraded and, if that does not work, forced to leave the parliament altogether. The most egregious example of this practice is the recent attempt by the PM to belittle his predecessor’s achievement in stopping the boats bringing illegal migrants into this country. Turnbull’s argument is that the boats were stopped, not under Abbott, but Howard. For Turnbull, the crazy excesses of Rudd/Gillard that allowed people smugglers back into business and Tony Abbott’s successful response just did not happen. This is little better than the whiting-out of any inconvenient facts by Turnbull that might diminish his own wondrous lustre. Worse, you would think that Turnbull would have at least an ounce of feeling that here was a policy of which Abbott was justly proud and would allow him this one tick of approval. But no, the zeitgeist is that Abbott and all his works are bad and Turnbull has to deliver the cruellest cut of all. Abbott’s supporters, guilty of the unacceptable sin of loyalty, are now condemned and abused as malcontents, subversives and troglodytes; forget about the arguments, just abuse the advocate. I hope they speak out more, because they contribute to the robust debate of ideas, whether you like their opinions or not. Then we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Party itself promoting the line that Abbott should not stand again for election, campaign in the election, speak at conferences or even write articles. You would think that any political party with a former leader who had brought it back from disintegration and got it into government would show gratitude, welcome his experience and invite him to contribute to the debate. Instead, we see a party, now with no sense of tradition or respect, full of midgets who sold their souls for the exalted post of assistant minister or parliamentary secretary, and wailing like a Greek chorus, trying to destroy him. No-one seems prepared to say it, but such an attitude is mean, ungenerous and, above all, foolish, for it cuts the party off from the conservative point of view that Abbott represents and many people want to see promoted. Worse still, it shows how the new authoritarianism is eating away at the free exchange of ideas that used to be one of the Liberal party’s – and the country’s – great strengths.



Tony Abbott: “All Cultures Are Not Equal” 

So true.

And I know that everyone agrees with this statement because I just can’t find anyone who will make the case for equality between life under the Third Reich and life in Australia today.

Given that Islam has killed far more than the Nazis ever did (240,000,000 versus 50,000,000 respectively and that’s only if you lump all the war dead together, both in Europe and The Pacific, at the feet of the Nazis).

On the topic of Tony Abbott’s bold and perfectly accurate statement though, man is he right!

You can tell because the mainstream media is trying to tear him to pieces, much like when he was Prime Minister. 

Some things never change!

Unfortunately, Abbott’s underlying understanding of Islam is seemingly as deeply flawed as everyone else in denial about the long doctrinal and historical record of Islam, as well will get to.

Here’s the report:

 Former prime minister Tony Abbott has called for a “religious revolution” inside Islam, declaring “all cultures are not equal”.

Key points:

Tony Abbott says Muslims must reform Islam

Abbott says a tolerant culture is preferable to one that kills in name of God

Former PM also defends 2014 budget policies

Abbott to further discuss Islam and extremism in speech in Singapore tonight

In a wide-ranging interview with Sky News, Mr Abbott also defended some of the most controversial measures from the 2014 federal budget, which put forward billions of dollars in cuts from health, education and foreign aid.

On Islam, he said: “We’ve got to work closely with live-and-let-live Muslims because there needs to be, as president [Abdel Fattah] Al-Sisi of Egypt has said, a religious revolution inside Islam.”

“All of those things that Islam has never had — a Reformation, an Enlightenment, a well-developed concept of the separation of church and state — that needs to happen.

“But we can’t do it; Muslims have got to do this for themselves. But we should work with those who are pushing in that direction.

“All cultures are not equal and, frankly, a culture that believes in decency and tolerance is much to be preferred to one which thinks that you can kill in the name of God, and we’ve got to be prepared to say that.”

Mr Abbott will make a speech in Singapore tonight and will further discuss Islam and extremism.

There’s at least a great point in there but I cannot stress this any more than by using capital letters:


You may know Classical antiquity as that place we call “The Islamic World” but the fact is that it was once the home of Western civilisation.

To clarify, Muslims sacked the place and forced its women into sex slavery.

So who really wants to see Islam reform?

Islamic State is the reformation of Islam and people don’t seem to like all the rape, crucifixions, torture and brutal murdering taking place!

If you though Islam was lukewarm Muslims who look and behave like atheist, please reconsider just how stupid that sounds.

Westerners are so self-absorbed with their own narcissistic nihilism that their first assumption is that all other peoples, cultures, and religions must want to be exactly like them.

Guess what?! They don’t!

Real Muslims want to look like Mohammed, just as real Christians want to look like Jesus.

And neither of them, though polar dichotomies, were atheists.

Reform Islam and you make your enemy much more dangerous.

The Left’s War Against Tony Abbott

There’s a spill motion in the Liberal party tonight and it reeks of Leftist interference.

Malcolm Turnbull, essentially a member for Labor, is challenging Tony Abbott to lead the nation and Julie Bishop will apparently stand with him as potential deputy.

You would think that after the previous six years of Labor, these fools would have learned but now the Leftist push into the supposedly conservative Liberal party is well underway.

Consider Lord Monckton’s perceptive take on the situation and pray that we don’t end up with a choice between Labor and Labor at the next election:

More Wise Considerations On The Syrian Refugee Crisis

It’s easy to see pictures of hundreds of thousands of fleeing Middle Eastern refugees and become incensed at people in the West, who are neither accountable for their flight nor responsible for their future.

That saves us from asking hard questions such as who is accountable and responsible, and why do people pour out of the Middle East like there’s something terribly oppressive there ruining their lives?

It also looks good to other Leftist-minded people who are happy for everyone else to fix problems they are often responsible for – and if not responsible, complicit in – in the first place

Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary cuts through the emotion and focuses on the consequences of this crisis for Westerner and refugee alike:

There are always certain issues, especially when clouded with emotive media imagery, which can result in people ceasing to reflect critically but simply run on emotions. The refugee issue is one such topic where emoting instead of thinking tends to predominate.

This has certainly been the case with the tragic Syrian refugee problem, with many saying we must do something, and we must do it now. Well, critical reflection is actually preferable to knee-jerk reactions, lest we simply make things far worse.

People are complaining that Europe, Australia and other places must simply take in far more refugees, no matter what. But a few facts and bits of evidence need to be considered here, instead of simply running on feelings. Let me offer a number of such facts.

Tony Abbott has just announced that he will take in more Syrian refugees. And according to a recent United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees report on resettlement, Australia is among the world leaders in helping such refugees: http://www.unhcr.org/543408c4fda.pdf

As I have written elsewhere, no nation can have open slather policies here, and each nation has a right to defend its borders and determine what is a feasible number of refugees or asylum seekers that can be accepted. I discuss in greater detail the political as well as biblical data on this here: billmuehlenberg.com/2010/11/09/christians-and-asylum-seekers/

And when it comes to Muslim immigration, we must be even wiser, as the spread of political Islam and creeping sharia is often accomplished by means of immigration. Please read this for more detail: billmuehlenberg.com/2009/08/27/western-immigration-and-global-jihad/

For example, the BBC reports that fake passports are already being used to get jihadists into Europe: “German customs officers have seized packages containing Syrian passports and police suspect they are being sold illegally to asylum seekers. A finance ministry official said both genuine and forged passports were in the packets intercepted in the post.”

And IS has threatened to send 500,000 migrants to Europe as part of jihad:

ISIS has threatened to flood Europe with half a million migrants from Libya in a ‘psychological’ attack against the West, it was claimed today. Transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy claim to provide evidence that ISIS is threatening to send 500,000 migrants simultaneously out to sea in hundreds of boats in a ‘psychological weapon’ against Europe if there is military intervention against them in Libya.

Many would be at risk of drowning with rescue services unable to cope. But authorities fear that if numbers on this scale arrived, European cities could witness riots. Separately, the militants hope to cement their control of Libya then cross the Mediterranean disguised as refugees, according to letters seen by Quilliam the anti-terror group, reported by the Telegraph.

Or as another report warns:

ISIS says thousands of fighters are already in place in Europe, disguised as refugees, just waiting for the signal. An operative working for Islamic State has revealed that the terror group has successfully smuggled thousands of covert Jihadists into Europe, the Express writes.

The Syrian operative claimed more than 4,000 covert ISIS gunmen had been smuggled into western nations – hidden amongst innocent refugees. The ISIS smuggler, who is in his 30s with a trimmed jet-black beard, revealed the ongoing clandestine operation is a complete success. “Just wait,” he smiled.

We must also ask why most rich Muslim nations are refusing to take in these refugees. Perhaps they know something we don’t: “Five of the wealthiest Muslim countries have taken no Syrian refugees in at all, arguing that doing so would open them up to the risk of terrorism. Although the oil rich countries have handed over aid money, Britain has donated more than Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar combined.”

Imagine that: Muslim nations admitting that Muslim refugees pose a genuine terrorist threat. Yet the West is supposed to throw its doors wide open with no questions asked. That is a recipe for national suicide. Nonie Darwish, who has had to flee the Middle East herself, says this about “why Muslim countries rarely prepare for disaster to save lives of other Muslims and heavily rely on the West to rescue victims of Islamic jihad”:

-Muslim countries know that the West will take care of their mistakes so they don’t have to avoid the negative consequences of their actions.

-Western countries quickly come to the rescue, open their wallets and land to prove to the world that they are not Islamophobes.

-Arab countries lack compassion and action to rescue each other despite the rhetoric of Arab/Islamic unity. Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations never open their borders to poor Muslims in distress. Even Egypt rejected the Darfur refugees who were later forced to go to Israel, which took them.

-Oil rich Arab countries make it very difficult for other Arabs to visit except for haj. They are very tribal and refuse to dilute their culture with influx of foreigners. Third world country workers are treated inhumanely and are rarely given permanent residency, citizenship or equal rights as citizens.

-Arabs would rather spend their petrodollars on expanding their influence in the West rather than making life better for their own citizens or supporting other Muslim nations who are financially less fortunate.

-Islamic groups believe that refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan will spread Sharia in Europe, which is the main goal of jihad.

-By clearing the area from the opposition and citizens who are not contributing to the empowerment of ISIS, clears the way for ISIS to expand beyond Syria and Iraq. Europe and America are absorbing the opposition to ISIS, so why stand in the way?

Emotive images, like that of the poor dead boy lying on the beach, are relied upon to pull Western heartstrings, instead of having them think critically and rationally. As to the tragic case of the boy and his family, they of course had been living comfortably in free housing in Turkey for three years.

As one commentator writes, “Aylan was not in ‘harm’s way’. He was not a refugee. His family was not fleeing danger. Indeed, what his father particularly sought in Europe was a good dentist. Yes, Aylan’s terrible death does not tell us to open our borders. If anything, it warns us to be wary of the consequences of badly directed ‘compassion’.”

And as mentioned, humanitarian concerns must be balanced with national security concerns. The Prime Minister of Hungry has rightly argued that “Those who are overwhelmed cannot offer shelter to anyone”. His entire speech is well worth reading: http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/those-who-are-overwhelmed-cannot-offer-shelter-to-anyone

English commentator Peter Hitchens offers some sober thinking on all this. He is worth quoting at length:

Having seen more than my share of real corpses, and watched children starving to death in a Somali famine, I am not unmoved by pictures of a dead child on a Turkish beach. But I am not going to pretend to be more upset than anyone else. Nor am I going to suddenly stop thinking, as so many people in the media and politics appear to have done.

The child is not dead because advanced countries have immigration laws. The child is dead because criminal traffickers cynically risked the lives of their victims in pursuit of money. I’ll go further. The use of words such as ‘desperate’ is quite wrong in this case. The child’s family were safe in Turkey. Turkey (for all its many faults) is a member of Nato, officially classified as free and democratic. Many British people actually pay good money to go on holiday to the very beach where the child’s body was washed up.

It may not be ideal, but the definition of a refugee is that he is fleeing from danger, not fleeing towards a higher standard of living. Goodness knows I have done what I could on this page to oppose the stupid interventions by this country in Iraq, Libya and Syria, which have turned so many innocent people into refugees or corpses.

But I can see neither sense nor justice in allowing these things to become a pretext for an unstoppable demographic revolution in which Europe (including, alas, our islands) merges its culture and its economy with North Africa and the Middle East. If we let this happen, Europe would lose almost all the things that make others want to live there.

You really think these crowds of tough young men chanting ‘Germany!’ in the heart of Budapest are ‘asylum-seekers’ or ‘refugees’? Refugees don’t confront the police of the countries in which they seek sanctuary. They don’t chant orchestrated slogans or lie across the train tracks. And why, by the way, do they use the English name for Germany when they chant? In Arabic and Turkish, that country is called ‘Almanya’, in Kurdish something similar. The Germans themselves call it ‘Deutschland’. In Hungarian, it’s ‘Nemetorszag’.

Did someone hope that British and American TV would be there? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: spontaneous demonstrations take a lot of organising. Refugees don’t demand or choose their refuge. They ask and they hope. When we become refugees one day (as we may well do), we will discover this.

As to what those angry, confident and forceful young men actually are, I’ll leave you to work it out, as I am too afraid of the Thought Police to use what I think is the correct word. But it is interesting that this week sees the publication in English of a rather dangerous book, which came out in France just before the Charlie Hebdo murders.

Submission, by Michel Houellebecq, prophesies a Muslim-dominated government in France about seven years from now, ushered into power by the French Tory and Labour parties. What they want, says one of the cleverer characters in the book, ‘is for France to disappear – to be integrated into a European federation’. This means they’d much rather do a deal with a Muslim party than with the National Front, France’s Ukip equivalent. If any of this sounds familiar to you, I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s amazing how likely and simple the author makes this Islamic revolution sound.

Can we stop this transformation of all we have and are? I doubt it. To do so would involve the grim-faced determination of Australia, making it plain in every way that our doors are open only to limited numbers of people, chosen by us, enduring the righteous scorn of the supposedly enlightened.

As we lack the survival instinct and the determination necessary, and as so many of our most influential people are set on committing a sentimental national suicide, I suspect we won’t.

To those who condemn reasonable calls for national self-defence as bigotry, hatred and intolerance (which they are not), I make only this request: just don’t pretend you’re doing a good and generous thing, when you’re really cowardly and weak.

As I said, emotional reactions are clearly not what we should rely upon when considering important international issues such as this. Clear thinking and critical evaluation of the evidence and the facts is what is required. And that seems to be in short supply in so much of the West today.

I close with the words of Paul Zanetti:

If there’s any one underlying message that must be read into the story of little Alyan it is that illegal human trafficking must be stopped, that the Abbott government’s successful policies must be widely adopted or the drownings will continue.

This must be balanced with an increased selective intake by all nations of genuine refugees, fleeing persecution or war or both. Australia has a proud history of settling refugees and migrants. This must continue.

Migration has been an overwhelmingly positive contributor to the growth, success and affluence of this nation – with exception, namely criminal ideologists who wish us harm, currently being addressed. Careful, selective immigration and genuine refugee intakes – not open border anarchy – will strengthen Australia and save lives while meeting our international obligations.










Tony Abbott Is The Prime Minister We Need: Keeps Election Promise, Judgment Is Excellent

As per the leftist playbook, they are slinging mud and ad hominems at Tony Abbott because he did not bow to their pressure and instead stayed true to the election promise that he made about refusing to redefine marriage for a tiny minority who largely have no interest in marriage as we know it.

Abbott is exactly the kind of man we need at this hour and the leftists hate it, hence the attacks on his “judgment” and character.

It’s funny how they love throwing his broken election promises at him – the ABC keeps a permanent record of it on display – but on redefining marriage, they want Abbott to break his promise to the public:

 Conscience vote on gay marriage defeated

The Coalition’s marathon same-sex marriage debate ended in a short-term fix which has reignited internal doubts about the Prime Minister’s judgement and leadership.

Two thirds of the joint party room supported traditional marriage and binding MPs and senators to the status quo.

But the Prime Minister said in a late-night press conference this was the last term in which his party could be bound, although the policy it would take to the next election was yet to be settled.

“Our position going into the next election should be that in a subsequent term of Parliament this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people,” Mr Abbott said.

It is yet to be decided whether the popular vote will be a plebiscite, where a question can be carried by a simple majority, or a referendum-style vote which would set the far higher bar of needing to be carried by a majority of people in a majority of states.

In the eyes of those in the party who support change, that position resolves nothing.

Even supporters of traditional marriage said the Prime Minister’s handling of the day’s events was “messy” with one senior Liberal describing it as “madness”.

“I have never seen anything as mad as this,” the senior Liberal said.

“They were literally making it up as they went along.”

Ministers, MPs and senators told the ABC the ramshackle same-sex marriage debate and the slow dispatch of former speaker Bronwyn Bishop have rekindled the same doubts about the Prime Minister’s judgement and leadership that led to a party room revolt six months ago.

The debate began in the Liberal Party room at 9:00am yesterday, when the PM blindsided moderates by saying the issue would be decided by a joint party room vote, which includes 21 National Party MPs and senators.

In an impassioned speech, Education Minister Christopher Pyne argued that was tantamount to “branch stacking”, given the overwhelming majority of Nationals are opposed to change.

Ministers who don’t like party position should resign: Abetz

Some conservative MPs told the ABC they had decided to bring the matter to a head and that they had enlisted the Prime Minister’s support to do it.

They said party moderates should not have been surprised because they had been calling for a vote for months.

While a clear majority of the backbench supported the status quo, half of the ministry argued for a free vote, prompting Senate leader Eric Abetz to say any minister who did not like the party’s position should resign.

That sparked a caustic response from Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

“One thing I did learn as leader is that it’s probably best to keep the team together,” Mr Turnbull said.

“We are eight points behind in Newspoll, 14 points behind in Morgan. Are you seriously saying that having ministers resign would be good for us?”

It is understood Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg quoted the party’s founder Robert Menzies in a passionate speech supporting a free vote, and senator Arthur Sinodinos told colleagues he could not look a gay person in the eye and “tell them they’re the son of a lesser god”.

One Coalition backbencher said “the final count was 66-33 to keep the status quo”.

I’m feeling very disappointed and … I fervently wish the vote had gone the other way.

“This was more like 75 per cent until the executive spoke up,” he said.

“It proves the disconnect between some ministers and the grassroots and why we are having such poll problems.”

Other frontbenchers expressed their surprise that the vote had been called without warning and without being discussed by either the leadership group or the cabinet.

Deputy Liberal leader and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said: “I thought we were supposed to be talking about climate change today”.

Treasurer Joe Hockey was the first member of the executive to propose a referendum in the next term, which was supported by the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister.

Conscience vote debate will be revisited: Laming

LNP MP Warren Entsch said his same-sex marriage bill would be introduced to Parliament on Monday, but accepted it would not pass if put to a vote.

“I can confirm that the Bill will be introduced on Monday morning when I intend to highlight some of the very personal and heartfelt stories that have led me to take this path,” he said.

“I have to concede however that given today’s decision, the likelihood of failure, should it come to a vote, is assured.”

Mr Entsch also said he was not “angry” about the outcome from the six-hour meeting.

“While I’m disappointed with the outcome, I am not angry and I accept the decision of the party room.”

Media player: “Space” to play, “M” to mute, “left” and “right” to seek.

Liberal councillor and Mr Abbott’s sister Christine Forster, who is engaged to a woman, said she was very disappointed with the result of the party room meeting.

“I’m feeling very disappointed and … I fervently wish the vote had gone the other way,” she told Lateline.

“For me it goes to core Liberal principles [by] which we are all equal before the law.”

Queensland LNP MP Andrew Laming said he argued strongly for a conscience vote.

“There is a very strong and emerging current for this to be revisited but it won’t be happening in this election term,” he said.

Fellow Queenslander George Christensen was pleased with the result.

“I’m very happy with where we’ve landed on this,” he said.

“It was robust in some respects, but also very healthy and everyone was very respectful.”

A Coalition MP said: “[The outcome of the meeting] proves the disconnect between some ministers and the grassroots and why we are having such problems.”

Abbott said it best here:

…this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people…

Redefining the historic definition of marriage, something that will affect all of society, should not be made by politicians behind closed doors.

And really, a nation can redefine marriage all it wants but you can’t actually change what marriage is any more than you can make a dog human by calling it “human”.

So this is a momentary victory for truth and it backs Tony Abbott as sincere, something the left prove consistently to not be as they try to find legal loopholes to change an age-old institution on the whim of the tiny minority that is the LGBT lobby.

Interestingly, there are roughly the same number of Muslims in Australia as there are homosexuals so I wonder why they wouldn’t include polygamy, an acceptable practise in Islam according to Islam’s founder Muhammad, in their attempts to destroy our society. Perhaps time is all they need?

“The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” ‭Genesis‬ ‭2:20-24‬ ‭ESV‬‬


Promoting Ramadan In The West: The Islamic Month Of More Violence Than Usual

Promoting Ramadan is becoming “a thing” in Australia.

Woolworths do it to sell stuff to Muslims and get more money.

The ABC, Australia’s tax-payer funded public broadcaster does it because of their underlying devotion to the failed ideology and social experiment that is multiculturalism. That and because they want to obfuscate the Christian heritage and foundations of Australian society by overemphasizing other religions and cultures so that Christianity becomes just another face in the crowd, relegated to a small slice of the pie or, if possible, none of it.

Multiculturalism helps achieve this end because it asserts that all cultures are equal and that cultural expressions, whether clothing and foods or traditions and values, can exist side by side and be interwoven together, if only people can be forced educated into tolerance and submit to embrace diversity.

Historically, this has rarely been the case. Ultimately, one culture will always prevail over another. In reality, this means the domination of ideas expressed in values and traditions. Food and clothing aren’t so important but ideas define cultures and nations in the most important ways – live or die kind of ways.

So promoting Ramadan is really about promoting a culture and Ramadan is an Islamic expression of worship to the false god of Islam, a culture and value system that radically contradicts that of both Christianity and the secular humanist West.

This ideological war against Christianity makes for strange but not unexpected bedfellows: Islam and atheistic humanism.

But at 2% of Australia’s population, Muslims represent a very small group (consider that 2.5% practise Buddhism)  so for Ramadan to get a mention is somewhat akin to wool knitters getting airtime. Yet you won’t see wool knitters in the media and for good reason – most people don’t care and it doesn’t impact them in any way.

Frankly, Ramadan is no different.

It’s not just media coverage though – it’s messages from the Prime Minister and state Premiers.

If I was a wool knitter, I wouldn’t be holding my breath waiting to hear from Tony Abbott.

Take a read of some of the laughable propaganda regarding Ramadan from the ABC:

 Australian Muslims are gathering at local mosques across the country to celebrate Eid Al-Fitr, the feast that marks the end of Ramadan.

The festival is one of the most joyous days on the Islamic calendar and signals the end of the holy month of Ramadan, a period of 30 days during which all Muslims are obligated to abstain from eating and drinking between dawn and sunset.

Ramadan is observed worldwide and is a period of prayer, fasting and charity for Muslims and its observance is regarded as one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

Maha Abdo, chief executive officer of the Australian Muslim Women’s Association, said Eid was a joyous celebration after a month of prayer and discipline.

“Hopefully with a lot of prayers this morning we’ll be able to seek the acceptance of all our worships for the last 29 days,” she said.

“And also wish and pray for the betterment of all humanity for the month and year to come.”

One of the “most joyous days” huh? I can’t recall that kind of language ever been used in reference to Christianity.

The very fact that they need to explain all these details about Ramadan begs the question of why it’s headline news in the first place.

People don’t know because it has no impact on them. So why report it?

The report continues:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has sent his best wishes to Muslims across Australia as they come together for Eid.

“The breaking of the fast is a time of joy to be shared with family and friends,” he said.

“By fasting, and through acts of charity, Ramadan encourages Muslims to remember those less fortunate than themselves.

“Australia has long been an exemplar of how people of different faiths and cultures can live harmoniously together and find unity in diversity.

“I send my best wishes to everyone celebrating Eid Al-Fitr.”

About 30,000 people packed the Lakemba mosque and spilled out into the street in Sydney’s south-west, at one of the country’s largest Eid celebrations.

Premier Mike Baird addressed the congregation at the mosque and said Ramadan was an important festival that was “a part of us”.

“A big part of it is the concept of it is that by denying self, there’s an opportunity to reflect on those that are in need and those that are vulnerable and the opportunity to give and support,” Mr Baird said.

“The incredibly important messages that come through this festival are important are important across the city and across the world.”

The Premier said the Muslim community was “part of the NSW family” and the day’s events gave an opportunity to join in with the celebrations.

“The important message is that there are challenges that we’re facing, not just here but across the world, and the way we can deal with them is by coming together,” Mr Baird said.

“That cohesion is the important point – we saw it in events here in Sydney after the Martin Place siege and my hope is that we continue to see that because we’re much stronger when we come together.

“We’re unified in peace and love rather than hate and anger.”

While I would certainly respect a national or state leader speaking to the people they represent, especially the insignificant ones, I’m convinced that this is not why the Muslim community gets special addresses from the Prime Minster.

Like the homosexual community, Muslim minorities in no not-Muslim nations frequently plead victimhood and demand to be heard and treated as a majority rather than the tiny minority that they actually represent. The penalty in the West is the politically correct ad hominems “bigot” or “islamophobe.” Not the kind of labels anyone in politics wants to be hit with, Prime Ministers included.

It’s interesting to note that last point about “unified in peace and love”. It reminds me of those self-help mantras that if spoken enough will come true.

But is peace and love actually a reality or is it self-induced delusion?

Back on the topic of Ramadan though, there is plenty that the ABC News report conveniently overlooks, including the history of Ramadan and what it looks like in nations dominated by Islam.

Consider the below question and response, which explores both of the aforementioned issues:

Question: Why does violence by Muslims increase during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan? It was during Ramadan 2006 that hundreds of Iraqi police were poisoned, obviously by Muslims.

Response: The increased violence was exactly as expected. We are engaged in a war to the death—not against terrorists and extremists who, as President Bush insists, have “hijacked a peaceful religion,” but with Islam itself—a fact that the West refuses to acknowledge. The “politically correct” lies, so popular in the West, must be abandoned. We are losing this war and will continue to do so until the West faces the truth that our enemy is not terrorism perpetrated by Muslim “extremists” but the violent religion of Islam itself!

Ramadan is not, in fact, an Islamic holy month. Not only is it not “holy,” but it did not originate with Muhammad and Islam. Pagan Arabs had observed it for centuries before Muhammad was born. Arab tribes had traditionally refrained from fighting one another at that time. So, why do Muslims fight and kill during Ramadan?

Muhammad began his violent career in Medina, then called Yathrib, a city founded by Jews, in which he killed all of the males and enslaved the women and children. He established himself as the Prophet of Islam with more than 20 murders of those who opposed him, especially poets, whom the Qur’an says are inspired by Satan (Surah 26: 221-26 – a special “revelation” from Allah to justify Muhammad’s murders).

Muhammad’s first three attacks upon rich caravans passing near Yathrib on their way to Mecca were a failure. Then he received another timely “revelation” from Allah, added to the Qur’an, that Muslims could fight during Ramadan (Surah 2:217). His first military success followed. The caravan he attacked was caught by surprise during the agreed-upon “time of peace.” That great success caused Arabs to flock to Muhammad to get in on the booty by joining this new religion of “peace” that allowed fighting during Ramadan!

Muslims still seem to think that Ramadan is a good time for surprise attacks, as we have just seen demonstrated in Iraq and other Muslim countries. Shiites blow themselves up in Sunni mosques as their sure way to paradise, while Sunnis blow themselves up in Shiite mosques as their quick way to paradise. Of course, Sunnis say the attacking Shiites went to hell, while Shiites say the same of Sunni suicide bombers who attack them.

Nor is the concept of Muslims killing Muslims anything new. Three of Muhammad’s first four successors were killed by fellow Muslims. And as this “religion of peace” spread, it only got worse. Through the centuries, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed by fellow Muslims—exactly as they are doing to one another today not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan, Algeria, Pakistan, and wherever Islam exists.

From 1948 to 1973, there were 80 revolutions in the Islamic world, 30 successful, including the murder of 22 heads of state. The Muslim Brotherhood threatened to kill Egypt’s Nasser and succeeded in assassinating Anwar Sadat, a deed that Arafat applauded. In 1971, East Pakistan rebelled against West Pakistan (both Muslim states) and became Bangladesh. In the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, Muslims used 1,000 tons of poison gas against one another and killed as many as died in World War I. Literally thousands of young school boys died walking through mine fields to clear them for troops with the promise of paradise for becoming “martyrs.” In 1990, we “pagans” had to rescue Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim nations from Iraqi Muslims demonstrating Islam’s peacefulness.

Islamic violence during Ramadan began with Muhammad and is supported in the Qur’an. There is not one example in the entire world of Islam ever having brought peace to anyone anywhere except by killing or enslaving the opposition!

The above information begins to make a lot of sense when you hear Muslims threaten to use Ramadan as an opportunity to act out worse than usual and see violence increase during the Eid festival marking the end of Ramadan.

The history of Islam and the significance of Ramadan is there for anyone who isn’t afraid of being labelled an Islamophobe.

And for anyone who isn’t afraid of being labelled a Christian, we have a hope in Jesus Christ that transcends contemporary Australian culture and any poor judgment s our nations makes with regard to Islam and other antichrist ideas.