Des­tined for hell

The Northland Age - - Opinion -

Peter Jack­son, in his ex­cel­lent com­men­tary re­gard­ing the Is­rael Fo­lau con­tro­versy (Chris­tians are fair game, April 24, 2018) , said, ‘It is unimag­in­able that a Mus­lim . . . would have ex­pe­ri­enced a Fo­lauesque re­ac­tion to any state­ment de­tail­ing his or her faith’s be­lief re­gard­ing any form of hu­man be­hav­iour.’

See­ing Fo­lau’s com­ments re­ferred to those des­tined for hell, we could test Jack­son’s state­ment, and ask all those fawn­ing over Is­lam at the mo­ment as a re­sult of the Christchur­ch shoot­ing, es­pe­cially the Prime Min­is­ter and all those women who naively donned a hi­jab, to com­ment on the fact the most re­li­able Is­lamic sources say re­peat­edly that Mo­hammed saw into hell, and most of its in­hab­i­tants were women.

Asked by women why this was so, he said be­cause women curse fre­quently, are un­grate­ful to their hus­bands, and are un­grate­ful for good treat­ment. He added, ‘I have not seen any­one more de­fi­cient in in­tel­li­gence and re­li­gious com­mit­ment than you.’

The women asked what was de­fi­cient in their in­tel­li­gence and re­li­gious com­mit­ment. He replied that the tes­ti­mony of two women was equal to one man, show­ing their de­fi­ciency in in­tel­li­gence. Their de­fi­ciency in re­li­gious com­mit­ment was shown by them not be­ing able to pray or fast dur­ing men­stru­a­tion.

I sus­pect most peo­ple don’t know this, and most me­dia would bury it if they did.

Iron­i­cally, it ac­tu­ally ap­pears these women were de­fi­cient in in­tel­li­gence be­cause they ac­cepted his rea­son­ing. RENTON MA­CLACH­LAN

Porirua

many peo­ple with inane sug­ges­tions be­ing floated.

Cer­tainly we must try to en­sure Christchur­ch-type catas­tro­phe never hap­pens again by tak­ing ap­pro­pri­ate prac­ti­cal steps, but we must move on from ag­o­nis­ing over Christchur­ch ad nau­seum.

As a first step, gun con­trol/ ban was essen­tial, but why didn’t we just fol­low the Aus­tralian leg­is­la­tion with amend­ments, although whereas they had a firearm reg­istry, we in New Zealand have not since 1987? Blame our politi­cians for this, and for al­low­ing free ac­cess to mil­i­tary-style semi-au­to­matic weapons etc.

It is all very well get­ting com­pli­ance from le­git­i­mate gun own­ers, but what about the tens of thou­sands of il­le­gal guns

float­ing about in Ether­land, and what will politi­cians do to track down those weapons? What will the gov­ern­ment do with all the guns pur­chased for be­tween $100 mil­lion and $300 mil­lion? It has been ru­moured that they may look to sell some guns over­seas, where they could end up in con­flict zones in Africa and the Mid­dle East. Can the gov­ern­ment cat­e­gor­i­cally state this will not hap­pen, and that all the guns sur­ren­dered will be de­stroyed?

Where is the ur­gent crit­i­cal work­able gun reg­is­ter leg­is­la­tion?

A Supreme Court judge has been ap­pointed to head the Royal Com­mis­sion (cost­ing $8.4 mil­lion), which will go on for­ever, yet no firm con­clu­sions are an­tic­i­pated. Wouldn’t it have been bet­ter to get the ter­ror­ist trial out of the way, where much of the ev­i­dence etc. may be forth­com­ing any­way?

Ap­pallingly, what con­tin­ues to hap­pen is the usual cul­prits’ ex­ploita­tion of the Christchur­ch mas­sacre by seiz­ing ev­ery op­por­tu­nity to heap vit­ri­olic, scur­rilous at­tacks amount­ing to hate speech on their fel­low Ki­wis in an at­tempt to shut down ro­bust crit­i­cism of their own of­fen­sive ac­tiv­i­ties.

Jus­tice Min­is­ter Lit­tle is look­ing at new hate speech leg­is­la­tion, pre­sum­ably to shield the gov­ern­ment, lo­cal gov­ern­ment and the race-based ac­tivist rat­bags from ro­bust crit­i­cism by trash­ing the right to free­dom of speech.

New Zealand sports team

names that were never an is­sue un­til this evil lone wolf ter­ror­ist sur­faced in Christchur­ch have now also come un­der the blow­torch.

Frankly, how can any­one have any con­fi­dence in any gov­ern­ment leg­is­la­tion or pol­icy ini­tia­tives when it can’t even get the Provin­cial Growth Fund fi­asco, Ki­wibuild de­ba­cle or Cullen’s crazy CGT is­sues sorted?

These so­cial­ist sods who are im­bued with the global world so­cial­ist (Marx­ist) phi­los­o­phy, which al­ways over-prom­ises and un­der-de­liv­ers, be­ing based on the phi­los­o­phy of fail­ure, ig­no­rance and ar­ro­gance, with the equal shar­ing of mis­eries by ev­ery­one, couldn’t or­gan­ise a booze-up in a brew­ery, while their ri­vals, who pay lip ser­vice to cap­i­tal­ism, the phi­los­o­phy of greed re­sult­ing in the in­equitable, dis­pro­por­tion­ate shar­ing of wealth, are no bet­ter. Both fac­tions share many of the same de­spi­ca­ble traits, in­clud­ing the lack of pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion, trans­parency, open­ness, hon­esty or ac­count­abil­ity.

Trust any of them at your peril.

ROB PATER­SON Mount Maun­ganui

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.