It has been noted that while the Church, as a whole, is in decline in the West, that it is apparently growing in Third World and/or non-Western countries in Africa (esp. places like Uganda and Nigeria) and Asia (esp. in places like China and South Korea).
However, trendwatchers may be interested to note that as for Third World countries in this hemisphere, which have traditionally been more or less Christian (the churches being long-established, and an integral part of the social fabric of Caribbean and Latin American nations), there are signs that the same sort of forces fighting against the faith in the West – increasing secularization, striving to push Christianity out of the public square – are also occurring in the Third World countries in our hemisphere, notwithstanding the still-fairly-strong presence of churches there. I found a couple articles at some online Christian publications that highlight this.
First off, in Jamaica, bus drivers will now officially discourage people from preaching and evangelizing on their buses, based on customer complaints. While I may question the appropriateness of such a venue myself, I think it’s striking that (a) enough people are complaining about this that bus transit services have felt the heat, and that (b) the bus transit services have thus felt it necessary to accommodate such sentiments.
Secondly, in Brazil, a federal prosecutor is urging the central bank to drop the phrase “God be praised” from Brazil’s currency, on the grounds that Brazil is an officially secular country AND that religious minorities might be offended, asking Christians to imagine “… if the real note had any of these phrases on it: ‘Praise Allah,’ ‘Praise Buddha,’ ‘Hail Oxossi,’ ‘Hail Lord Ganesh’ or ‘God does not exist,’”, how they’d feel.
I suspect that more Latin American and Caribbean countries will end up following, increasingly, the secularization trends of the West, with the resultant decline of the faith accompanying such moves, while the faith will continue to grow in non-Western societies in Africa and Asia where the faith hasn’t ever been as strong, in the first place.
The future will be ‘interesting‘, to say the least.
But the Left is relentless, and will keep pushing the issue, no doubt.
Australia seems to be the most socially conservative of the white, English-speaking countries, but they will have to remain vigilant to keep that the case.
A verdict came in in the trial of Sam Mullet, the Amish breakaway cult leader who had sex with the wives of men in his flock under the guise of counselling, and punished those who broke his rules by forcibly cutting their hair and beards; he was found guilty of hate crimes, with possible life imprisonment resulting. (HT: Strange Herring)
Now, the guy is surely guilty of assault, and surely other various crimes, but ‘hate crimes’? How are the things he did ‘hate crimes’? He was Amish; his people were Amish; it makes no damn sense!
Just goes to show that ‘hate crime’ legislation is just a tool for the establishment to charge whomever they don’t like for whatever reason with a crime, if they can’t otherwise find them guilty (apparently) – or to punish them extra hard for being racist (if they’re white).
The Indian government is mulling over a proposal to force husbands to hand over a percentage to their wives. (HT: TC)
Feminists in the West have been dreaming of this for years; funny that a non-Western, Third-World country is thinking of implementing such an insane policy.
I hope they’re not so stupid as to proceed with this hare-brained scheme, but if they do, at least then we can have data to demonstrate why it’s a bad idea for us here in the West, when its disastrous impact on India, both economically and socially, becomes apparent.
From the article:
The minister said if a portion of a husband’s income is allocated as wife’s share, it is likely to be spent on better food for children, on their education and the overall quality of standard of living of that household.
Right, because men are always financially irresponsible, and women always financially responsible, never spending money frivolously on themselves or spoiling their children, ever…
Take note, men! This is how you cover your ass, in such a situation – especially if you’ve touched the girl’s clothing, and it bears your fingerprints – but hell, even if not, just to prevent possible framing; you never know…
—
As an aside: the guy must have been quite alpha, if she couldn’t bear the thought of another woman having him.
Five minutes of alpha is worth a lifetime of beta, they say; and she thought her life was no longer worth living.
“She had her whole life ahead of her”, blah blah blah – no she didn’t, as she chose, of her own accord, to end it.
Not that you didn’t already know that (of course you did), nor that it isn’t happening throughout the West (it certainly is), but one blog has compiled a list of 19 examples (not to mention other examples of official tyranny, such as the forbidding of hosting a public Bible study inside a family’s home), worth reading.
And worth quoting extensively, as I am doing here:
#2 Could you imagine being sent to prison for collecting the rain that falls from the sky on your own property?
Well, that is exactly what happened to one man in Oregon recently. The following comes from CNS News….
A rural Oregon man was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail and over $1,500 in fines because he had three reservoirs on his property to collect and use rainwater.
What are they going to arrest us for next? Breathing the air?
City commissioners passed a recycling ordinance on Wednesday.
Once the ordinance goes in effect in July 2013, people who don’t recycle would be fined $350 for their first violation, $500 for their second violation and $1,000 for the third violation.
If you live in Miami Beach and you don’t like to recycle hopefully you have a really, really big bank account.
#8 In Hazelwood, Missouri it is actually illegal for little girls to sell girl scout cookies in the front yards of their own homes.
#9 In one Denver neighborhood, children have been banned from drawing on the sidewalk with colored chalk.
#10 All over the United States, lemonade stands run by small children are being shut down by police because they do not have the “proper permits”.
[...]
#12 Recently I wrote about a man that was arrested for hosting a Bible study in his own home. Well, it turns out that he is still in prison serving his 60 day prison sentence.
#13 Are you growing a garden?
If so, you might want to be very careful that it is not violating any regulations.
In a previous article, I discussed how one unemployed woman in Tulsa, Oklahoma had her survival garden brutally ripped out and carted away by government thugs…
A Tulsa woman is suing the city’s code enforcement officers after she said they cut down her garden with no cause.
Denise Morrison said she has more than 100 plant varieties in her front and back yards and all of them are edible and have a purpose.
She knows which ones will treat arthritis, which will make your food spicy, which ones keep mosquitoes away and treat bug bites, but she said none of that matter to city inspectors.
Last August, Morrison’s front and back yards were filled with flowers in bloom, lemon, stevia, garlic chives, grapes, strawberries, apple mint, spearmint, peppermint, an apple tree, walnut tree, pecan trees and much more.
That unemployed woman was relying on that garden to provide the things that she needed.
But the government control freaks savagely ripped it all out and left her with nothing.
Now she will have to be dependent on the government because she has no other way to take care of herself.
#14 Does your child ever throw temper tantrums?
If so, your child may get arrested and sent to a mental institution if he or she throws a tantrum in front of the police.
#15 Did you ever take plastic utensils with you to school when you were a kid?
Well, these days if you live in Florida you better not do that.
An 11-year-old kid down in Florida was actually arrested by police, thrown in jail and charged with a third-degree felony simply for bringing a plastic butter knife to school.
#16 In the state of Massachusetts, all children in daycare centers are mandated by state law to brush their teeth after lunch. In fact, the state even provides the fluoride toothpaste for the children.
Isn’t that just so nice of them?
#17 In the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania it is illegal to make even a single dollar from a blog unless you buy a $300 business license. The city government even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years.
#18 If you saw someone that was thirsty, would you give that person a cup of cold water to drink?
Be careful before you answer that question – you might be breaking the law by giving someone water.
For example, down in Louisiana one church was recently ordered to stop giving out water because it did not have the “proper permit” to do so.
#19 This last example might be the saddest one of all. If you can believe it, all over the United States cities are actually banning feeding the homeless. The following comes from a recent USA Today article….
Philadelphia recently banned outdoor feeding of people in city parks. Denver has begun enforcing a ban on eating and sleeping on property without permission. And this month, lawmakers in Ashland, Ore., will consider strengthening the town’s ban on camping and making noise in public.
And the list goes on: Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Oklahoma City and more than 50 other cities have previously adopted some kind of anti-camping or anti-food-sharing laws, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.
Are you angry yet?
You should be.
All of these completely ridiculous regulations are absolutely sucking the life out of us.
That is probably why a recent speech by U.S. Representative Mike Kelly received thunderous applause on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. If you have not seen his speech about how regulations are killing America yet, please take a few minutes out to watch it. You will be glad that you did….
Please share this video and this article with as many people as you can.
These control freaks are absolutely killing America.
I don’t want to see this country suffocated to death by red tape.
Instead, I want to see this country move back in the direction of maximizing liberty and freedom.
What about you?
What do you want for the future of this country?
A good question. One all of us, not just in America but throughout the West, should ask, about our respective countries, because this kind of thing is happening everywhere.
Many around the ‘sphere choose not to vote as it just encourages the bastards. Others abstain for religious reasons. A few of us still vote. Regardless of whether or not we participate, it seems these arguments focus upon federal elections–president and congress– and seldom include discussions of school boards, zoning, and millage. While it is true that one vote generally doesn’t matter at the national level, one vote can matter locally. Tax increases, local officials (who wield more power than you realize), liquor sales laws and a variety of other decisions arise from the local level. These decisions directly affect you as a resident of those areas.
For those who abstain from federal elections, do you also abstain from local ones? Regardless of answer, why?
I recently came across this article, about how police chaplains in Charlotte, North Carolina, are forbidden to mention the name of Jesus in prayer. I have read similar things before, happening elsewhere; I’m sure this is not unique; moreover, I think we can expect it to become more common, rather than less, as time goes by.
Today, I came across this article, about how chaplains in the American military are increasingly coming under pressure, as to what they can read from Scripture, how they are to pray, etc. There, too, chaplains are being strongly encouraged to toe the politically correct line, or consider resigning; no doubt in time, they’ll be forced out, if they can’t abide the government’s regulations on them.
Now, conservatives of the kind who are inclined to support the police and the military in all that they do, no doubt find these kinds of pressure on police and military chaplains distressing, and would like to see it stop. So would I, but I think a bigger question, that perhaps Christians should start asking, is whether we should even bother. Given the pointlessness in wasted lives lost overseas for no good reason, and billions of dollars spent on such operations; and given increasing police idiocy and tyranny in society today, I think churches ought to take a more critical look at State institutions such as the police and the military today, and consider whether (a) they should really be encouraging, rather than actively discouraging, their members from becoming part of the tyrannical system (and therefore being in need of having spiritual support from chaplains in such professions), and (b) whether they should continue to send chaplains into the police and military services, given that they are increasingly being put under pressure to deny Christ’s name, and Christian teachings – we are, after all, to ‘obey God rather than men’, as Peter said, when there is a conflict between the two.
Perhaps churches should both speak out against the evils of such state institutions today, and discourage their members from newly joining them – but also keep their chaplains in them as long as they can, to support those Christians still in them, and to bear witness for Christ - and have their chaplains actively defy and disobey government edicts, by reading Biblical passages against sodomy, by praying in Christ’s name, etc., until they are either kicked out or jailed; perhaps the time has indeed come, for Christians in the West, to courageously stand actively against the evils of our time, in bold defiance, regardless of the cost. For we know, our reward in heaven will be great.
BTW, for now, it seems hospital chaplains and prison chaplains aren’t coming in for the same kind of treatment (at least, I haven’t read or heard of many such cases) - but no doubt, it will come, too… We should prepare ourselves for that eventuality.
The leading theory behind the uptick in childhood allergies, says Andy Nish, a physician with a private practice in Gainesville, Ga., is the hygiene hypothesis. Paradoxically, the theory goes, we’re too clean.
“It looks like with our modern conditions and cleanliness that we have fewer and fewer germs to fight off,” Nish says. Our immune systems protect us by learning to fight off foreign invaders, whether they’re harmless or not. We can’t train our defenses if we don’t get exposed. And if you’re allergic to one thing, you’re likely allergic to a number of things.
Holbreich recently did a study, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, which found very low rates of allergies among Amish children living on farms in Indiana. He says the reason may be because the children get exposed very early on to dirty environments, and to a variety of dust and germs. Even young kids are often in the barn, working with animals, and drinking raw milk.
“We think there’s something about milk,” Holbreich says. “That’s key, along with exposure to large animals, particularly cows.”
So maybe pasteurization isn’t the end-all, be-all, after all… Sadly, even Holbreich can’t stomach the implications of his own studies, as in the next breath, he “cautions against drinking raw milk or serving it to your child. It contains too many dangerous, disease-causing bacteria”, despite his own findings. What cognitive dissonance he must suffer…
I see that people in our part of the tradosphere / manosphere have been talking about gay marriage again (occasioned by President Obama’s coming out in favour of gay marriage) – see Elspeth’s post here and Ulysses’ post here – same as has been discussed before in the manosphere and tradosphere, e.g. twice by Ferd himself (see here and here) and once at Ferd’s by Johann Happolati, here, and also over by Alte at TC a while back, here.
As anyone will see who reads my previous comments on Ferd’s and Alte’s posts, I do care about the issue (it affects how I vote, or rather, how I don’t vote), and am opposed to institutionalizing gay marriage, for the reasons I gave there. (BTW, like Ulysses and Chris, I, too, have known a number of gay people, both IRL and online, and get along fine with them; doesn’t mean I endorse their lifestyle, though; as a Christian, I cannot. Simple as that.)
Now, Chris has come at it from a different angle – see his comment here, and his post here.
Chris asks if the State should even be involved in marriage, in the first place, and gives his opinion that it shouldn’t.
This is the libertarian perspective, of course; I recall, back in the days when I used to read paleolibertarian sites like Lew Rockwell regularly, similar arguments put forth there; in fact, a quick search reveals several hundred articles on the subject there.
Chris writes:
If the state is not involved in families, and I consider this is the correct place for the state and the more sustainable position to take, then the state will not pay when things go wrong. Instead, people will have to rely on their extended family and charity.
This need to rely on those you love puts a brake on things. It means that there would be some very hard conversations about adoption — as some families would not be able to keep and feed the next child — and clear consequences to playing the field. For as a male, you cannot assume it is ever safe to have sex: If you do have intercourse with a woman you are leaving yourself open to having to provide for any child of that act.
And biology will win out. No contraception is foolproof. And rewarding irresponsibility… which is what the state at times does to gain control over more of our lives, increases the rate of such behaviour.
Which, in the end, is a road that leads to the state defaulting, the people struggling to survive, and those dependent on the state having to find another source of support. In the end, a man, though imperfect, is more secure.
I see Chris’ point, and see much wisdom in it; forcing people to rely on their extended families / charities / the Church, rather than the State, would disincentivize both gay marriage and frivolous divorce, certainly. Plus, I have never liked the State declaring people who live together in sin to be considered as married according to “common law”, as is the case in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, thus giving them the privileges on the one hand, and responsibilities on the other, that those who have consciously chosen to join together in the act of marriage, have; it has always struck me as unfair in both directions.
At the same time, however, I am hesitant to embrace such a stance, of getting the State completely out of the marriage business, because, as a traditionalist conservative / reactionary, I would prefer to see the State actively support and stand for the good, rather than being morally neutral, on moral matters.
That said, though, I certainly would prefer the State be neutral rather than be actively encouraging ill, as I believe it is doing now, whether unwittingly or deliberately.
The thing is, though, even if the State were to no longer officially recognize either the married or single state of its citizens, it would still be involved in the enforcement of contracts, if the parties in question appealed to the State to resolve any disputes they might have. So I can’t see that the State would ever be fully removed from involvement, regardless…
So… I have much sympathy for Chris’ POV, without being able to fully embrace it, myself, at this time. My views may evolve, though. We’ll see.
