RSS

Saudi Arabia elected to UN women’s rights commission

Comedy gold! 🙂

Saudi Arabia was elected to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

The addition of the Gulf nation was first flagged by UN Watch, a nongovernmental body that monitors the United Nations. The Commission on the Status of Women’s main mission is to assess the challenges to reaching gender inequality, according to the U.N. website.

“Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief,” Hillel Neuer said.

Neuer called the election “absurd,” noting that all women in Saudi Arabia “must have a male guardian who makes all critical decisions on her behalf, controlling a woman’s life from her birth until death. Saudi Arabia also bans women from driving cars.”

Saudi Arabia, a top U.S. ally, is also on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Can’t say that I care; I hate the U.N. anyway, and have long done so. Just more proof of its absurdity…

 

Should traditionalist congregations rent space from organizations we otherwise find problematic?

In the Reformed tradition of which I am a part, many if not most of our churches have their own buildings, but some rent space for worship and/or midweek church activities in other spaces, of various kinds; sometimes in school gymnasiums (sometimes from Christian schools but other times from secular, public schools); other times in ethnic community halls, or service club / fraternal organization halls (e.g. Lions or Rotary; or Shriners / Masons, Orange Order, etc.). And other times, congregations rent church buildings belonging to other denominations, sometimes evangelical churches but more often than not old mainline Protestant churches; sometimes these are hardly used at all any more by the denominations to which they belong; other times they are still used regularly, and so our service times have to be planned to be sufficiently separated from their own, if possible, so you don’t have overlap of cars in the parking lot (space limitation issues), etc.

And I know this is not only true for my tradition, but for other Reformed denominations / federations, and not only, but there are many other cases of various denominations renting space in other churches. (For that matter, a Reformed church I previously belonged to had an Asian evangelical congregation renting space in it. And that scenario, of newer ethnic congregations renting older churches’ buildings, is fairly common.)

Returning to the specific subject of conservative, traditionalist churches renting space in church buildings belonging to often heretical, if not outright apostate, mainline Protestant denominations, or to secular public schools (which already get government money, and which all too often attack the beliefs we hold, and those students in them that are faithful believers), fraternal organizations we may find problematic (whether Freemasons or Orangemen or other lodges), part of me wonders: should we be giving them regular financial support this way, week by week? I mean, I understand the way elders in our churches must be looking at it: simply as an economic transaction. They have a space they’re not using or not using all the time at least; we need a space, therefore let’s rent from them. I get that, but OTOH, when I’ve been part of a congregation meeting in, say, a mainline Protestant church building, and I see their sign out front reading ‘Minister: Rev. Jane Smith’; their ‘inclusive’ songbooks or worse, ‘inclusive’ ‘Bibles’ in the pews (even though we’re not using them), their stupid multiculturalism-and-‘diversity’-promoting banners on the walls, and I think, many of these congregations are or would likely be struggling but get regular life-saving injections of money from us traditionalist conservative confessional orthodox Protestants, I wonder why the hell we are subsidizing our enemies. Same with when we meet in a secular, public school gymnasium; we’re giving more money to a beast that already has its own means of financing, including against our will, in the form of our tax dollars, and is often teaching godless, atheistic secular humanist anti-Christian worldview prog agitprop, against everything we believe; why should we give them one red cent more than is extorted from us by the State through our taxes?

If we can’t afford our own buildings at a particular time, shouldn’t we at least find a space to rent space from that either supports something we believe in (e.g. a Christian school gymnasium) or at least something we’re neutral towards (e.g. a Lions Club International or Rotary International hall)? Wouldn’t that be the most godly use of our money, even if it isn’t necessarily the cheapest place to rent? Would not God be more honoured by such a decision, rather than giving money to our enemies?

I mean, surely it’s one thing to buy an old building outright from an apostate / heretical mainline Protestant denomination that isn’t using it, giving them a one-time injection of wealth, then owning the building for ourselves thereafter; it’s another to regularly financially support those who oppose the true Triune God and His ways and His people and what we believe in, stand for, and practice, in our day to day lives, voting, etc.

Of course, until we have our own buildings, we could alternately meet in each others’ homes – like the early church did (see here, here, here, and here). (I’ve myself belonged to churches that have done this, and have found it a blessing.) I don’t know why that alternative isn’t more popular, given that it is directly Biblical…

 
21 Comments

Posted by on April 23, 2017 in religion, spirituality, The Kulturkampf, Theology

 

This Earth Day, Remember How Often Environmental Alarmists Are Wrong

This Earth Day, Remember How Often Environmental Alarmists Are Wrong

We will not be destroyed by global warming; we have God’s promise of that

Environmentalism is truly a religion

 

 
4 Comments

Posted by on April 22, 2017 in Linklove, The Kulturkampf

 

France’s homewrecker boy-toy contender

Emmanuel Macron is 39.

His wife is 63.

No doubt not only his youthful good looks, a la Justin Trudeau, but also his being an older woman’s boy toy, explains why he is a strong contender, alas…

Learn the stirring story of how they ended up together:

Someone who certainly saw him that way was Brigitte Trogneux, his drama teacher. “He wasn’t like the others,” she told a French documentary last year, “he wasn’t a teenager. He had a relationship of equals with other adults.”

One day, she remembers, he came to her with plans to write a play together for her final year drama class. “I didn’t think it would go very far,” she said. “I thought he would get bored. We wrote, and little by little I was totally overcome by the intelligence of this boy.”

At 16, Macron left Amiens to finish his schooling in Paris, vowing to marry his former teacher. “We’d call each other all the time and spend hours on the phone,” she remembered. “Bit by bit, he defeated all my resistance, in an amazing way, with patience.”

Brigitte Trogneux was 24 years older than Macron, and married with three children. But she left her husband, and began a relationship with her former pupil. The couple married in 2007.

Aw… {/sarcasm}

She looks kinda like a French Jane Fonda, but not as good.

This is what Marine Le Pen is up against…

 
8 Comments

Posted by on April 21, 2017 in Brave New World Order

 

Is Theresa May’s reversal of her previous position, in deciding to call a snap election, to win a greater mandate for Brexit – or is she trying to sabotage it by giving voters one more chance to reject it?

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s apparent change of heart and resulting decision to call an early election has been approved by a two/thirds majority, but what is her intent? To, as per the conventional wisdom, gain a greater mandate for Brexit so she can bargain from a position of strength, or is it to betray Brexit?

A June General Election now would not be a normal one. Like the Peers v the People Election of 1910 it will be predominantly about a single issue, namely, Brexit. Indeed, it could reasonably be portrayed as a proxy for re-running the EU Referendum.

There is a considerable psychological difference between voting in a referendum with a clear cut yes or no decision for the voter to make and a General Election, which is about choosing a people to make decisions on a multiplicity of subjects for several years. Many of those who voted to Leave the EU are not natural Tory voters, especially those working-class Labour voters who did much to win the referendum. Those voters may not be anything like as willing to vote for a Tory government as they were to vote for Brexit.

Motivation to vote will also be important. It is arguable that the remainers will tend to be more strongly committed to vote than Brexiteers simply because they were the referendum losers and consequently will be without any feeling of complacency. They will see this as an occasion to vent their anger and frustration. Brexiteers may be more inclined to think that the Brexit job is, if not done, is at least on a track from which it cannot be derailed and be less inclined to vote, especially if they are the people who are not natural Conservatives.

Remainer voters will also be energised by the fact that May has said repeatedly that she would not attempt to call an early General Election. Some leave voters may also feel uneasy about this and be persuaded not to vote on 8 June.

Finally, there is sheer voter fatigue. British voters have had a General Election in 2015, the EU referendum in 2016 and face local elections. Scottish voters had the independence referendum in 2014 and Northern Ireland had devolved elections in March 2017. Getting voters out for elections where voters are voting for parties have been in decline since the 1950s. It is probable that the turnout of a June General Election will be significantly below the turnout for the EU referendum which saw a turnout of 72%. If the turnout was significantly below this the remainers will use it to cast aspersions on May’s claim that she had a mandate from the British people.

All of this adds up to a need for all those who want to see Brexit completed to be both committed to the coming election and to think forward beyond it. If, as seems most likely, Theresa May comes back from the election with a substantial majority that does not mean Brexiteers can relax. A large majority might allow May to push Brexit through but it will also allow her to be dishonest. It should never be forgotten that she is a remainer and most of her cabinet and Parliamentary Party are remainers. They would in their heart of hearts like to have something far less than Brexit. Already there have been disturbing signs of May’s intentions to sabotage the vote to leave. For example, in the prime areas for Brexit of immigration and the Single Market, Home Secretary Amber Rudd says immigration may not drop significantly after Brexit, while the supposedly rock solid Brexiteer David Davis suggested in December that the UK might pay a fee to the EU to retain access to the Single Market.

The watchword for Brexiteers must be as ever eternal vigilance. Start counting the spoons.

Time will tell, perhaps, whether May is betraying the British people the way Trump has betrayed reactionaries.

 
26 Comments

Posted by on April 20, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

“Do you want symbolic arrests?”

Yeah.

 

A Happy and Blessed Easter, to all!

Hallelujah, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth, Hallelujah! The Kingdom of this world is become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever, Hallelujah! King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and he shall reign for ever and ever, Hallelujah!

(Revelation 19:6; 11:15; 19:16)

 
10 Comments

Posted by on April 16, 2017 in good news, religion