Monthly Archives: November 2014

The Freedom of Religion otherwise known as separation of Church and State


The separation of Church and State is an issue in each of our respective countries.  The meaning of this principle is not as claimed by the atheists and others who have an issue against Christians.  By this I mean that this principle has nothing to do with the notion that the State must not allow anything with religious overtones, except it seems if it has something to do with Islam.

What I am getting at here is that there is a lot of hypocrisy by people who are opposed to Christians. This becomes obvious when the State is insisting that Christians who have certain moral values must for example allow gay “marriages” to take place on their premises, or they must bake cakes for gays who are “getting married”. In such cases the people making the complaint could have either accessed other facilities or used other bakers, yet they decided to oppress the Christian owners of their businesses.  This of course means that the State is in fact denying the principle of separation of Church and State by punishing the owners of these businesses.

Here in Australia the latest affront to Catholics is in Victoria where the Victorian Opposition Leader has announced that if he becomes Premier then he will punish the Catholic Church and force the Catholic Schools to take on individuals as teachers who do not in fact follow the practices of the Catholic Church. This is a very grave affront to Catholics for the simple reason that such an effort is indeed total hypocrisy….. and it has nothing to do with separation of Church and State.

Let me reiterate once again the true meaning of this principle, and a little bit of the history behind why the U.S. founding fathers thought that it is important. The principle is “the State must not enact a religion over any other religion” or in simpler terms the State must not establish a religion. What this should mean to the people is that the State cannot establish, for example the Anglican or Episcopalians as the main religion of the State. At the same time it means that Islam cannot become the religion of State.

As I thought about writing this post, one thing that was uppermost in my mind was the way in which the study of Islam is being foisted on students in public schools whilst the Christian religion is being punished or banned. In some areas of the USA, and in the UK for example, people are not even allowed to outwardly display their Christianity. They cannot pray before a football or a baseball match, or at the school assembly and these are just a few examples of State oppression against Christians. In the same vein as these examples, the State trying to force a Catholic School Administration to take atheists or people of other “faiths” does indeed go against the very principle of separation of Church and State.

I remind you of some of the history behind this principle, because it goes back to ancient times. In the period of the Maccabees the Jews were forced to worship the Greek god that was placed in the temple or die. The story of the woman and her 7 sons exemplifies those who are willing to sacrifice their lives rather than worship idols. However, during that same period there were many who agreed to worship the Greek god rather than remain faithful to the One True God. When the Romans took over from the Greeks, they were insisting that the people treat the Roman emperor as though he was a God. Thousands of Christians died because they were not willing to make sacrifices to the Roman Emperor. They were persecuted for their faith. Eventually, under Constantine the Christian religion became the religion of the State, but after Constantine there were other Emperors who had other ideas, and they worshiped idols, thus the Christians once again faced being persecuted and death. Some emperors attempted to interfere in the running of the Church, going as far as removing a Pope who did not agree with them…. history is littered with many examples of this form of interference. This brings me up to the time of Henry VIII who made himself the head of the Church in England. Once again Catholics were being oppressed in the name of the State. Queen Mary in turn persecuted some who were opposed to her Catholicism. Then along came Queen Elizabeth 1, and once again Catholics were persecuted. After this reign and after King James,  the Roundheads gained control of the Parliament and once again Catholics were persecuted and martyred.

I am concentrating here on a bit of English history because a lot of the early settlers in the USA were English. They were people who were fleeing persecution (even though their sect had been doing the persecution in England at the time). They understood the need to be free to form their own ideas. For this reason, the various sects within Christianity, including the cults such as Scientology, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians and others have been allowed to exist without persecution.

What has happened here is that the principle of Separation of Church and State has become warped and it no longer operates as was intended by those who did not want the State interfering in their religious beliefs. If a State Government attempts to force certain things on a Church school system, then that is a violation of a fundamental right of freedom of religion and it sets up a war between that Church group and the State.

U.N. does something right – bans two branches of Ansar-al-Shariah


It has taken the U.N. more than two years to take this action against Ansar-al-Shariah, however, this is good news as far as I am concerned.

The U.N. has placed Ansar-al-Shariah Derna and Ansar-Al-Shariah Benghazi on the terror list. Both groups are responsible for terror attacks inside Libya and they are directly responsible for the death of the U.S. Ambassador and his companions on September 11 2012. Since then they have been attacking people in Benghazi, as well as being behind kidnappings etc. etc.

The ban means that members of Ansar-al-Shariah are placed on a travel watch list. The ban includes not being allowed to get hold of weapons (fat chance of enforcing that, U.N.)

For once I believe that the U.N. is correct, but I believe that this action is 2 years too late.

Will Saudi Arabia ease driving restrictions for women?


The London Telegraph is reporting that Saudi Arabia is considering allowing women over 30, not wearing make-up to drive until 8.00 pm.

Personally, I find the possibility that the Shura Council is even contemplating such easing of restrictions to be very surprising. The Saudis have been flaunting their negativity towards women and the Saudi women, like those in Iran are very oppressed. A woman faces the possibility of being lashed for simply showing a piece of skin in these countries and those women do need the support of other women around the world, if they are to be successful in being able to cat off the yoke of oppression that weighs them down within Islam.

Is this move simply a sign of the times? I do not know the answer to that question.

Now about those chemical weapons in Iraq


Yes, the chemical weapons existed. Saddam Hussein had used mustard gas on the Kurds and killed thousands in an attack…

For the past 11 years the New York Times and other MSM sites have continued the lie about the existence of the chemical weapons in Iraq but it turns out that someone had been lying all along… and it was not George W. Bush who was doing the lying.

The Times in London reports that more than 600 soldiers had complained about chemical weapons exposure during their tours of duty in Iraq.

More than 600 US troops since 2003 reported that they were exposed to chemical agents in Iraq, a much higher number than the Pentagon stated previously.

The revelation was first reported by the New York Times, which has revealed in a series of articles this month that American troops handled an arsenal of deteriorating chemical agents and were sometimes told to stay silent about what they encountered.

The Pentagon failed to recognise the scale of the reported cases of exposure to chemical agents or to offer proper tracking and treatment to those troops who may have been injured, the Times wrote, citing defense officials.

Before the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, president George W. Bush insisted Baghdad was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program.

US forces found no proof of an active program, but they did find remnants of an aging chemical stockpile that they were not well trained to handle.

So it would seem that all those denials and blaming George Bush for going into Iraq, allegedly something that was unnecessary was nothing more than a load of horse manure!!

That was an interesting election result


Well it looks like Republican voters finally came out to play in the elections. The end result is one that is historic for various reasons.

Congratulations to Senator Tim Scott from North Carolina. This man has proved that claiming Republicans are racist is nothing more than a Democrat lie… perhaps one day I will go into a further explanation because in my view it is the Democrats who are the racists and the leadership remains racist. Needless to say here that Senator Scott’s win is very historic.

Congratulations to Nikki Haley and Susan Martinez on their electoral victories and their return as governor to their respective States. Susan Martinez would make an excellent Presidential candidate, as would Governor Scott Walker. If Susan Martinez was to win the right to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2016 then this would be an historic moment for women in the USA. She would be a far better choice than one, Hillary Clinton of Benghazi fame.

In regard to Governor Scott Walker, this man has faced 3 elections including a recall election in Wisconsin that he won handily. The attempt to smear him with the John Doe investigation has not work. Scott Walker remains a viable possible Presidential candidate in the future. He would make a good President.

Congratulations to Senator elect Cory Gardiner with his defeat of Mark Udall. Well done.

I cannot neglect Governor elect Greg Abbott in Texas. Again this is well done and really, it was a no brainer because a woman who allows her followers to throw certain material in the Senate chamber is not fit to untie the shoes of Greg Abbott (and not because he is a god or anything like that but because of the ethics involved in regard to his opponent… what a yucky person).

There have been several interesting results in New York State, Illinois and California, as well as in Arkansas. Some of these results need to be clarified. In particular I mention New Yor 23 which was another no brainer.

Should I leave out the result for Governor in Massachusetts? I see that the people have made up their minds and decided that Martha Coakley needs to be retired out of politics. Well done to the Republican Governor elect.

Florida also made sure that Charlie Crist remains in obscurity. Governor Scott deserves his win, but for some there will always be a sour taste in the mouth over his decisions relating to Trayvon Martin.

Now on to Georgia and again, well done to the Republican Senator elect who beat Michelle Nunn, and that should have been a no brainer anyway.

I have only mentioned some of the races, and I should not leave out the fact that there has been a wave of red spreading through the South. Could it be that some sense has been knocked into people who had not seen past the ploys of the Democrats? Definitely, history has been made in 2014 and I can only hope that US politics will begin to improve.

There is not much hope in California because the incompetent Jerry Brown has been returned as Governor. What a shocking result… but there were other races in California where seats were flipped and the Democratic stranglehold has been loosed.