What Republicans think I do.
What Democrats think I do.
What the MSM thinks I do.
What my friends think I do.
What I think I do.
What Daniel Barnes thinks I do.
What I actually do.
A colder Society
All around us we see need.
Financial, emotional, and spiritual needs that is.
Now, here we get into the financial part of this.
In NZ, when we see someone clearly in need, the general view as far as I see it is “the government needs to help this person” or “this person must be able to get something from the government” and on we go feeling good about ourselves, but *we* have not really done anything.
We may even stand up for beneficiaries rights.
“Share it fair it, but don’t take a slice of my pile”
True caring for someone else is to help them directly, not to force someone else to help.
In Mexico, I saw a society that helped its poor directly, thus pulling the society closer together.
The poor would work where they could, even doing simple things, it blew my mind a bit.
The people feel responsible for the poor, which makes for a warmer society.
Jonathan Bennett
Hamilton Libertarian
^^^See Jono’s Rebel Stunt Video Here:
A Reward of 100 thousand dollars is being Offered for the capture of the Taliban scum whom treid to murder this little girl.
Read more Here:
Pakistan has observed a National Day of Prayer for her Recovery.
I too pray for Her Recovery, for the safety of her Family, and that this event stimulates a mighty storm against the Taliban and Extremism. That Religious Liberty and Tollerance wins the day.
Learn Liberty Here:
Humbling courage of teenage girl who took on the Taliban: The inspirational story of 14-year-old who has shown breathtaking defiance in the face of deathMalala Yousafzai, 14, publicly condemned the Taliban’s brutal atrocities and campaigned like mad for girls’ education
She is now fighting for her life after being shot in the neck and head at close range
The Tehreek-iTaliban Pakistan (TTP) accepted responsibility and promised that if Malala survives their bullets, they will target her again
Read story Here:
One of the most sickening spectacles in recent years has been the growing Islam-a-phobia amongst so called Libertarian thinkers.
The terrorists have won when they have succeeded in infecting the world with the notion that either the west must outlaw and annihilate the Islamic world, or be consumed by it… they have succeeded in generating ‘intolerance’ and Jihad’… on both sides.
“Death to Islam!”… the Objectivists chant.
“Where are all the Moderates protesting against extremism?…” the Islamiphobes cry.
“There is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim!” They exclaim.
I have been appalled by such Mob phobia… How is it that even the most intelligent and enlightened people are so easily manipulated into a bigotry and hatred?
Don’t they understand what terrorism is?… How it operates… why there are so few voices of protest against Extremism?
This is rich indeed coming from ‘Armchair’ revolutionaries and Intellectuals sitting Cozily by their fires… Meanwhile … thousands of miles away… in Taliban country… a little 14 year old Muslim girl teaches these fear ridden Master minds the price of standing up for Liberty beyond the frontiers of their living rooms!
Yes Little Malala Yousafzai and her brave family show the world what it takes to stand up in resistance to this insidious Evil… religious extremism… religious intolerance… Religious tyranny… under such circumstances… It takes an absolute commitment to truth and justice… to the degree that it is more precious than life itself!
It takes a religious Faith that to do what is right is more important than life itself… and that though there are many Muslims whom know that The Taliban and the extremists are evil, and would rejoice the day they are swallowed up by the Earth… They have been terrified into silence… and only a handful dare step forward under Terror.
What say ye Islamiphobes to this?
Can you honestly tell me you would be as brave as this little girl and her Kin?
Taliban Terrorist Scum! Satanic. Tyranical over their own people, Intollerant, Savage, Brutal, Murdeous, Self Righteous, Killers of Children.
How can the pretend to be the servants of God?
I despise them, yet am not so foolish as to believe they ar representive of all Muslims!
Such a conclusion is a terrorist induced Phobia.
Malala and her family have done the whole world a great service!
They have proven that not all Muslims are Fanatics… not all terrorists.
Their bravery gives the world hope that Freedom and justice can indeed prevail in a world in which Islam is the chosen faith of a large percentage of the population.
In respect to speaking out against tyranny…they possess Christ like character, and I pray The Good Lord watches over them and has mercy upon their souls…!
I pray their sacrifice is the catalyst for a major reaction against the Extremists.
I pray all moderate/ peaceful and tolerant Muslims are pricked in their hearts for their scilence… that they become outraged!
If there ever was an appropriate time for outrage, the shooting of this little hero is it!
May the moderates be emboldened by this shinning example of courage and virtue displayed by a little Muslim girl and her family.
Of course the purpose of shooting this Angel of justice was to further terrify the population into remaining silent.
Will Terror continue to prevail over Moral courage?
Tim Wikiriwhi. Christian Libertarian.
Update:
Important note: It is a most difficult task to convey what I am attempting to achieve with posts like this. Some people will think I am trying to stifle just criticism… eg The Objectivist Lindsay Perigo is quite right to be outraged against the intolerance of those Muslims whom riot and murder, and commit terrorism because they are incensed about cartoons, or Movies which they believe are disrespectful of Islam.
Some people will think I must have rocks in my head! Surely Tim must be blind to the Threat of Sharia Law… as absolutely incompatible with religious liberty and a free society.
In spite of my argument above… where is the voice of protest from Muslims living in western nations against religious extremism?
My point is that while I agree that these serious problems need to be expressed, that Libertarians must take extreme care not to assume that these Evils are shared by all Muslims, that these evils define Islam, or that they prove Islam is absolutely incompatible with a free society.
To believe this is a massive fail.
It is the lazy mans view.
It is definitively collectivist thinking.
It is an un libertarian excuse to perpetrate bigotry and hate.
It is to sell the world out to Jihad… that no grounds for peaceful coexistence can be found between East and West.
It is to ignore the bravery of such people as Malala and her family
It is to pretend all Muslims support the Talebans and Al Qaeda’s quest to Install tyrannical Islamic theocracies throughout the globe.
I will be writing more on this subject yet for now I will say my chief accusation against the Islamaphobes is that they don’t balance their writing as I attempt to do… ie I attempt to differentiate the good side from the Bad side… and throw support in for the Good and condemn the bad. eg when I am attacking Waitangi apartheid I take care to distinguish the Hateful Racist radicals from the rest of Maoridom whom are as much a victim of the racism as Non-Maori. And i attempt to make it clear that I am not Anti-Maori culture and that in Freedom Maori may embrace their culture as much as they desire… it simply will not be imposed upon others via oppressive laws…. and this is the same message which must be used in educating Muslims into the benefits of a free society. And it is this part of the message with is conspicuously absent from the rantings of the Islamiphobes. It is missing because they dont wish to admit they are extreme in their phobia.
They Rellish the opportunity to vent their Hatred. It may be enjoyable for them yet they fail Libertarianism because of this and do the cause of Liberty and justice a disservice.
I am a Christian. A Christian ought not Hate Islamic people but love them!
Christians ought not be an enemy of Islamic people… but an enemy of tyranny.
The Islamic people need the gospel, and we cannot expect to convert them if we ourselves meter out evil for evil… and act out of hate.
Peace, Liberty, and equality, are the best conditions for propigating the Gospel and showing the Lost the christian message… by compassionate example.
I ‘Liberated’ this from Young Americans for Liberty facebook page.
Christian Philosopher and Blogger Matthew Flannagan.
I am not Homophobic yet I must say my skin crawled watching the Affirmitive ‘Liberals’ in action .
University is truly a heinous place… full of lefty-ness!
I shudder to think these people will one day be in Parliament as Labour/ Green MPs.
The Opposition clearly won the debate… but…
I do have a few issues with what Dr Matthew Flannagan said.
1. You played the paranoia card… raising the specter that the bill may be used to compel people/ ministers/ churches to perform or make their facilities available for Gay Weddings against their will, even though you know The NZ Human Rights Commission has issued a statement which refutes this possibility.
The Affirmative team clearly stated the bill could not be used in such a way.
I say that an amendment could easily be added to clarify this point.
If this was done it would nullify this portion of your argument.
2. Though it was a clever argument to show that the proposed bill was ‘anti-equality’ in itself, you rely upon ‘populist opinion’ which riles against incest, and Polygamy to carry your point.
That is a very flimsy arguement!
The reality is if we separate your personal religious beliefs, and those of your two team mates whom share the same religion as you… and definition of marriage, then the principle of equality still holds good as an argument not only in favor of the bill, but also in favour of legalizing Incestuous and Polygamous marriages… which incidentally both have historical and cultural histories.
That the bill only seeks to legalise Gay Marriage, and not the others is not a valid reason to reject it, *and you know this*… and I argue that this understanding is why you are so desperate to insist the Law upholds *your narrow religious definitions* of marriage (and what constitutes a Family), because if these are overturned by the Gays, then you realise this opens the door for further challenge to legalize polygamy, etc.
The reality is any reform bill which introduces more justice/equality before the Law is worth supporting even if it does not go the whole hog. (eg a bill to legalise Pot still ought to be supported even if it leaves Ecstasy Illegal)
In relation to this, I think your teams argument regarding Civil unions was clever too… only because civil unions do ‘seem’ to cover the same legal/ contractual aspects as marriage and appears to negate the claims by gays that they have less legal rights.
Yet again I see through this as nothing more than a ruse to protect your religious restrictions upon the definition of marriage.
If we are to accept the line of reasoning of the opposition then of course any future activism for legal recognition by the polygamists, etc could also be directed down the same path … Legal polygamous civil unions.
Is all this merely semantics?
Is that all that is at stake here?
Are the Gays being ‘gay’ about this?
Ought they to be satisfied with ‘Civil Unions?
Ought we to put much weight on international conventions and rulings… UN declarations etc????
I think not!
If this issue was merely semantic there would be no opposition to the bill!
This Opposition is a struggle by a particular religious sector of the community… conservative Christians… to maintain a religious law.
That some gays may oppose the bill may indeed logically remove the legitimacy of calling opposition to the bill ‘homophobic’, yet this does little more than that.
This ‘convenience’ in reality cannot negate the truth that Homophobia and religious bigotry does indeed have a lot to do with opposition to the Bill.
I say the Opposition won because they were more sophisticated debaters and managed to deflect the focus away from their personal religious definition of marriage and family…. Yet pure Religious bias it remains.
And it is upon this basis that I… though I am a Christian, cast my vote *for the Bill*, and am happy for the term ‘Marriage’ to be legally broadened.
Why?
Because how the State defines the legal contract of marriage to include homosexuals, does not in any way affect my personal religious belief about ‘marriage.’
Allowing Gay people to legally call themselves ‘married’ does not impinge upon my rights in any way, nor does it mean I must teach my kids that Gays are ‘really married’ in the eyes of God.
I see no valid reason why the Bill ought to be opposed.
Passing the Bill will improve equality before the Law *by removing a religious prejudice.*
This is about principles! And principles Matter! Even of the Opposition thinks it’s trivial.
I despise any Law which imposes the religious values of others upon me, and so to avoid hypocrisy I must defend the Liberty of others to live free of religious values they reject… even if those values are dear to me. By protecting the Liberty of others from State oppression and favouritism, I am protecting my own religious liberty, and defending my values from being devalued and corrupted via compusion.
Real Christianity is not about forcing others to conform.