‘The Stupid’

What’s ‘The Stupid’, I hear you ask?

‘The Stupid’ captures a fundamental nature, a condition of our species. It is part of the essence of the human being, a unifying recurrent, an irresistible persistent that enables virtually any human decision and/or action to be predicted with almost God-like accuracy (no kidding). The fact is, you will virtually never lose when you bet on this simple overriding factor; the one constant that has threaded its way throughout human history; the superseding essence that will dog humanity’s steps for all time to come.

That’s ‘The Stupid’.

Let me share a classic case in point. . .

Calls Mount for Australian State to Rescind Religious Hatred Law

(CNSNews.com) - A campaign to dump a religious hatred law in Australia is winning growing support from churches -- including some whose opinion on the law has shifted since two Christians were found guilty of vilifying Muslims.

‘The Stupid’, example 1:

Mainstream church leaders are adding their voices to other Christians asking the State of Victoria's Labor government to rescind the legislation, saying it poses a danger to freedom of speech.

‘Mainstream church leaders’. Uh huh. Let’s get something straight right now. These are some of the same guys that got up and made representations in support of the Muslim complainants, and therefore the legislation itself, in front of the Tribunal that ended up slotting the two Pastors in the first place. Now they want the legislation rescinded? Say what? Simple. Because they’ve only just now started working out what the ramifications of this legislation really are.

Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act made headlines around the world after Muslims took two pastors before a tribunal, complaining about a post-9/11 seminar designed to explain Islam to a Christian audience.

The case against the pair was the first to be brought under the law, which was promulgated by the Victorian government despite concerns raised by Christian groups that it could stifle evangelism or end the right to question the validity of other faiths.

Actually, I don’t recall any such discussion. I do recall the Churches that appeared before the tribunal, though, all guns blazing as they joined the Islamic Council of Victoria to smack down the two Pastors from Catch the Fire.

'The Stupid’, example 2:

The law passed and took effect in January 2002. Just two months later, Nalliah's Catch the Fire Ministries hosted the seminar. Muslims attending the meeting filed a complaint which after a drawn-out process culminated in December's judgment.

No coincidences there, I’m afraid. Catch the Fire was set up, as were all the other Christian Churches. They just didn’t see it coming.

While not necessarily defending what was said at the Catch the Fire seminar, church leaders in Victoria are now asking the state government to intervene, and hope to meet with state Premier Steve Bracks within days.

Want to take a wild punt at what Labour (left-wing) Premier Imam El Bracksistani will say? My money is on, ‘Go take a running jump’. And the reason why is simple. This legislation was never intended to work both ways. It was always intended to oppress the non-Muslim community. And this is precisely why the Equal Opportunity Commission originally went about actively discriminating by informing the Muslim community about this legislation, while leaving the rest of the community out of that exercise and effectively in the dark.

But now we get to the crux of ‘The Stupid’ in this case, the core problem this writer saw with this legislation, and sees in the media and elsewhere almost every single day:

Both the Presbyterian and Anglican (Episcopalian) churches argue that the legislation has mixed up questions of religious and racial hatred.

Bingo!

"It was a great mistake for the government to lump religious vilification in with racial vilification," Harman said. "Apart from a very few small groupings. . .race and religion in the modern world are not the same thing. Race for any person is a given, not so religion."

Double bingo!!

Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Watson said in an article in the diocesan newspaper that his denomination had not examined the free speech issue closely enough when the law was being drafted.
While race was an identifying factor, "religion is a matter for discussion, debate and choice. Not everything that is offensive or upsetting to us should be outlawed," Watson said.

What constitutes offense?

Triple Bingo!!!

At its core, anything constitutes ‘offence’, Peter. Anything at all. And that’s because the ‘offence’ effectively revolves around that oh-so-nebulous concept called ‘ideas’, in this case religious ones. And all one effectively has to do is to say ‘I’m offended by yours’, and under this legislation, you’re very likely toast. Beaut’, isn’t it? Let’s cue the Gestapo, shall we (or whatever the new left-wing Victorian thought police are being called)? They also didn’t need anything more than a feeling of ‘offence’ at opposing ‘ideas’ to ship people off to a happy, clappy death camp.