Righteousness Exalts A Nation - Just Ask Gillard, Clinton and Obama

Gillard sells the CO2 Tax.

"Australia is setting an example for the rest of the world to follow", we're told.

Subtext?

"In centuries to come, Australia will be admired as the country that got the ball rolling, that made the right choice."

Yes, Gillard believes that righteousness - making the morally tough but right decisions - does indeed exalt a nation.

So too does Hillary Clinton. And Obama.

Their latest trumpet blast is a rally to the new crusade against absolute morals in sexuality. Any absolute moral, that is, other than that it's absolutely right to do anything you want with as many other adults go along with it. And absolutely wrong to suggest otherwise.

But behold, this crusade - like crusades of centuries past - is not to be waged in their own borders, but to be exported to foreign lands.

That never asked for it.

Or wanted it.

Yup - crusades2you, no delivery fee.

Courtesy of the US government and its vast diplomatic resources.

Which might just happen to involve at least an inch or two of coercion against foreign countries.

And is explicitly intended to involve leaders forcing unwanted changes on their citizens.

Why this crusade? Why this impulse to spread their particular sexual ideology from sea to distant sea?

Weren't we just told decades ago that colonial England was very naughty when it supposedly crushed poor innocent native cultures, forcing western values in distant lands?

But isn't this exactly the same?

Identical, in fact.

But hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The goal has never been "protecting the helpless from foreign culture", but rather "forcing Humanistic values on others". See, a lot of the old English values were, well, just too Christian. Not acceptable, sorry. We're happy to colonise foreign minds, with taxpayer funds and coercion as needed, but it better be the religion of Humanism we're promoting, or at least, not Christianity, whatever you do, for gawd's sake.

But I digress.

See, Hillary and Obama believe they are saviours, that the world will see them as virtuous leaders - like Martin Luther King and others before them.

That in decades and centuries to come, the names Clinton and Obama will be uttered softly, and evoke a thrill of hope and confidence.

And not just them, but America. The America they led. The America that shoved homosexuality down the world's throat. Will be remembered as a saviour for the world.

In decades and centuries to come, people will say, "How was it that people survived in the early 21st century? Times were so barbaric! We're so grateful that America stepped up and taught the world how to think and act the right way."

The right way.

See, embracing homosexuality is "the right way".

I've not seen Hillary ever explain once why.

But supposedly it is.

Maybe she's a goddess or something? Maybe we should just take her word on blind faith. At least we can see her, unlike y'know like this Yahweh who's invisible.

But note it well : promoting acceptance of homosexuality is morally right, saith she.

As morally right as embracing religious tolerance. Even more morally right than embracing religious tolerance, because religious tolerance requires tolerating those who disagree with homosexuality, and we can't allow that.

It is the right thing to do.

Repeat that, say, hmmm, 100,000 times.

Here - I'll help you. Let's just get all the mass media parroting it too.

There - that's better.

Oh - and if anyone ever disagrees, see to it they're removed from office, so it looks like no-one of any consequence disagrees.

Yeah - cool. We're well on our way to 100,000.

See? You believe it now. Or if not, just say it a few more hundred thousand times.

Homosexuality is morally good. Not.

But see, Clinton and Obama believe it.

And now Gillard, pretending she cares about marriage, acts like she's simply a victim of her party - the Australian Labour Party - which has elected to make "homosexual marriage" national policy.

Poor Gillard - I'm sure she desperately wanted to defend marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman. Y'know, that's probably why she's the first Australian Prime Minister with a live-in boyfriend instead of a spouse. Yeah...

But the key take-home point is this : righteousness exalts a nation, and Gillard, Clinton and Obama all know it.

In their deluded imagination, they honestly believe that future generations will look back and think of Australia and America as great, because of their stance for CO2 taxes / homosexuality respectively.

Their morals are are immoral, but they believe them to be right - i.e. righteous - and they believe that this very righteousness will leave them and their nations exalted in the eyes of history.

Righteousness does indeed exalt a nation. And even atheists instinctively know it.

The question is : what is true righteousness?

The verse continues : "sin is a reproach to any people".

Clinton clearly defines sin : opposing homosexuality.

But her definition is mistaken. Grossly in error.

In her quest to exalt herself and her nation, she strives to earn reproach. She will be remembered. For a while. But not as the saviour she thinks.

Moral high-ground for Bob Brown the Atheist

Moral high-ground is of course a very funny thing for an atheist to claim, and yet some do. The Greens, an Australian political party, were founded by avowed atheists, and yet in all their advertising, they claim to be standing up for what's "right".

"Right", by whose measure? It's like bulldozing a pile of dirt into a mound then climbing atop it and claiming you're king. If you invent the mound to favour you, it's easy to claim the "high ground".

But all this talk of "right" is just bovine excrement, as it were. My mound - my moral high-ground - is butchering people just for the sadistic fun of it. My actions are "right" by that standard, and I am the king of that castle.

So long Greens. Intellectually duplicitous. Moral crusaders for their own defined cause, against the obvious principle of nature : atoms have no moral value, and neither do collections of atoms, such as humans, if atheism's materialistic underpinnings are correct.

Of course, if there is a "god", as I maintain is evident, then the Greens are not merely duplicitous (aka hypocrites), but right royally stuffed. But hey - that's their choice, and who am I to deny them their right to choose?

If only they would hold the same in reverse - but they don't.

They are vehemently anti-choice, suggesting that babies be given no choice over whether they live or die, Christian business leaders be given no choice but to register with the government (presumably for "permission" to continue the pernicious pursuit of earning money whilst - horrors - holding different beliefs to the Greens) *1, suggesting that I be given no choice when it comes to questioning the unquestionable virtues of homosexual lifestyles, and the list goes on.

Greens would equal hypocrites, if it weren't for the not-so-subtle socialist undertones that permeate the party. They are, after all, only hypocrites insofar as their actions decry their public platitudes. But their public platitudes are not reflective of their core ideology. As their actions reveal, they are hell-bent on deceiving the public whilst they busily work on promoting their agenda of deep government control over pretty much everything that happens outside the four walls of your house, and much of what happens within.

So, Greens = hypocrites? No, just outright liars with a deadly agenda. So long, Greens, once more...

Footnotes :

*1 Yes, you read that right - Bob Brown issued a press release calling for all businesses owned by members of a particular religious minority to be forced to register. Kinda like forcing Greens supporters to wear a green triangle armband. Reminds me of a German who once forced a religious minority there to wear armbands with stars... And ANYONE takes this Bob Brown nuthead seriously? I'm not a fan of the particular religious group in question, but c'mon, surely requiring them to register - do you not know that that is exactly how the war against Jews started in Nazi Germany - they were merely required to register. It is completely unacceptable to anyone with any sense of decency that this kind of call can be made, when as very ably demonstrated by Senator Abetz in the following linked Hansard record, there are other APPROPRIATE courses available to be followed : Hansard - look for Senator Abetz's comments

Channel Nine News Rants Against Facts

I don't know if Channel Nine News ever thought it could be taken seriously for objective journalism, but if it did, it has made a total mockery of the concept just now.

In headline news entitled "Book of hate : Beauty queen cites Bible for gay death", they allege that "Another US beauty queen has caused controversy with an anti-gay rant - this time citing Bible passages that call for death to homosexuals".

"Rant", "death", "controversy" - it all sounds so exciting.

But look at the facts?

The article cites the controversial statement :

"In Leviticus it says, 'if man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination — they shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them'," she was quoted as saying.

"If (God) says that having sex with someone of the same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning ... and he knows more than we do about life."

Um, that's a rant?

Quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might have validity, is a rant?

In fact, the article goes on to say the beauty queen in question has many homosexual friends, and hey, doesn't actually harbour hatred towards them! Well, how about that!

So let's get this straight : quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might still be valid is "ranting", whilst wording headlines to imply a peace-loving person is malicious, angry and hateful, is legitimate?

Two idiotic assumptions underpin the article :

Idiotic assumption 1) It is impossible to believe that a crime should ever be punishable by death, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime.

Ah - no.

Take "Dead Man Walking".

It's possible to forgive, and love criminals, and yet still recognise that the best thing for society as a whole is for people to know that certain crimes are punished by death.

Or let's take their assumption a little bit further : why stop at the arbitrary point they do? Why not assume it's impossible to believe that a crime should be punishable at all, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime?

Crikey, c'mon! Are we supposed to believe that no punishment should ever occur for any crime? Don't we recognise that sometimes punishing a crime is the most loving thing to do, whether for the criminal, or at least for society as a whole?

And if they agree that punishment in general can be meted without hate, then why arbitrarily say the death penalty cannot be meted without hate?

I mean, some people get a "life sentence" - life in jail. That's gotta be pretty bad. Is that really any much better than just getting it over with and letting the criminal cease living?

But if you're gonna say life sentences are likewise evil, well, how is a life sentence of 40 years that much different to say a 35 year prison term?

And if we axe 35 year prison terms, what about 32 year prison terms?

And if 32, what about 30?

And if 30, what about 25?

And ultimately, you realise it's just a matter of degree.

You can't make a conclusive argument that punishment of some kind is permissible, but the death penalty is not - it's just a matter of degree. Where you draw the line will differ from where the next guy draws the line. So who's right?

In other words, Channel Nine News heaps ridicule on a woman who suggests that the death penalty might still apply, but the only absolutely-logically-consistent alternative is to suggest that no punishment should ever occur.

Oh sure, you can mount a somewhat logical argument in favour of drawing the punishment line here or there, but when you see the next guy with a somewhat logical argument draw the same line in a different place, you gotta realise your own case ain't so watertight after all.

But who cares about watertight logic and facts when you can accuse a Bible-believer of hatred? C'mon! Gotta use every chance we can to bash these people who actually believe that the Bible might have some use in the 21st century!

Idiotic assumption 2) Homosexuality is beyond question.

Ah, no.

What kind of race are we if anything becomes "beyond question"?

Surely to retain our self-ascribed title of "homo sapien" (sapien = wise), we must recognise the importance of continuing to allow everything to be questioned.

What's wrong with her raising the possibility that there might be inherent problems with the homosexual lifestyle?

Ask an ex-homosexual like Sy Rogers. It ain't all rosy.

And if there are inherent problems, who's to say they aren't severe problems?

So severe, perhaps, that whilst the individual homosexuals should be loved, their homosexual actions should be curtailed, perhaps even with severe force?

What's wrong with raising the question?

What's wrong with believing it yourself, as obviously this beauty queen is inclined to do?

What if she happens to have seen some of the studies that show the darker side of homosexuality, and concludes that the modern adulation of the practice is insane?

Or is there a deeper issue?

Maybe Channel Nine News believes that no-one should force their moral standards onto anyone else.

But hang on a moment - isn't Channel Nine News berating this beauty queen for believing that homosexuality is bad, and so bad that the death penalty should be considered?

Isn't Channel Nine News forcing its moral standard of not questionning anyone's moral standards?

I mean, if you really believe that the most moral thing to do is not express your moral views to anyone else, lest you be "forcing your morals on them", then at least be consistent enough to live by your own morals and not try to tell me to not talk about my morals!

Channel Nine News, wake up, you idiot. Either don't express your moral views by telling others what to do, or else do allow others to express their moral views.

In short, Channel Nine News is a propaganda machine, not an objective news service, if this is the kind of stuff it publishes.

-

Q&A :

Q : Where is "Book of hate" in the headline?

A : On the ninemsn.com.au homepage, the link to the article was called "book of hate". UPDATE : And now another link on the ninemsn.com.au homepage is called "Hateful beauty : Starlet quotes Bible for gay death". They're obsessed, against the facts, with calling the woman "hateful". That's ranting, if you ask me!

UPDATE : Ironically, one of the news articles sharing the headlines was entitled "Mum who gassed kids jailed for life". Would you know it, Channel Nine seems to think life sentence in prison is ok for some crimes, but death penalty is not for others. So basically, Channel Nine is trying to force ITS morality on US. So why the self-righteous chest-beating when it finds other people also expressing their views on morality?

(update continued) : And note that the beauty queen was ASKED for her opinion on homosexuality - she didn't publish it uninvited as Channel Nine is doing all the time. So in reality, Channel Nine "News" is the one that is constantly ranting and forcing its morality on others, whilst this nice little girl from the US was just politely answering some questions. Shame, Nine News, shame. From now on you can be called the Channel Nine Propaganda Service.