In response to opposition of same-sex marriage, an often used retort from homosexual activists and their supporters is “Same-sex marriage will not affect you, so why not let homosexuals marry each other?”

Firstly, as Bill Muehlenburg wrote in his book “WHY vs WHY Gay Marriage”, the evidence shows that countries with pro-homosexual legislation and same-sex marriage have been a disaster for heterosexual marriage and the well-being of children. Consider Scandinavia. Stanley Kurtz, who has a doctorate in social anthropology from Harvard University, has documented how marriage and children have suffered there. In 2004 he wrote:

Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of firstborn children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend towards the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern – including gay marriage – is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was [already] increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birth rates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood is acceptable.

Later in 2006, Kurtz wrote:

Shifting to a broad ‘menu’ of experimental family forms may feel liberating to some, but it is really a recipe for thinning out society’s commitment to children. Each unconventional experiment reinforces the others, ultimately yielding a significantly less stable family regime. Which is to say, gay marriage undermines marriage.

Read the rest of this entry

The other night, 60 Minutes Australia ran a story on multiculturalism and focused on Islamic fundamentalism. See here for a transcript of the story. The story looked mainly at Islam in Britain and how a group of non-Muslims are fighting for the British way of life against the invasion of Islamic extremism. As evidence of this, 60 Minutes had some secret footage of an Islamic school in Birmingham which showed Muslim children being taught to hate anything non-Muslim.

This sentiment was also shown in the story to exist here in Australia where a similar story of Islamic extremism was told. The thing that got my attention was the response from a young Muslim woman Samah Hadid. Samah was Australia’s youth representative to the UN in 2010. What always seems to happen is that the media here in Australia will go to someone like Samah as a sample of the Islamic community here in Australia for their opinion. Her response to the presence of extremist Islamic ideology amongst the Muslim population was:

SAMAH HADID: I wouldn’t identify with that sort of ideology at all.

MICHAEL USHER: Would many Muslims identify with that?

SAMAH HADID: Absolutely not, not the ones that I know anyway. You know, there was a play about the Cronulla riots…

MICHAEL USHER: Samah Hadid is among the vast majority of Australian Muslims who embrace our social diversity and agree with the Federal Government that multiculturalism has been a stunning success here.

SAMAH HADID: I’d say I’m a product of multiculturalism and so I find it quite interesting when people say that multiculturalism has failed. The majority of young Muslims, Australian young Muslims, that I know do not care for political Islamic or Islamist ideology. They’re just going about their day-to-day existence, trying to contribute to their own professional fields, trying to, you know, make their communities a better place.

MICHAEL USHER: So they’re not out to force Islam on to everyone?

SAMAH HADID: Not the ones that I know and –

MICHAEL USHER: They’re not out to turn Australia into an Islamic state?

SAMAH HADID: Absolutely not. That’s really my representation of the majority of Australian Muslims that I know.

She then goes on to say at the end of the story:

SAMAH HADID: If we ever want to work towards a multiculturalism that works for everyone, we need to stamp out racism and we need to stake a stand on religious prejudices, but also take a stand on those who, you know, do peddle extremist views and say to them very clearly, “You do not represent us.”

While I would much prefer the ideology of Muslims like Samah to be the dominant Islamic ideology in this country – in any country for that matter – I do wonder how reflective her views are of the Islamic community. I don’t know the sample size of people she knows, but my concern is that this kind of reporting seems like a smokescreen designed to distract us from the real possibility that extreme Islam is present, and of considerable concern, in this country.

I also found her last statement quite interesting. The views of these extremist Islamic Muslims may not represent Samah, her friends or even the majority of the Muslim population, but are they representative of the Islamic religion? From my study of the Qur’an, there are ample texts to support “extremist” or “fundamentalist” ideology. So her statement is, perhaps, more revealing than she would have liked. It reveals how nominal her Islamic faith really is. The same is found in Christianity too. Nominal Christians, who associate with the religion but have really no idea of the tenets of that religion. In my opinion, nominal Christians are not really Christians at all and perhaps the same would apply to nominal Islamists.

Personally though, I would much rather be living next to a Muslim like Samah than a Muslim who actually knows and reads their Qur’an, and is committed to carrying out its precepts.

The Principal of a public school in my neck of the woods has tried to ban the word Easter from the Easter Hat Parade in the name of religious “tolerance.”

The story comes from today’s Daily Telegraph:

Bondi Public School principal Michael Jones wrote to parents about the decision, saying Easter was just one of many religious celebrations at this time of year.

“As we are an inclusive community which celebrates our diverse range of cultures and beliefs, I have not called it an Easter Hat parade,” Mr Jones wrote in the school’s latest newsletter.

“Many religious celebrations occur at this time of year but we want to include all students in any celebration at school. Teachers will talk to students about the different celebrations and the emphasis will be on tolerance and understanding.”

Sounds like a job for Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo. Perhaps he can come and hand out chocolate brown treats and sing songs about tolerance and love.

Or here’s something novel. They can get real about religious tolerance and teach children what real tolerance is by educating them about the religious view that grounds the holiday (and the parade) in the first place.

Here’s the thing. True tolerance is not about censoring particular points of view so as not to offend others. But is about respecting another person, even if you disagree with their view. Under the classical definition of tolerance, you can’t tolerate someone unless you disagree with them. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

But notice the irony. In attempting to promote this false brand of tolerance and understanding, Principal Jones must, by necessity, be “intolerant” of Easter.

It’s almost too obvious to have to point out: (1) It’s a hat parade. (2) It’s held at Easter time. (3) Ergo, it’s an Easter Hat Parade.

Thankfully, the Telegraph reports, there was a swift end to the insanity:

However the ruling on Friday’s fundraising event was overturned yesterday, after parents from the school in Sydney’s east expressed anger.

“This was done very quietly,” Helen Robson – who represented a group of outraged parents – said.

“Up until last month’s newsletter, these events were referred to as ‘Easter’ events.

“Without warning, the recent newsletter deleted all reference and children came home with news their Hats and Raffle tickets were not to be called ‘Easter’ anymore.”

Principal Jones could not be contacted yesterday.

Federation of Parents and Citizens Organisations Sharryn Brownlee said she was disappointed by the original decision to dump Easter.

“The Department of Education has a very clear direction, a very strong policy that Christian activities such as celebrating Easter and Christmas go ahead,” she said.

“These are long-held traditions. Categorically the parade should go ahead as an Easter function.”

Bill Muehlenberg also wrote briefly on this politically correct nonsense earlier today:

“… do you think for one moment this guy would ever even consider trying to ban something to do … with Aboriginal dreamtime spirituality? Not on your life buster. These secularist crusaders wouldn’t have the guts to try to do such a thing. But as always it is open season on Christianity.”

Check out his full article here.