Wednesday, 25 April 2018

Removing Jesus Christ From The Public Square

Chic Atheism

Well, that didn't take long.  Broadcaster, Mike Hoskings has begun to voice the need to suppress the Bible.  It's a dangerous book, apparently.  In this regard, Hoskings is following faithfully in the footsteps of the big atheist dudes--Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and latterly, Xi Jinping--all of whom spent a long time and much energy attempting to defame and suppress the Bible.  Nice company there, Mike.  

Hoskings was opining upon the Australian rugby player, Israel Folau's profession of faith, which includes his belief in I Corinthians 6: 9-10.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Hoskings rejects those statements.  They are untrue, false, misleading, superstitious--we can roll out pejoratives adjectives all day.   Now, the normal pattern in a Western democracy which is supposed to champion liberty of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, is for Hoskings to say, "I disagree with your opinions and views, but I will die defending your right to say them".  One recalls the notorious atheist Voltaire uttering just this sentiment.

But the ostensible atheist Hoskings thinks these Biblical particular statements set a dangerous precedent.
  Therefore, they apparently fall outside the new normal patterns of Western democracy.
I admire the conviction. But it's conviction based on biblical teachings. And if we accept you can do and say whatever you like based on biblical teachings, then why can't you go round quoting, believing and acting on any biblical teachings?

History shows us versions of this have been happening for centuries, and in that is the problem. Folau is condemned, by those who condemn, as a homophobe. Other scenarios involve war, death and violence - a lot of historic conflict is a direct reaction to religious belief and teachings. [NZ Herald
Mikey is really confused, which is a pity.  A couple of observations.  Mike's view of history leaves a few huge gaps.  What seems to be lacking is an awareness of the blood filled outcomes of atheism--to which Hoskings apparently genuflects in some way, shape, or form.  [Those who condemn all religions usually subscribe to atheism, or its cheap watered down functional version, agnosticism.]

For our part, we would not defend actual sins committed by any Christian.  However, rejecting homosexuality is not a sin.  Not a Christian sin--and neither is rejecting greed, thievery, and drunkenness, and so forth.   It may well be an atheist sin--that is, sinful in the eyes of atheists--and so Hoskings presumably accepts homosexuality as holy, righteous and good.  That's what you would expect him to do.

So, what's his beef, then?  Well it all stems from Israel Folau's standing and position in the community.  He is a sports star, and amongst the superficial star struck public, there will be those who are will be influenced by what Folau says.  That makes him dangerous.  Says Hoskings:
If you're doing it in the name of a God or higher being or a belief, is that a crime or a heartfelt conviction? You see once you open the door, it's too late. Which is where Folau has to realise that, as a public figure and representative of his sport and country at the highest level, the rules change. You are not just an individual, you are part of something bigger. And that's a responsibility and/or privilege that brings restraint, containment and restriction. So if he can't, in all good conscience, accept that - then his plan to walk should have been accepted. [Ibid.]
This is a variation of the old device: "look, I get the fact that you, Israel Folau are a Christian.  You have a right to be a Christian.  But not a public one.  Your religion must be confined to the private square.  It has no place in the public square."  So, this is freedom of speech according to Hoskings: "you may believe whatever you like.  You may think whatever you like.  You may speak about what you believe as long as you do so in private--that is, to  yourself, and maybe--on a good day--to your immediate family.  But for the rest--in all other venues and occasions--shut up!"

What views are acceptable in the public square? Why any views provided they come from someone in the image of Mike Hoskings.  Secularist, atheist, irreligious views.  Mind you, Mike does mention "God" a lot on air.  It's all part of the chic blasphemy that all good atheists deploy.

To balance these things out--here is Israel Folau's profession of faith:
It was around this time I started attending a new church where I experienced God’s love for the first time in my life. That’s when I started to realise this was all part of God’s plan for me.  I had been hiding my inner thoughts and feelings from everyone around me, but God could see into my heart.  He had to break me down in order to build me up again into the person He wanted me to be. It all suddenly made sense.

I have tried to live my life in God’s footsteps ever since. I follow his teachings and read the Bible all the time in order to learn and become a better person.  Since that happened I have been at peace and enjoyed life with an open, honest heart, which is why my faith in Jesus comes first.  I would sooner lose everything – friends, family, possessions, my football career, the lot – and still stand with Jesus, than have all of those things and not stand beside Him.  [Read more at]
We find ourselves growing in our respect for this young man.

No comments: