If anyone has been following Australian politics they’ll know that a political party called “Rise Up Australia” is campaigning and driving for votes with freedom of religion while utilizing anti-Islamic slogans and promoting immigrant reduction through an immigrant speaker. Sounds absurd, right?
Well, I thought so too. I rarely concern myself with political affairs for obvious reasons, but this is a direct attack on the Muslim community which could consequently do a substantial amount of harm to not only the Muslim community, but possibly the Jewish community as well. Bear in mind that many Islamic practices and especially the slaughter methods are virtually the same, so you’d better believe that is halaal meat goes, kosher meat will go out right behind it.
Not to mention there were a number of contradictions and factual errors in the proposals made, and though I posted feedback on their site here; http://riseupaustraliaparty.com/
Based on the fact that my post is “still awaiting moderation” I would deduce that it will likely never grace the face of the page due to the contradictions it reveals in it’s campaign.
For that reason, and that reason alone I have brought my reply onto my blog a public platform (with some minor additions for clarifications) so that the public can clearly see the absurdities and atrocities that are being proposed by this campaign. All the while being perpetrated under a “Australia for Australians!” veil of allegedly pure Australian “culture”.
Regarding the Policies of Rise Up Australia;
What is shocking and appauling to me about this political movement is the absolute hypocracy and justified bigotry that is being promoted.
“To promote harmony, freedom and tolerance among Australians; specifically we oppose multiculturalism; we rejoice that Australia is multi-ethnic, and that people who come here are free to celebrate (at their own, not taxpayers’ expense) their own diverse backgrounds, while respecting Australian culture and complying with Australian laws;“
They oppose multiculturalism but then suggest it’s good to celebrate diverse backgrounds? Did the author read this after it was typed? Or perhaps someone just forgot the definition of “culture” perhaps? If so, please allow me to refresh their memory:
[kuhl-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, cul·tured, cul·tur·ing.
noun – Commonly addressed as,
5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
If their true intention is to promote Australian culture and decrease multiculturalism then I would advise beginning with shipping every non-aboriginal out and giving the land back to the people who resided in Australia first, the aboriginals. That was the original “Australian Culture”.
And then they promote this;
“(m) To protect religious freedoms; this means that no religion or religious practices are to be forced on another person, and that faith-based schools have the right to employ persons with values consistent with their faith-basis; we interpret the phrase “separation of church and state” in the sense in which the originator of that phrase, US President Jefferson, used it:- namely that the state shall not favour any particular church; he did not intend that churches and Christian values should not influence the formulation of governmental policies and laws, because these are never conceived in a moral vacuum, being always based on some person’s system of values;“
I don’t know what history book they read but according to the American history books I studied in school at home in the USA, this is exactly what that statement meant. And the reference made here is actually neglecting a large context of what President Thomas Jefferson originally said;
Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.“
Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase “separation of church and state” itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Conclusively this meant the Church will not interfere in governmental affairs and likewise the government would not dictate religious affairs as was practiced in the former monarchy systems that the U.S.A. sought to break away from.
Additionally I should point out that by encouraging this notion that the church should have influence in state affairs, this is a form of forcing a religious belief or law onto a person in the form of an institutionalised law thus contradicting their claim;
“To protect religious freedoms; this means that no religion or religious practices are to be forced on another person“
I find it strange that while promoting Judeo-Christian beliefs, the State of Israel would be supported when infact it is contrary to the very Judeo-Christian scriptures as the Jewish people were exiled from Israel and awaiting their Messiah. Maybe they skipped over that fact, but I’m sure an Orthodox Rabbi would be glad to point it out for them. Infact, I’ll help in that endeavor and point them in the right direction to ask; http://www.nkusa.org/
Finally, the last absolute absurdity to me is the concept that they are allegedly promoting “freedom of religion” and yet in their speeches, on their media pages they are frequently slandering muslims and pointing fingers claiming them to be a threat and a problem who are prepared to unseat Judeo-Christianity and take over Australia with shariah law.
But the striking factor to me is that this is not the first time this argument has come across the board, infact this same argument is being used in Sri Lanka in order to boycott halaal businesses, oppress muslims, all in the name of achieving a “pure state” as stated in this article;
“Still reeling from the after effects of a long-standing civil war Sri Lanka seems poised for yet another, this time with another face attributed to the enemy – the minority (9%) Muslim population of the island.
For rising tensions, the result of a freshly administered hate campaign against the Muslims minority by fringe groups of the extremist Buddhist variety, have challenged cosy notions of post-conflict harmony finally taking root.
At a rate that is worryingly escalating, said fanatical nationalist groups have taken to the streets as well as social media forums to denigrate Islam by picketing scaremongering slogans, all claiming ludicrously that the Muslim population is plotting to unseat Buddhism as the official state religion of Sri Lanka.
In true doomsayer-esque fervour, these supremacists warn of the infiltration of Halaal certified food into mainstream eating outlets as a threat to a pure Buddhist state, and in keeping with the times have even taken to posting inflammatory material on the internet mobilising the online community for a nation-wide boycott of all Muslim-owned businesses. More ambitious allegations include claims that madrasas are serving as breeding ground for terrorists, and that Sharia’a law is out to take over the island with its ‘draconian’ implementation of law and order.” -Shahima
So the question that continues to turn-over in my mind is, how can a measly number of 9% infiltrate and unseat the main religion of a country? They do realise that muslims are also the minority in Australia as well, right? So then the same question carries over here.
Additionally there is the proposal that the number of muslims must decrease because “all muslims who follow the koran are radicals“. What was that about freedom of religion again? Just how do they plan to decrease the number of Australian muslims when a large number of them are infact Australian-bred citizens?
Perhaps they are proposing to repeat the “ethnic cleansing” which became known best through the Holocaust of the Jews by Adolf Hitler. A brutal and bloody concept which continues to rampage throughout other countries such as Syria, massacres of the Rohingan muslims along with others.
Are they hoping to extend that civil war for “ethnic cleansing” from Sri Lanka over into Australia? If so, I think they need to revisit those Judeo-Christian scriptures and understand how extraordinarily non-Judeo-Christian that notion really is.