New Zealand Prime Minister

[anatess2]

Did you know?  Jacinda Ardern, PM of New Zealand, was raised Mormon?  She allegedly left the Church due to “gay rights”.

I wonder if she knows Islam’s stance on gay rights when she donned that hijab.

Anyway, just wanted to share this meme.

[Guest Mores]

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Did you know?  Jacinda Ardern, PM of New Zealand, was raised Mormon?  She allegedly left the Church due to “gay rights”.

I wonder if she knows Islam’s stance on gay rights when she donned that hijab.

Priorities...  Either gay marriage is wrong, or the Church is wrong.  Apparently she has chosen which god she worships.  I don't know why something is sinful until you have a loved one who is guilty of that sin.  Does familiarity make something which was wrong, now right?  Is it impossible for someone we love to do something wrong?  Or is it that we find it impossible to love the sinner and hate the sin?

Donning the hijab.  I see that as a bow to the intersectionality god rather than to the god of Mohammed.  So, no it has nothing to do with believing in Islam.  It has everything to do with believing in the sanctity of a protected class.

[Vort]

Post of the Day.

[NeuroTypical]

Well, I do have one good thing to say about her.  She got the whole "I refuse to utter the name of the killer" thing right.  Rule #1: Deny evil what it seeks.

Now somebody please tell CNN.

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Now somebody please tell CNN.

CNN is hellbent on feeding the troll to hurt Trump.  I tell ya... they don’t care how many people they compromise in that myopia.

[pwrfrk]

ALL fake media has it out for Donald.

[askandanswer]

Jacinda is also related to a member of the Australia Area Presidency

https://pacific.lds.org/area-presidency/about-us

[Guest MormonGator]

7 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

ALL fake media has it out for Donald.

It's only "fake news" if it says something negative about our views or politicians we like.  if it dares to not agree with our already held beliefs, then it must be fake because we are always right. 

That's how it works, right? 

Edited March 24, 2019 by MormonGator

[Still_Small_Voice]

Forgive the following of my writings if it seems aggressive.

The New Zealand Prime Minister is a tyrant in my opinion.  (There are many of them in this world.)  She said citizens should arrange to turn in the firearms banned under the new law.  Did the citizens not pay money for their property?  It is rightfully theirs and others have no right to take it.  If a government is willing to strip away your firearms they can take anything else they want. They have already proven it in taking away property they had no right to take.

She is stealing the New Zealand citizen’s property with the lies and empty promises of more security.  I know the New Zealand Prime Minister is not going to give up her body guards armed with semi automatics equipped with standard capacity twelve to thirty round magazines.   After all she and all the political leaders in the world are so much more important than the common citizen.

[Guest Mores]

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It's only "fake news" if it says something negative about our views or politicians we like.  if it dares to not agree with our already held beliefs, then it must be fake because we are always right. 

That's how it works, right? 

No, it's only fake when it is A) Factually/logically incorrect (often slanderous) or B) Not really news but just a bunch of people blathering on about how bad things are because someone we don't like is in power (or the converse).

While it is often reasonable to have a commentator as one of the segments among many, some "news" networks have become nearly all commentary.  And it is often supported by the weakest of logic.  Saying "Well, Trump's collusion is just hiding in plain sight" is based on nothing but suspicion and lies.  All the facts point elsewhere.  This is not factually or reasonably debatable.

I understand your desire to remain neutral and hold all parties to the same standards.  But in this particular case, you're actually excusing indefensible behavior.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Mores

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

I understand your desire to remain neutral and hold all parties to the same standards. 

Thanks! I try to be reasonable and neutral on all things. I'm super cool like that. 

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

But in this particular case, you're actually excusing indefensible behavior.

Slow down.

All I said was "It's only "fake news" if it says something negative about our views or politicians we like.  if it dares to not agree with our already held beliefs, then it must be fake because we are always right. That's how it works, right?" And I'm exactly right.  I didn't say anything about Trump, Mueller, the report, Father Christmas or the tea in China.

So no, I wasn't "actually excusing indefensible behavior." I only do that when I defend gay marriage and the right to an abortion. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by MormonGator

[Guest Mores]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Thanks! I try to be reasonable and neutral on all things. I'm super cool like that. 

Yes, you seem to be just that.

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Slow down.

Ok.  I'm listening.

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

All I said was "It's only "fake news" if it says something negative about our views or politicians we like.  if it dares to not agree with our already held beliefs, then it must be fake because we are always right. That's how it works, right?" I didn't say anything about Trump, Mueller, the report, Father Christmas or the tea in China.

OK.  So, some clarity.  I saw that your comment was in response to the statement that all fake news has it out for Trump.  So, I concluded that your statement was about that aspect of it.  You can see where that thought process proceeded.

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

So no, I wasn't "actually excusing indefensible behavior." I only do that when I defend gay marriage and the right to an abortion. 

If you believe that, then yes, you are.  I have recognized that there are a good number of libertarian minded individuals here.  If that's you, then I see the subtle difference in your position here.  But I still find it abhorrent that we live in a culture where killing the unborn is so euphemized as to call it "women's health".  I wonder how many people would be for it if we called it "maternal infanticide" -- a much more accurate description.  How many people would be for it if they knew the actual procedures used and the realities of what goes on in some clinics for unsuccessful abortions.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Yes, you seem to be just that.

 

Thank you, seriously appreciate that. Like everyone else, I have my own views-and you nailed it, I'm very libertarian in my personal politics. But I bend over backwards to try to be fair and see the other sides view, if it be liberal/conservative/moderate or just plain stupid. So I really appreciate it when someone sees that in me. Thanks again. 

Since I'm not that bright, I understand the stupid side better than anything else. 😉

[Guest Mores]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Thank you, seriously appreciate that. Like everyone else, I have my own views-and you nailed it, I'm very libertarian in my personal politics. But I bend over backwards to try to be fair and see the other sides view, if it be liberal/conservative/moderate or just plain stupid. So I really appreciate it when someone sees that in me. Thanks again. 

Since I'm not that bright, I understand the stupid side better than anything else. 😉

Somehow, I get the impression that you're much more intelligent, educated, and thought out than you display openly.  Analogous to "crazy like a fox."

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, Mores said:

No, it's only fake when it is A) Factually/logically incorrect (often slanderous) or B) Not really news but just a bunch of people blathering on about how bad things are because someone we don't like is in power (or the converse).

While it is often reasonable to have a commentator as one of the segments among many, some "news" networks have become nearly all commentary.  And it is often supported by the weakest of logic.  Saying "Well, Trump's collusion is just hiding in plain sight" is based on nothing but suspicion and lies.  All the facts point elsewhere.  This is not factually or reasonably debatable.

I understand your desire to remain neutral and hold all parties to the same standards.  But in this particular case, you're actually excusing indefensible behavior.

Fake News = misrepresentation of facts.  For example:  CNN Headline and accompanying article:  "“Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial" is Fake News.

Here's a good exercise for everyone... Spot how many statements based on Fake News PM Ardern made in this 10 minute speech... I counted 4 in less than 1 minute and 30 seconds.

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, Mores said:

Somehow, I get the impression that you're much more intelligent, educated, and thought out than you display openly.  Analogous to "crazy like a fox."

That's very nice of you to say, thank you. 

[pwrfrk]

I think this is stupid.  Banning the weapons she announced harms only the gun owners.  I feel that if anything, had there been one or two armed staff at the mosques, if someone had the ability to defend the members of the mosques, how many people would have died?  Is it better that 50 people died, then banning the weapons?  Or perhaps maybe only a couple of people, shooter included, after the armed staff took a stand in defense?  I prefer the latter.

 

In light of what happened in NZ as well as other churches including our own, I don't have any problem with arrangements being made to provide armed security at even Mormon churches.  Better that than to do nothing and to risk something like this, here stateside.  Or even worse, in an LDS facility.

 

[pwrfrk]

On 3/24/2019 at 11:29 AM, askandanswer said:

Jacinda is also related to a member of the Australia Area Presidency

https://pacific.lds.org/area-presidency/about-us

How so?

 

[Guest Mores]

2 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

I feel that if anything, had there been one or two armed staff at the mosques, if someone had the ability to defend the members of the mosques, how many people would have died? 

Here's an example of what you're talking about.

Even in the US, even today, Jews are the most disproportionately victimized with racial violence than any other race.  But nearly all of it (possibly ALL of it) occurs in isolated incidents.  Most Synagogues and most Hebrew/Jewish schools have armed guards present specifically for this reason.  We don't hear about Synagogues and Jewish schools being victims of mass violence very often.  In fact, I've never heard of one.  I wonder why.

Ben Shapiro even mentioned an incident where a white supremacist came by his high school to "shoot up a bunch of Jews."  But when he saw the armed guard, he continued down the street to the gun free zone public high school and shot a bunch of other kids.  I can't think of a more clear example of how good guys with guns are indeed a deterrent to bad guys with guns.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mores

[Guest Mores]

Gee, it only took one or two generations for the knife violence in Britain to catch up to gun violence anywhere else.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8710288/britain-knife-crime-gangs-point-scoring-game/

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

And this is why we have a constitution, with a bill of rights.

[anatess2]

This is an interesting letter published in Right Minds.  Right Minds is a New Zealand version of Brietbart.  Also interesting is Imam Tawhidi’s letter linked in the article.  Tawhidi is a vocal Islamist reformer.   I cut and pasted the latters bellow.

https://www.rightminds.nz/articles/jacinda-ardern-increasingly-criticised-her-endorsement-female-headcoverings?fbclid=IwAR1fhckh0qNQGU5kKhzRSES7nnBZ8h1cNbxiQaZWvYbhNZhqD6WKPMVl2No

To the attention of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

Madam Prime Minister,

It is with great sadness that we learnt of the tragedy that struck your Country resulting in the slaying of fifty New Zealand Muslims in the two mosques in Christchurch. A heinous crime that horrified the whole World. This dramatic ordeal that you share with your fellow citizens will take time and courage to overcome and start the healing process.

But no tragedy can justify ignoring universal values of equality and freedom. As citizens of Canada of Muslim faith and /or culture, we find it crucial to inform you of the disastrous fallout of the pseudo-religious parody that you exhibited along with women in your Country, no doubt because of ignorance, and as a sign of solidarity, wearing an Islamist and not a Muslim veil. This veil symbolises the de-facto inferioritization of women. In its most degrading form, it serves as a banner for Islamist Groups such as ISIS, Boko Haram and Chebab who kidnap, rape, murder and unscrupulously imprison women in the countries where they rule. Doing so, New Zealanders seem to be unconscious about an extreme Religious Right which instrumentalises women in advancing a totalitarian political agenda.

What about Solidarity with Muslim women who are struggling to free themselves from the oppression of the veil? How, in a country as egalitarian as New Zealand, can one choose to express compassion by wearing a symbol of women's marginalization and sexual segregation? The most degrading is that this initiative emanates from women, who wear the veil symbolically for a few hours but who, in so doing, help to normalize misogynistic practices of which women are victim all their life.

Let's recall some facts. The Islamic veil is not a requirement in the book of Islam, the Quran. It was imposed in Iran after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and spread in the Arab countries towards the end of the 1980s with the rise of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood organisation, Saudi Wahhabosalafism, and large financing by the petrodollars of the Saudi Monarchy and Gulf countries. The Islamic or Islamist Veil is associated with political Islam, and represents its means of proselytizing and its the most effective Territorial Marker.

There is no need to discuss the abuses committed by the various Islamist factions around the world, to impose their vision of an Islam full of hate and ressentment. Algerian women who have experienced the atrocities of a war waged by Islamists against civilians, many of whom were murdered because they refused to wear veils, are now marching in the streets of Algeria for demanding Democratic rule in their country, but also Equal Rights, Emancipation of women and the repeal of the Code de la famille, a set of social rules inspired by Sharia law.

How do you reconcile that while Iran lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh is sentenced to 38 years in prison and 148 whip lashes for defending women who refuse to wear a veil, New Zealanders participate in normalizing the Islamic veil as symbol of Islam?

Madam Prime Minister, we appeal to your sense of responsibility to stop trivializing the veiling of women and girls. As our compatriot Tarek Fatah says, compassion with the fallen Muslims in Christchurch is an absolute duty, whether they are men or women, wearing a veil or not. Consenting to become a living bilboard for this symbol of political Islam is an unconsciousness towards the Islamic agenda.

It is by focusing on Universal Values of freedom and equality, beyond our religious differences and our philosophical convictions, that we can build solidarity between humans.

The Quebec Association of North Africans for Secularism (AQNAL)

Mohand Abdelli, retired engineer
Nora Abdelli, chemical engineer
Radhia Ben Amor, associative activist
Djemila Benhabib, political scientist and writer
Leila Bensalem, high school professor
Nawal Bouchareb, school organization technician at the CSDM
Fares Chargui, doctor of medicine, resident in Psychiatry
Ferid Chikhi, employment Consultant
Yasmina Chouakri, Consultant
Nadia El Mabrouk, professor at the Université de Montréal
Hassiba Idir, manager
Nacer Irid, engineer
Hassan Jamali, retired professor
Ali Kaidi, activist for secularism
Karim Lassel, organizational analyst
Leila Lesbet, special education technician
Nacera Zergane, financial advisor

————————

The recent terrible events in New Zealand were traumatic for us all.

Those of you who have seen my videos and online statements posted that tragic day, may have recognised the depth of my sense of despair.

Having spent so long with the fear that someone somewhere would lash out indiscriminately against my co-religionists, the massacre had such a personal dimension for me. I had a loss of faith, feeling that my attempts to expose the risks from an extreme minority of my faith to the official lawmakers, and galvanize our politicians to action was naive.

I have always opposed extremists of any persuasion. As a Muslim imam, I was in a position to call attention to Islamic extremists in a manner that was not open to many within the West. Non-Muslims could be offensively and inaccurately called Islamophobic, to level such a charge at me would be ludicrous.

Indeed, there are valuable lessons that can be derived from the tragic NZ event:

1- There are a growing number of people who believe that their governments need to recognise that dislike of Islamic extremists is not a fringe issue but a widely held view by the political centre of the voting population. If governments wish to deny their populations desire for action against Muslim extremism in their societies, then the possible rise of extremist politicians will lie squarely with those who do not see their people want action.

2- Governments should not underestimate extremists: They are extremely calculated and may conduct their attacks in an intelligent way. The mystery as to how Brenton Tarrant remained under Police radar for two years, while piling weapons, ammunition and training to massacre civilians is yet to be solved. The manifesto he released to the public was not written in the language of a fanatic, if anything, it reflects the true thoughts of a talented criminal-to-be.

3- The last lesson we learnt was that most Western leaders have no pride in their own religion, culture or traditions. You can show solidarity with us Muslims by adopting better security procedures, not embracing our religious practices. News reporters, police officers and the Prime Minister herself were wearing veils. The call to our prayers was blasted out loud from London to New Zealand; basically, the entire Western world. All this to show that you Westerners are sorry for what happened to us Muslims.

Frankly, I think this is an insane way of showing solidarity. It is also confusing to me, and all thinking Muslims. Why can’t Western leaders show solidarity with us without completely sacrificing their religions, culture and traditions? You did not have to adopt our culture to show sympathy.

This proved on thing: the authorities in New Zealand did not believe treating Muslim New Zealanders as New Zealanders was enough, they had to put their religious identity ahead of their actual citizenship; that is if you believe that the attack was against New Zealand as a country – which it was.

I conclude by thanking you all for the support and kindness you extended to us during our pain, and while we share our messages of condolences to all who were affected by the Christchurch attacks.

I also wish that we all conveyed our sympathies and condolences to the friends and families of the 120 Christians recently killed in Nigeria; along with the destruction of 100 homes.

Terrorism is terrorism.Period.

[Grunt]

On 3/25/2019 at 11:28 AM, Mores said:

If you believe that, then yes, you are.  I have recognized that there are a good number of libertarian minded individuals here.  If that's you, then I see the subtle difference in your position here.  But I still find it abhorrent that we live in a culture where killing the unborn is so euphemized as to call it "women's health".  I wonder how many people would be for it if we called it "maternal infanticide" -- a much more accurate description.  How many people would be for it if they knew the actual procedures used and the realities of what goes on in some clinics for unsuccessful abortions.

2

There is no libertarian slant to excuse being pro-choice.  At least not while following the prophet.

[Noahoscar986]

On 3/21/2019 at 10:32 PM, Mores said:

Priorities...  Either gay marriage is wrong, or the Church is wrong.  Apparently she has chosen which god she worships.  I don't know why something is sinful until you have a loved one who is guilty of that sin.  Does familiarity make something which was wrong, now right?  Is it impossible for someone we love to do something wrong?  Or is it that we find it impossible to love the sinner and hate the sin?

Donning the hijab.  I see that as a bow to the intersectionality god rather than to the god of Mohammed.  So, no it has nothing to do with believing in Islam.  It has everything to do with believing in the sanctity of a protected class.

Well said.