Your tithing dollars at work ...


'On Monday, President Nelson met with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in Wellington and offered support to help rebuild two mosques in Christchurch following terrorist attacks in March.

In a meeting with Muslim leaders in Auckland, the prophet donated $100,000 on behalf of the Church for the rebuilding effort. The Muslim leaders in attendance included Dr. Mustafa Farouk, president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, and Imam Alabi Lateef Zirullah, leader of the Linwood Mosque, one of the two mosques that were attacked.

“We’re brothers,” reflected President Nelson on his meeting with the Muslim leaders. '

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-nelson-pacific-ministry-2019-auckland

Because philanthropic investment in communal relations is a bad thing.

It seems stingy to me. That won’t buy much but maybe better than nothing.

xxMoO is one of our Islamaphobes. He objects to spending anything rebuilding mosques, as does McDonkie below.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> xxMoO is one of our Islamaphobes. He objects to
> spending anything rebuilding mosques, as does
> McDonkie below.

Thank you, Lottie. I often miss the context of why people are posting what they do and your experience and guidance is always a valuable addition to my experience on the board.

I hope you have a very pleasant evening. :)

You too, Melissa.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You too, Melissa.

:) :) :)

Also Lottie, I was very interested to read your perspective on Lot’s Wife and why you chose that name (on another post). I was not knowledgeable about that story so I appreciated your explaining the basics as well as your advanced, in depth analysis. :)

I always liked the Old Testament more than any other book of scripture. The reason is that the imagery is mythologically fascinating.

Even if the stories are factually nonsensical, the Garden of Eden, Lot and Lot's Wife, the Flood, the Walls of Jericho, water from stone, manna from heaven, Jacob's Ladder, and a dozen other early stories are capable of many different interpretations. They provoke thought, and moral reasoning, and hence are deeply moving and educational in the same way as T.S. Eliot or Lucian Freud or a Bach cantata.

but does he eat at chic filet?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> xxMoO is one of our Islamaphobes. He objects to
> spending anything rebuilding mosques, as does
> McDonkie below.

I have no problem with Muslims and Muslim groups contributing as much as they want to rebuild their buildings.

IIRC there are some fairly wealthy Muslims in the world.

xxMo0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> I have no problem with Muslims and Muslim groups
> contributing as much as they want to rebuild their
> buildings.

That's very kind of you. I'm sure Muslims will feel reassured that you consider them free to rebuild their lives.

Meanwhile Muslims donate to the reconstruction of Jewish synagogues and Christians donate to help civilians in the Sudan. I'm sure many such people are waiting for your approval before they expand their inter-communal philanthropy.

to the victims of the church bombings in Sri Lanka.

Personally, I think the cash would be preferable.

But maybe the families of the 200 Christians who were killed in the church bombings in Sri Lanka get more out of words of sorrow and comfort that they may or may not have seen in the official statement that was released to the press by regional leaders of the LSD Church.

Possibly, when some of the wounded were asked how they were going to rebuild and help the families who had lost loved ones they replied that they had just received a wire transfer of words of sorrow and comfort that should just about cover all the rebuilding costs.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/following-sri-lanka-bombings-churchs-asia-area-presidency-offers-words-of-sorrow-comfort?lang=eng

I don't like coming across as rude or prejudiced (even though it's what I do best!), but maybe the people the mormon prophet wants to impress are White?

This rude & prejudiced notion of mine would posit that giving money to the Muslims of New Zealand impresses White New Zealanders, while giving money to Brown people surrounded by just more Brown people is simply not worth the effort, because ... Brown people!

It kinda puts a different spin on “we are brothers”.

Everyone’s pissed off that he actually got this one right. Positive PR is his business.

Wendy and Sheri wanted to impress Jacinda...and Rusty wanted to impress Wendy and Sheri.

But as long as their generosity with God's money results in the money getting put to good use, I guess it's a good net result and the positive PR may make some big Church projects in NZ go more smoothly.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't like coming across as rude or prejudiced
> (even though it's what I do best!), but maybe the
> people the mormon prophet wants to impress are
> White?
>
> This rude & prejudiced notion of mine would posit
> that giving money to the Muslims of New Zealand
> impresses White New Zealanders, while giving money
> to Brown people surrounded by just more Brown
> people is simply not worth the effort, because ...
> Brown people!

Are you saying he's trying to impress white Muslim NZers or white non-Muslim NZers? Either way its a roundabout strategy of publicity.

White people aren't joining the church in vast numbers and they are unlikely to start based on money given to Muslims. The church knows its growth area is among brown people. If Nelson wants a future Sri Lankan temple, he'd do well to add the country to his itinerary and throw some money their way too.

Whoosh.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't like coming across as rude or prejudiced
> (even though it's what I do best!), but maybe the
> people the mormon prophet wants to impress are
> White?
>
> This rude & prejudiced notion of mine would posit
> that giving money to the Muslims of New Zealand
> impresses White New Zealanders, while giving money
> to Brown people surrounded by just more Brown
> people is simply not worth the effort, because ...
> Brown people!

You DO realise that not all Muslims are brown?

>
> “We’re brothers,” reflected President Nelson
> on his meeting with the Muslim leaders. '
>


"Brothers… from another Heavenly Mother," thinks Nelson.

I kinda doubt if the Muslims think of him that way!

My guess is Wendy wanted a free trip to see New Zealand. If the other poster quoting $800,000 for the cost of the private jet is correct, that means their excuse for going there was to donate around 10% of the cost of their trip. Less if you factor in hotels, meals and rental cars, costs of security etc.

Is this is own money or the cult money he is using? $100K is a joke when you are looking at an organization with $35 billion (probably more) in assets.

nolongerangry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> $100K is a joke when you are looking at an organization with $35 billion (probably more) in assets.

I agree, no longer angry. That’s why it just seems like it was a excuse for a trip there.

I'm pretty sure that means it comes out of church funds. I doubt that Rusty and Wendy would be that generous with their own cash.

Nelson' s own $?


I doubt that.

to dispense ChurchCo $, it should be approved by more than one individual.

Mr. Nelson: will u please restore the $ ChurchCo & my wife were complicit in stealing from me?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Nelson: will u please restore the $ ChurchCo
> & my wife were complicit in stealing from me?

Good luck with that! Ha! If you are successful make sure to let us know as I would also like a cash refund plus a little something for my wasted time and all the special church-going skirts and dresses I bought.

GNPE, I enjoy your posts and your great sense of humor! :)

While of course I don’t support LDS, after thinking about this I’ve decided it is a nice, high-level gesture, like diplomacy.

I was rembering when a synagogue was victim of a mass shooting, somewhere in an Eastern state maybe New York, that the Muslim religious leaders not only came to the memorial but also offered to provide security for the synagogue.

I think it can only be a good thing that church leaders support other religions in their times of trial.

I do think it should have been a larger donation though.

Many places where shootings occurred, have been completely torn down because the revulsion is so great. I believe both the house where the Sandy Hook shooter lived, and the school, were torn down. The Columbine library was torn down. It is sometimes not enough to mop up the blood.

Although maybe theoretically the blood could be scrubbed off, and even that is expensive requiring specialized cleaning crews, for those who were there and experienced it, it just may not be enough.

mel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While of course I don’t support LDS, after
> thinking about this I’ve decided it is a nice,
> high-level gesture, like diplomacy.
>
> I was rembering when a synagogue was victim of a
> mass shooting, somewhere in an Eastern state
> maybe New York, that the Muslim religious leaders
> not only came to the memorial but also offered to
> provide security for the synagogue.
>
> I think it can only be a good thing that church
> leaders support other religions in their times of
> trial.
>
> I do think it should have been a larger donation
> though.

+1

Saudi Arabia has spent millions to build or rebuild mosques around the world in various countries including the U.S. I don't know if they've contributed much for the rebuilding of destroyed churches but maybe they have in some cases (?)

"One estimate is that during the reign of King Fahd (1982 to 2005), over $75 billion was spent in efforts to spread Wahhabi Islam. The money was used to establish 200 Islamic colleges, 210 Islamic centers, 1,500 mosques, and 2,000 schools for Muslim children in Muslim and non-Muslim majority countries."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_propagation_of_Salafism_and_Wahhabism

The Saudi government are complete anal orifices. They spend money spreading extremism and violence--and of course to manipulate certain Western kleptocrats.

But what relevance does that have to this discussion? Is it wrong to invest in inter-communal goodwill?

I wonder if during Russell's chat with Jacinda, he offered to make her eternal wife no. 4. She probably refused unless Wendy and Sheri donned hijabs like she has.

Does it offend you that when some Christian leader wears a yamulka to a Jewish temple or event?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does it offend you that when some Christian leader
> wears a yamulka to a Jewish temple or event?

Not in the slightest.

Does it offend you that many Muslims have views on gender roles and homosexuality that make me look left wing?

Actually I should rephrase that... Many Muslim countries turn a blind eye to male homosexuality before a man marries, and then condemn it aftee that. Brunei, for example, has recently reintroduced the death penalty for homosexual acts (although I believe you need several witnesses). Muslims are often deeply homophobic, but under quite different circumstances to western homophobia.

No idea how lesbians fare in these places, although they will exist.

Ardern went around wearing a hijab for a while there and not just in mosques. I own a yarmulke/kippe myself - a very nice blue and white one - which I got as a souvenir in Israel. I have used it to enter synagogues in the past, but I wouldn't wear it all the time, as that is what your lot call "cultural appropriation" and I am not remotely Jewish.

>>that is what your lot call "cultural appropriation"

"Your lot" is such a dismissive term.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>that is what your lot call "cultural
> appropriation"
>
> "Your lot" is such a dismissive term.

Maybe. But she's done that to me. Probably assumes I voted for Rump. I didn't.

It is incredible though that some people will accept any kind of behavior from a deeply misogynist religion, but get riled up by pronoun use in the west. I have even heard one self-described feminist say it was "neocolonial" to challenge the woman hating regime of Saudi Arabia, who are funding mosques around the world and radicalizing them through the spread of Wahabbi extremism. Some places like Mindinao, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka used to have quite moderate forms of Islam in comparison to them, but the Saudis are changing all that with their oil billions.

I do not think governments should interfere in religion if moderate, and they should prevent persecution of religious people, but they also should not encourage societal instability and send out mixed signals.

>>Maybe. But she's done that to me.

She's referred to you as "your lot" or "you people"? I doubt it.

> Maybe. But she's done that to me. Probably assumes
> I voted for Rump. I didn't.

Why would I assume that? Why would I care?


-------------------
> It is incredible though that some people will
> accept any kind of behavior from a deeply
> misogynist religion, but get riled up by pronoun
> use in the west.

Who on this site has ever done THAT?


---------------
> I have even heard one
> self-described feminist say it was "neocolonial"
> to challenge the woman hating regime of Saudi
> Arabia, who are funding mosques around the world
> and radicalizing them through the spread of
> Wahabbi extremism.

Non-sequitur.


------------------
> Some places like Mindinao,
> Bangladesh and Sri Lanka used to have quite
> moderate forms of Islam in comparison to them, but
> the Saudis are changing all that with their oil
> billions.

Mindinao?? Mindinao's Islamic problem goes back to 1969, long before the Saudis were investing in the spread of Wahabism in that part of the world.

The best examples of now-defunct Islamic liberalism are Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Turkey. But hey, if you want to ignore the huge examples and focus on exiguous populations in the Philippines and Sri Lanka, knock yourself out.


--------------------
> I do not think governments should interfere in
> religion if moderate, and they should prevent
> persecution of religious people, but they also
> should not encourage societal instability and send
> out mixed signals.

Those sentiments are remarkable, if infelicitously expressed, indications of your authoritarian bias. People who fear "social instability" and "mixed signals" have inherent difficulty with the uncertainty and compromise of republican government. In any society there are those who prefer the simplicity of diktat.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I should rephrase that... Many Muslim
> countries turn a blind eye to male homosexuality
> before a man marries, and then condemn it aftee
> that. Brunei, for example, has recently
> reintroduced the death penalty for homosexual acts
> (although I believe you need several witnesses).
> Muslims are often deeply homophobic, but under
> quite different circumstances to western
> homophobia.

You see? Here we see that reductive reasoning in epitome. Some Muslim countries are horrible places run by horrible people who do horrible things. Therefore ALL Muslims are evil and should not be tolerated. May we apply that logic to you and "your lot?" Something like "some misogynistic racists are Nazi mass murderers, therefore all misogynistic racists should be locked up and/or executed." I'm frankly uncomfortable with that since it reduces misogynists and racists to evil when in fact many of them are generally harmless objects of pity.


-----------
> No idea how lesbians fare in these places,
> although they will exist.

That's the sociological insight that keeps us coming back for more.


--------------
> Ardern went around wearing a hijab for a while
> there and not just in mosques.

Thank you for clarifying that. I saw her wearing a headscarf at Mosques and speaking about community and mutual respect at public events and had assumed she expected rain. Realization that her head wear was a hijab--an ISLAMIC hijab--puts everything in a different perspective.


------------
> I own a
> yarmulke/kippe myself - a very nice blue and white
> one - which I got as a souvenir in Israel.

How very progressive of you.


---------------
> I have
> used it to enter synagogues in the past, but I
> wouldn't wear it all the time, as that is what
> your lot call "cultural appropriation" and I am
> not remotely Jewish.

"My lot" doesn't care what you wear. And no, your wearing a yamulka is no more "cultural appropriation" than your wearing trousers, which came originally from the Tarim Basin in Iranian Central Asia.

But you knew that, didn't you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2019 12:57PM by Lot's Wife.

Apparently I speak in code which hides a generic right wing stereotypical doctrine. And you wonder why I refer to you lot?

I'm pretty direct most of the time.

What is it to me whether you care? Your main interest is in yourself, not in other people because that's all righteous outward show to elevate your moral position. Correction, your inconsistent, contradictory and fashionable viewpoint.

Of course, you think it's great that Ardern wore a hijab. Makes you feel all gooey all over. Far easier than dealing with lax immigration laws, which allowed a far right Australian to stay in the country and shoot a number of Muslims. Even though alarm bells had been raised. Far easier to wear a hijab. A bit easier to photograph. And the press love it. Far easier than tackling the far right Wahhabi infiltration of moderate Islam in NZ, through money and soft power. But you hate the "far right", don't you? That shooter and rhe Wahhabis are far further right than I am. You wouldn't last five minutes if either of them took power.

And another thing, why criticize misogyny in the LDS and not in Islam? Why avoid referring to polygamy in it? And why not mention that Mohammed married a girl five years younger than Fanny Alger was? How about FGM? That is happening to young girls who were born and brought up in western countries. Because interested more in outward display, and following fashion, you would dismiss all of these and talk about the same in the LDS... Why not discuss both?

You obviously think the far right is okay if it's not western. I should really boil that down into an IngSoc aphorism for you.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently I speak in code which hides a generic
> right wing stereotypical doctrine. And you wonder
> why I refer to you lot?

No code about it. You demonstrate your values with admirable openness.


-----------
> I'm pretty direct most of the time.

Yes. Sometimes even intentionally so. I think we'll see examples of your more usual unintentional openness--nothing approaching the sophistication of a "code"--below.


-----------------
> Even
> though alarm bells had been raised. Far easier to
> wear a hijab. A bit easier to photograph. And the
> press love it. Far easier than tackling the far
> right Wahhabi infiltration of moderate Islam in
> NZ, through money and soft power.

Here is that unintentional betrayal of your true impulses. A Christian kills a Moslem and you cite that as evidence that New Zealand has been far too lax in controlling and counteracting Islam.


--------------
> But you hate the
> "far right", don't you? That shooter and rhe
> Wahhabis are far further right than I am. You
> wouldn't last five minutes if either of them took
> power.

And here again. You introduce the topic of a Christian murdering Moslems and can't help shifting to an anti-Islamic rant.


--------------
> And another thing, why criticize misogyny in the
> LDS and not in Islam? Why avoid referring to
> polygamy in it? And why not mention that Mohammed
> married a girl five years younger than Fanny Alger
> was? How about FGM? That is happening to young
> girls who were born and brought up in western
> countries.

If you were to read my past posts (there are dozens on these topics), you would find that I have written at length about the similarities between Islamic and Mormon polygamy, the harm that does to individuals and communities, and the role polygamy played in Osama Bin Laden's pathology. You would also find that I have condemned FGM. But I don't expect you to know those things since you won't find them on Youtube or State News.

The fact remains, however, that the presence of horrors in some Islamic states does not make the Moslem family down the street evil. It doesn't even make the wife's hijab evil.

Don't worry. I apply the same standards to the political right as well. Despite your hatred of women, Moslems, and liberals, I do not blame you for Hitler's genocide nor for the Christian murder of Moslems in New Zealand. Your repugnant political views do not render you guilty of crimes committed by those who share your impulses.


---------------
> You obviously think the far right is okay if it's
> not western. I should really boil that down into
> an IngSoc aphorism for you.

I don't care about right versus left as long as there is still respect for the rights of the individual. If we live in a time and place where people like you want to overturn the civil rights of the disabled and others, then yes I will condemn such mistaken conservatism. But hard as it is to believe now, there were times in history when people on the right were the ones who cared about personal liberty. Those were the respectable conservatives, the ones who made society better. One can only wish. . .



-----------
> I should really boil that down into
> an IngSoc aphorism for you.

I hope you realize that is not an "aphorism." It's sad, really: "race," "cultural Marxism. . ." So many buzzwords, so little thought.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2019 04:27PM by Lot's Wife.

The only one of those which remotely counts as a buzzword is "cultural Marxism", and that is a bit unfair, since many people involved in that do not know the end that they're being used for, let alone much about Marx. In many cases, they have picked up some of the ideas without realizing the ultimate consequences.

"Here is that unintentional betrayal of your true impulses. A Christian kills a Moslem and you cite that as evidence that New Zealand has been far too lax in controlling and counteracting Islam."

If you actually read his manifesto instead of what was written about him, you will find he does not identify as Christian (despite Christchurch being chosen for its name.

* That a dangerous immigrant (the shooter) was not deported earlier despite warnings. Immigration checks should be more stringent on ALL peoples. No violent criminals. No war criminals. An option of returning tjem if they do not find gainful employment within a year.
* The NZ govt has failed to deal with Wahhabi infiltration. (Which is to Islam what Marxism is to politics). Moderate Islam in NZ was becoming poisoned by this Islamofascist virus prior to the incident.
* The sexual and gender values Ardern espouses are directly opposed to those found in many forms of Islam, but Islam gets a free pass for things that Christians wouldn't.
* Wearing a headscarf is more to do with PR than solving problems.

The values of the founder of Islam cannot be ignored. He makes Joseph Smkth look like a milquetoast.

" Despite your hatred of women,"

And Islam's love of them, which involves FGM, gender segregation, varying degrees of face obacuration and

Maybe you think I am a Muslim.

"and liberals,"

I don't term those kind of people "liberals". Proper liberalism involves freedom of expression, laisser faire economics, minimization of government control, and a lack of discrimination on the basis of one's birth characteristics... Instead in their place, we find these pseudo-liberals want blanket censorship, a command economy, a police state, and the demonization of whites, males, heterosexuals, cisgenders and the like.

That AIN'T LIBERALISM!!!

"I do not blame you for Hitler's genocide"

Why would you? Western civilization would be unrecognizable, possibly non-existent, without Jewish influence. Some of our greatest writers, composers, philosophers and scientists have all been Jews. I have little time for the ultraorthodox Frummers, but I gather most Jews don't either.

"nor for the Christian murder of Moslems in New Zealand."

Read his own words, not the papers. He isn't religious. In fact he shares a few viewpoints you may share, regarding "workers' rights" vs their employers, environmentalism etc. So while way to the right of me in some areas, close to you in others.

"Your repugnant political views do not render you guilty of crimes committed by those who share your impulses."

No they don't. I don't idolize Hitler any more than Chairman Mao (who murdered more people) or Ed Gein. Hitler was responsible for destroying Europe, and it has never fully recovered. Hitler did more for Communism than just about anyone else - he end up strengthening the Soviet Union to the point it became a superpower and took over half of Europe. The other half saw a resurgence of the hard left, and the infiltration of its ideas into academia, and the export of those ideas to the USA.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only one of those which remotely counts as a
> buzzword is "cultural Marxism", and that is a bit
> unfair, since many people involved in that do not
> know the end that they're being used for, let
> alone much about Marx. In many cases, they have
> picked up some of the ideas without realizing the
> ultimate consequences.

Ah, esoteric language known only to the cognoscenti and incapable of explanation in plain English. By definition you are uniquely expert in the ideology because you will neither explain your ideas nor provide sources. How very Mormon, an updated version of the Gadianton Robbers or the Masons. So we are left to trust your superior knowledge or to wonder why you can't share it without the requisite tokens and handshakes.


---------------
> If you actually read his manifesto instead of what
> was written about him, you will find he does not
> identify as Christian (despite Christchurch being
> chosen for its name.

Fine. Please substitute "white Westerner" for "Christian" in my comments if you so please. I think you'll find it does not change my meaning.


--------------
> * That a dangerous immigrant (the shooter) was not
> deported earlier despite warnings. Immigration
> checks should be more stringent on ALL peoples. No
> violent criminals. No war criminals. An option of
> returning tjem if they do not find gainful
> employment within a year.

Arguably good ideas. Also unlikely to prevent a tourist from achieving the same aim, but what the hell.


> * The NZ govt has failed to deal with Wahhabi
> infiltration. (Which is to Islam what Marxism is
> to politics).

Well, I guess if one is on the right and stuck in the 1950s Marxism would appear uniquely threatening. To people without such preconceptions, however, Marxism would seem no more threatening than fascism or other right-wing extremes.


------------
> Moderate Islam in NZ was becoming
> poisoned by this Islamofascist virus prior to the
> incident.

Yet again the non-sequitur. Why is it that an attack on Islam by a Caucasian Westerner immediately provokes in you and your fellow travelers a impulsive defensive need to criticize Islam? Wahhabi Islam played no role in the NZ atrocity and yet you feel it important to bring that into the discussion. Why?


-----------
> * The sexual and gender values Ardern espouses are
> directly opposed to those found in many forms of
> Islam, but Islam gets a free pass for things that
> Christians wouldn't.

Yes, liberal values are antithetical to Wahhabi and Deobandi Islam. So what? Those schools of Islam had nothing to do with the slaughter in NZ. And who exactly is giving "a free pass" to Saudi Arabia and the Taliban and ISIS and the Mullahs and Hezbollah and the others? Do you feel that the one billion Muslims who do not belong to those groups must atone for their crimes?


-----------
> * Wearing a headscarf is more to do with PR than
> solving problems.

Absolutely true. One of the greatest powers of elected leaders is their ability to employ symbolism in a way that influences politics. Churchill and FDR did that with their public speeches--all PR--and they helped their countries through the depression, respectively, and WWII. So Arden's wearing a headscarf in order to convey a message of solitary and support would seem perfectly appropriate--unless, of course, there is something about Muslims that renders gestures of support for them uniquely inappropriate.


-----------
> The values of the founder of Islam cannot be
> ignored. He makes Joseph Smkth look like a
> milquetoast.

Silly. Americans are not responsible for the demise of Native Americans; today's Germans need not apologize for Hitler; modern Japanese bear no guilt for the Nanjing Massacre. Whether JS was an evil man has no bearing on the morality of individual Mormons, and whether Mohammed was the embodiment of vice is irrelevant to modern Muslims, most of whom know next to nothing of the Prophet's life and most of his teachings. The notion of collective responsibility is a form of totalitarianism that has no place in modern society.


-----------------
> And Islam's love of [women], which involves FGM,
> gender segregation, varying degrees of face
> obacuration and [sic]


Again, the collective guilt. Islam's misogyny is limited to several nasty communities: it is a minority phenomenon. People demonstrating against the Iranian government in Teheran are responsible neither for that government's atrocities in Yemen nor for the FGM that occurs in Africa. There are people on this board, like you, who harbor the reactionary belief that all Muslims are guilty for the sins of their compatriots or co-religionists even if they have never met them or even heard of them. Those board members do not, however, apply the same standard to themselves.


-------------
> I don't term those kind of people "liberals".
> Proper liberalism involves freedom of expression,
> laisser faire economics, minimization of
> government control, and a lack of discrimination
> on the basis of one's birth characteristics...

Your characterization of true liberalism is accurate. But while on the one hand you intimate that "discrimination on the basis of one's birth characteristics" is wrong, on the other you do just that to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who have absolutely no sympathy for what you term Islamofascism. Why the double standard?


----------------
> Instead in their place, we find these
> pseudo-liberals want blanket censorship, a command
> economy, a police state, and the demonization of
> whites, males, heterosexuals, cisgenders and the
> like.

This is another pearl-clutching passage. Are there idiots who masquerade as liberals? Absolutely. But how many liberals desire "blanket censorship?" A "command economy?" A "police state?" In the modern world it is the RIGHT that represents more of a threat in the form of censorship of critical thought and the subordination of the police, intelligence agencies, and the judiciary to state control.

And the "demonization of whites, males, heterosexuals," etc? You have to reach pretty damn far to find enough of those so-called liberals to field a baseball team. The proportion of such "liberals" is a lot lower than the percentage of regular RfM posters who embody what in broader society would be considered appalling racism and misogyny.


--------------
> Why would [blame Jordan for Hitler?] Western civilization would > be unrecognizable, possibly non-existent, without
> Jewish influence. Some of our greatest writers,
> composers, philosophers and scientists have all
> been Jews. I have little time for the
> ultraorthodox Frummers, but I gather most Jews
> don't either.

And yet you treat Muslims as if they are collectively responsible for the atrocities of small extremist groups. By that standard, by your standard, you ARE guilty of the crimes of Western monsters. Nonsensical, I know, but that is your logic as expressed time and again in these threads.


------------
> I don't idolize Hitler any more
> than Chairman Mao (who murdered more people) or Ed
> Gein. Hitler was responsible for destroying
> Europe, and it has never fully recovered. Hitler
> did more for Communism than just about anyone else
> - he end up strengthening the Soviet Union to the
> point it became a superpower and took over half of
> Europe.

You see, there it is again: an unintentional revelation of your inner preoccupations. Just as charity to Muslims and a politician's gesture of solidarity with them trigger an impulsive need to criticize Islam, so too have you a hard time focusing on Hitler without putting him in the context of his contribution, as you see it, to your Marxist idee fixe. Why do you feel so defensive when confronted by discussion of Islam and Hitler? Why can't you discuss them on their own terms?


---------------
> The other half [of Europe] saw a resurgence of the
> hard left, and the infiltration of its ideas into
> academia, and the export of those ideas to the
> USA.

Well, there was a "resurgence of the hard left" in Europe after WWII--at least in France and Italy as evidenced by the elections of 1947 and 1948. But the Marshall Plan, which was designed to quash that communist sentiment, worked admirably. Over time Marxist sentiment weakened in Europe, dying almost completely after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So your argument hasn't been correct for decades.

As for the notion that communism "infiltrated. . . academia" in Europe and the US, that too was true for a few decades. But since the 1980s and early 1990s the tide has reversed. Again, you would have a hard time filling a baseball team with prominent professors who are communists as opposed to garden-variety progressives of one sort or another.

Your insistence that Marxism remains vital is atavistic; your concern on that score is blatantly unrealistic. Things haven't been as you suggest since the immediate post-war period.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2019 11:01PM by Lot's Wife.

Churchill wanted to machine gun striking miners and was responsible partly for the Bengal Famine.

But no, I do not think sending out a message out that women have to cover their hair and accept inferior status is equivalent to "we will fight them on the beaches."

And all the claims by Pakeha politicians about New Zealand being a place of tolerance rang hollow to the Māori whose land they took only a few generations ago.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Churchill wanted to machine gun striking miners
> and was responsible partly for the Bengal Famine.

Okay, Churchill was in your opinion a bad guy. Got it. But what does that have to do with Ardern using her pulpit to offer emotional support to Muslims?


------------------
> But no, I do not think sending out a message out
> that women have to cover their hair and accept
> inferior status is equivalent to "we will fight
> them on the beaches."

That's funny, because in this very thread you said you own a yarmulke and have proudly worn it. Does that mean you embrace every element of extreme Judaism? Because that would make you every bit as misogynistic as that unrepresentative sect.


-----------------
> And all the claims by Pakeha politicians about New
> Zealand being a place of tolerance rang hollow to
> the Māori whose land they took only a few
> generations ago.

Red herring. We are discussing Ardern's support for the Muslim community in NZ.

I find everything the Mormon church does to be very self-serving. If they are giving anything away, it is with an eye to gaining good publicity, good P.R., propping up the membership, and/or proselytizing.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find everything the Mormon church does to be
> very self-serving. If they are giving anything
> away, it is with an eye to gaining good publicity,
> good P.R., propping up the membership, and/or
> proselytizing.


Damn straight.

and MORmON Jesus (Inc) has NEVER had anything of his own to give away, that He did not have to steal from some one else before He could have it to give away.

I wonder if the LDS will donate money to French, Sri Lankan and Filipino churches recently damaged by Muslim terrorist attacks, or indeed the black churches in the US targeted by white supremacists.

I was 'wrong'; Since it all belongs to RMN, he doesn't have to consult with Anyone on how it's spent.

my bad.

Less than his own salary from the world's richest church.

It’s PR. Nothing more. In Europe it’s mostly Muslims who show any interest in talking to the missionaries. The LDS church members love this sort of thing and I’m sure Nelson is hoping to win some points with the Muslim community. The only thing is they convert at the point of a sword and it will be a cold day in hell when the church is ever welcome in most the Islamic world.

so did we ever figure out whether Islam's view of gay people, etc. is acceptable (and financially supportable) or did an exception nullify any discussion?

Is Islam's view of homosexuality different in any significant respect from that of Christianity?

And if the answer is that Christianity has become diverse, which is true, why do people conversely refuse to see Islam in its diversity?

My point is that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who think gay people should have fully equal rights. Fundamentalist Islam is repugnant, as is fundamentalist Christianity. Both are subsets of the larger religions.

Christian countries - except parts of Africa - don't have the death penalty for it anymore. Several Muslim countries do, including Brunei.

Didn't somebody ask a couple of weeks ago if it upset you if the church did something nice for someone or some organization not part of the church.


https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2221442,2221442#msg-2221442


$100K is nothing to sneeze at, charity is charity, if LDS got some kudos so what? It's not your money, if it was part of your tithing, just consider it money you got conned out of.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2019 09:40PM by tumwater.

The inspired Brethren are donating to an Islamic damaged mosque.

The inspired Brethren won't donate to the reconstruction of Notre Dame Cathedral.

What's wrong with this picture?

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2214904,2215432

Probably because it is far more expensive. Most Islamic buildings in NZ will have been built in the last twenty or thirty years. If you look at the figures for Muslims in New Zealand, they have gone from dozens in the 1970s to thousands in the present. One day they will wake up with more Muslims than Mãori (who are about 10%), because their growth rate is far higher. They will probably end up with pockets of NZ which will be mainly/solely Muslim - as has happened in parts of England, France, Germany and Sweden, and where Sharia Law (Muslim courts) have the real power.

And that, friends and neighbors, is a prime example of what is known as "the Extrapolation Fallacy."

Seems kind of odd that the LDS church would donate funds to another church to rebuild while at the same time sends thousands of missionaries out to proselytize them.

It's so easy to brandish money around when it isn't his own. Too bad he doesn't use it to help the needy closer to home, like impoverished Mormon youth and families living from hand to mouth.