An interesting article I saw in the Daily Mail the other day, centred around the residents of St Paul's Court, in Preston, UK, a sheltered housing scheme (similar to a retirement home, except there is greater independence with larger individual living areas, in addition to communal facilities, like an apartment block).
According to the Mail, residents have been instructed to remove any religious icons or imagery from the communal areas. The justification for this is, as ever, the “promotion of diversity amongst its residents and visitors”.
This is the insidious nature of the secularist creep, whereby the removal of Christianity from our day to day life is justified as being in the interests of fairness and equality. It is part and parcel of the culture that the Anti-Christian rulers of our nations have sought to establish.
But there’s an interesting aside to this battle, which is the sop to “diversity”. They are aware that if they just attack Christianity on the basis of it being full of evil Christians who ought to be shot and buried in a trench in Dartmoor, that would rather give the game away to even the densest of egalitarians.
Instead, we get “diversity”. You can almost hear their shrill cries. “We’re all in favour of diversity, don’t you know? We want everybody to be able to do what they want, without being forced to comply with other people’s beliefs!”
And so we get this strange doublethink situation, where diversity means the removal of things that separate people, ostensibly so that those people feel less inclined to conform, but in fact forcing them all to be the same.
This is particularly horrible, as this attack is visited on elderly people in the twilight of their lives, people who have lived in a society that was more decent and Christian in character than the one we live in today, and yet they are not permitted to exercise their own religion freely in the place that they live in.
Note that they are committed to promoting diversity amongst the visitors as well. Imagine, the way this is worded almost seems to imply that they force their secularist moral code on anyone who walks in the door, and according to the Mail, “asked elderly residents to volunteer to become 'equality and diversity' champions”.
If you’ve applied for a job or training in the last five years and read the small print, you’ll probably know what that means. Some poor old lady or traditional old man will be hounded by some condescending woman wearing a name badge until they agree to parrot these concepts which are completely alien to them, but may feel they would get in trouble if they did not.
It is as if this whole system is compulsory by stealth, similar to the charitable donations in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. You can opt out, if you wish, but woe betide you if you do choose that route. This pressure, being used against some of the most vulnerable members of our society, must surely be bullying or abuse of some kind?
I’m also unsure of how they intend to promote diversity amongst the visitors, considering they will only be there for a few hours, which is not nearly long enough to convert to Zoroastrianism. Perhaps they will also remove rosaries and headscarves from people as they go in, or refuse families of Christians as their quota system requires six more Jainists and a Rastafarian first.
More likely this reference to visitors is merely a demonstration of how far they are willing to extend their arbitrary, ungodly authority.
Returning to the “diversity” theme again, it has been explained to me, by a man who sounded as if he barely believed it himself and ought to have known better, that Christianity is only being diminished in relation to other faiths because it was in such a strong position to start with.
Well, that’s certainly the case, but it does not explain why in a democracy the religion of the majority should be diminished to permit other religions to flourish buy default in the void created. Nor does it explain why libraries now place the Qur’an higher on the shelves than the Bible, nor why in an EU diary distributed to schools, Christianity was absent whilst the Muslim and Hindu festivals were listed.
A truly free religious system would not legislate on religion at all, and would allow the dominant religion to fluctuate naturally based upon which happens to be most popular. Though I would argue that the dominant religion should be the one that has led to a society that maintains it’s people in the greatest prosperity and safety.
At least, in this case, Muslim and Christian leaders have spoken out against this ridiculous intrusion into the lives of these people. From my own experiences of Preston, the residents of this home would be predominantly Christian and Muslim, with some Hindu presence as well.
Now, I have absolutely no desire to increase the presence of alien religions in this country, but it certainly says something when rival religions see a greater danger in secularism than they do in Christianity. Most of the residents are likely to be old or infirm. They are not in any shape to begin a holy war in the laundry room.
But the secularists never actually care about what people actually want, they only care about pre-empting tension and putting the words in people’s mouths. I daresay there are many Muslims who wouldn’t have minded the Christmas decorations that were not permitted to be put up in Preston, nor would these old people have immediately called the police at the sight of a crucifix on the wall.
They could simply discuss their grievances with one another, though they must be careful, lest an employee report them for offensive behaviour in suggesting their religion is more real than another. In the long run, it is likely that this sort of thing will increase; indeed it is ordained in the scriptures that we will suffer at the hands of the ungodly. It is not too much of a stretch to see people living in apartment buildings and social housing denied the right to practice their religion by politically motivated landlord organisations and local government. The question is, how long will we put up with this treatment from a hostile government?
No comments:
Post a Comment