Mortgage stress may be behind Bible belt crime
November 24, Sydney Morning Feral:
SYDNEY'S Bible belt is known for its McMansions, aspirational voters and enthusiastic church-goers. But the conservative, affluent Hills District is also in the grip of a crime wave - and mortgage stress may be behind it.These journos go to great lengths to avoid using the word Muslim or Middle Eastern when speaking of crime, yet within the blink of an eye in a so-called Bible belt area, they'll freely associate Christians and crime.
Over the past four years, Baulkham Hills Shire has experienced rising rates of violence and robbery. Domestic violence has risen by almost 20 per cent, assault is up by almost 10 per cent and harassment by 23 per cent.
There have been five murders in the past two years; there were none in the five years before that. They include the stabbing murder of Richard Carruthers, the 36-year-old redesigner of the Olympic cauldron, in his Castle Hill home. Three of the murders remain unsolved.
Earlier this year, a massive liquid ecstasy seizure was made at Castle Hill Industrial Estate, and in September two eight-year-old girls were sexually assaulted behind a basketball stadium in the Fred Caterson Reserve.
Figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research also show a rise in the number of break and enters, malicious damage, breaching of bail conditions, stealing from motor vehicles and cannabis charges in the four years to June 30.
Despite the increase, the area has a low crime rate compared with other parts of Sydney ...
From what I have heard of the Hills district it is still plenty white and Christian, but a person who used to live there a year ago told me in his daughter's class all but two kids spoke more than one language.
I know a police officer who used to work in Castle Hill in the 80s/90s and he said nothing ever happened there. It definitely wasn't diverse then, but it's well on the way now.
Mortgage stress? More likely your presumption of Christian perpetrators is wrong. But there's no story in that, is there?
3 comments:
I think there's a general downward trend in society these days. Crime and anarchy seem to be the order of the day. People getting bashed, robbed, stabbed, shot, it's all happening all over the place from what i can hear. I keep an eye out for such things everyday in the news.
As the police numbers decline and state Labor continue to dither, i don't see it improving.
True, it is the nature of violence that if small pockets are not extinguished, then it escalates and all groups get sucked into the spiral. I am suggesting that the initial trigger is the introduction of diversity. That's why I harp on about the white folk segregating from diversity, and from diverse areas to segregate from Islam - as a starting point at restoring peaceful communities.
An American, Robert Spencer, has already revealed the truth about the bible and the koran. Unlike your quoted propaganda website, Robert Spencer does not cherry-pick verses out of context, and does not quote superseded verses from the koran:
Why can't Muslims debate?
... no one, Muslim or non-Muslim, has ever yet refuted the contention that Islam teaches warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. And so one thing is certain: that warfare will continue.
"Pure Islam"
... while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands.
The Qur'an, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers -- see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.
... all of the schools that are considered orthodox teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers ...
Serge Trifkovic:
... the problem is that Muhammad remains, to all true Muslims, the inviolable paragon of goodness, and imitatio Muhammadi is reflected in the prevalence of his name throughout the Muslim world. Understanding him is the key to the Muslim world outlook ...
The simple preacher eventually morphed into a vengeful warlord, who jubilantly exclaimed that the spectacle of severed enemy heads pleased him better than "the choicest camel in Arabia." ...
One single Kuranic verse, "the Verse of the Sword," (9:5) Islamic scholars agree, abrogates 124 earlier verses - the ones that are quoted most regularly by Islam's apologists to prove its tolerance and benevolence ...
On the whole, Muhammad's practice and constant encouragement of bloodshed are unique in the history of religions. Allah's order to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" is an injunction both unambiguous and powerful ... That Islam sees the world as an open-ended conflict between the Land of Peace (Dar al-Islam) and the Land of War (Dar al-Harb), which must be conquered by jihad, is the most important bequest of Muhammad to history. The end of Jihad is possible only when "there prevail justice and faith in Allah" everywhere. (2:193) Muhammad thus postulated the fundamental illegitimacy of the existence of a non-Muslim world. Muslims could contemplate tactical ceasefires, but never jihad's complete abandonment short of the unbelievers' abject submission.
Paul Stenhouse:
'Apart from the thirteen years of the prophet's mission in Mecca, the history of Islam is indisputably a record of violence and power-seizure. As long as the prophet lived, force was used primarily for the purpose of spreading Islam and imposing it' ...
Muhammad's conduct demonstrates his understanding of the Quran's message.
If his understandings were correct, then all attempts by Islamic apologists to prove that Islam is a basically tolerant and peaceful religion fail when confronted by the Medina Sura and the indisputable facts of Muhammad's life and subsequent history of Islam.
If his understandings were wrong, then he was not a prophet, and Muslims have the problem of reconciling the alleged divine origin of the Quran with its myriad errors of fact, inconsistencies, anachronisms and many other defects.
To those who would claim the nature of Jihad and the militaristic aims of Islam are misunderstood by non-Muslims, we turn back a challenge that Muhammad repeatedly flung at his adversaries in Mecca: prove me wrong 'if you care about the truth'.
-----------
So either you are misinformed about the true nature of Islam, or you are an agent of lies. Moderate or radical? Does it make any difference when you both carry the same book?
Post a Comment