Israel Folau supporters “self serving” acts of charity?

It interests me, to see which crowdfunding funds will be the ones what will gain-support fast and take off, and meet the target, double quick

Which other ones, will struggle like hell, to even get much movement at all (like the one for Ian McKay defence against Brethren court action, see here https://www.gofundme.com/Ian-McKay-defence-against-religious-extremist )

1.While a crowdfunding battle for “freedom” ,of like what Israel Folau has become embroiled within . Can meet the goal within short matter of days

2 Meanwhile crowdfunding for battle for similar “freedom” , of the kind like what was set up to help an ex eb named Ian Makay , (as i referenced and linked to, early on above), will more likely fail to ever meet target. Even after months have passed by

So what’s with that then?

Today i was reading this following article i’ll link here https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/the-people-supporting-israel-folau-in-his-court-battle-with-rugby-australia/ar-AADIXX1?ocid=spartanntp

Its discussing about

1.who the people were who had donated

2. What might be there own reason, for getting involved

Most of the 20’000 people who had donated to Israel Folau fund, were Christians . Plus even the group of people involved in setting up the fund itself, was a Christian group as well too

So here we see that there was an huge outpouring of “charity” acts from among Christians

But why?

Why “so suddenly”

Why would funds arise for Israel Folau’s situation. But then not so, in the situation what had involved Ian McKay

Is their some special feature, of what has caused this almost opposite “different reaction, to occur?

What could it be?

When I read through the new article above, soon I notice that people were donating to the fund, due to concern about freedom of speech . Generally, it seems to me, that overall their main motivation for acting to donate to fund, was the thought that had worried themselves, to think about how they might also have their own freedom of speech being censored as well too

I’ll quote one of the comments (from article ,below )

Quote

 

There are many more in the wings waiting to join them, including Ms Moore, who says she will donate if the ACL reopens the Folau fund.
“Having the freedom to believe but not to express is not freedom at all,” Ms Moore said.

Since this case directly affects me, I feel it is my duty to support him”

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/the-people-supporting-israel-folau-in-his-court-battle-with-rugby-australia/ar-AADIXX1?ocid=spartanntp

end quote (my bold)

Take good note  of the quoted expression  : “ directly affects me

So then, that’s what’s “special” ?

This is what motivated these people generally. It wasn’t so much the motivation of “charity” so to think about helping-out someone else. Was it. But more about, being sure of taking care of themselves ?

Or not ?

Quote the same news article :

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) hosted the crowdfunding campaign and dubbed these donors the “quiet Australians”.

end quote

That might ALSO help explain TOO, why we never saw the “ Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) ” , stepping in themselves and grabbing at the chance to help assist and fund-raise, to help Ian McKay ?

They also didn’t see, the Ian Mckay situation, were in anyway, likely to ever be “directly affecting themselves” ,in any way

So that’s why they never bother to help host someone similar to Ian’s fun-raiser. Ie, perhaps it wasn’t at-all in the “Christian Lobby” own interest, to be bothered to do so

That could explain it?

Or not?

Or what else would help explain

This idea of looking after “one’s own” best-interests, was what motivated, both the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), plus the people too who had donated as well ?

Or not?

If not. Then what other reason is there, of what can perhaps help to explain why one person will have loads donations flooding in double-quick, while another person wont have?

What else is there?

I cannot think of what else it is . We might say it was to do with Israel Folau, more public celebrity status. But this still wont help to explain why the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) would choose to get involved themselves within the Folau situation, but would be less likely to bother in one situation like Ian’s

We need to note the speed of the way that the fund took off.

This motivation, was not  a whole lot about act’s of charity, but was more about self-serving nature of Christendom, wanting to secure its ability ,to be able to be involved in “oppressing” certain people of whom they’d like to still be able to oppress

For this reason , I wouldn’t even be at all surprised, either, if in fact the Brethren groups were found out to have donated ,to Folau fund, also themselves

 

I wouldn’t be one bit surprised (if I were to ever hear, that they had done)

Because this fund . Was a fighting fund what intended to help Christendom retain its right to choose certain people, of which they’ll oppress

They are not much concerned about anyones personal freedoms . Like what its been more about within Ian Mckays situation

No Extremely few Christian were bothered with losing any of their own sleep, over Ian’s loss of freedom

Were they?

And reason why they were losing sleep over the Folau situation. Was more to do with fear, that they are losing power of which Christendom has traditionally always retained, to freely use, to oppress others of whomever it chooses to “gang up against, and oppress

This was what motivated the  Christian mass, to take action

What’s worst of all

There will be very few simple Christian who’ll care , to bother to now step up, and help take action, to help prevent this nastiness from prevailing for longer

They wont bother to

 

They never ever have bothered to ?

Perhaps because, their own feeling of indifference is always what usually gets in the way of them bothering

They don’t need to struggle agains  oppression caused by cults and high control groups, themselves , ever do they

Or what?

Christendom only manages to “motivated” itself, for self serving purposes

Even the charity act in Africa,or China or wherever else. Are self serving . They manage to achieve “great fame” (even although, nobodies caring to take care of cult survivors ,whom are only an minority group of people. So not enough fame-value ,as “pay-off”, for Christendom’s involvement . If anything, perhaps  it will more likely only serve to help highlight shame on Christendom,for its unthoughtful careless manner of indifference and lack of prompter action)

Few people are oppressed by cults and high control groups

So therefore “indifference” wins out

Christendom generally isn’t concerned about “freedom” of any minority

They don’t care how many minority ex cult member ,have had their freedom of speech removed. Or will have suffered censorship, so as to retain contact with cult-family and to remain  unpunished by cult hierarchy

Christendom couldn’t give a fuck about personal freedom

They want to retain their right, to retain power of Christian gangs, who’ll even “receive charity status”, while bullying people, into believing what they demand they’ll need to believe (so as to remain unpunished by the religious group gang )

We souldnt be censoring Christian

 

We should be allowing them to speak out. To openly display their biased approach.

 

Then we need to be highlighting knowledge of the situation, to our government

We all need to put our indifferences aside , rise up together again the rights of the religious gangs (IE: even the non ex cult member, need to put aside their own feeling of indifference too, so as to rise up and to help the other minority group of people ,like ourselves, who are still being affected personally, by cult oppression

Caring about others, is what humanity should be about

 

Or not?

Generally speaking

Christendom is sick to the core 

This is why so many people are heard running Christians down these days. (And hating on Christians)

It become so obvious now too

So that there also explains why

Christian isnt concerned about upholding personal religious liberty freedom

Christian generally don’t worry about that

Christian have upheld negative form of religious liberty. Liberty what only exist, more to do with, good luck. 

If we are lucky children. Perhaps we wont be born unto parents, who are involved as followers, of high control religious groups or cults (if we are, then our freedom of speech, within the group, will be censored by the hierarchy of said high control religious groups rules. Shunning occur to anyone who dare question that rule)

Christendom is fighting to retain this right of opression

Some ex cult members have struggled against oppression of freedom of speech  , their whole lives long

Anytime soon

You wont see 20’000 Christian CARING  to rush up and donate money, to quickly help any of them ex cult people to fight for their right to retain personal freedom of speech (without being oppressed /censored by cult hierarchy what retain overbearing power)

Those 20’00o Christian don’t care about those peoples freedom of speech?

Its only concern for their own right ,what is the base of their motivation

 

About ExEB

I'm a agnostic/atheist . Interested in learning more about science. I also am an "ex-member" of a group most publicly known within modern times, as the Exclusive Brethren. Whom are an off-shoot of the original Plymouth Brethren group. I'd say it likely my personality could possibly be described as quirky.You know ,as in being , unconventional , unorthodox , unusual, off-centre, strange, bizarre, weird, peculiar, odd, freakish, outlandish, offbeat, out of the ordinary, bohemian, alternative, zany I'm sure iv'e been classed as "crazy" . Many times But then, being born into a group like the exclusive brethren. Doesn't lend itself ? to tend to produce things considered as being "very normal" .Does it I escaped the Exclusive Brethren cult as a 15 year old teenager. Even since that time iv'e been trying to adjust to living life outside the cult. With much of my life being lived within the genre of "wild colonial boy" style. In the general sense of a church-rebel picking and choosing from role models who appeared within-life along the way. But as the exclusive brethren cult had traditionally maintained a general church-rule , of need to shun and totally excommunicate any ex member of their group.Treating such people as if they were dead. Thus this situation developed more to do with my need of following traditionally enforced church-rule , as apposed to it being so much about "life-choices". Certain emotional experiences, and parts of life in general, have led to me adopting a sense of low self esteem. Which is a situation i still deal with from time to time. Through my ongoing interest in science. I find i am able to gather more information to help me better understand my situation. Much about life for me, has often seemed like a massive puzzle.With many missing pieces.
This entry was posted in Christianity, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s