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
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 )
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”
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”.
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 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 ?
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
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
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
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
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