SECULARIST KAREN BROOKS TOOK ANDREW BOLT TO TASK - BUT DIDN'T QUITE WIN THE ARGUMENT

Recently, Courier Mail columnist Karen Brooks made a lot of very valid points in her thinly veiled slapdown of Andrew Bolt and all those like him who are particularly passionate in their defence of Christianity, and as some from the Brooks side of the fence would say - over-defence (Opinion CM 23/5).

 

Yes it's true, Bolt as accused by Brooks in a none too subtle fashion tends to omit and sidestep some inconvenient truths in his "defence of Christianity" columns which he would rather not take intellectual ownership of, as in some of the more nasty aspects of Christian colonization and imperialism.

 

Which like Judaism and Islam from biblical times until now has been responsible for so much needless and senseless killing, suffering and persecution of innocent, harmless people around the world.

 

None is blinder than he or she who will not see, and maybe at times Bolt falls into that category. But there is two very valid points that Brooks missed in her column - (1) that Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism has been "modernized and reformed" to exclude any acceptance of medieval like bloodletting and Sharia Law like barbarianism, where Islam hasn't.

 

And (2), that with modern Christianity and Judaism there is a separation of powers between religion and law. If there is one thing which Brooks should actually back Bolt on, instead of boning him, it's Bolt's very outspoken advocacy for Islam to be reformed to create a presently non-existent separation between Islamic culture and Islamic law.

 

Until that happens, then all faithful Christians, including Bolt, have every right to fear that growing momentum towards acceptance of Sharia Law in Australia is at least a tangible and palpable threat to Christianity itself, and the fundamental values of our legal system.