#christianity

Soweto Gospel Choir

A member of the Grammy Award winning Soweto Gospel Choir was fascinated with CM’s bike. Demanded to sit atop. How could one refuse the smile.

The SWG is on tour in Australia. Here for 37 days. Here are the remaining dates.

Video of their performance on the first link. CM will take the Mrs.

If private health funds want to gain new customers…

If private health funds in Australia want to gain a lot of new business and waive some waiting periods for long term customers of HCF, they’ll stampede to their door. Strike while their competitor gets woke.

HCF joins the list of brainless corporates having to come out and show it doesn’t support the actions of Israel Folau’s wife, Maria in standing by her husband. The irony is she hasn’t said anything. Shame on her for trying to defend the couple’s livelihood.

HCF, sponsors of the Australian Netball series, said, “We appreciate the complexities of the Folau matter and acknowledge that views do differ in the community, however, we do not support Maria Folau’s stance on this matter.

If Maria Folau said she believed in mass murder, would Australians need direction from HCF to know the right path? Since when did corporates feel compelled to enforce moral and ethical codes on customers?

Corporate Australia is becoming a laughing stock. Does HCF honestly believe its customers are going to quit in droves if they don’t say something woke? It’s no better than ANZ preaching moral codes, although the bank comes from a greater history of scandal, as the Hayne Banking Royal Commission revealed.

Tell you what, if Medibank Private, nib or another private health insurer offer to waive the waiting periods, CM will happily transfer the $400/month to them from HCF.

HCF, not interested in your moral preening.

Supreme Court rules Peace Cross can stay

It is amazing that activists can be up in arms over a near century old monument that honours 49 dead WWI soldiers in Maryland. It required the US Supreme Court to vote 7-2 to keep it there. No prizes for guessing who the dissenters were.

The Peace Cross was erected just after WW1 to honour those that sacrificed their lives for the country. It was the brainchild of mothers of the fallen. Most likely they were all Christian mothers.

The protest was that it didn’t properly represent the religious beliefs of all those that had fallen in WW1. In that sense activists were offended by the government’s endorsement of religion plus the reality that the cross is maintained with taxpayer funds.

Monica Miller, a lawyer representing the American Humanist Society, argued the memorial should be moved to private property or modified.

Leftist activist Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “Just as a Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation,”

Her Liberal sidekick Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented with, “Soldiers of all faiths ‘are united by their love of country, but they are not united by the cross.”

Justice Alito said, “destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment.”

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, both of whom are Jewish, ruled in favour of keeping the cross.

Almost 100 years ago it is likely that 98% of those that died in WW1 were of Christian faith. If one visits a memorial with individual gravestones anywhere around the world, the religion is always reflective of the person who sacrificed their life.

How is it that people can become so triggered by a stone structure that honours those that gave up their lives to protect the very freedom they enjoy? Why can’t people respect the values of the time? What is the obsession with rewriting history so some intolerant people can feel assuaged of bereavement they’ve never suffered personally?

Constructive dismissal?

CM’s view on the incompetence of Rugby Australia (RA) is well documented and reconfirmed by Alan Jones in The Australian today. It appears that Israel Folau looks more like a sacrifice to the altar of the sponsor god, Qantas.

Sponsorship money is important to sports teams but it should never get to a point where the sponsored has to make unconscionable decisions to acquiesce their paymasters. It is unethical.

CM has long held issues over Qantas’ flagrant use of shareholder capital to sponsor the CEO’s activism. It is terrible governance.

Remember the acceptance rings ahead of the same sex marriage debate that Qantas pushed so hard on us? The idea was to distribute these acceptance rings (not fully closed) to customers, clients and travellers.

CM supposed if someone were to politely decline to wear one they risked being be branded homophobic, bigoted and summarily ostracized for expressing such views. It might be that they actually support gay marriage but do not wish to express it openly. That is nothing more than a conscious choice, not categorical staunch opposition. Perhaps failure to wear the ring could cause their career takes a turn for the worse all because they don’t comply with group expression i.e. corporate slavery. The team leader who passes them over because they incorrectly assume the employee is a dissenter. That is palpable workplace bullying encouraged by a woke CEO.

What Jones points out is that the ‘wallaby court’ had already decided the outcome before a word was uttered in defence. It appears it was a ‘hearing’ conducted with the deaf.

RA CEO Raelene Castle apparently told Vanessa Hudson, chief customer officer at Qantas,

I updated her on the situation a day after the post and told her that, confidentially, Rugby AU would be working towards a process to terminate Mr Folau’s contract and that Ms Hudson can share that position with Qantas chief executive Mr Alan Joyce. Ms Hudson texted me later that day saying that she had only shared the update with Mr Joyce and he was appreciative of the transparency and he said that a speedy resolution by Rugby AU was paramount.”

This says a lot about Qantas. If it wants to exert control over RA it should acquire it and manage it as a subsidiary.

Yet where was the pushback by RA? It flaked. If it understood the dwindling fan numbers meant it wasn’t connecting to revenue, it might have thought defending Folau might have been its greatest coup and that many non virtue signaling corporates could replace Qantas’ sponsorship.

The culture of RA is self evident. It is not about rugby anymore but a platform for identity politics.No wonder fans are deserting it. CM discusses dwindling fan numbers yesterday, something Jones alluded to. Put simply, the product stinks and that rot permeates from the top. Fans aren’t stupid.

Coach Michael Cheika’s abysmal win/loss record is tolerated because he tows the line of the C-level cabal. So do some of the players who threatened to boycott the team if Folau was allowed to keep playing.What a joke! These virtue signaling players if given the choice to stand by their beliefs or keep their lucrative contracts would choose the latter every time. They sounded just like those Hollywoodcelebrities that threatened to leave America if Trump won the presidency.Hypocrites.

However it only reinforces the reality of the culture within the RA that encourages this type of numb skulled response to pander to the top. If these players wanted to think about faith in context of not selling out core beliefs they could learn muchfrom Israel Folau.

It increasingly looks like the high level breach has been committed by the board in cahoots with Qantas.

As CM mentioned yesterday, perhaps receivership is the best outcome for RA. That way the apparatchiks get cleared out and replaced by people that connect with fans who ultimately pay the keep the lights on at HQ. It isn’t that hard to fix RA’s problems but it will be impossible with a leadership team which seems to support constructive dismissal at the behest of corporates that champion activism rather than principle. Clearly Qantas is the mean “spirit of Australia”

Get woke, go broke.

Castle tackles inclusivity with exclusivity

The board of Rugby Australia (RA) has capitulated at the altar of political correctness. CEO Raelene Castle unconvincingly announced the reasons why Israel Folau’s contract has been terminated. This is a board that acted on external activism. It buckled. Castle squirmed around the question of whether sponsors had applied pressure or not. What Folau said was unnecessary but how is it other players can get arrested and get away with a written warning?

Ultimately, RA will feel the wrath at the ticket office from already disgruntled paying fans. Attendance continues to slide. RA losses are expected for 2019 following the losses in 2017. The 2018 profit was merely due to an exceptional item. Perhaps Folau’s termination will help plug the hole in the P&L. No wonder losses are being made, given the pitiful performances led by a man with the worst record of any Wallabies coach. Why is he still there?

Australia will be lucky to make it beyond the quarterfinals at the Rugby World Cup in Japan this year. Yet the CEO and board tolerate his woeful record. CM has long argued Michael Cheika can’t unite that team. His record proves it. His team rally behind him publicly but their faces tell a different story.

Castle is out of her depth. She might have cried inclusiveness but there was no conviction in the press conference. Inclusiveness, to many of those on the left, is limited to whatever they prescribe. Stray from the party line and get excluded. Her eyes said it all in the press conference – she is definitely no crisis manager.

Folau, on the other hand, didn’t accept a $1m buy off to walk away so RA could wash their hands of the matter. He stuck and continues to stick to his faith. Hopefully, he takes it all the way to the High Court to leave RA with more egg on its face.

Let’s be clear. Folau hasn’t called for violence against homosexuals. Yet why is it just that group that is singled out as victims? CM ticked a few boxes on his tweet. Surely CM’s right to feeling oppressed is just as valid on the faux outrage scale. Where are the drunkards, adulterers and fornicators calling for his head? Nowhere. With good reason. Because 99.9% of people probably rolled their eyes at the tweet and moved on.

Look at RA’s Male Champions of Change (MCC) program. This is the focus of RA and it is not rugby. RA’s website openly states the following,

MCC works with influential leaders and encourages them to take action towards gender equality. 

Rugby Australia is a proud supporter of MCC and our Chief Executive Raelene Castle has recently been appointed as a Special Advisor on the MCC Sport program. 

This program aims to enhance the involvement of women in all aspects of sport and works with key stakeholders to achieve pay equity.

What on earth could have possessed RA to hire an activist as CEO? Castle also promotes on the RA website:

I have seen the challenges first hand and I have a personal passion to ensure that the gender equality discussion is at the forefront across all aspects of our society.

Quite frankly 99% of her customers couldn’t care less about RA’s stance on gender equality nor the group’s wish to drive it across society. They want to see good rugby. They d not see it as RA’s job to tell them how to behave. RA is answering questions nobody is asking.  If female coaches are better than the males, no male rugby supporter will care if the team is quite literally putting scores on the board. No one needs or wants RA’s activism which also extends to male domestic violence. How about female domestic violence against men? Take a look at the stats. Let’s just beat up on toxic masculinity because it is easier.

Where was the board when Wallabies flanker David Pocock encouraged school kids to join the climate strike or retweeted posts mocking climate skeptics? Is his climate activism ranked above Folau’s quoting of a religious text? Did RA do anything when Pocock was arrested for chaining himself to an excavator for 10 hours at the Maules Creek mine? He was charged with “trespass, remaining on enclosed land without lawful excuse and hindering the working of mining equipment.” Raelene Castle wasn’t CEO at the time but Cameron Clyne, Paul McLean and Ann Sherry were and still are board members. Where is the balance in sanctions handed out?

Let’s not forget the double standards of Pocock. He can find it in his heart to play for a team that is sponsored by Qantas which emits more carbon dioxide per passenger-kilometre than any other airline operating across the Pacific, according to an analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation. Oh, the irony that he also happily played for a team that was sponsored by gas-guzzling Land Rover SUVs. Nary a peep from the climate activist when it lines his pockets.

What will the other devout Christian Pacific Islanders do? Will they leave the Wallabies en masse? They’re good enough to find homes in other sides. The Japanese would welcome them.

If the RA board think they’ve reached a moral high ground in this decision they’re seriously mistaken. Trying to pay him off was the first big mistake because his faith trumped their expediency. They thought he was all bluster, just like the players who threatened to boycott the team if he remained. Folau wasn’t for sale.

CM has repeatedly said that Folau’s remarks in a public forum were unnecessary but defends his right to say them.

Castle’s decision is a perfect representation of the growing trend of allowing virtue signaling to infect a board which will spectacularly backfire. This is no different to Gillette, Colgate and other brands trying to do moral preening. People want the product. Start throwing lashings of political correctness and watch customers desert them. Footy Show anyone? Trying to be a ‘woke’ corporate is the closest thing to sleepwalking off a cliff.

Chick-Fil-A becomes 3rd largest fast food chain

Despite progressives trying to boycott the Chick-fil-A food chain because the Southern Baptist COO Dan Cathy publicly opposed same-sex-marriage, American consumers have turned it into the 3rd largest fast-food chain after McDonalds and Starbucks. Store numbers have doubled and revenues tripled over the last decade.

Chick-fil-A states it’s mission is, “To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

Chick-fil-A is notable by its closure on Sundays, Thanksgiving and Christmas. So people are well aware ofthis corporate backing its religious beliefs.

CM has always rejected corporates pushing political and societal agendas. To that end they live and die by the sword. In Gillette’s case it was forced towrite down the long term value of the brand due to its toxic masculinity campaign driven by virtue signaling. In Chick-fil-A’s case it seems that customers think the product offering has always been backed by true beliefs from its inception.It’s a big difference.

Some may argue CM is making a doublestandard. Wrong. Chick-fil-A was founded form the beginning on its core beliefs. It was on the menu (pun intended).Gillette on the other hand thought trying to tell customers to be mindful about their toxic masculinity from a position of sponsoring a racing car series with its logo emblazoned across the backsides or super models was not.They thought being woke would win business. In fact it cost them a bundle.

Truth be told, most people probably just want a chicken sandwich and Chick-fil-A don’t ram religious beliefs on their burger wrappers.Gillette’s customers probably just want to shave without being told they shouldn’t be men.