fW W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page     Volume  What is New




News 497

The Australian February 20, 2017

On p. 10 of this edition of The Australian we find a courageous article. I do not agree with it all, but it has much that is encouraging.


The two notable features appear to be these: a facing of the misconceptions that abound concerning sharia law, so that some years ago, one in the House of Lords in Britain declared it quite conceivable for England. In this noted article however its simple nature is well exposed. Its adoption would send those in view, it is claimed, back to the Dark Ages. It would rescind centuries of developments of great worth and weight.

Its nature, indeed, regarding it simply as an aggregation of proposals or commands or injunctions or exhortations or declarations, whatever the source, is an oppressive and humiliating regime for dealing with conquered people. The important thing is that they must first be conquered. We are not. That little part is omitted by those who want to avoid the battle and yet to take the spoils. Many Moslems may be very pleasant to know, but there is this parade by many others of fear-imposed trails of gory and inglorious glory, that is the problem.

But what is the thought of an imposed sharia law, like ?

It is like someone asking for help, in this instance, and being allowed to live temporarily in your drawing room, who then does not plan to accommodate to your household. On the contrary, the plan is to rule your household, gradually if not sooner, transforming it to your own pleasure. To this extent, it threatens to become a lordly parasite, leading what it did not build, and building what it did not pay for. Not all do this or could stand for it; but many so act and this is massive effrontery.

On this scenario, they are proceeding to have your household's ways accommodate to their use of your mercy. In this sense, they become like squatters. But that is not all. The next step is to point out to you that your whole house should really take such account of them that your meat should be blessed in some special way which follows their religion, as if their coming had been by some sort of negotiation, and not in terms of using what your God has provided, to show mercy on their need.

As to this last point, does not the preamble of our Constitution specify our God in terms which can only cunningly be made to appear NOT the God of the Bible, and not the God Almighty, who is related to that, as seen in the Coronation ceremonies concerning inter alia, the Author of the wisdom of the Bible. Yet it was religiously in relation to the Protestant Christian nature of England when we began our own (as far as is apparent) first specifically so decreed national government. What others have done and may do, is as it is; and it is in no way  our current concern.

What the current Constitution preamble declares is another subject. This is now in view and inheres in our present theme. Thus an aspect of this Commonwealth is our select topic, and it is this which is being pondered in the area of interest, and characterised in its own terms as an investigable item.

Religion is our topic; and it has its own domain and constitutional place,  back of our laws and in order, before them.

How wonderful that liberty in religion was able thus to be built into our current Constitution, with no small power and position, as in Section 116. It applies to one, it applies to all, it affects the mighty, it includes the weak. It is not to be superintended or subverted, taken over or pushed under. There is freedom of utterance (but not of course to prevent or outlaw utterance, when utterance is what is in view). Violent overthrow of the system is one thing; but its operation is another. This is that.

Thus there  is a nature to things, but that is not the same question as its mode of operation. The atmosphere and reference in this, our present field, was Christian; but you were not at all obligated, since Christ's teaching is to abhor the use of the sword as a means of conversion, and to require instead spiritual expression of spiritual things (John 18:36). If people want to be unbelieving, or contrary, that is up to them; this is the Christian way, till judgment comes after thousands of years of options.

This is the biblical declaration and any any endeavour by force or law to change this, is not only futile, since man cannot control God, but requires authorisation in the religion arena, and change in the Constitution. Before the nation is committed to such explosive confrontation, such alteration requires authorised status in its own terms. In such extreme cases,  it is well to check competence, even at the level of what is now permissible.

Thus you have to ask the people before as if a god, you irresponsibly place them in this position, nationally.



This moreover is not a racial issue, but a national one; not even a philosophic one, but a matter of what happened in the institution of the Commonwealth, which now exists, and has left these markers, able to be changed; but in this is not changed. If what is thus in the Pre-amble to the Constitution, is not legally binding, it is yet historically extant and derivatively significant for the Commonwealth nation as so constituted from that time, whatever may be the current changes in view for the future. In  view is NOT in force.

Changes may be made, so that WHAT has to this (important historical) extent been operative in many development ways for so long is changed by law and by force; nor indeed have the relevant changes as yet been made. If made, however, these would constitute to that extent, a change of our position, of this part of our inheritance by express declaration, of our foundation as an organised nation with its Constitution. You cannot be nothing and all efforts to be a meaningless mixture fail in that there is the overall authority to declare it so, which is then the religion chosen, making potentially a massive change.

To a large extent, this nation by such future action could be either transformed or deformed, relative to what was thus introduced in these dimensions and in this mode, in institutions and attitudes.

Free in theory and intent as religion was to be, and though its treatment now remains subject to constitutional change, it must be noted these religious or national aspects are profoundly significant and with whatever errors were made, held major formative function.

In what way are they then significant ? It is not least in this, that they are free.

In this more biblical Christian setting than is often now found, the Commonwealth CANNOT propound and impress a religion but people must be free*1 (without substituting violence which is not the way) to exhibit their religion, not manipulated or ordered. This has of course long been defiled by the forcible teaching of the organic evolutionary myth (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!). In what way has it been forcible ?

In this, that NO option is frequently given in class, despite the number and eminence of those who hold to divine creation  as an improvement on  virtual 'nothing' as the self-contradictory source, and insist that the Big Bang is merely a begging of the question, getting from NOWHERE (otherwise you have to have it all nicely set up for you from nowhere, by nothing, for no reason, nor is reason allowable for that too is begging the question, and the question is not to be begged but rationally considered by anything purporting to be either science or knowledge), all mod cons. By this is meant: a logical system, since it could never be traced or shown by logic unless it would investigable by logic, and hence of that order of being.

Indeed, you would have also to have all necessary additives in place from a mathematical point which has no actual existence, which would be in a setting immediately operative in terms of force, power, pressure, space, invention by explosion, order, logic leading to logical thought to understand logical processing, and volitional power to direct it, in fact to matter mind and spirit. But what has the potential for these things is merely a hidden god, and what lacks it by DEFINITION CANNOT produce the results. Associate Professor John Hartnett of Adelaide University has much to add in deflation of this scenario in his book, jointly authored, Dismantling the Big Bang. Its title speaks for itself.

Since this nonsense is in the beginning one of the NEVER NOW SEEN information miracle of DNA made minus mind. These things being so, results with no assignable cause or discernible basis and contrary to the model adopted, it is implicit recourse to miracle, only this miracle is not acknowledged. Then, what is in fact no more than a lucky dip mechanism is summoned to thought, and supposed to  present ever new pieces of mathematical marvel and miniaturisation miracle, giving a vast array of operative wonders, surrounded by no larger set of failures, attesting its actual source and the absurdity of making death the author of brilliance.

Based on dogmatism and hope, not on thought and defensible grounds, this delusive model faces likewise the fact our genomes instead of advancing are now shown to be deteriorating precisely as the Second Law of Thermodynamics would have led one to  expect. What goes down is the extant model for what goes up! It is not merely wrong, but like making a song and a dance on feeding many by a dry bone, and not doing so.

Then what ? Then the EXCLUSION by the delightful delicacies of Education Departments and their bosses, of the  scientifically necessary treatment of other and sustainable approach is simply seen as SCIENTISM. It is in some ways worse than what the article mentions of sharia law in this, that it takes us back BEFORE the Dark Ages. That is not to  elevate the latter Ages, but to show the divergence from what for so long did so much in liberty of thought and understanding (and logic) for our nation.

Hence already the Constitution in this perverse exclusivism and scholastic totalitarianism has been broken in education to an  almost hysterical extent. One objects (cf. Government Issues), and mere authoritarianism is the answer. One has called for debate;  but bypassing is the answer. The show must go on and the stupefying seduction is paid for socially, financially, in national and international dealings, in instability and in confusion.

This is merely, here, to illustrate the extent to which Australia has in  much already bent to the totalitarian breach of its Constitution, and to indicate that before more is done in this, making this or that thought COMPULSORY, though conceivably to be equipped with RELIGIOUS aspects, thought should arrive and darkness of threats evaporate to allow fair estimate of options. Stampeding is never productive. Review is necessary in FREEDOM, before freedom is harassed the more!

Otherwise justice itself is aborted, and favour to this or that becomes a prelude to a pseudo-referendum, or any such move.


The indications in the article in The Australian however are here an advance. Either the Bible or the Enlightenment can be used, it appears, to give one some grounding in what has led to our current Australia. That is a massive though obvious admission, and it is here set out with a frank realism which is delightful to find.

Of course, despite this pleasant advance on most of what finds in the current press on this point, and amid the propaganda which continually acts as if a relevant referendum were successfully held long ago, no repentance is yet visible across the nation. It is on the contrary as if all that remains is to formalise the erratic thoughts of those who propound things like gender fluidity, thus interfering grossly and to the aghast observer's perception, with children in ways where in their littleness, they may be manipulated by philosophy, pseudo-engendered by psychology in their mental and emotional realms, and not only abused mentally but mutilated. They are being in much,  indeed to no small extent, made the property of the increasingly totalitarian State, and used with as much restraint as a flood shows, when it descends, storming down into valleys. Children if taken by the State in such subversive schools become philosophic prey, whatever the intention.

Oh, to be sure, those concerned may be far from understanding what they do,  but just as wilful impartation of death is normally murder so wilful impartation of options where in normal genetic reality, billions of implicit NO voices appear in the instructions for each new generation, so reality is imposed on and ideas rule as if given sanction by parents, or by election or constitutional change.

But authority has been given to neither of these latter sources; and the Constitution opposes this mindless militancy*1. Again, if it be mindless, is this not so with much propaganda, from the Nazi to the Communist, to the North Korean one which makes a man to be the Lord, though his birth denies it and his future will assuredly not grant eternity to his allegations. People HAVE the minds but appear to become dogmatised past reason in a sort of suffusion of a pseudo-glory which stuns, like some drug to outwit thought. It is sad for those afflicted; but sadder for the prey. And when this is children, not only now in mind, but even in some outreaches of this outrage, in body, in things that are not readily changed, or even stay put, then the superiority of liberty is at once seen. To stop even one of these extravaganzas of interference is a profound mercy.

Some years ago, in election mode, Tony Abbott correctly specified the importance of open freedom of information, ready for open debate and not suppressed; , but incorrectly he did not fulfil this, but aborted the prospective law, and appears from report to be now considering whether this at that time, was an error. It certainly betrayed those who awaited the relevant reform.

The matter remains an issue, that many appear to want  to have fumbled. Justice however in having all equal before the law so that truth in all things is available and prized, is changed in only one way: in NOT having this. Then the nation is no longer just, but unjust, and the greater the generality of the types of issues involved, the more is this so.

The State is to  ASSIST people in co-ordination, defence, organisation and so on, not become their God, with subversive strength securing endless targets, whose characteristic is far from modest, or humble, or realistic or just or reasonable.

At least they should ASK first - deal squarely with the Constitution instead of instead of sliding into empty, propagandising totalitarianism. It was not for this miscalled liberty that many men fought, endured and persisted in wars of almost indescribable horror.

In the noted article in The Australian, The Enlightenment is mentioned. In fact, it has taken a course in many place now, in so far as it is lingeringly operative, that includes confusion about God, inclusion of self-exalting humanism, riot in logic, but in an explosive course of compulsory mythology, in line with the biblical prediction (II Timothy 4); and it glories in its infirmities, not like Paul in his suffering and sacrifice as he freely presented the Gospel for those who might receive it likewise freely, but in the sense of brash-seeming self-exaltation. This of course in our current setting is not recognised as an infirmity, but is thus becoming so to an increasing extent, as many are thus taught implicitly the lack of ideals and vision and the vigour that goes with due and sustainable conviction, Being incomplete without practical relationship with their Maker, naturally they look for them anyway, but somewhere else. In some ways, it is like reacting to a doctrinaire drug which makes you dizzy lest you think, or makes your eyes fixed, lest they see.

One such place is Islam, which though in many instances its people are both pleasant and hard-working, yet in many cases and sensationally numbers of national ones, many who bear this name are using force in this domain in horrifying profusion and intensity; and for those subtly and now for long mistaught in our land, this is one place some  seek for relief. It is one of many places, but a currently notable one, possibly also attractive to some youth in particular,for the siting of their ideas of violence or thrust. There are many others. Wilful hedonism is another. All sorts of latitude and laxity goes with it, leading to distaste for discipline (except what is currently favoured like a fashion); and lack of patriotism is another result. That of course, if the nation continues to wander, can readily destroy it.

Apparent self-indulgence in politics is another, and though many politicians may not be so stranded, many appear very much to be so. By many their latest nostrums are almost automatically taken as read, though they readily violate reason and tradition, and all that was especially latent in the setting up of our current Commonwealth.




So weakness and woeful irrationalities thrust themselves, changes are wrought and then a constitution to allow them may be sought; and there is no  brake as the cliff is reached in a tumbling down which seems almost to have forgotten WHICH WAY is up, and where safety lies.

The Bible is the sole rationally sustainable basis for all the disciplines which look for truth as is shown in these 240 volumes, and the method may be seen from the first, in our Home Page. Old Testament features, as Christ displayed, concerned a THEOCRATIC nation and not just a religion per se, and in these sometimes allowances were made "because of the hardness of your hearts," but this governmental reality was very much a specific tolerance before the finalities were installed in their New Testament completeness, where no government as such was in view (Matthew 19:8). In terms of women what advance was made, and in the New Testament where it is as religion and not a combination that the model moves, what elevation is given for women against the prevailing customs of many, appallingly present in much of Islam, where a women's testimony is not treated as equal in KIND to that of a man!

In the New Testament, the husband is indeed presiding in the marital situation, but ONLY in terms of the model presented. What is that ? It is that he is to be willing to sacrifice himself in love for his wife. This is a two step dance, not a foot-crushing rampage! As based on love, this is the way, but without love it is not even often understood. Force and privilege, importance and power, these seem ready to make a mockery of love at short notice; but not where Jesus Christ is concerned. It is ultimately He who has by  numerous contributions, historical foundations and revivals, much teaching and many outstanding leaders, distinctively brought to this nations such things as forbearance and kindness to the young (now of course being sharply eroded), to the old, to the disadvantaged, though not in any pre-emptive sense, but freely.

ALL that is intrusive against such principles, making things obviously religious in kind, mandatory in class-room and law, should be reviewed most critically. You cannot begin again as a Commonwealth, but you can return to where you gained some of these elemental liberties (for love is simply not interested in the use of force to secure its reciprocity), the all-equal-before-the-law justice and the well-grounded mercy, by which all must live.

If they do not so desire, for the lack of this so needful free wonder, is despised, discarded or flicked away, and so they personally opt, then they face a judgment out of this world. As the Bible indicates, in one of the most scorching reminders, without this, one eats of the fruit of one's doings. The humble may be ravishingly delighted to avoid this in the mercies of the living God, whose word is coming true in this generation with staggering scope and speed (cf. SMR Chs. 8   -   9 for example); but many are they who perhaps could think of nothing better than a self-bounded and delusively self-founded life. Live by my results ?  marvellous. But self-assessment in any matter, is in danger of delusion, and is like having an audit run by oneself on oneself for oneself, an unadmirable course.

What is wonderful is this, that the most gracious, sacrificially founded, kindly disposed, morally sustainable kingdom is not only the one based on love, and in particular, once you learn and desire to love God with all your heart, so being grounded where the ground is, on loving your neighbour as yourself, but the one that does not end. This is how it was put in Daniel 7, as it traced out the coming kingdoms in sequence, along with Daniel 2, and 8 and 9, and the date of the Messiah, then yet to come for His sacrifice, now long finished and continually to this day applied in peace.

Not only that, it is also the one that does not end. The others as noted in Daniel, in history have gone the way as prescribed in the text. This stays, so that just as many awaited the Suffering Servant who came to manifest God, die to cover sin through faith, and display His love and compassion and found Him (cf. Luke 2:25-32), so now many await Him who comes this time to rule, and that with the same heart that died that many be ransomed from death. What glory is there! and being the reality, what joy is here!



It is well that the Constitution with excellent candour protects against Commonwealth actions to institute or inhibit religious expression; and the air is free, though not for violation of this very thing. Repression is not expression  and religion is not in this land subservient to desire. Laws in violation of the Constitution are outlawed, and ways of legal entanglement do not alter the profound simplicity and searching character of what the Constitution here declares.