has resulted in them being viewed in a lesser light by a reasonable person,
and that the statement wasn't true.
a completely subjective test applying to anyone identifying
with a particular ethnicity or nationality — a hurt feelings test."
W
W W W
World
Wide Web Witness
Inc. Home Page Volume What is New
CHAPTER 20
WALLOWING IN UNWISDOM
WITH NO FEAR OF GOD
OR REGARD FOR THE TRUTH
Australia at the dividing of the ways
See also
Why Not ? Ch. 8, Afterburner, Afterglow, Afterwards Epilogue,
Now the Highway, Now the Heights Epilogue,Department of Bible and Spiritual Affairs Volume 8, Ch. 4 and Ch. 5.
In The Australian October 16, 2015, we find that the Australian Government, which came to power with the undertaking it would ensure free speech allowed the airing of issues, rather than their suppression, in nationally allowed discussion, and that it would change the notorious Section 18 c) of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, still in the mode of declining to do so.
Staggeringly, that suppressive Section reads as follows:
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:
(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
(b) is done in a public place; or
(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.(3) In this section: “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
It appears to have been added by the Keating Government in 1995. Whatever its source, however, its sedition is sure. Social likelihood (as for example that the next beheading that is proclaimed and publicised will come from the source most notorious, militant Islam) is not moral reality. It is just a matter of statistics. It neither knows nor is associated with truth, as you might find clarified for you, if in doubt, by millions of Jews, if you met their families in Europe during 1941-1945.
What is socially EXPECTED and what is right are not closely related at all, and sometimes are direct opposites. Truth and history are not close mates. Australia is not that utterly exceptional nation where what is likely to happen has any cause to be closely identified with justice. In some things yes, in others no, in many, it all depends; in some, these are utterly disparate.
How then replace reason, truth, evidence, purpose and an accurate depiction of the situation, with both sides equally in view at the outset, as to truth and the relevance and justice of their contentions, with fiddly psychological possibilities, probabilities ? I am offended and it is likely I would have been offended by what you just said, says the cloudy voice of the ostensibly insulted. YOU will pay for this. The Act will deal with you; just wait and see. So not truth, but what is likely to happen, in the judicial opinion, becomes the dispenser of judgment when someone complains. Is this EXPECTED ? If so, let the full force of the law descend on the perpetrator of this evil!
Was that party LIKELY to feel an insult or whatever other psychological displeasure ? If so, your legal number is up (IF the judges, arbiters, see it that way), You legally thus become like an aeroplane torn by the CAT (clear air turbulence), coming at you with an airy thrust, as it will, and stability, truth, reality yield to an awful atmosphere of harassment which can be exploited, since men and angels are not the same...
A mad person may be expected to be insulted or offended by various irrational things, depending on the nature of the disease, but not particularly impressed with reason or truth. Someone mad with murderous passion, that is so moved by it that all else is discounted, discountenanced or viewed with distaste, aversion, horror or ruthless hatred, a thing not uncommon on political/religious grounds in many a site today, in not a few nations, what of him/her ? Those so moulded may be offended by rebuff, rebuke or confrontation with reality. With some, reality is their worst enemy. To be reminded of it is an outrage. Hence, in discussing it, and SO being reminded of it, there may be grave offence. Sobriety may enrage; violence may engage. The mind and reality are not one in the human race, and only some SEEK that it should be so. This is not a cynical view, but a clinical one. Its outward expression, like an epidemic, is now so vast in so many places that the imagination that it may be ignored, as an additive to the normal failure rate, is close to dreaming.
Depending on social feelings about what someone or other might be expected to feel, in the line of insult or offence, therefore, is far distant from the case of a land where justice is sought, mercy is shown, and the two are not mixed. Such a law becomes an additive to the suppressive vehemence of the murderously and vituperately impassioned.
As if this were not enough, there is now this lever where whatever is the common expectation has to work, not to be corrected as needed for realism, a thing dangerously expansible as a ground of legal assault! Nor is it necessarily of the more murderous variety, as in sudden and seemingly squalid stabbings in Israel; the expected norm can lead to missiles to smash up children, without too much international concern, a thing Israelis have to endure and expect, while criticised for not giving away even more land to the murderous.
That is a common example. Inducing fear may be satisfactory to some, however, if they are roused into psychic agitation; but the principle is the same. Do what is to be expected when words touch the psychic sensibilities, or make a complaint at such a thing, be insulted and power is moving for you, a distinct, legally enforcible option. They did not like it, it bounced into the negative emotions, and now the rebound! What then ? Don't verbally cross the current values which make alternatives many do not like, or you may at the negative movement of anyone's spirit, morbid or otherwise, meet duress. You face, if this should arouse the feeling of offence, new weapons to disturb, distress, impoverish or even perhaps imprison those who dare to practise such liberty, rationality, contrary free argumentation.
As shown through the references given at the start of this Chapter, moreover, this socio-psychic approach to the freedom of citizens (not just their speech, but their physical freedom financial victimisation or bodily incarceration) constitutes in its context, a breach of the Constitution Section 116. (See also FREEDOM, THE NATION, THE INTERNET AND THE NEXT GENERATION.) From any reasonable approach to truth and reality, redress for such a situation needs to be wrought. The issue is ALSO, then, one of what appears a fundamentally abused Constitution, concerning federal power, and restrictions on the use of the same. What is implied in a religion is not to be suppressed, in general terms, as if it must hide or be marshalled, or martialled into official containment, or the law used to extol, let alone as here, enforce correction. Penalty is not permission. The two differ. The Constitution is not for some other and more idealistic country; it was actually written for Australia. It would be a good idea if it were applied here.
To this let us return later; but in the meantime let us look once more at the current situation, October 19, 2015, in this land regarding current law and intention.
A Bill to remove some of the more subjectivistic and in principle stifling dehumanisation aspects of this Act was in the recent past moved and was to come to the vote, but in view of the negative approach of the Government, so far, perhaps with a view to Islamic negotiations going on (as if this could affect the nature of our country, as if a guest should remodel your house), it is to be postponed in the hope that the Government will comes to honest terms (in view of election undertakings) with the matter and remove the psychological muddle that replaces justice and truth, AND the promise made and so far breached. It is a fundamental promise and its breach is a fundamental breach. The Act itself at this point is a fundamental failure.
From the same article in The Australian, we learn that the Bill concerning a change to 18C of that Act, currently in view, is from South Australian Bob Day, and that for this there has been increasing support. Day's action would remove the words "offend" and "insult" from 18 c) of the Act, but still, even if it were passed, the law would be set like a dog, on those who are DEEMED to "humiliate" or "intimidate" a person. It is easy to cry foul when you lose a point, mistake a fact, dislike being shown wrong and so forth. It is easy to feel intimidated when the facts arouse a situation where you cannot prevail. This modish, mood-swing concept is apparently almost incredibly naive. Remember, it is not the INTENTION, which is in view, or the justice of what is said, when insult or offence or humiliation is in view, for example the fall of a braggart by his-her braggadocio; but entirely what might be expected of a reaction. Much might be expected of many given their predicaments and impenitence. This amoral, counter-factual dwelling on psychic reactions, for a given group (such as those who choose to ignore history and fight with misplaced passion which becomes common and even habitual) is poison to justice, mockery to judgment and mischief to society.
If you did not pick aright what would be deemable as likely to upset someone, too bad. Learn to do better, and mould your remarks to the fine tuning of feelings, and the sort of thing - like the exhaust noise in some cars - that is to be expected by way of reaction to what you say. Let evil of any kind, if it be common enough to be expected in any group for any or no reason, and irrationality is not unknown whether in Nazis or pogroms, or countless other cases of human distortion, then guide your tongue and then what ? You may escape legal rap, but just yap, a dehumanised, truth-dismissing fidget of a person, sold in soul, servant of the abusive State.
There are more weapons than one in subduing a population to trifling without truth or justice; and the legal is not so gushing with blood as some, but rather in this case, a psychic machination, enthroning folly. It can even be made to appear to be for your own good, like being whipped in former days, for failing to acclaim, Heil Hitler, when it might pain people for you to OMIT it, and substitute an unacceptable silence. Perhaps a failure to accredit some group with some power or possession might be found offensive, using the saw, that silence may be eloquent.
This is of course, not only harassment, dismissal of free rational discourse, invasion of the privilege to warn, exhort, reason concerning what is the most advised course, as well as academically ludicrous, but an undignified and dictatorial invasion of thought, safety and an augmentation of peril through fear of legal woe. Saints may overcome it and suffer; but this institution of suffering modes becomes like a verbal and emotional kind of Inquisition, modern style.
The PURPOSE of the targeted speaker is not mentioned. Its warrant or otherwise does not come into play. The effort may have been to deliver, to ennoble, to reason, but if the RESULT is SAID to be offensive to that person, or to insult that person - or more precisely to be reasonably likely to do so - then the law turns on its perpetrator, now deemed a law-breaker, and this ? It is irrespective of the truth, of what OUGHT to have been the result, or what WAS the intention, or how good the results might have been in the end, and whether the statement was accurate and activated by a love of truth or of the land named Australia.
The spirit of independence is moreover being exposed, its breath is short; it is gasping already and BND is held at the ready at its bed post. It is useless to ignore the enormity of these proceedings, the sheer recklessness of this legal extravaganza, and it is not easy to envisage sagacious judges accepting it without a vast and vigorous protest as indeed was the case of a former High Court judge in a pending case somewhat similar to this one.
Aptly, Senator Seselja make the following point in the Senate:
|
|
"A defamation action needs to show that an individual has been damaged by the speech." |
|
|
"A person must
clearly show that the actionable defamatory statement has resulted in them being viewed in a lesser light by a reasonable person, and that the statement wasn't true. |
|
|
"However, under
the Racial Discrimination Act we have a completely subjective test applying to anyone identifying with a particular ethnicity or nationality — a hurt feelings test." |
Moreover, Liberal Senator Chris Back is reported as have declared himself thus:
|
|
"Section 18C is a
grotesque limitation on ordinary political discourse, surely this country was born on the principle on the freedom of political and related discourse." |
NOT ONLY TACT BUT TRUTH IS NEEDED
IN CONSIDERING NATIONAL THREATS
But let us talk now not of the grotesque, but the functional. Australia in World War I did not find it hard to ascertain directions from which within its own population, peril could come. In World War II, listening ears were subject to care, since one could convey unintentionally valuable information to the enemy.
Perils are not works of imagination, and greatly excel when there is no fear of God, of the results of folly, of sudden destruction (cf. I Thessalonians 5:1). After all, if godlessness is now reaching an art form in many media in this land - and deceptive folly is gaining intemperate degree of control in education and presentation, the invitation to disaster is being pressed! This very day (October 19, 2015) in The Australian, there is exposed not a little by one of the Senators the grossly different treatment given to Christian matters and those of many other religions, by media, suggestive of an agenda, a teaching diatribe expressed in canny negative conduct. What other religion would they dare treat so! he asks, expostulates, challenges.
It is like a divorced wife, in some measure. What sort of thoughts might be found espoused, spouted, sloshed about as by a dirty mop ? Why such as these ... Christianity is too restrictive, God stops you having aspirations to be such as he yourself, the commandments make you feel too much like a creation (which you assuredly are), so there is a rupture, built on deception.
There is gain from such a divorce (cf. C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce), for you can then pretend that all things (including you of course) came without work, purpose, finesse, mathematics, symbolic association of ideas and methods; they just grew like Topsy, from nowhere, which just became something apparently out of boredom, though it was not there to feel it. It is pathetic. But it must go as people try to move from better treatment to becoming owners of the universe in a display of crassness difficult to believe; but then, so is the exposure to sun to the point of cancer, to drink to the point of alcoholism, to drugs to the ruin of mind: yet it is done. It is not even uncommon. In some cases or situations, it might even be the EXPECTED NORM.
Great is the craving from spiritual, mental or physical tipsiness - as in Ephesians 4:17ff., 2:1ff., and it has a name for its dynamic: SIN. As with drugs, it can rage to the heights of destruction, the craving becoming so desperate that reality is an enemy, love is dismissed, cure is an insult and so on and on. It is summed up: God must go, or you must make and take your own, made as by a tailor, by special order. Tailors however have to be paid, and what is made, has to be caused by something sufficient for the product, and to this Eternal Being, never on holiday leaving nothing only (fatal to all future), that man is answerable. But for many, they would rather be silent and be left in possession of the creation, without responsibility, though the results of these, his actions, shout and his vagrant passions shriek (cf. Hosea 10:5).
It is the same in the long epic of teaching evolution as a mode of gaining human life, though it ignores
the self-deception in the way 'nothing' can do something, a flat contradiction in terms in the first place, in contrast with the deeds of non-nothing (which CAN do something, dependent on having the institutive power), and
 |
the failure of self-writing DNA ever to be found, |
|
|
the omission of matter to think, and |
|
|
the inability of
thoughtlessness to create thought or program its content, linking the symbols to concerted, constructive action which you CAN see. |
Here is the difference. The one works; the other is never found to do so. The one is set to answer all questions, the other to fudge, confuse, misuse or ignore them (cf. Department of Bible ... Vol. 10, Ch. 14). I have never found one valid answer for the one, or failure in the other in principle, despite long search and test. The Bible, after the manner of truth says to test all things, and even makes a challenge of it. One finds even in the famous Harvard University the admission (despite contrary theory) of facts so extremely counter to the assumptions being made that a former famous Professor asked what in heaven's name was going on; and would have done better to seek the answer from the competence of heaven than the frustrations of earthy illusions*1A. Another*1B has acknowledged that the underlying necessity felt for such evolutionary views is simply materialism*1, a philosophy, enemy of science since it has nothing from that method to show, and is self-refuting, for if the thought that matter may be shown to create is the criterion, and matter cannot be forced to do it, then it is an illusion in terms of fact, a counterpoint to test (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7, CHRIST INCOMPARABLE, LORD INDOMITABLE Ch. 9.
Already thousands of children have been indoctrinated (cf. Jeremiah 2:27, 2:29-36), and denied critical thinking, while logical religion has been thrown out as if it were a side-issue; when as this Web site has shown for nearly 20 years, Christianity with creation and God, and His ways and morals, salvation and destiny for man, is the ONLY rational solution to the questions posed by all that exists. It not only answers them, but does so with panache, with such style that it mirrors majesty. This we have found experimentally in test after test: logical needs in this 'model' are not only uniquely met, without lapse, but met in a way so abundant as to be overpowering, the signature of truth.
Now is the time for the parents to have their minds and words assaulted, as the children by false and jejune teaching in this area, so they by legal reaching! Here is the incumbent: it is found in this laceration of liberty, this frowning on freedom, another case of hiding from the truth, this time in the shallow waves and deeper tremolos of the human mind.
It is because of such subjectivity, blatant demolition of scientific method in these phases of education, threats, career compromise and intimidatory tactics in favour of living evidence for the fables never to be found, just as if they were found, that our nation is losing its profile, becoming instead of a nation acting in dependence on Almighty God, as stated in the Constitution's preamble, one increasingly lost in institutionalised godlessness and tyrannical intolerance of what precisely fits all facts, including a finished script, now no longer being written. When this author was lecturing in scientific method and challenged the authorities to show any error in the presentation, which was factual, the reply was this: It is not convenient. Nothing more! So God, His exclusion where unexcludable, is inexcusable, and then we come to more general mishandling of truth as in 18 C, and further gender innovation.
What is often not realised, and this applies no less to the USA and some European nations, is this. If you are going to ignore the state of the case, in sexual matters, the matching methods for gender for generating children, and turn this to other uses at will, then for many this represents debasement, degradation, a lack of finesse and even common sense so profound, that it for them becomes like someone losing his temper as a matter of course. Even Kenya is notable for rejecting vigorously Obama's plea for a more promiscuous liberty in the marriage realm.
Before the God who put all this there, this is to ignore if not to bring to a vast contempt for the Lord, and if unrepented, from Him. In the theocracy it meant death, as in Romans 1; and further in the New Testament, if unrepented it means exclusion from the holy haven of heaven. The Lord in I Corinthians 4-5 makes this clear, for those so opting, with such a perspective, negatively reviewing creation or dismissing it in divergent liberties, as with sustained divorce for that matter, that there is here a negation so deep as to represent a divergence, a point of departure which cannot be delayed.
What is said in the Bible as in the anatomy is not susceptible to difficulty in its norms; for both treatments are intricately, principially, observably of one kind, whether in word or in body. You can make your choices and live with them; but you cannot remake God, or live with Him when you become lord of your life. You cannot have two gods, at odds; it becomes an invention for which there is neither copyright nor acceptance. It is in this like a dream before God (cf. Jeremiah 23).
Moreover, this type of innovative program, with many like it as in creation, morals generally, aspirations in a nation, has other results as well. It helps to give to a nation endorsing the novelty or adopting this image of man, especially if it also lacks strong morals and self-discipline, in this not an admirable image, but a fading one, in the eyes of many. Then, the desirability or otherwise of a nation in the eyes of others can affect both the readiness for onset of war, and the outcome. The standing among the nations can affect the falling ... in its time.
But if there is no response, and all is left for the new centrality of human statistics as a thing to replace moral splendour, this leading even to potential for condemnation of many not so sharing, in an outrageous violation of the Constitution, then so be it.
PRACTICAL PROGRAM
Meanwhile, as one has had occasion to refer to the PM's negotiations with Muslims, and to the perils which from time to time various nations, or groups, or ideologies present, and the responses for prudent watchfulness of the array of outcomes which can be assessed, let there be a thought for this further subject.
After all, in much of this nation's visible peril, it is militant Islam which is the point. The Lord knows how to act, in subtlety of rebuke - look what He said about correction in this field given to ancient Israel. Not only would He enable the arising of an enemy to humiliate Israel, but it would be a FOOLISH NATION which would be that enemy, so that the humbling would be extraordinary and felt to the uttermost (Deuteronomy 32:10-22), if by any means the nation might repent.
It is not necessary simply to assess the overall percentages, and to find the likelihood of attack from a given people, for sometimes assault is sudden and totally unexpected, as blood-smeared consciences expend their energies. Those not admiring where they are, not grateful for help, seized by pathological power lust, with a religion which as Andrew Bolt rightly pointed out, has a violent side which has to be faced, may indeed suddenly spread mayhem. This may be not only as now in Israel, but with other cross-haired parties for the gun, or backs for the dagger. If In Israel, it is hated for its taking of a tiny proportion of the land given to it by the League of Nations after World War I, Jordan having been handed most of Israel's award already; and if elsewhere for sundry causes, for hatred spreads like mould or a virus, then because someone has dared resist the desire to rule mankind somewhere in something, and must be eliminated. Thus it is not only a question of percentage in a given religion of violence, outbursts, outbreaks and such things, but their unpredictability in particular, and likelihood in general in certain continuing phases of it.
What is one step towards remedy of this peril for our nation, from this source (which pre-judges nothing on the part of those who do not accept this phase of the Koran - cf. Divine Agenda Ch. 6) ? It is this. If those who so believe, so exclude violence as a method of religious procedure, and so are able rationally to be partners in Australia, and are assured of this democratic value, should identify themselves and give themselves a NAME, then that would be a distinct form, however uncertain, of profession within Islam. It would differentiate with confidence, fearless and ready to be part of a free nation. It would indicate No Violence against the people in the Name of Religion (NVNR). This could lead to their being left free of any sense of being disreputable, unreliable and perilous, which some appear to feel, and feel keenly. They would in advance have their relatively innocent position stated in advance!
It would not ensure truth was spoken in this new
name for this sort of non-militant Islam; for some might deceive, a common
failing in mankind. However, it would make this alternative a lie, a false
passport, a spurious life. To call themselves one thing, and be another might be
a deception, but there is some courage required in the presence of the
impassioned, even to state this refusal to participate in violence for religion.
That is not for everyone, for not everyone would like to express what they do
not keenly feel. Nevertheless, for those willing, it IS a step of sincerity and
functionality which would speak volumes about the sincerity of those who protest
that though Islamic, they have no part in the violence aspect, in its effrontery
towards democracy for those in this land, or in its thankless shame for those
misusing the help received.
THE PITH AND THE POINT
Nations arise and they fall, and they leave a trace like a star, for good or for evil, for bounty and truth and light and restraint and compassion or arrogance and pride and torment and self-elevation in a mutative mass of spiritual cul-de-sacs before the grave. Ours is no different. Righteousness continues to exalt a nation, just as Putin now, for example, is debasing Russia into a router of multitudes to render them homeless or wounded, by the thousand, as he pursues his expansionist aims, now in the Ukraine, already repeatedly and grossly raped by the USSR, in her day, and now in Syria, where he has by report helped to establish a mass murderer in power, one who grants him a port for his maritime expansion, his navy all prepared in the Mediterranean. Historically, when has this been achieved before by a militant Russian ?
So they come and their report comes with them, the nations.
Is Australia to ruin itself ? Being valiant in war of defence, and moreover protected by many (mutually with the British Empire and then in naval might by the USA in the 1940's in battles the result of which was by no means clear in advance), will it now simply implode with neo-morals, religious persecution, State supported anti-religious fables and now legal assault on those whose criteria of conduct and character of belief do not accord with the lostlings who dabble with anything, as they affirm themselves and deny God!
As shown on this site now for nearly 20 years, not only is Christianity, the biblical Christianity which Jesus Christ so emphasised (cf. I Corinthians 2, Matthew 5:17-20) both directly and through His apostles, reasonable, but logically it is both validated and verified, and now overwhelmingly vindicated as well, as events pour into history, to confirm its every nuance in detail, as the end of the Age progressively draws nearer. This world is desperately trying to wrest Jerusalem back from the Jew because their ascension to its possession is a once in 1900 years or so specific in the prophecies of Christ, to indicate that near is His regal return: He, having paid for salvation, has the second part of the program, return in order to rule as the Son of God, the Saviour from sin, the God of peace and truth (Isaiah 9:7, 11, 59, 65, Psalm 72, I Thessalonians 3:13, Revelation 19-20). He summed it up concisely in Luke 24:25-27).
How needful have many felt it, to remove Israel the land from Israel the nation or even to extirpate the latter, genocide, and this as an intention not raising too many eyebrows, as Obama links in war affairs with culprit Iran! They have not succeeded - one 'wise man' predicting it would be gone in 40 years - not because alone of prodigious courage, desperate recollection of this world's hideous strength in killing them in World War II by the million, brilliant innovation and technical prowess, though Israel has all these, but because alone of the word of God which, having placed them back as in Zechariah 12, pending the Lord's return, has them candidates not for national deletion, but something very different.
It is to be, following a national return and control of Jerusalem in particular (cf. Luke 21:24), a matter of a national wave of conversion of great breadth. With this, comes the Lord's own personal repulse of these invasive enemies in utter devastation, as of Sennacherib in a vast army destruction, in the days of Hezekiah (cf. Isaiah 36-39). It was not dissimilar in the day of Pharaoh when they were actually enslaved in Egypt, and God resolved to act to deliver them in a series of plagues and protections, including a sophisticated maritime manipulation that drowned an Egyptian host, hot on Israel's trail.
When God is for you, who can be against you ? but when God is against you and has forecast your end, it is time to prepare for it (cf. Micah 7, Romans 11, Isaiah 59, 11, 32, Deuteronomy 32, Revelation 19).
It is then time for Australia to repent, in particular, as it
|
|
toys with truth, |
|
|
ignores the way in which we are
painstakingly made (cf. Psalm 139) not only in general, but in reproduction, and
indeed for anything, |
|
|
patronises God with cultural
subjectivity, |
|
|
loses the fear of God in its midst
as if it were cancer, and this increasingly, |
|
|
mocks Christ's Gospel and
transcendent place |
|
|
teaches anti-God fables in schools
and colleges |
|
|
considers making the employment of
those engaged in spiritual enmity |
|
|
builds non-nuclear submarines and
relies on others |
|
|
decides |
To be sure, one of the great features of biblical Christianity is the fact that the use of violence - often used by certain sects - is strictly and even stringently forbidden (Matthew 26, John 18:36) as contrary to the nature of this religion*2. It is not for it to be made a ground for physical persecution as with militant Islam, or the Inquisitions of many, in vile and violent contradiction of Jesus Christ. With the word of God ruling as in the Bible, you can have the openness for others to hold their own ways; for the kingdom of heaven, we are delightfully told, is not of this world: otherwise, said Jesus, His servants would fight. It is not from here; and hence often there has been an enormous toleration, and biblical Christianity cannot but acknowledge and practise the same, though myriads of those in this position have been killed, tortured, had their churches burnt, been slaughtered by the heartless and the ruthless, even when in the way of disseminating the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. It is better by far to be able to change your mind than lose your head.
Hence repentance, when it leads to saving faith in Christ the Saviour, means liberty, not losing your head either physically, as a way of 'converting' or metaphysically as a mode of conversing. A key term is 'grace' which means unmerited favour, and which God the Creator, who put in the effort to make us (as distinct from 'nothing' in some agile antithesis managing it), has shown in granting excision of judgment to those who receive the vicarious sacrifice of Christ in their stead (Romans 3:23ff., 6:23, Matthew 20:28, John 11, Titus 2-3, Ephesians 1-2). If God can forgive, being forgiving is a grace to be desired in those who have received His pardon.
Being saved by grace (Ephesians 2), your life is to manifest it, not murder, or demeaning for evil self-fulfilment. There is freedom for protagonists such as few can exemplify outside it; for some actively seek to deride it, some to suppress it, as is the case with the (relatively) new laws on insult and offence, in their scope and sweep of sovereign legal power against those who follow another call in life than other people's assertions of feelings - and those for whatever reason, a sort of mobile god of last resort. There lies another advantage of biblical Christianity. You can rave about your feelings if you want to, even in an extreme case where this may occur, but the preacher is not the policeman, nor is the pastor the programmer.
This allows and enables the full expression of assault on Christianity (I have personally lived through it for around 60 years, nearly 50 as an ordained Minister, as student, pastor and Assembly member), and due response, not with force of arms, or law, but with truth. Truth is most delicious, for its Spirit is that of God (John 16), its ways are reliable and never rebukeable, its procedures are upright and testable. That is one reason why in the 235 volumes in this electronic library or theological set, "In Praise of Christ Jesus," the method is actively and actually to demonstrate that the Bible is the word of God and Jesus Christ this world's only effectual Saviour. It has never been answered, though its claim is clear.
Truth is a wonderful friend, for it never changes. Views may change; but not truth. Furthermore, it leaves nothing to be decided, for if it is true, that is the original and the final, the finale. Things may show more data or detail, but what is true cannot cease to be so. God encourages us to TEST ALL THINGS, one of the obvious criteria of science, and reliability, and this is a natural aspect for truth to desire!
Things may alter with age, but statements concerning the preludes, and stages on the way are not invalidated about the quality or character of the end. They become a series, each attribution relevant to the stage. If, again, it is true that someone is a friend, this does not prevent his being subverted.
This brings us to yet another wonder in biblical Christianity, for the Lord undertakes never to leave or forsake His children as in Hebrews 13, and grants eternal life never coming into judgment to those who repent and receive Him and of course His word, since it is His from His mouth. But it is He who guarantees those who come in faith to Him, there even being a process called regeneration, by which those so coming are changed in heart as well as pardoned, so that as adopted children they proceed, subject to correction, but not to exclusion (Ephesians 1:11, I John 3:1-9, John 5:24, John 10:9,27-28, II Cor. 1:12).
To be not only someone who
thinks about God,
reads about Him,
sees the explanation of the nature of things from Him,
is exhorted to test it all, and both to
follow the meaning of way of life in the Bible and
watch its verification on all sides uniquely, as it happens and has happened:
but also an adopted child of His,
this can only have my continual favour,
unlimited approbation and delight,
for it is good, for He is,
as one finds by personal experience as a child of God.
What then ? There is no need to enslave others, whether as now threatening in Australia, and indeed partly installed, in what is no less than a legalistic effrontery and a totalitarian tyranny in the infamous Section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act, or in any other way.
The concept of
|
|
love instead of malice, |
|
|
co-operation instead of disruption, |
|
|
winning hearts instead of removing heads, |
|
|
granting grace instead of vexatious
venom (cf. I Corinthians 13), |
Now it is true that it will do so in its time (cf. Matthew 24:35, Isaiah 51:6, II Peter 3), but that is because of the never ending futilities of sin carved increasingly, not only into the workings of the human heart, but into its aspirations. As Romans 1 finishes by saying, it is not enough that they sin in sexual multiplicities, but they approve of those who so so. It becomes a kind of flag of severance from God, in these biblical terms, a final phase of a traced spiritual pathology. This is set forth in its stages such as history has imitated! That is merely an illustration as you see broader examples and expressions of decline to come before Christ returns as you follow I Timothy 4, II Timothy 3, Matthew 24, for example.
What is no less so, and much more delightful, is this, that not only will the polluted soil and life of this world go at length, when God has fully finished His predicted phases of action and judgment, but there is an escape route by which one may find that this becomes increasingly like removal of the rubbish, 'tares' - Matthew 13); for the Creator of this world, like an automobile manufacturer, having made one, has no difficulty in making another, and statedly will do so.
Why then linger in the ways of this world, increasingly insoluble because it is like an alcoholic, the more it takes the more it takes, a vicious oblong (since it is too irregular to be a circle)! It is increasingly inciting itself to increasing deeds of evil, like some potential corpse drawing closer and closer to the centre of a whirlpool ?
Australia therefore would do well to contemplate the statement about reliance on Almighty God which was chosen to be inscribed in its Prelude to the Constitution. It is not a question of law, but of perspective evoked. It would do better to cease from surging new novelties of spiritual subversion as defined in the Bible, and to seek morals that do not bend, that are not dictatorial but available, and sourced where presumption does not rule. It is repentance and not resurgence swirling in the sin stream, that is needed, not separation of this people from many other nations by exceeding them in such departures, as if to constitute a more sodden set than they, in the downpour of evil. It is especially necessary to avoid more and more explicit PERSECUTION of Christians, as 18C has power to ensure, since what it requires as LAW is contradictory in essence to what the Bible specifies. You cannot jointly please both God and anyone's feelings as assessed by pseudo-moral statisticians.
NOTES
The Professor was the
eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, in is work, Wonderful Life,
in the area pp. 227-236. The matter is given close attention in Wake Up
World Ch. 6
(in the context of Chs. 4-6).
The words of Professor Lewontin concerning materialism are to be found here.
Materialism is philosophy, not science, nor does it relate to logic, except as a casualty.
A convenient grouping exposing it here is:
REPENT OR PERISH Ch. 7 (the nature of 'Nature'),
REVIEW AND OVERVIEW ... Ch. 5
SPIRITUAL REFRESHINGS Ch. 13,
EARTH SPASM, , CONSCIENCE CHASM: AND THE RENEWAL OF LIFE Ch. 1
SMR Ch. 3 Glossary at 1013.
SMR pp. 422E-L, Ch. 3 Glossary at 1013.
The gods of naturalism have no go! (large, multiple work)
CHRIST INCOMPARABLE, LORD INDOMITABLE Ch. 2, and Ch. 9, including *2.
There is nothing the matter with matter: it is just that it is not at all immaterial that you should try so to innovate from what it never discloses and all that reveals what it is, in contrast to what investigates or conceals it, as by comparison, to make a surgeon out of a baby elephant. Its qualities are fine for moulding to meet plans; but nothing much for doing the planning.
As religion in general attempts to answer or speaks concerning the questions, where the race has come from, why, where it is going, how, what are standards for living, morals, what is truth or what is workable, destiny, origin and the way from one to the other, so now Australia is moving towards sanctions on what does not relate to its own version of it. The new substitutions of psycho-social criteria of what is likely to be someone or other's possible reaction/response to some proposition in general smuggles out all of these questions with its own range of acceptable answers, or constructions which limit these answers.
Truth becomes, for law that is not itself lawless, what is felt. Origin becomes, Nothing that interferes with human autonomy. Destiny becomes whatever it may be, and law is sent after it, for newly defined wrong-doers, to give them what can be contributed to it, NOW. Social responses become criteria of right and wrong; psychological twists or turns or feelings, whichever, whatever, become mandatory for life, its proper pattern and procedure.
In this area and arena,
|
|
facts are subverted, distorted, |
|
|
reason is discarded, |
|
|
purpose is irrelevant, |
|
|
a new concentrate replaces all this: |
and is given authority to blame, accuse, label, extract money, contract prison.
A new god of power and contrivance is issued, given a passport and allowed entry; but he is a cultural creation, just as man, to have culture or anything else, is a Creator's invention.
These religious contentions, in conflict with many from various religions, and making not only man (or woman) but the feelings therein (as estimated) to be determinative of life's standard, requiring departure as a result from the commandments for example of the Bible concerning Christian testimony, are a violation of the liberty so amply proclaimed in the Constitution. On a national basis, this is precisely what is forbidden, whether for plain or pleasure. Moreover, it would make of Australia a fraud {cf. Why Not ? Ch. 8}. Something similar might be said of our international undertaking with the UN (not that this body is to be congratulated in this field (cf. The Mystery of Iniquity at Work).
So important is the clear unconstitutionality of the 18C legal lasso on free speech in forbidden areas, that the gist of the presentation of the exposé of Department of Bible ... Vol. 8, Ch. 4 is provided below, as is a smaller excerpt from After, Afterglow, Afterwards Epilogue.
I
On the matter of religion, it is also clear, in any sort of general regard to our Constitution, that it COULD not include religion, or be coherent with this. IF you may not offend various groupings with any religion concerning anything whatever that relates to it, on any threshold, in any endeavour, academic or otherwise, then this IS a State religion. It means that
1) psychology is above truth - thou shalt not offend whatever! and that 'whatever' in that case would include the truth.
2) feelings are above fact. Once again, on that interpretation, the difficulty of proving someone is not offended when the claim is made that the person IS offended, borders between the ridiculous and the very ridiculous.
3) the Commonwealth would be defying the Constitution. It would do this by instituting a religion, enforcing this subjective viewpoint, ensuring that its own devices, properties, ways of working are enforced in the land. If in one religion, you are instructed to warn, rebuke, exhort, cast down foolish ideas, then the Commonwealth uses ITS religion to say, NO. THOU SHALT NOT EXPOSE ANY RELIGION, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, OR THE REASONS, TO THE POINT SOMEONE IS OFFENDED OR INSULTED, then there are two masters, and the State has penalties if you disobey the neo-religious, pseudo-papal power that it unconstitutionally adopts.
Someone is some relevant grouping, or deemed to be, is offended: It does not matter why. You may not have that result; if for ANY reason you do, you are illegal, and will in breach of the law receive whatever counselling, fine, correction that may be in view.
But in that case, the correction is to what is CORRECT, which then becomes a new law in the Government official religion. In this way, civil convenience and political preference is moved above the expression of the religion itself, whether AS the truth, or competitively even, IF that offends, or is on some social index, construed as insulting.
Consider the language of the Racial Discrimination Act:
It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Note that the exclusion bounds include their nation and their race, and their ethnicity. These are terms of reference for calling in the referee to consider damages if just maybe, they find themselves offended.
Even if it be said that it is not mere offence or felt insult that is the crux of the matter, but what is deemed "reasonably likely in all the circumstances, to offend, insult ...", with some official(s) to assess whether it is likely to OFFEND (an estimate of subjectivity, without regard to the justification FOR such offence): the thing is hollow, unhuman. It is not concerned with the objective of the words spoken, intention or their applicability in point of fact. While this may make the matter nice and simple, it divorces desire from reality. It is not the reasonableness, moreover, of insult being borne, but of it being foreseeable as offensive to someone or other in some national, racial, colour or ethnic group. It is not: Was this outrageous for some reason ? but rather, Should it have been seen to be likely to be offensive ? and this, WHATEVER its actual nature, in view of the psychological apparatus and disposition of sentiment of the one ready to be offended.
In this, truth dies, reason is abolished, a mere chattel for estimating statistics, not realities, and State convenience or ideological warfare on some, becomes the end of Constitutional Restraint. Of course, then there is the idea of changing the Constitution, and who knows in what lines of thought such changes might be used to assist the termination of the relevance of truth in the land, and the freedom of its religion!
4) Thus all religions are capable of correction, without grounds needed, by Government religion. Government authority AS SUCH is above all religious authority, so that the Government on that interpretation would be the RULER OF RELIGIONS. That is just what some religions try to do, and is specifically a competitive governmental approach.
It does not matter whether the religion has one participant, or a million, be Jewish, Moslem, or a reverential rave about all religions (which would include those demanding murder for example): it is still on this legal model, a religious schedule, viewpoint, exacted of all citizens (at best of the worst).
Hence
5) The State has more authority than any God or god or religion, using this to condemn
those who do not see fit to ALLOW it that prerogative, and to seem them simply wrong
doers, socially misled, culturally abnormal or whatever other words appeal or are deemed to apply: a common practice in the history of some religions.
Obviously, it is LIKELY that the priests of Baal would have found Elijah's words offensive,
but they were based on empirical fact.
In that case, such a State as Australia is in quite some danger
of becoming, would rule out fact in the interests of the fabrications of feelings,
with their various motivations, entanglements and bases, of whatever character,
fictional or actual, fastidious or fulminating, but just a datum. It is there, or it is not.No, it is necessary to stress that the LAW is set to determine whether OFFENCE is LIKELY, not whether it is justified. It is still 100% subjective in orientation, in basis. Hamas might be offended by being told that firing rockets on a nation which it says is to be removed, is not a way to engage in peace talks. It might be deemed offensive to say this, though manifestly true. It would be an entirely different matter to determine, as a work of judgment, whether it was correct, the contention, or whether reasonable.
It is NOT the reasonability of the words, which is to be assessed, but whether it is reasonably likely to offend. It is not justice, but psychology, emotion, feeling which is being tested. These may or may not involve, the criterion!
what is sordid, abusive, odious, Machiavellian, despotic, love of power, hatred of a competitor, rebound from a love affair or any other stimulus to cause harm to reputation, loss to finances. In a sea of the arbitrary, where sound judgment is replaced by psychic phantasms, statistical probabilities and the like, justice would like fallen in the street, rabidity POTENTIALLY now treated like royalty, and undisciplined emotions
allowed to cry out, stampede through the well-intentioned and rationally based life
of some other person. The love of victims - that is, of having them around - is not limited to Nazis, or Stalin where they appeared more or less treated as if masses of earth being moved by giant earth moving equipment.Justice may be abandoned by the abandoned, made a matter of caprice, of social dynamics, ever changing; but they who abandon it, become themselves abandoned.
The empirical, the rational, the evidential itself, relative to the alleged insulting language, or offensive diction, is NOT even relevant by law. It is not the question, SHOULD it offend by having the following empirical or factual errors, or gross generalisations and so on, but is it LIKELY to offend the person or persons in view. The rationality of the offence, its justifiability, even its MOTIVE, is not in the law. It is just its existence in terms of the category of offence, and the assessment of whether it might come to be so taken, however foolishly, warped, motivated or engaged or gratuitously or even evilly indulged in, the response might be. You can be legally assailed if you say what is DEEMED likely to offend what is undesired by, possibly BECAUSE it is true, and so felt offensive in terms of any racial, national or ethnic body.
Some objectively correct statement may be made about reason or religion, and yet be likely to offend. Be quite then reason, review, analysis, warning to the nation or to any. State religion has ruled it and you may obey what is central to your religion, that has this psychological or sociological result, only by coming to grief in the new national cult. The words spoken or written may have a relevance to this or that body, as an expression or illustration of the logical, military or other activities of such body. But you are in trouble either way with the law as written, if someone is upset by the considerations, however true, vital to realism, necessary for welfare of the nation, or demanded by your religion.
Some Palestinian extremists, to take a parallel for illustration, might be offended by the word that Israel ought not to be deleted, as this is part of their deep feeling. If this were reasonably likely, in view of their repeated rhetoric with passion, to offend, then any parallel law to this one in Australia would make that wrong. Because it might offend these susceptibilities, THEREFORE it breaks the law. Therefore you could not safely diverge from these alignments, there in speech you would tend to be nullified or sacrificed, in terms of whatever law would parallel the one now current in Australia, the 18C touch.
Again, it might be directed to censure, and detect and seize if found, what issued from whatever entity was acting in a given way, that was found repulsive or contrary to the new religion, in that it differed or diverged from it. What one is commanded IN a given religion to do, in terms of speech and attitude, might clash with the psycho-social religion and inherit State wrath, investigation, condemnation.
The speech deemed insulting, offensive, humiliating may be illustrative of ideological or religious principles, and contain their application. Justice might endorse them, mercy might love them, concern might motivate them and religious obedience might require them, while reason might bless them. Yet to the current state of feeling, and feeling estimation in the State, the words spoken or printed might be deemed to constitute a matter of neo-moral revulsion, quasi-logical compulsion or national peril. The New State of Australia dumping its constitutional requirements, in these affairs puts things past these concerns, using here instead the stamp of ultra-religiosity and its seal, on the crippled land. Of course, martyrs might pay, a sort of special income tax, or bodily tax in prison; but the State that so commands is already all but a religious dinosaur.
Hence in that case, objection to carrying out (unacknowledged) genocide on Israel could be a breach of law, and you would become a law-breaker to object to it. I is not hard. You only have to make the land so cut about that it is indefensible. You could even in a profound hypocrisy, then send it medicines while it was destroyed. The law then becomes worse than amoral, becoming immoral, since its target does not depend on morality, but feeling. Morality is shown the door, shut out like a dribbling clown. The ultimate morality then comes so to speak as to make it likely that anyone of a given race or ethnicity or nation could be offended at its autocratic requirement. No noticeable qualification is given even if they should be at war with you, in their hearts, in their heads or in their intentions, awaiting their day while the watch-dogs loll their tongues, disciplined to prevent the warning bark - or find the dog catcher.
ONE of the options for prosecution is this psychic likelihood , and the other is whether the words to which objection is being made, were spoken or written BECAUSE of race and so on. This gives a second liability for assault on the verbal victim, if such be the case. In the Palestinian illustration, it would mean that in addition to the rest, if it could be established that the words you spoke had in mind (that of the accuser) the Palestinian attitude to genocide of the Jews, then you are guilty.
The race relevance in mind is illegal in conception. Prohibitions relating to the internal state and concerns of the complainant, and not reason or evidence or morals or religious or irreligious considerations: it is these that apply. It is freedom of speech that can look for another nation in which to flourish. As in the former PM's word re his election promise or premiss, freedom may be asserted, but in this department of affairs, it is no longer there: no more on the shelf, it is imply gone! In the election period, ROBUST speech was deemed necessary for stability or health or wisdom; in the post-election change, this is so no more.
The capitulation of conscience, or of religion, to such offices of feeling, emotion and construction as might occur to someone or other, becomes the desideratum, and the continuation of free religion, however valid, becomes possible without breach of the law, as the case may arrive, and the judgments may be derived. You can, even then, have the pleasure of funding your case, taking the time, interrupting your life's work, seeking to repel the accusation, where reason cannot see, or simply suffering condemnation. You might be justly condemned, unjustly accused, but in any case, your name is under investigation.
Australia was not the lucky country so much as the land of independence of mind and liberty to correct culture, argue, debate, contest, protest, invest with meaning, leaving the wit and wisdom to assert themselves while, if not by legal determination, at least by official recognition, acting in the reverence to God Almighty. Since in those terms, as instituted, there was no doubt about which religion was in view, it is all the more a vast change to allow the miseducation of the young to continue in the rampant materialistic follies which have been adopted, and reductionist clamours that obtain in obedient colleges*. But now, despite much protests and challenge, made for example by this body concerning that academic prejudice and breach of scientific method, the religious demands extend to the older level, educating by law and its negative impact. The matter broadens, with more components of compulsion.
The folly of such considerations is not least their inherently immoral character, unreasonable power, insulation from everything EXCEPT likelihood to offend, which moves more in the realm of reaction, not its ground. Hence with this comes the power to make a transgressor (yes, a law breaker is a transgressor) out of one who may IN SO SPEAKING be carrying out a perfectly reasonable part of his or her religion, or indeed, a charge within it as to what ought to be said. The position does not then change; the case is as presented.
Thus the State is Lord over religion, puts feelings before facts, psychology above truth, deems itself the arbiter of correctness concerning religious scope, establishes its own religion.
Let us then look at implications if the Government has actually thought carefully about this. It would mean, unless it intended to be subversive of truth, a dictator to religion, that it deems NO religion to be absolute truth, and NO God having any place in this land to have the commandments attached to such a religion, done. This is certainly a religious theme, put into practice, ruling over multitudes of elements of many religions, and while not stating that the Government IS God, it exhibits it acting very much as if it had secret access to the very last word, and SO ruled and told you what is, and is not, correct. Otherwise, if any religion actually WERE from God, it would be fighting God in this matter and again, if that is not a religion, what is. That this IS so (cf. for example, SMR) merely adds to the case; but in ANY case, the pretension of power is present.
The law should apply equally to all in any just society, and those in need of help should be shown it in terms of mercy, not making truth an abattoir victim. The law should not act as if God were gone, were not at all, because these are religious premises, quite apart from the status of such propositions; but that is another story. If it is NOT to establish any religion, then it should not compete with its own nostrums, preferences, cultural exhibits. Culture is NOT to be regarded as God, because that is a religion, making man the matrix and determinant. It depends on what he thinks, not on anything objective, whether he should think it or his thought is rational. It is whether he thinks it or not that matters, and what is the state of his feelings vis-à-vis governmental law and lore; and to enforce this is once again, all part of a religion, codifiable into contention in the field of religion.
For such reasons, and many more, it seems best in all goodwill to interpret the matters noted on offence and insult, to mean on sustainable grounds, in the legal norm, not with open cheque; and not to envisage 'ethnic' as including religion as one of its components, at least in this case, in this context. It is just that this is NOT stated, does NOT appear as a qualification, so that such a status, however related to OTHER matters in the constitution, and however prone to counter by these, is in fact not so drafted. If it be interpreted to include religion, then the Constitution is misinterpreted by negation.
Normally, the thing to be preserved in efforts of this soimmunert relates to prejudicial treatment of people in terms which are obviously wrong, because in certain fields, it is not in the power to alter these things, such as being crippled, old, of this or that skin colour or race and so on. Race and colour are two prominent cases in such matters. Ethnicity may refer to any characteristics of a group into which one is born, which similarly are not an option to change, and which therefore ought not to be made an irrational ground of objection. Religion is emphatically not in that category; for it may be changed; although in some cases, it may occasion your death, to change; yet it is in the realm of choice, should you wish to have it or not, or change it, or not.
As soon as you put religion into that category, as in the purely subjective interpretation of 18 C in the law in question, you are in fact establishing a religion, for it is a vast undertaking of enormous impact. It is not unlike the Imperial Rome situation of old, when the STATE told you to worship something whether you liked it or not, thus to give it supreme honour in the field, worshipping the Emperor a requirement. How could anyone honestly bow to such religious establishment of the State's choice of religious authority (its own), religious perspectives (its own) and religious liberty (its own), who actually believed in any articulate God who forbad this!
It becomes analogous to a religious coup, unconstitutional, unhallowed, tyrannical over truth in principle. Indeed, if you do not believe that the State has or has shown the power to determine such issues, and hold that a revealed God has this authority, than how could such restrictions in contradiction of divine law determine your conduct or exercise your tongue, being contrary! Is it hypocrites and martyrs which are desired ?
Hypocrisy is not to be desired, far less cultivated, but most strenuously avoided; and if the State institutes suffering where its religious type of dicta are rejected by the victim being attacked in this way by State law, then it becomes just one of the many religious tyrants that proliferate so on this earth.
The only limits to religion to be found in a non-dictatorial State, are those which prohibit substitution of force of arms for force of reason, and pockets of political power (gained in whatever way) being exploited to subvert integrity. An argument may assault a belief, scientific, ethical, religious or whatever. To confuse its force with undue use of force is quite simply to quash truth in principle, making it to be "fallen in the street" as in Isaiah 59:14. It is sad to see a nation disqualified from freedom, from the needs of integrity of religion except where suffering is legislated and as necessary, met. It is amazing to see THIS ONE even within shouting distance of such folly.
II
Afterburner, Afterglow, Afterwards Epilogue
Excerpt
What then of the neo-religion which is no religion, because if it were, it would clearly be unconstitutional, though it ACTS like a religion, has FUNDAMENTALS concerning reality like a religion*2B, and is ENFORCED, far more than many a religion! Subversively surreptitious, its followers seek its dominion. It will DEAL with offenders.
Rub them out, or call them louts or fine or imprison them. They are better gone because the RELIGION which says there is no objective religion (such is the point), says so. It must be obeyed, like Rumpole's wife.
A religion is, of course, ANYTHING which assumes an ultimate reality and understanding, and as religion required or repressive of others in general for its own sake, it is forbidden in the Constitution. But this in being hidden, is different. Like an infecting virus, this is a sort of hidden religion; but in its rank authority, it is still there.
From the mouth of this religion (reminding one of the dragon in Revelation 16, from which three lying spirits come, since it does not admit to what it is); there are in vogue, or in view, according to the case in this nation or that, religion upsets. Something ELSE dared to s peak or squeak or peep! What SHAME, how HURTFUL! Let is be condemned. Now at first, it is not as in Alice in Wonderland, OFF WITH ITS HEAD! It is just off with its reputation, and let it be condemned, preferably in moving terms.
Let us then concentrate more fully on to the broader field of the now impending news and web control in mind, in the move to more disciplinary dictatorship of morals, more broadly. If the neo-religion says, THIS IS WRONG, it is offensive, you are to be blamed and fined and made to look great reprehensible, as god it has ruled. Its morals, its ethics, its inventions and pretensions are final. No appeal! Nice touch that, for it silences things against the governmental foul play, which is far easier than defending it.
If, then, it is found to be wrong, then apart from penalties for non-subservience to current political thought, it must also stop doing it. It must be quiet like a silenced child in Class; get off the air or the Web and CEASE offending, lest a worse thing befall its author(s).
If THIS NEW GOVERNMENT RELIGION which says these things, condemns with this wave of the hand in a waiver of citizen rights to you, if this should upset its victim, those prosecuted by its Committee or other authority replete with power, and thus should upset the legally condemned, don't worry about that! Why ? They deserve it. They refuse to conform to the legislated norm, or to bow to King Culture; they are as bad as Daniel. They must be stricken, given woe to help them wither, till they learn that the lord most high in this land is the aggregation of politicians, making pacts and deals and sealing what they were never sent or commissioned to do.
If it is offensive to his or her psyche or morals or ethics or religion, who is to be thus bullied and lambasted, shamed and attacked: just forget about it. This is first come, first served, and the Government comes first, and those who use its stick speak first, as a virtual protectorate.
Condemned on false grounds and superficial neo-religious grounds ? That does not count because the Government does not need mandate, as with the carbon tax. It just does. It is above the Constitution. It even plans to make a new one. Do the people love to have it so, as in Jeremiah 5 as it ends? One will see. This then is the vulnerability and the peril of the new movements, as they proceed and progress, and these are well-known ground plans which may be followed, already with notable advances in their direction. It is with more than academic interest that one waits to see where implementation of such invasions with such evasions, leads.