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

 

 

CHAPTER TEN

When Freedom of Speech is Jettisoned,
the Nation is already defeated

News 484

The Australian, December 17, 2015
Article entitled, "ASIO chief is 'playing politics'. "

Softly, softly on Moslem matters, exhorts the National Security Maestro,
for it is safer so. A series of reported telephone calls to governing MPs is featured in this edition of 'The Australian'. On the front page, a Staff writer for that newspaper, solemnly attacks this move. Let us consider the report. It contains two major opinions attributed to the ASIO leader  in his calls.

The first  appears  to go like this.

The concept that it is blasphemy to criticise a given  religion, comes into focus, but is a confusion. This appears to be the contention of someone leading national security work in ASIO.  On being clearly critical of a given religion, or no doubt part of it, the Director finds for himself the area of blasphemy. He also has attributed an opinion, equally fallacious, that Moslem extremism is not fostered, or sponsored or supported  by the Muslim religion. The terrorists claim a different view, and many have cited the Koran  as their base. Is there any substance to this attribution at all ?

The Koran expresses a different  view to this reported concerning ASIO. It is not ALL like that, related to terrorism,  at least directly,  but it is often in this area (cf. The Divine Agenda Ch. 6, More Marvels ... Ch. 4, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Robert Spencer). It does not all so incite, challenge and  exhort to fight, for the results that  the Koran god should be acknowledged alone. But nor is this exceptional, this taking over of rule over others, or imparting of death,  in a name which is to be honoured above all and given authority over all, so that even if some break a treaty of subjugation, war till submission is total is the enjoined course.

Just so, not all the communities of Islam in the world are active in such regards, though multiplied jihads suggest some may become so at short notice. That the religion is not back of any terrorism, or does not back it, in view of its commands with vast rewards allegedly in store, as many were enjoined by the prophet concerned to fight gloriously for victory, appears nugatory. Extremes against facts help no one, whether all-inclusive or exclusive, when considerable participation by many Muslim bodies, including the genocidally-orating Iran, is what is found.

But let us consider further the blasphemy issue.

Now if God is violated by contempt or rejection, it may be blasphemy or else blindness, or lead to or even follow from both; but if it be not the actual God Almighty who made all things, to whom all things are flowing for judgment, who has revealed Himself and given irrefutable evidence with this, who is being maligned, but some construction of man who is either called 'god' or set in such a position effectually, , then to criticise it is neither blasphemy nor in itself error, but may as in any field where truth matters, be a kindness, a corrective, a deliverance from cultural condemnation, national ruin or personal humiliation where it DOES matter. Further, in  delightful leading, Christ prayed for forgiveness, not the sword or legal action, for those killing Him oh so slowly. His kingdom is not founded on force, however much some  may abuse His words (John 18:36).

That is indeed,  by the truth an area for judgment from God, who is quite able to defend Himself, to make His valid testimony and to declare Himself, to the point that He voluntarily suffered Himself in human form to be put to death, as a sacrifice for the sins from the mouth of sinners, including those scoffing at Him, and  scorning. He preferred to die for sinners rather than have them fight and die for Him, in His incarnation. It makes for peace (or suffering for the Christians,   or both), and reasonableness, and aids truth, which is always safer than abiding in unreality till truth exposes your arbitrariness. Some have made war  on His words while using His name; but they remain and will do so (Matthew 24:35).

Blasphemy is not making utterance contrary to someone's viewpoint on a matter of religion. Indeed,  the intimation made about the topic from our own secret service agent would then itself be blasphemy, criticising and disqualifying the religious testimony of the Bible, which requires exposure of error as well as testimony of truth! ( II Corinthians 10:5, I Peter 3:15, Matthew 23, Jeremiah 23, Acts 7, Romans 1). You cannot in the name of objectivity set up your pet approach to religion which tears into the alternative concepts of some other religion, without instituting what appears little other than a hypocritical abuse of the same KIND as that which you yourself criticise: that is, if in denying criticism, you may in effect by that very act  criticise, curtail, inhibit or deny freedom for that religion, even in its most gracious form, by your own categories of ultimate values.

The idea of any religious criticism being blasphemy makes all 'gods' true, and hence in view of the many contradictions resulting, all but One if it stands secure. Unless it can be demonstrated that what was said was offence against that God, criticism of critics is potentially helpful, serviceable and a victory against pride. Enduring peril is in  allowing what is as one whole crusading to humble, defaming the peaceable, or defiling liberty, making virtual cartoons without warrant or accuracy of the Star of another religion, as in the Koran. While it has peaceful pockets, there has been martial bloodthirstiness in multiplied barbarism in other bulging pockets claiming its name or text. ONE of these is in part seeking genocide of another nation, on the part of certain  large aggregations of Moslems. The US is now in one type of alliance with that nation which  so fires the air with such inflammation.

Bypassing this diseased element, in fact or in effect, implies or is set to lead to the weakness of yielding to intimidation, or through weakness to 'necessity', and this moral collapse becomes a menace to society.

Is what is seeking by atrocities to overthrow far stronger forces, through terror in many forms and formats of aggressive insurgency, or what is commending such action, leading to murder with all its associated griefs and horrors, often inhuman and acting as if to dehumanise: is this to be tolerated in this land in some seemingly simpering,  simplistic acquiescence to such parading! Can such conspiracies openly flourish ? If some want to disown or disjoin from such manipulative terror on the part of others naming their religion, and condemn it strongly and sharply, so be it. That would be to their credit where confusion is a danger. Let reasoned debate follow.

If some mosques and leaders declare it, this terroristic debasement of man, to be contrary to their view, values and intent, well, that is well done and the least to be expected. If however any support, exhort towards or commemorate, congratulate or in any way advance such vile violence, making man a moral midget as it raises mere bits of steel as if these were arguments: then to allow this and not exclude such murderous actions and their speeches of support for those, from our democratic society has both characterisability and results. It readily becomes a casual canter where strong reining in is required, truth a captive,  bordering on the sycophantic. Each atrocity, where this sort of condemnation against any such thing is not made by those of the same religious name, becomes potential host to one more murder, ferocious intolerance, attack on truth by using force where fact is the milieu, so tending to lower the race to the pit.

Indeed, it could be profitable to make it easy for mosques and peaceably minded leaders to itemise themselves as NOT in any way supportive of, congratulatory concerning, or even giving approval to the use of force to compel in the field of religion. But what of the residue who DO support, congratulate, hold up as heroic and so forth, the terrorist movement or any part of it ?

Support for such programs is insupportable, although, as with Churchill, many warn. It is necessary to be objective, reasonable, with relevant support for one's views, with issues faced freely, and  encouragement of others not to put present shadows of peace above enduring substance of security. There is need for the nation of a security that does not flinch, and given challenge, does not hand a torch to the torrid, while restraining the exposÚs of the diligent.

Members of Parliament consulted by the newspaper  reporting are cited in many cases as affronted by this  dumb-down approach, reportedly forwarded by telephone, and express the intent to create their own script and take action as seems best, being elected representatives of the people, faced by this dire situation. The responses reported on several  sides, indeed, vary from outrage and rejection of the advice, to its reception as a point of view; but they do not seem servile despite any danger in view. Not a few in this  international generation, not limited to  elements using the name Moslem,  are in the business of intimidation, if not armed occupation, playing games of nerve with other nations; and it is a type of procedure which seeks in many to have great gain for  small outlay, until some  take-over is too obvious to  deny. By then, however, they may have the thing they sought, while others watched in awe or weakness, the crushing of liberty.

The loss of liberty is indeed foretold in the Bible, like vast territories of our current world, and it comes to a peak before the return of Christ (Matthew 24, Revelation 13, 17, II Thessalonians 1-2). This however does not mean that a given nation rightly tends to stifle unsubmissive objectivity. It may be  said that this was not the intention; but then the 18c) lordliness*1 is little sign of such restraint!  It even would prosecute,  and  in effect possibly persecute, those who in certain areas are DEEMED (apparently not seldom by those who would profit from successful legal action) to be offensive. How ? By the exotic  force of SOME HUMAN PSYCHE, posted as if a god, not to be upset. Offend it and its feelings ? Now you face need for inspection or correction or fine or other detrimental additive to your way of life. Remarkable! The human psyche, unassisted decisively by justice or motive, far less truth as a criterion, becomes like an idol, letting out commands at what does not please it.

The trend to take over  religious elements and areas in the name of this or that fashion or desire, is enormous. Buzz words and blighting ideas are becoming a substitute for thought and truth and justice and reason, law a servant more and more, of appetite and desire,  with successive loss of both liberty and wisdom, requiring to go softly over traps and pits,  when others need warning,  not to  fall in.

When a nation turns its back on the initial trends (as in the pre-amble to our federal Constitution), the direction of  which helped justice and freedom over time, to increase and even abound, despite some errors, then if that wayward trend be related to the actual God, what  then ? It is then the attacks of man are small  compared with the  insult offered to the Creator, and the results of turning,  shown from  the  Saviour, become like attaching leeches willingly to your body. Preventing ANYTHING put in  criticism as the case demands, of what misleads, or obscures the basis for search, merely accentuates such errors, and  tells  members of the crew to keep their voices down. Then less hear, so that less heed, less act.  In Christian terms, discretion is not divorced from reality*2, but goes hand in hand with it. The desire for peace is not dissected out of a situation, but entrained with prudence. Needless provocation is not to be confused with necessary confrontation. There is no need to deal with reckless generalisations, to be sure, but neither is there place for heedless distraction from  staring facts, and  duly careful concerns that embrace them.

The competence of various officials is not the point; the underlying priorities and position tend to make for error of one kind, when the basis  is another. Freedom of expression at such times can be crucial; and suppression of what may be said for the God of truth, and power, and testimony, may merely magnify the evils faced. Indeed, it is utterly tragic, that Australia is increasingly and with no sound reason, drifting away from the many special and general Christian features which surrounded its earlier days, so  that in losing more and more its identity, it leaves itself open to further lapses of patriotism among the  young and readily influenced, often  taught to despise what was imperfect, but not abandoned in what might be called their educative indoctrination classes, too narrowly evasive or invasive, and left free for drugs whether medical or ideological.

 

NOTES

*1

On 18c), see Ch. 20 of Department of Bible ... Volume 11.

 

*2

See SMR, TMR, The gods of naturalism have no go!

Department of Bible ... Ch. 11,

Ch. 4, above.