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

EPILOGUE

FOUNDATIONS : PERILS OF SANDY ONES

In Australia, a Bill is threatening the nation, for it takes hold of the absolutes of its choice,
seeking to legislate such a series of psychic rights, that they begin to resemble religious rites,
with no right for their basis, being merely ideas of the head
and popularity points amid the nations. 
Social considerations eclipse truth, and feelings facts,
till the place of religion,
though ostensibly guaranteed certain highly classified exemptions,
is one at the State's tolerance.

Contrary to the barring of the Commonwealth from religion (not just religions),
this represents what appears a grisly grab for power,
and the institution of a new type of Australia,
so far from its heritage, expressed in terms of its reliance on Almighty God,
that at least a referendum is required, and at that, a change of constitution,

as if a man could vote to lose his legs ... freely.

Options require actions.

in Chapter 9, the topic was newness. The newness was essentialised in Jesus Christ, incarnate God in flesh. There was a time before it happened, when it was predicted, then one when it happened. In impact, this was far greater than that of any asteroid, for this works for the salvation of many, that for their destruction. Once it had happened, there was a visible FOUNDATION, poured out from its celestial source, and laid as foretold. Today we look at its ASPECTS, its CONSPECTUS, and its RESULTS in terms of faith.

Before proceeding, let us review some central aspects of a new foundation, which the Government of Australia is in effect proposing in a Bill which is currently under initial review, but very extensively formulated, like a book. This was, especially in its religious aspect, the topic in Chapter 8 above.

 

	The Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Bill 2012 provides one of the greatest ironies this land has ever witnessed in law-making. While its title voices fair  play as an object, it institutes such a loss of freedom and such scope for legal bullying, exhaustion of finances on the part of innocent parties, who may prima facie be  declared guilty at the outset, and such a regulatory atmosphere that if ever made to law, it would reduce a nation renowned for its independence of thought and action, to a servile State.
	So great is the coverage of so many guilt  clauses, so many possible exemptions,  so many considerations for the same, so much determination by law of whether this or that one applies, that it is like a fishing net, filled with holes, bound by confinements.
	It is in effect a Bill of Wrongs, which implies a Bill of Rights, but with more negativity. The latter, Australia rejected by referendum years ago; this much more perilous, is now being touted with no referendum, just assertions extended to such depths, that it is hard to conceive how anyone could ever trust any secular  institution, granted such prerogatives of commandments, penalties and ideas with little limit, as to imply a new religion.

People, for example, merely FEELING offended, can use State finances to pursue the objects or subjects of their ire or repulsion, in this way spoiling their reputations, exhausting their finances, subjecting them to legal assessors, where  opinion becomes tantamount to conclusion, based on  whatever may rule in the minds of these or those who judge. Here we enter

the Realm of the Psyche,

to be ruled by specialists in interpretation, who  stamp their conclusions, to confirm or perhaps   relax the initial assumptions of guilt to which the case lies open.

In this, it would be stimulating to ill-will and vastly empowering it, in order to gain satisfaction, for imaginary wrongs, vendettas, malice satisfaction, power competition or ideological attrition, as so often found for example in Indian cases.

For what is such a Bill as this one, proposed then ? It is, amongst other things, for feelings, for upset, where motive, purpose, intent, goodwill, innocence of anything malign,
or even daring insistence on  truth, on the part of the alleged culprit must be established ...
by that culprit. Other considerations, may be dismissed as irrelevant at any point,
for OFFENCE is the article.

COULD it or should it have been avoided by various strategies which those of various ideologies would consider good ones (though they may be wholly unrighteous in the eyes of others).  Such a question is put. There may even be no one who heard or read the alleged ground of offence. The result is to be pronounced by those who may never have seen or heard or been aware of the complex situation that may have arisen, and may in heart, have views of such things of totally opposite kinds.

Religions  vary immensely,  and each constitutes a basis for understanding, whether ephemeral or comprehensive,  by people who mean business in that field. These, if taken sincerely, provide the basis for understanding, and  are  applied to no small  extent, consciously or unconsciously. Irreligion makes itself its own ultimate,  asserting whatever it will. The result in principle, is just the same: a provision for understanding, estimation, evaluation coming from the basic presuppositions, desires, embrace of each party. In practice, of course, what is true works, and what is not, does not. Some take time to find this, some nations centuries.

What then ? In the thoughts, ideas, attitudes, world-views of those who are appointed,
the assessors, each has his/her own emotional, ideological and foundational values
(including the case that there are no foundational values, which itself then becomes
just that, the basis for their thought, and an essence of their own religion,
dependent wholly on their own variable selves). Exclusion merely gives status
to what excludes it: the person concerned, becomes his/her own determinant,
though born without permission and to die without consent. 

In this complexity of  potential legislative domineering,  the State is proceeding to institute a new religion of its own, with ultimacies of value as desired, made the ground of the Bill. It seeks to secure the work of people of broad variety of viewpoint, to judge what may be subtleties of interpretation, amid inter-personal relations and things perhaps never audited but by the complainant... if that!

Indeed, apart from the evidential realities, and the concentration in  any case
on  such things as feeling, yet still,  as in geometry, if you start with different principles,
you finish diversely. This Bill thus is proposing for itself what constitutes a Social Idol, which it may prove exceedingly expensive to avoid in this flurry.
It becomes one to erect by legislation
what is in  defiance of Section 116 of the Constitution.

In this way, should this current Bill become law, or anything of this kind, it makes an arrogation of the powers constitutionally preserved out of the reach of Government,  for the people, this domain set firmly back in governmental hands; and behold, a new country. The dawn of liberty is therefore replaced by its sunset. Once such principles are permitted, liberty is omitted, first  in various ways prescribed, and then, when the bases are applied further, to any extent in any field. Little by little what is appointed for permission, exemption, becomes a quarry from which more is mined at will. The first case becomes the PRECEDENT.

 

Notes

1) The detailed grounds found in the Bill, with critique,
are put at greater length in Chapter 8 above, dealing with ...

HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL 2012

The Right to Blight, the Sickly Solution 

RELIGIOUS SUPREMACY ACT ?

This provides also a further coverage of the application of  "religion"
in the context of the Bill.
 

2) For a sermon from the word of God concerning this field,

follow this link.
 

3)  Contact us: For email link if required, send to:

team@webwitness.org.au

 

 

Now we revert

to the whole arena of foundations,

moving in contrast from the unwarranted to the warranted, from the cry of culture, whether as in the French Revolution, or Communism, to the requirements of reason, in the Bible, where its position is both verified and validated^*1.

I   ASPECTS OF THE FOUNDATION

Foundering without Foundation

The foundation for faith is laid. It was foretold in just such terms in Isaiah 28:16. A sure foundation,  a precious stone was to be laid, and anyone believing in Him would not make haste - that is, not be in a flurry and a torment, in useless toil and fluttery uncertainties, being rather confirmed and contained in the surety of this provision from heaven, this foundation now made manifest on earth. This evokes a comparison. Flurry, scattery thoughts, foolish actions, scurrying ideas seem to have marked the government of Australia for some years now, so that in sum,  we owe vast amounts to an atheist nation, and appear to be scamping our defence.

This for nation or for individual, is the wrong way: go back. It rejected a Bill of Rights by referendum, some years ago. Now the country is foolishly pondering what is a Bill of Wrongs, its new song, almost like a new patriotism in which facts and justice, truth and reality are given a back seat: in the driver's seat, instead, is FEELING of offence^*2, EXACTION for causing it. There is no noticeable reference to a referendum.

Obvious is the vast SCOPE for criminals to abuse the upright with false charges. Presumption of guilt on the part of the  accused starts, while a subjective ground continues in the examination of these potential victims of splaying law. Called an Anti-Discriminatory Bill (Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, 2012), it is heavily charged against those attacked by its means, these being freely able to spend in their own defence till near to exhaustion! What then is view ? is it voluntary torture that is under option in this grievous and dangerous Bill, law replacing understanding, and control, common sense.

Is it a human right to be simply summoned because

	someone takes offence*3 (Section  19 (2) either at what has happened or what is deemed, if it should proceed to happen, likely to cause offence, even if it is now only proposed ?
	a psychic sensitivity is touched ?
	a misunderstanding has occurred ?
	humour has been taken with malice ?
	Other options on scene include
	any of the other galaxy of
	wrong reactions to right things, or
	exaggerated responses to casual things, or
	malign retorts to what is hated in principle, without reason, or even contrary to reason.

Is this  to be legislated, authorised in this offensive fashion, people deemed prima facie guilty pro tem while facts await to the point ? Is this to be impacted into Australian society so that judges based on whatever appeals in their own basic principles and psychic perceptions, may rule a servile State ? Consult the Bill, Section 124 for the burden to show yourself NOT guilty, which lies on you if it appears to  assessors that the case against you is quite plausible.  Even academic and scientific matters, usually given protection, are found in only one of many sites for exemption, the racial (cf. Ch. 8 as marked).

Justice here, whatever the eventual outcome, is made a slave, and the sacredness of truth is discounted for convenience. Sections 17  and 19 tell you of the sort of ground for your accusation, which are taken as functional for complaint, leading to a fight and your non-innocence as the proceedings start. This is so if you do not care to be deemed guilty, pro tem or otherwise, by a plethora of sanctions,  exemptions, variable conditions for exemptions,  allowances and dismissal of allowances,  as this  octopus law may see fit to insert in its zeal. At that, prior guilt may be assumed in the interim, before you are cleared, if at all. It resembles starting a tennis match, at one set down.

This faces Australia with far more venom than any nuclear submarine might manage. That is a challenge from without, and a well-prepared country WOULD have weapons to deploy. This, however, is worse, far: it is a subversion within, distorting 'rights' to include that not to be offended. What appears a legally illiterate Bill of Rights has gained access to this tormented nation, as it threatens to become, without passing any referendum. Illiterate ? because it is subversion through a non-granted Bill of rights, and a subversion of the Constitution by removing freedom of religion, which refers not only to religions, but religion (Section 116 of the Constitution of this land): to the ultimate and abstract heights and depths by which human conduct is ultimately based^*4, whether with subjectivity as sovereign, the removal of the aegis of Almighty God without saying so, or other.

It is not a simple matter of removing certain ludicrously intrusive words in the list of things that can bring in subjectively based legal intrusion into a situation (*2), such as 'offensive' in its noted setting; it is rather like a mutiny on a ship. It is

not its TERMS ONLY, or even chiefly, that are the problem.

It is the FACT,

the trivialisation of truth and

the breach of liberties assured in the Constitution.

Moreover, whatever may be said of the Preamble to the Constitution, it is clear where the definition of terms is to be found, for if you want to dismiss a statement of reliance on Almighty God^*5, it is well to say so, to ensure that the change of perspective is sanctioned by public consent. Change to this totality of presentation in the Constitution, requires in all honesty, clear announcement, in any case*6; for this right not to be offended is merely an invention. A surreptitious pronouncement where the power so to pronounce rights as final as are commands in any religion,  in novel foundations,  needs assent. From whom ? Guess ? The people; for in a democracy, they do have a place, and need to be consulted, not on the basis of a Bill ready to run, with whatever palaver in view, but in terms of the rights involved behind this document.

The Commonwealth can neither establish any religion nor prevent its free exercise. The Constitution does not make a government to enjoy its freedom, but one to ensure that the people enjoy theirs. Government is both enabled and disenabled selectively, on a model. It is meant to serve thus. That is the way that it is.

Final rights (and thus wrongs) become absolute are a matter for religion, and when their basis is an unaligned relativity, then establishing them is not only presumption, but irrational. Is this even now a nation which can tell people in Bowls competition, that all their competitions must be open to all ? Prima facie, that appears to stand,  although it is under appeal.

If this is so hard now, namely, what to ALLOW people in terms of their RELIGIOUS assessment of gender and individuality for that matter, and liberty, then what if the new reaches of discrimination enshrined in the Anti-Discrimination Bill were unleashed! Humanism as a basis because of the implicit dismissal of God Almighty, is an erratic, culturally supple, but readily demanding idol, unworthy of obeisance, fatal for liberty. If you must have it, ask first, as in a referendum and change the Constitution^*2.  Even then,  would  it seem a reasonable religious rule to impose on the nation... Must all obey your notions! Our current Constitution allows liberty in religion in Commonwealth concerns.

Indeed, people can easily invent rights and appeal to those by nature and conviction in this field, apt to be prejudiced assessors (even those in Parliament do not all appear fundamentally void of bias), in any scamp warfare, or any series of malign retorts, and who is to act first ? Is it to become like a cat and mouse cycling indoor test, while funds rush to waiting hands and the people are made to appear fools!

That is a relevant application of the biblical text, society replacing spirituality, psyche truth and the worship of man's ideas, works and ways, those of God. It is like a call to fall before the subjective psyche. Thus appears the sleepy substitute, in this Psychic Idol and Social Authority, for the reality of justice and truth, of feeling for fact, the ways of God ignored in its apparatus, misled and misplaced. Should this therefore pass, it will institute in this way a new religion, for this our land,   as in parallel was done for Israel of old. We then become set to be a changed society, slipping in gods that do not rule, and making up rules for them.

Then what ? Then it is looking  for a trouble, one which this land has scarcely seen. For this it would wait.

In Isaiah 28:15, the prelude to the announcement of the Messiah, we learn what He is replacing. Their situation was so like ours now, if the nation falls for any more of this riotous subjectivity.

"Because you have said, 'We have made a covenant with death,
and with Hell we are in agreement;
when the overflowing scourge passes through, it will not come to us,
for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hidden ourselves:
Therefore thus says the Lord God..."

The following message of divine displeasure is this: He is going to lay a sure foundation with a precious and tried stone, what will last and not break, endure and not end, and he who believes in Him will not act hastily. Instead of their fictitious fascinations and intrigues, God states that He will make JUSTICE the measuring line, and RIGHTEOUSNESS the plummet. Instead of what you feel, or what attracts or offends you, your whim, will, caprice, what is true will be real and what is just will not waver. Power given to these or those without equality before the law will end, and evidence as the sure certainty above all, will resume. Rules will not be based on unruly concoctions of thought and prejudice, but actuality, with due regard to motive, method, plan, purpose and result.

Truth will have dominion, and mercy its place (Psalm 72). What is right will once again replace what is desired, or merely felt or made an object of virtual worship. Man will  cease to be the criterion, and the Lord whose law is given to our race, will resume, amid a redemption which tunes ^*4 the heart.

However, if this be not believed in, as was foretold to happen in Israel and did (Isaiah 49:7), if this sure foundation is ignored, then this was the message:

"Your covenant with death will be annulled, and your agreement with hell will not stand;
when the overflowing scourge passes through, then you will be trampled down by it."

In all things, it is well to consider what you do; for there is a price associated with it, and whatever flurries of man arrogantly opine, the word of God has its outing in its day. The "lucky country" is not so blessed that folly may not point it to its ruin. It applies to one, as to all, and all nations are facing the results of faithlessness, humanism, secularism or sundry idols, as in North Korea quite explicitly, in the form of two huge statues, available for worship. 

In Isaiah 46:4 however, we see a "remnant" who DO believe, as have many both in Israel and in other nations. The message to these continuing believers is this:

"Even to old age, I am He, and even to grey hairs I will carry you! I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you."

As our God has made us, so will He, being in agreement with our resting on Him and His foundation, carry us, and deliver us. It is in this to Jew as well as to Gentile believer (Isaiah 42:6, 49:6). As a mother bears a child, so we are born again (John 3); as He has borne us into very existence spiritually,  as well as physically, SO in proportion and responsibility will He carry and deliver.

That is one aspect of the Foundation, the Christ as in I Peter 2:6-8. God WILL BEAR His people (A).

The same thought is found in John 10:9 with 10:27-28, for where one enters into His kingdom through Him as the door, salvation is sure, and these His sheep know Him, hear His voice and follow Him, and it is impossible for their spirits to perish, or to be condemned (John 5:24), for He has borne their sin also (II Corinthians 5:17ff.). They also follow Him, not some substitute; His word, not some revision of it, let alone a contradiction; and they do not follow some slithery substitute, however named.

So the second aspect of the foundation is this, that the salvation from sin and judgment, in and on this basis, is sure (B).

The third is found in II Timothy 1:9. Those saved are so according to the purpose of God (C) and His grace, given to us in His foreknowledge before time began. God never fails (Zephaniah 3:5).

It is also a foundation for an active faith (D), which like a drop of concentrated acid in a base, is inclined to cause quite a fizz, a response. Faith is seen in operation in Malachi 3:16-18, when those who loved the Lord got together and made their names plain as His, when evils mounted. It is just as clear in  Malachi 4:1-2, where the height and depth of contrast is shown where the proud innovators and idolaters, whether of man or objects or ideas, worshippers of something not worthy of it, are as stubble to the flame; and where for those who reverence the name of God, "the Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in His wings." Such are free to go an to  grow.

Of faith, you see the Gospel which enshrines it with the Lord its object, with Paul set for its DEFENCE and CONFIRMATION (Philippians 1:7). Here the Lord acts in word as also with amazing deeds of miraculous and enduring character (I Cor. 4, II Cor. 4, Acts 16ff.), as wrought through the apostle; and both these elements cohere. Indeed in Hebrews 11:1 and the applications which startlingly and categorically follow, there is the account of faith's NATURE, vested and resting in what is invisible, like man's spirit, but much more, in the inventor of spirits and the Lord of all domains. It involves ASSURANCE, and CONVICTION, the latter both in certitude and evidential reality. When you know God, you know His hand as well as His heart (Jeremiah 9:23-24).

As to faith, which rests in this tried and precious stone, this Rock, and ONLY GOD is the Rock (Psalm 62), its activation is seen in Acts 2:14-17, as the Lord acts and enables, desiring all, in love saving those reached and foreknown. This is not for what they will do, but through the foreknowledge  of Him who in love seeks all for all in sincerely in reality, and knows who are His (II Timothy 2:19).

II CONSPECTUS for FAITH

If faith is well founded, it will not be confounded.  This is part of the message both through Jehoshaphat, noted in II Chronicles 20:10ff.,  and Isaiah as recorded in Isaiah 7.

1) With King Jehoshaphat, there was an invasion afoot, multi-national, potentially horrifying.  Nations not despoiled as Israel entered into their divinely chosen heritage, had made an alliance, and the King rehearsed the reasons why this was an exceptionally gratuitous and evil thing, before the Lord. Wisely, he stopped off at the God stop, before going on. Then the Lord sent the prophet Jahaziel. Do not be afraid of this great multitude, he challenged, for "the battle is not yours, but God's." God had accepted Jehoshaphat's heartfelt referral of the matter, taking account of the promises of God. He sent this prophet not only with this message, Tomorrow, He directed, go down against them. He also informed them just where the enemy was located.

"You will not need to fight in this battle. Position yourselves, 
stand still  and see the salvation of the LORD,
who is with you, O Judah and Jerusalem."

Such we find in II Chronicles 20:17. As the day came, so the godly Jehoshaphat gave the message:

"Believe in the LORD your God, and you will be established;
believe His prophets and you will prosper."

As to faith, with what does it deal here ? it has in its ambit, the promises of God, the citation of need, the appeal  to the One whose promissory note, in each case,  is found in the Bible, and in reliance, it rests on the Lord. Do NOT fail to TRUST Him; do not fail to do so in terms of His WORD! It is like the Great Commission found in Matthew 28: preach the Gospel and teach all the commandments, to DO them. Some formalistically neglect to trust, some negligently forget to make obedience a supreme target, yes in terms of ALL His commandments as specified in Matthew 28. Neither distortion by omission is sound. Neither is founded aright: both elements in integrity are specified. If you put sugar and milk with your tea, and omit the tea, or substitute what you want instead, you make something else. God specifies; we do. God is a Spirit, but He speaks: both aspects are applicable.

Faith does not shrink from either; rejoices in both; sees its way and is refreshed; indeed in Acts 2:22ff., 3:21, we find that to come in the period between the ascension of Jesus Christ, the incarnate God, and His return to rule and to judge, there are to be seasons of refreshing, that His Spirit is to be poured out. So is preparation duly made for that restoration and implementation of His rule. Faith as a subject for navel inspection is vain, a psychic oddity; but faith with an object who has the power and makes the promises to act on specific grounds, this is operational in reality; and the 20/20 vision here of Jehoshaphat makes sound testimony, amidst obedient action.

2) Accordingly, there is a negative to such effectual proceedings for faith. You can equivocate, lawyerize, prepare pronouncements, neither true nor relevant. You may make of faith one sort of extension of your own person, with God called in so that He just might lend help to you. That is not faith, but presumption. You either find and believe, or you merely hope. Hope entertains thoughts; faith beds them down, in residence, and treats them as welcome guests.

Not so did King Ahaz, who defiled the office of King in his own day, and this  in reply to one of the most magnificent offers in all of history, to fill in his own bill, rather like being told in an expensive hotel, to order any room, food or favour you please. He, however, merely muttered, muzzling faith with mistiness. I WILL NOT TEMPT the Lord, said he mystically, in reply to the unqualified OFFER from God through the prophet. There was no faith, so no receipt, and as we shall shortly see, the cost was enormous. Faith is clear-cut, and resides in trust in the One in whom one believes, in His power and promises, reliability and adequacy, and does not bother to doubt, any  more than your faithful spaniel bothers to doubt that your goings warrant accompaniment and are a delight and a joy to follow.

III RESULTS in terms of FAITH

The result for King Ahaz, and those who suffered him was inglorious. From this, be advised:  remember it is in a democracy, YOU who vote for a particular government, either bother to check what it offers, what presumptions of power or humility of grace it shows. or do not. You are not powerless. If you are interested, probe, pray and proceed. If God wills to punish a nation, so be it; but your prayer will not be in vain, either in this or that aspect, whether in your own physical deliverance or your use as a faithful testimony in the midst of the mêlée.

For some 700 years, Judah awaited the Messiah whom Isaiah was moved to promise, showing both His sufferings and provision for pardon, His meekness and His power. Israel, delivered from a minor contretemps with  invaders, was NOT delivered from a far worse one to come, captivity wrought by Babylon, to be followed by the complete, permanent and  acute devastation of this, their oppressor (Isaiah 14:3-9, 13:17-19, Jeremiah 25, 50-51). Thus God showed them mercy (Isaiah 39-40), but first faith failed in Ahaz.

Instead of such a national lapse and idolatry, faith sees the light of mercy, and proceeds to it with all  diligence and energetic expedition. Psychic self-reliance, whether or not God is given the occasional glance, in terms of what a person is doing, as an extra in the caste, is vain. Customised religion is inconsequential. When you are dealing with God, remember this: HE is dealing with you, and His word IS law. In it is the beauty of holiness, but also the reality of truth.

The result for Judah included 70 years in exile to the Babylon which would come, after the escape from the initial ravages of Assyria (Isaiah 39-40, Jeremiah 50-51).  Skew the view and you meet reality with a crash, sooner or later.

Take the other case noted. For faithful Jehoshaphat, the result of his tender-hearted, God-fearing presentation of the issues of concern, to the Lord, rehearsing the case with care in terms of the very word of God, was twofold. Firstly, a prophet showed precisely what to do, and gave confidence in the outcome, which was stated in amazing detail, an utter destruction of the invading army, without even a fight! Secondly, this is just what happened, and the army was singing as they went to the site shown them, and rejoicing as they returned.

This was a special case, since it did not involve suffering; but then,  each case with the Lord is special, as His wisdom works and His love attests in so many ways, often by the faith of His people, His goodness and His provision not just for mankind, but for ANYONE who calls upon Him, calls in faith, according to His word. From physics when it accords with scientific method, you may get some idea of the nature of the working of this universe; from the Bible in your operations before the Lord, you get all you could properly wish to discover in the working of God toward man, His provisions, promises,  desires, morals and mission for you and love. You are told how to enter; how to proceed. Faith seizes the offers, and joy abounds.

It is useless to construct in your imagination universes of another kind, when trying to cope with this one; and to seek to construct other words from other gods, since there is but one source of the language of life, one language, one Creator. Dependent on no system,  either express or implied, wholly independent, utterly reliable, showing His law and order, predictions, promises and personal intentions and plans,  amidst the flurries, worries and wickedness of man, without ceasing (cf.  Matthew 5:45), He has sent the Saviour and done all. Worship Him then, avoid the mark of the beast in its psychic, moral and religious sanctions, and live in the truth and love of God. B reasonable, be righteous but not self-righteous for the righteousness of faith receives it from Him (Romans 5:17); and rely on the Lord. In all, do not by any means forget to FOLLOW HIM. He is foundation, and so foundational in all things.

NOTES

Division 2—Meaning 1 of discrimination

2 19 When a person discriminates against another person, and related

3 concepts

4 Discrimination by unfavourable treatment

5 (1) A person (the first person) discriminates against another person if

6 the first person treats, or proposes to treat, the other person

7 unfavourably because the other person has a particular protected

8 attribute, or a particular combination of 2 or more protected

9 attributes.

10 Note: This subsection has effect subject to section 21.

11 (2) To avoid doubt, unfavourable treatment of the other person

12 includes (but is not limited to) the following:

13 (a) harassing the other person;

14 (b) other conduct that offends, insults or intimidates the other

15 person.

16 Discrimination by imposition of policies

17 (3) A person (the first person) discriminates against another person if:

18 (a) the first person imposes, or proposes to impose, a policy; and

19 (b) the policy has, or is likely to have, the effect of

20 disadvantaging people who have a particular protected

21 attribute, or a particular combination of 2 or more protected

22 attributes; and

23 (c) the other person has that attribute or combination of

24 attributes.

Because of the sanctity of truth, above feeling, flurry and zeal for law, Jesus Christ if His first time on this earth were now, could very well be under continual assault here, when such sites as Matthew 5:28, 23, Mark 9 and are taken into account. The powers of religion were not in favour of His utterances, they did not conform to their presentations about such things to the point that, as the prophets foretold, they made haste to murder Him.

Thus, exemptions for certain religious strata and in certain cases to certain extents have two total failures for  liberty.

The first is this: there are terms used, and limits made, which pre-suppose that the State is competent to decide what is tolerable in religion AGAINST the mandates of their own religious utterances, from which you are EXEMPTED at their will, and as far as they desire. It was so then - though that was a theocracy, and it threatens now to be so here and now! This is a control over religion which could scarcely be further from the Constitution, liberty or the free exchange of ideas, understanding, with capacity to assess from  vigorous utterance.

This harassment in the field of religion would itself be an offence of high order, WITHIN the proposed law itself! It takes what it does not give, and gives what it overrules by privilege and authority not found in the Constitution.

Religion is in the Bill world, subordinated to the State in terms of abstract principles of its own, a religious abstraction in fundamentals of its own unauthorised desire.

The second point is that the method of defining just what kind of EXEMPTION you may get from this allegedly anti-discriminatory, but in fact highly discriminatory Bill (seeking to grow up into law), implies a failure to measure up to the general rule imposed, on the part of those granted "exemption". Here is the palace of ultimacy, dispensing favour when and to the extent that it will ... or will not, in lordly domineering, declaring the fundamentals to control religion, how it will dispose of matters of religion, itself high priest of the nation. Let us now see what play-room you may have for your non-conformist actions.

In the Bill, we find in substance what it has IN MIND, as currently in view; and anything else can be given special exemptions or not, under certain conditions, ruled at will and tolerated before the new religious domain of the State.  This is not merely control, but harassment, traducing truth in terms of ultimate and ruling values.

Hitler and Stalin may be extreme cases, but we are studying the nature of deception or dictatorial dynamics in the ultimate fields of human understanding, value, presentation, belief, faith and reason. Each of the above autocrats, and for that matter the case is not alien for Mussolini, had something to offer which to many at first may have seemed good, but which was not too intense about the limits to its action, and which by sharing TRUST in the new and the mighty themes pumped out, led to triumph over all restraint. Cultural appeal soon becomes government by the removal of exemptions and the recall of restraint, till the cultural mandate ASSUMED becomes the new tyranny. No one should be voting on such issues as these in the Bill, until they are isolated at their base, and a referendum is held on the Constitution and its powers.

If then the Constitution is to be rorted, in the meantime, is even a referendum on this new Bill of Wrongs, so differently named,  enough ? Without a constitutional referendum, the case is then merely aggravated. It is an initial referendum on the Constitution itself and change in it, which is required. 

When it is simply ASSUMED that some current cultural norms and values, exceedingly contrary to those of this nation called Australia, in its Commonwealth foundation, are to be instituted and made the rule, then the people are no longer free, and what is to come can be expected to exhibit that fact.

It is then like the ship of liberty, ready to be sunk in the sea of what appeals for the moment, of what alien set of principles seem good, of cultural control, its  waves passing over the vessel of independence, in the interests of being utterly offensive to some, in principle, in order to usher in the rule of offence as a major ground, for others, that they might deploy it at will, both these things at the outset. This would mean that the said Bill is as discriminatory between different citizens as it is possible to be. As such, it is not to be desired.

Liberty has great value in reducing pride, showing up folly before disaster, opposing big-headedness, exposing variation  from  the functions of the private or the public sector, exhibiting danger,  awakening sleepers, before their condition becomes permanent, shocking those intellectually slumbering into wakefulness, drawing those bewildered into better  comprehension, in the competition of ideas, values, religious, intellectual, spiritual, moral; and it involves a Parliament NOT acting as High Priest in Canberra, or one to depute such, but as a public-serving body authorised to act in certain ways, for which the members are elected,  within rules, in terms of which they must operate.

*3

Other options for accusing someone, than being offended, are being insulted or intimidated. These terms come together in the Bill as cited in *2 above.

In fact, a person may feel 'insulted' because there was no due allowance made for a neat exit from trouble, after a dangerous error has been made, so that pride is not salved, and correction is not muted. Others may be 'intimidated' through feeling or being unable to refute truth, and would have it suppressed to allow them to feel at home. Elements in affairs of this kind, and interpretations of words and conduct can morph almost at will, as sententious feelings or variable empathies operate, with a dubious differential. Who can tell the outcome ? Justice is far off when intrusion past truth and evidence, has scope, and reality and mutual liability for both parties is distanced by desire, with responses of various insights and partisan approaches.

*4

See Chapter 8 of Now the Highway, Then the Heights for further attention to this aspect, in its contemporary setting.

This, with the current treatment, and Ch. 9, provide companion aspects of the whole.

On Religion, see SMR 10, 3, 5; and RELIGION, RELIGIOSITY AND REALITY IN CHRIST.

*5

It is easy to speak an idea and evoke a religion. Staggering are what ideas some manage to make as provender to the deprived human heart (II Peter 2:1ff., Ephesians 4:17-19, Romans 1:17ff.). As the last text notes, the things of God are manifest. In schools, some classes seem to have special lacks in certain years; and man is in general rather like such a class, Romans indicates. What is obvious is so fought against, that it becomes a special act of will or heart to make things unclear, lest the light of truth should shine, as Christ depicted the case (Matthew 13:14-17). Spiritual pathology, as Christ makes clear, is quite as disabling as any other.

In fact, the reality of God and of the Bible as His sole authorised word to mankind, with its single offer of salvation in Jesus Christ,  may be and has been demonstrated. For example, this task is performed in SMR with TMR,  Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny and the extended work,

LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST

WHO ANSWERS RIDDLES

AND WHERE HE IS, DARKNESS DEPARTS

Bible or Blight, Christ or Confusion:
The Comprehensive Resolution of Man's Intractable Problems
is Found Only in the Bible, the Word of God
 

You are free to reject the truth; but when people try to bind their own religions on others, and make them obligatory, and when in addition they do so in a democracy allegedly free from this, then some action is needed. Freedom permits it; duty requires it.

*6

While it is indeed the case that Australia has a notional independence and has shown much evidence of it, yet the new high tides of invasion of education by the artifices of vacuous naturalism, never-evidenced organic evolution and ignoring of the necessities of construction have swollen. The confused concepts that having a universe or anything else acting in a given way, MEANS that this is how it came to exist so that it might act,  bringing it to being in the first place, a logical illiteracy, these have been rubbling our shores for many a decade now. The COURSE of action in anything is not the CAUSE of that thing, operation is not creation, modes of action are not means of existence, to reach a status is not to operate at that status, how to handle your investments is not how to make a fortune, a manual for operation of anything is not one for its production.

See detail on this development from the field of corrupted educational indoctrination, in Ch. 8, *1 above.

See That Magnificent Rock Ch. 8.

Since 1988 in South Australia, there has been a rampant seizure by Government of the reins of education via curriculum, and the notorious Circular to Principals, which in an extravaganza of misguided, dictatorial zeal, initially required creation materials to be kept in the Principal's office, though it is the only logical way of treating the data scientifically! So vast was the mind control, the dereliction of duty towards progressive education in free enquiry and unprejudiced examination of theses and discoveries, and the art of implication, that this turned the schools in one of the most significant parts of all learning, into the modern equivalent, in passion and indoctrination, at this level, of a Nazi youth camp.

The details appear in TMR Ch. 8 as above, and the errors are exposed, in kind, in Chs. 1 and 7 of the same volume, as well as in

The gods of naturalism have no go!

Other logically and evidentially apt works in this field include  those of Astrophysicst, Dr Jason Lisle, in his work,

Taking Back Astronomy, and

The Ultimate Proof, like Dr Michael Denton in his,

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in biology (cf. News 57), and that of Dr Steve Austin in his volume,

Grand Canyon, in geology, and the numerous works of Dr Jonathan Sarfati, such as

Refuting Evolution,

Refuting Evolution 2,

The Greatest Hoax on Earth and Refuting Compromise.
 

With these examples above, there is also tht of Astronomer, Professor John Hartnett with Alex Williams in their surgical work,

Dismantling the Big Bang.

This  provides further confrontation with the naturalistic fallacy while Dr Robert Humphreys in numerous academic contributions has not only formulated a creation-based account of magnetism, but made verified forecasts, based on it, some shown true by the Voyager 2 space-craft, concerning the magnetic field strengths in Uranus and Mercury. His predictions proved vastly superior to the naturalistic ones, there being simply no comparison to his forecast, in their competence to cover searching test such as this. As always, the naturalistic resiling from logic, fails equally in prediction and performance.

The above represents merely a small collection of refutations, but at the base, there is always the logical solecism that nothing cannot produce anything, and that therefore something was always there, and it was necessarily competent for all  in mind, matter fn spirit, which would come, or it could not have come. Eternal competence to produce the laws of logic which undergird all thought, which is the basis of all theory (except for revelation) is the only alternative to irrationality, which by its nature is already out of court in any argument. You either beg the question, in contradiction not only of logic in its canons, but scientific method in particular, or have God from the outset.

Although rational education would not dare to ignore what alone meets reason or gains verification - evolution is never once found in the laboratory, that is a spontaneous expansion of ordering and organised information, in kind (as noted by Dr Werner Gitt in his work, Without Excuse) - what is called education has been perfidiously drafted. Educators must educate with reality, and if they want imagination, it must be so categorised! Thus this misguided educative philosophy, given power by various governments,  indoctrinates sham shamelessly. Some of the earlier moves in this direction, then in Victoria, are exposed in my Diploma of Education thesis for Melbourne University in 1977 (Lead us Not into Educational Temptation),

This is merely one confirmed area of the loss of freedom, since for example in South Australia, children in  science do not even have liberty to demand an informed and scholarly coverage of the options in these areas, or to have presented out of science classes, what is decisive and conclusive in the field so invaded by the curriculum. This being not only child abuse, but prison-type  exemplification of the same, the current move to subdue adults  also with invasive laws against liberty, inventing crass 'liberties  which also  ignore logic, is merely one more step in the  subduing of the masses, in prohibitions in the fields of thought, speech and education appalling to contemplate, degrading in type, and disruptive of advance in understanding.

Accordingly, let it be frankly noted, that while it is indeed true that this nation has had no small reason for its reputation for independence of mind or spirit or utterance or thought, this has already been mortgaged severely by the mental and spiritual abuse of children, the fallacious ignoring of the application of scientific method to science when religion is concerned, and the erosion of truth into convenience. Indeed it is now many years since I lost a position  as a Lecturer in this field in an institution now tertiary, BECAUSE I refused to cut out the reality of what scientific method requires, and the outcome of this, from a presentation in Communications. My tongue is not for sale, because truth is far better,  and the God of actuality is infinitely superior to the changing tides of mere conformist passion.

In some  ways, the new exploration of means of people management in the anti-discrimination Bill, is mere advance on the works of confusion of 40 years in this land. It makes of a pock-marked political skin, an obvious inflammation,  a viral calamity.