THE AFTERGLOW

There is the strenuous action of the day, and then the rest and sometimes with it, the afterglow.

In the Exodus (The Exodus Escape), when Israel was in the PROCESS of being delivered from the slave-driving furies of the treacherous nation which on a massive scale had thus returned evil for the good which Joseph had done for them, and made a necessity of convenience, keeping Israel down by ceaseless, oppressive and odiously pursued toil, something happened. There was an act of utter unbelief on the part of those being rescued!

That God should overlook this and sustain them dramatically despite this, is just like Him. We see this in Exodus 14:9-14. Petty despots may take offence readily; cultural lords, such as proposed for Australia in news and Web controls, licensing free speech by linkage with cultural preferences, such as they come and go, these may glower and empower themselves: but the Lord is good. Truth is the criterion, love the atmosphere and if there must be conflict, then courage is required, not capitulation, with good sought even for enemies if so it may be that they are found.

So the Lord was longsuffering but not mute, when Israel reacted so foolishly at the very hour of their deliverance after so long a time. Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have brought us out here! cried the people to Moses. So their intransigent unbelief puffed and paraded. Yet we need not attribute to all of them, the words of the spokespersons. Nevertheless it is clear that this was a general reaction, unbelief and criticism, even after all the power and selective deliverances wrought in the ten plagues. This scurrying to the cultural background, the powers-that-be, this psychic capitulation to the misuse and abuse of power so readily can set in, until a dehumanising dynamic, like that of Pharaoh, making them things of the State, can turn many into little more than reactors, psychic reactors with a spill over of resentment but a crushing of spirit.

How readily they would have gone back to their slavery! Let us not dwell only on them. How readily Australia may go back to times of less liberty, despising the Christian heritage which gave liberty, implied in the Preamble, one which did not make of us a ninny-State, a nanny-State, governed by him or her who knows best for no reason, and imprints subtle substitutes for truth as the very criterion of life. There was something and Someone formerly and formally discerned as far above such paltry manipulation and dictation as the heavens above the earth, and more, since He made both.

Just consider what the slavery to which some desire to bring many, or re-introduce others, would mean in this country. You have under racial law only to hurt the feeling, offend someone in sensitive areas, be construed to have insulted in some felt way, and lo and behold, you are under law, under duress. Truth is irrelevant in the last analysis. OFFEND ? You are for it. Was it the truth that one spoke ? The reply: It was offence, as we said. Truth is not mentioned here! Was what was said in fact intended as a corrective ? Offence, we say again! comes the leaden law. So despite truth and motive, despite goodwill and earnest hope, despite due concern, Australian make of themselves slaves. As many declare, this must be changed. Slavery is not for an independent people, but for an oppressed remnant. Do you MAKE yourselves such a remnant!

Yet the oncoming judges may retort: Can you not hear them talk about their sensitive psyches and how they are being hurt by the things you say ? Therefore pay. In this way, morals without truth, but simply based on reaction or response, become lords; and the Lord and freedom alike are in abeyance.

Does the hurt (as with a dentist) exist here, as in making you feel insulted, or here, in making you feel humiliated ? comes the dextrously developed question. Your concept of yourself is above all that ? asks the questioner ? Yes, we are above all that! might often come the reply of the troubled member of a race or church, or non-church cultural body or whatever may be drawing ire. The words objected to might make the offended party out to be grand and great, or lapsed or misused, or subject to needless afflictions; but if the person either is or decides to be hurt, or offended, that is all that is needed. Action stations! You can now afflict the psyches of someone else, ignore the insults misconstruction so readily brings, consider the wounds of those accused of offending you, as a thing of nothing, while your feelings glow and he pays, or is imprisoned. Did ever such nonsense riot on the earth, more unreasonably ?

Thus the legal profession makes money, the exploiters who may claim to be victims make hay amid any more sincere, and the nations acts as if drunk, lacking in fundamental understanding and inclined to the despotism of controls, using words covering things good and bad, ludicrous and sound in wanton profusion. Abuse of law, language, pretensions to divine meaning past what was said to what was meant, all these niceties can become so nasty that litigation may rise like sherbert, in a small bowl at great cost.

This is not at all to say there are not victims; but this merely duplicates them with an elasticity which bursts prosperity, demeans humanity and works amid the subjective without wisdom.

Misconstruing motives is a sad exhibit by which some try to manipulate the people. Motives however and actualities when divorced from law, can cause distortion, and monstrous inequity. Imagining them, when they are legally excluded, is a fine work of legal art.

It is necessary to WORK, if you want to protect, rather than wave a flag and attack some people at the expense of others, as if thought were a luxury unaffordable and equity were an extravagance which even our nation could not afford.

What then of this sort of situation, already present in race law (Section 18C of The Racial Discrimination Act), and with similar codes of cultural concepts no doubt ineptly expressed from multiple moral bases, coming closer on the horizon on far broader issues ?

Doctors may hurt in correcting disease, but others have no such licence. Reasons for your action, and motives ? Quite irrelevant. Pursuit of truth and attestation with care ? not to the point. Ambitions to deliver all of Australia from the feely-goody slush that some mistake for wisdom ? in religion ? in race ? in whatever ? A shocking thing. This is slush time! That is, it is a time for carelessly drafted words, inequitable passions ignoring major features of concern, and popularity through pursuing some lines and ignoring others, as in a crowd barracking mindlessly for an inferior side!

To feel good is the point, and clutching at currently popular ideas and feeling can lend force to feeling, as the barracking proceeds. Thus, if you make someone not feel good, how insensitive you are! What State or national persecution should be your lot! How daring and improper is your understanding and how irrelevant is your aim or the reality! The bull sees red and it charges. Some bulls may not be like that, but many people can be. Remember the passions that prompted the guillotine, till they began to execute former leaders, and the machinery of popularity became a mass grave! It can happen; but don't invite it.

Perhaps then police should also not point out when law is broken, or murder is committed lest it make someone not feel good to be told of it. If you are going to make a psychic rule quasi-regal, where do you stop, and why! When facts and fiction alike can be irrelevant, and the issue resolved from some other determination, you have not the lucky country, but the fairyland, where the wrong kind of fairy is in charge.

Is it a matter of being insulted, or being so immune to your possible faults that dastardly is the one who has ground to expose them, for you may be feeling it. How ludicrous is this, and how extremely hard to differentiate from hypocrisy when we find virtual crusades from the current Government against this or that category in society, as if being in certain segments makes them immune from feelings, lashable on grounds of the religious orientation adopted by the Government of day, without even acknowledging it. So kinds of persons or groups can be attacked, if not with malevolence then with something hard to distinguish from it, they have no feelings then ? insults are irrelevant then ? the disposition of others in the public against them, then, this can inconsistently be overlooked. It is only SOME, then is it, who MUST NOT be insulted, while others are insulted all the more, and even strenuously, and even by leading ministers of State! Are to have new races, or groups, to be harried as the Jews were!

To stop plain persecution is one thing, where just because you are Egyptian, or English or Finnish or Jewish or whatever, you become as an individual, subject to hatred and persecution, not treated as human and a fellow-citizen, but as vermin or despicable or untouchable. That is horrid. To stop people, however, from freely expressing their minds on topics with reasons and concerns which may indeed be inaccurate or lacking - for not too many of us are as perfect as those who invent new morals laws which they then can keep, since they are so superficial - this is another matter. Freeze free speech and you become a frozen people, a society of slaves, a citizenry of robots. Vigour in expressing what you deem truth and its reasons is not to be limited to such perfect people. In the realm of argumentation, there is opportunity to refute and confute, expose and correct. It is precisely the type of sociological tyranny, where some things are valued and others not, and laws made on that basis amid ruinous fabrications from some of humanity who want to rule what is left, that the argument is snap-frozen, life is gone and folly has arrogance and punishment to add to its other sins.

If it is a matter of stating the truth, or distorting it, let evidence speak, not the Canberra oracle. If someone defends certain practices, which may be disadvantageous to themselves, or others, then is pointing out such an error to be those who may be stultified, as many categories of persons often are, in regions of their affairs, recklessly to be reckoned unlawful! Are correctives and analyses insupportable even if shown to have good grounds ? Is the censor to abort thought and become god in machina! If you have a god, it is better to choose what IS God, for others infinitely lack both His knowledge and equity!

If you are people, then act with restraint, moderation and equity, and with care, not with slogans and selections of quasi-morals, invented from nowhere, where indulgence is king and equity is unknown, as you abuse those whom you say abuse, and insult those whom you say have insulted as though facts were a plague and consistency a fever!

If this type of criterion is more widely applied, then ghastly is the potential in other areas such as religion, or ANY type, and woeful the application of what is selective and based only on waves of current sociological popularity, as if this rendered immune from any other fault, because feelings may be hurt, ideas exposed, errors correctly or contradictions shown! Deserving doom all too freely are those who harass without truth their criterion, and condemn, as so often done in Europe in earlier centuries, giving not least the desire of many to sail to America to escape. Such was the situation then! Is then offence as so often when wrong is confronted, to be taken ? Is legal action to show the dependence of all on the august religious propositions and perceptions, orientations and orations of the Government of the day ?

Is this to become a mummified race, dead and entombed in possibly well-meaning but certainly offensive legislation which is sure to hurt the feelings of those seeking good and correction who are then freely apt to accused falsely as if they intended evil, and muted for truth, fleeced financially, ruined socially and made the butt of the very people they were seeking to help ! Is then this a new sort of divided society, where some are perpetually to be assaulted, and accused of causing assault ? Will parents have to write a report to their children defending discipline or even criticism, to establish their case, only to find it dismissed because of a certain sense of offence, humiliation or other insult felt to have occurred! Are they to have heaped on them, superficially conceived accusations by a State making up its own new ultimate values based on a State religion which does not even declare itself, but just acts!

Are we then to have a new Constitution without even changing it! for such religious criteria are not in the spirit of Commonwealth law - Do States want to contrast a new persecuting power, denied the Commonwealth, and wallow in tyranny while Courts challenge and many pay! Where is wisdom in all of this!

Will State or even national duties be defined, so that where its neo-religious fervour is not sated, its accusations may ferment, and many be molested in its soaring greed for control ? Readily may it be as if popularity becomes god, and reality and even realism becomes outré, disastrous, disgraceful, as dreams are followed with the usual result: there is trouble when you cease to be hypnotised by them (cf. Jeremiah 23:25-27).

All this is within the ambit of the present racially discriminatory law, ostensibly against discrimination, and its weaknesses may well be conveyed in any new type of invasive, intrusive and religiously tyrannical Law, such as operated some time a go, in Victoria^*1l. While Christian morals have strong basis, reason never letting their foundation out of sight and mind (cf. SMR, TMR), and biblically do not assault those who reject them, but rather make appeal, this other kind which wants freedom so badly that it deprives whole categories of people of it, whatever their intentions or realism, stands ready to disenfranchise. This it may readily do when objection is made of psychic troubles at the level of law, fine, prison, assault, insult on those who break the conventions so shallowly conceived.

Such religious invasions need to be watched and categorised for what they are, and their other grounds of implementation in a dictatorial directorate, and targets considered, before the nation becomes a government fief, run by the secular lord in his smiting mode. We have seen enough of him before, in his vainglory and indifference to what is not his own will.

This is merely a start. Once the concept of an authoritarian, socially prescriptive,
Moses-without-God governing apparatus becomes accepted, implicit religious rule commissioning itself so very quietly, while the liberty in Christian foundation is lost, and mere tyranny replaces it, then the antidote of truth to psychological inflammation, carelessness and guile more broadly, in ANY field, becomes lost. It becomes a silly State, subversively sovereign, setting itself up on high.

It may be fashioned by a particular party, where truth is liable to prosecution, facts to deletion, and the ethical pre-occupations of some are to become the moral law of all, or ELSE! Or else what ? Then if it be not in effect so regarded, they pay, they are hurt more than in feelings, in pocket, in liberty, they are pursued a thousand fold, in discriminatory hostility by an arrogant and remorseless pseudo-god, but one without glory. It is not only subversive, but secretive, not willing to name its face; but it rules.

Pharaoh, then, made things of State to overrule all else, and Israel in fear almost capitulated at the Red Sea, complaining to Moses in wrath and irony, as if he had led them out because Egypt lacked graves. The hurt moved to a high pitch, and the offence many felt would have been immense. What a new type of Australian law could have done to him then, if following the infamous posturing that is now governmentally afflicting our nation, in prospect! He could have been lynched or discarded, maybe stoned instead of fined or assaulted by law, in this land, if current moves re-assert themselves, before the people awakened to find themselves in centuries of slavary because of their intolerance!

That is the power of cultural chains, to whatever they are directed, in a dictatorially inclined State, humanistic in conception, ethically infatuated with its own ideas, sensitive in some things, with enormous callouses and heartlessly callow, in othera. You want to stop people dismissing you from consideration because of race, judging you on the basis of a supposed (or possibly fairly generally applicable) racial slur ? good! That is very proper. But if their sense of offence is the criterion, especially what matters is what they conceive you meant, even if you did not say it or think it, the latest move, then those who complain could become the new masters, emptiers of pockets, senders of legal rockets, and those actually afflicted, those having to suffer these presumptuous and adverse conclusions, and that without appeal.

Is it possible a nation of independent reputation COULD be so inveigled into a course of induced tyranny! Alas, yes, the human race IS susceptible to such manipulation, when forgetting God, they feel called on to make one, and call it some kind of idealism, or nationalism, or protectorate, or Republic of this or that, a persecutory enclave, a set of dreamers who awake too late to their own subversion. It is a far better thing to awaken ...FIRST, and let no-sale be recorded.

For what could governmentally instituted tyranny be erected, or why ? It could be because someone or some group, through speech, is stopping an appealing form of exploitation of the government or others within their race, by exposing a clique apparatus at work. Hence they must be removed, and how better than by making them law-breakers, fining them and packing them off to a prolonged exile in the land of shame. There is great scope ford shameful invention of shame, when you are able to sideline solidarity with fact, and make psychic satisfaction of some kind, your god!

Motivation maters. Truth is crucial. Justice without truth as a basic criterion is like driving without the sight or even the idea of the road, as a container.

Bring such things back to ancient times and consider. Instead of this or that king imprisoning prophets, or hating them, in a controversial situation, there could be a neat application of law, making correction immoral, criticism disgraceful and the decreed status quo, essential. It would be to worsen things by the use of what may one day become Australianisation, covert rule by impromptu morals with slender basis if any, in fact, and only slight nodding acquaintance with the ingredients of man's plight. Is our land, then, to lend its name to intimidation!

The prophets, on this basis, would have been regularly interned or fined or otherwise hurt (there is only one direction of hurt that matters, it seems in this milieu). The errors of ancient Israel would be amplified. Intolerance of criticism would have reached new heights, perhaps Olympic, or Olympian gold would be taken for exploitation of citizenry. Christ would have been utterly intolerable to this new form of anodyne to conscience. In Matthew 23, He would be cited for stardom in vilification, without waiting for false accusation.

As it was, they did a job. Hurt religion in effect declared that since He MUST be executed IF what He claims is not true, and they DEEM it not true, then executed He will be (Mark 14:55-65). That is easy. Ignore the evidence, assume the guilt, evoke the law, apply it without evidence and contrary to evidence, do it at night and kill in the day. That has some similarities to the dangers currently faced in Australia - not to crush the Messiah till He rises, since this privileged position is not currently given, directly at least, in this land. Rather it could be used, to take an example, to crush the State power of biblical Christians, people who believe with the biblical Christ that every jot and tittle of the Bible will be fulfilled, who like Christ distinguish between direct or indirect State girded power, and that which is divine (Matthew 23:33-37).

Thus the method would be this: seduce the people by legal invasion, thus thrusting some into shame, and give them a name lower than dust, as offending this or that, on account of their exposing the Bible as divine revelation, or speaking with application of ANY or ALL of its commandments as morally right, when some people think otherwise. Nail them for being so offensive, and crucify slowly, bring to the boil and serve. That is how you could make it resemble a cooking recipe.

The rest follows like the rotting of an apple, left too long. It is quite easy. Many have been the efforts so far, some religious, some secular, whether in Rome, or China, or Iran, Iraq, or Sudan, Libya, Burma or Germany, in Russia, or others over time. Some have had a book; some not; some have appealed to some kind of alleged ideals, or morally binding objectives founded on desire, or just to ideas: but they have made life a marvel if you differ, and all but a miracle if you say so and live unmolested, or in some cases, in this world at all!

One method if currently prime, because of the past paganisation of many a country, such as our own^*1A, now a show in full swing. Dispense with God, but do not say so, invent god-like powers to man, so that it is a kind of divine smite of current political kings, not a right but a ruthlessness to rule over conscience and ignore truth, and then level the legal gun at any who do not agree to do so. Indirect methods are numerous, before the final putsch noted in the Bible (cf. II Thessalonians 2, Revelation 13, 17, 16, I John 2:18). You can name your god if you want to in this lurking lair, filled with lust for control; but it is not necessary, and increasingly pagan lands can leave it surreptitiously in the shade, at least for a time, while there is still a nation to invade.

What hurts more than being wrong and not wanting to admit it, even to oneself ? Conscience may do so, before it is entirely subverted, having constant access to the heart before it is hardened and the soul seared beyond recall (I Timothy 4:2, II Thessalonians 2:10, Isaiah 57:16). What can be done ? How can the dictatorially inclined try to escape the pain of their demanding natures ? In one scenario, Law can be invented and then used to fortify the wounded conscience, making it legally wrong to condemn what such such people do, in these or those cases.

That could help: for then if they word it rightly, they could not be condemned. That tends to lift the cloud of shame a little, while not compromising the political power very much. This may at least confuse many concerning the base arrogation of human dignity by the aspiring rulers, and allow selective indulgence for the 'new man', just as in communism, the conformist. Alas for the dream, that 'new man' is futilely invented, being not found. It takes more than law to remake man! (Jeremiah 13:23, with Ezekiel 18:30-32).

Meanwhile, however, before the people awaken, while ruling aspirants invade humanity by their arid rules, they can crush those who resist their ideas! It is the method of immersion without mercy by making new rules for the blame game, and then simply applying them. Is the Government to play the psychiatrist now, even though that in itself could not solve the presumption involved in such sweeping laws with such superficial knowledge, all neatly codified! This land has certainly not failed to try something resembling this, before. If it DID happen^*2, how could it be that it CANNOT do so again, remorselessly this time ?

Quell conscience on the basis of things not being liked and likely to cause offence ? Hit them, condemn them ? Make your victims to be called law-breakers: the Communists felt very free to do this with various categories in society, Russia making it vastly applicable to many, reportedly resorting to taking grain and starving the people on a large scale in the Ukraine for example. You don't have to be so physical, but you can by imagination invent other harassments, subtler. Let them shrivel while you shine sublime, surrounded with State printed glory, and prison or fine the resistance, utterly unfeeling, while talking of feelings! What subterfuge is this!

It is marvellous that people other than God dare to dabble. That HE states it, this is understandable, and indeed, the failure for example to live like the Sermon on the Mount has horrendous results; and there is a way to know this God. He did not go to the enormous labour of sending the prophets for millenia, codifying and condensing the commandments, the ethics, enlivening the spirit, showing the mode of salvation, sending the Messiah to accomplish what it cost to make it freely available, and the Spirit to apply it, showing what is to come and then making it happen with precision, all this for nothing! Rather was it that man, one by one, might be redeemed, for nothing PAYABLE BY MAN! Isaiah 55 really focusses on this.

Payment ? For you, none. Expend desire and come, but there is no entry cost. There is a commander and leader, a King of the covenant, and His gift is eternal life (cf. Psalm 21, 49). His way is open to all nations. What you as a nation wi8ll be used to provide - in this case the place on the earth and in the womb for the incarnation - will be confirmed. It will lead on to glory.

God did it the hard way, because the pure and eternal and effectual way, and He knows man, for He created the earth and man on it (Isaiah 45:12,18).When infinite counsel in infinite love acts, you have competence and compassion, understanding and wisdom, self-control and not blatancy, a comprehension of humanity and not flinty aridity such as man habitually exercises over man, when he manages nationally to bring him under duress, a thing as commonplace in history as dirt amid the fields.

Is Australia to be immune to a subtle steal of sovereignty, making the government totalitarian by creating a perverted and discriminatory sense of caring! Caring to be in control seems a current contribution, in much without mandate. Such antics can be expanded, and as Germany found, in this model the reverse gear is strangely lacking.

It is a vast step, both of withdrawal and re-commission, a matter of man-made mission in secular squalor, man becoming god in effect, in governing fellow-man. It has already been done in pseudo-science in the schools, scientistic substitute for scientific method^*2A; the curriculum is being weighed down with selective versions of understanding, just as language has for long been, in the case of English, been relegated to a more subservient and less demanding role. The take-over has a long prelude already fully played. The dream is growing in open fields, contaminating by its genetic modifications, adjoining fields. The pollution is thrust out by prevailing winds from the spirit of the Age. It often pays to look back, before looking on.h

The prophets in Israel had a message which could insult the people MOSTLY because it was true, and the people or the king might kill them for their kindness! If such laws as this were routinely in ancient Israel, it might well have sinned the more in exploitation of the God-send, the prophets (Jeremiah 7:13). Take an earlier but very prominent case.

In the Exodus series of events, the prophet Moses did not become engaged in the negative and fearful ranting of the people, as they alleged how hurt they had been, how offensively treated, how humiliated in being brought to the Red Sea arena. Did you lead us out, they affirmed, in the grandeur of their negative passion, because there were not enough graves in Egypt! That was terribly insulting to Moses, but forget about that, it is not the one who hurts you in your interest, with the truth, like a coach calling who matters. It is the pure offensiveness of anyone having anything to tell you at all, that you do not religiously like, except of course the government, when it sets up its neo-morals, based on nothing, selective in impact, presumptuous in presentation.

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, 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 s 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.

Let us look back to the partial parallel. In the case of ancient Israel, when they were roused as Pharaoh's army approached them seeming to shut them in to the sea, as a dead end for their slaughter site! God delivered them by multiple means, being both wise and wonderful, and having sent them on this mission, but this was a testing time, before it all became clear, as it did at Dunkirk, millenia later.

At this moment, when faced with real difficulty, they found Moses to be most hurtful, offensive, jilting their intrinsic grandeur; but the Lord encouraged Moses and He ACTED. Thus they did not culturally collapse. God intervened with power, giving to them more opportunities to stop blaming others, and to consider what was in fact for the best! He successfully evacuated them, as the British army in much of its strength, was later evacuated under the nose of Hitler.

The people of Israel might have passed offence law and crucified Moses on the spot. Fortunately they followed him so that the power of God could complete their deliverance, instead of moaning completing their return to slavery. The longstanding realities of the Lord had worked for centuries, and they were shown mercy in being moved on, in walking as the Lord enabled with His various helps (cf. Exodus 14).

From those deploying Governmental or enforced authoritarian ideas, however they alight on the land, as so often when contrary and imposed religious notions, ill-expressed or even ill-conceived have harassed the people of nations, a people may well not gain deliverance so easily. Consider, as in the case when Christians were with vicious discrimination harassed by some English sovereigns, such as led to Bunyan's imprisonment for 12 years: it is to put man above God and contemporary considerations of popular or regal appeal, above all, that the thrust comes. It is not put that way: it is skewed. But its foundation is awry, its basis grasped and augmented or defaced or both, by man. Righteousness indeed exalts a nation, but mere force is not its acme!

To move from this muddled type of approach currently in view, to reality, there is a very real evil to be guarded against. It was shamelessly sustained in Europe against the Jews, and many Protestants were tortured and murdered with the Jews. Europe in particular has a long harassment record concerning the Jews, as so well covered in Professor Hosmer's noted work on the topic: The Story of the Jews, with more modern events carefully covered in Israel, An Introduction, edited by Barry Rubin (Yale, 2012).

To fail to stop physical harm to them, coming because of race, to allow repeated assault, invasion of shops, homes, the mere racial vilification because the person has the race of JEW upon him or her, this is infamous and was common both in Europe and in Russia. The same is true of biblical Christians, similarly made a target^*3, whether in Inquisition days^*4, or more recently!

Will this unlovely lordliness of mere man^*5spread now to the political liberty to make new classes of persons, to be subjected to governmental assault, incrimination or intimidation or withering demotion ? Where next will the cruising neo-religious cutlass impact!

Feelings ? where are they in all this! Are certain parts of the body politic assumed to be so numb that when flayed, they remain dumb! What new burdens will the governmental religion find, for its quasi-prophetic denunciations, while for others it is so very concerned at the realm of feelings and a sense of humiliation, just because it is ... there. Don't be concerned about the reasons! the theme proceeds: just as on the other side of the coin, you are not concerned about the feelings at all. It is all divided up nicely.

Is a sense of insult, because someone says something sincerely believed and considered needful or objective, of no account ? In current terms of address in view, it appears that such things as these are way down the line, after the very public, and recent frank face slapping and political zapping of some elements of our society, in terms of some generalisation, which has just occurred in the realm of mining and wealth.

Let us here pursue for our present purpose and theme, a point noted earlier. During the years of my call to the Christian ministry, I have been called a crank in class, because in fact I held to the formal view of the Church in view (cf. The Biblical Workman Ch. 8 as marked). This appeared wanton. It should have been corrected, and I did eventually escape from such prejudice, even its next and virtually predictable phase - after 10 years in a large national Assembly, held in Sydney. If there had been reasons given which could stand, in reply to my defence of the biblical position which had been assaulted in Class, it would have been different.

However, such was not the case, and force was used instead, leading to breach of position, payment and place. In fact, the expulsion came in its folly, BECAUSE an anti-biblical position with which the Class was taunted (if you do not follow what I have taught, where is your intellectual integrity! was the challenge), was met with exposure logically .What better answer could have been given to such answer to this particular and notorious attack on biblical truth than a logical one^*5A; but it was not available, for the teaching was false to fact!

Indeed, reasoned reply was not even attempted. No answer to that counter-challenge was ever given. It was a substitute: removal from the training squad, that was the only reply.

It was even alleged that to criticise the theory propounded meant that the very same criticism was being levelled against the mind or person of the teacher who happened, with many, to adopt it, and who chose to confront the Class with a charge of dishonesty if they did not agree. The observable result, of logical defence provided by one of the students, and dismissal of the same (not the case, but the student) was an invalid attempt to make a reply to a theoretical challenge, at its own level, to BE an assault on the teacher making the challenge, thus confusing an event with a person, and one incident with a character challenge. On such grounds of hurt feelings, or exposure to something undesired, or breach of something imported for the occasion, in this student's response to those grounds of the anti-biblical attack, as with myself, came expulsion, conferred shame, exclusion and so forth.

Does a repudiation and exposure of an error, when one is challenged, really mean that this implies the one who makes the error makes as little sense as the theory in view ? Logically, this is to confuse an event with a person, an occurrence with a generality, and a lapse with lassitude! It is an enormity. If then Einstein could be said to have once divided by nought in a fraction, as appeared in a contingency in one famous case, does that make him in person to BE what his error was in that instance!

Does an instance become a generality, or is an error to be induced as the nature of the heart, if it be made! By such confusion explicitly, was the charge maintained. It was a slander based on what logically was simply a non sequitur. It was applied like a clamp over time, till the Lord who alone works wonders, broke it away, after ten years of gathering support internationally, and the national Assembly overthrew the exclusion notice from the powers that were.

Thus this author is not unqualified in the interstices of new religions, foisted on people, or the implications of intolerance, when this is not recognised as to its base, but nonetheless applied with fervour. I should hate to see my own nation subjected to anything in principle linked to this sort of thing! Misled religious or secular body alike is apt to use power for pride or preference, citing principles inapplicable to cover desire or design or some attraction of the psyche. Freedom is needed to speak without suppression before force sets in, and mere cultural esprit dominates in lordly style.

Who cares if someone wants to demean himself or his place by mere abuse! it is useless to be forever over-sensitive. Yet when it comes to demotion or deletion or torture, then it matters immensely. This type of thing can almost amount to a species of murder.

Similarly, NO Jew should be immersible in such disabling blasts. If however someone finds certain things common amid Jews or Britons or the French or Russians, or some other group, is he unable to specify those thoughts reasonably, or to be citable if he does, in case FEELINGS might be hurt! Is it a generalisation of this type: if there be criticism at all, then you criticise all; open your mouth on anything demonstrable, however carefully expressed, or carefully to be considered, and you are liable to a sudden surge of feeling! Vexation becomes victor and truth or equity alike lie dead in the streets! (cf. Isaiah 59).

The one error like the two sides of a coin, is the back of the other. The two extremes are a very essence of folly. Provisions for scholars do not redeem the situation. Most people are not thus, and even those who are are subjectible to considerations or rationalisations which come readily enough to the vivid legal mind. The TOTAL situation must be sound, not resting on construable exceptions, subject to question or interpretation.

You have to rise above such follies; but the State should indeed not suffer manipulative substitutes for thought, irrational assault physical or professional, while at the same time, PRESERVING PEOPLE'S power to rebut from the nannying in view. Remove the instrument of freedom of speech and you at once close in on things, with the State the author, arbiter and judge, in godlike control, yet far from the God of omniscience indeed! Provocative abuse without ground is one thing; reasoned grounds are another; and this is not only the work of the scholar.

Consider further the irrationality so readily found in such intrusiveness, such obtrusion of power where principles apply. Thus, to imply that an employer SHOULD not prefer people who carry the stability or moral incline of his own life and heart, on which the business is founded and in which it has prospered in harmonious felicity, what is it ? It is mere invasion, impact of the power of tyranny, and death to entrepreneurial initiative.

To evict persecution is one thing; to play god in sorting men out and making them conform to what is against their perceptions, it is another. That is an anti-faith fatuity, a belligerent intrusion as so often in centuries past, from contemptible emptiness to dictate to what can, on the contrary, state its own grounds. Thus does intolerance, perhaps hypocritically proclaiming tolerance, transfix its foes, as a harsh child might do with in a pin stuck into an insect.

In fact, where the absolute truth of Almighty God is by mere preference removed from the model, then no truth is available, only reactions, and to preach from this null platform, albeit a political pulpit, is to shrivel rationality itself.

To pursue this kind of illustration, consider further. To ask people of one religion to employ, in places dedicated to the propagation of that religion, people who do not agree with it, is merely passion for pollution set free. It is based on no truth, proclaiming truth in mere antinomy. Are you to become god altogether then, is the State to supersede both reason and reality, and appoint that BECAUSE in your own governmental constitution, no religion is permitted to rule, therefore the notions of the government, above all religion to the point of just saying it without confessing its presumption, are to rule anyway! It is a reverse case of the Emperor's new clothes: here the clothes, the cut and the garment are clearly worn. Nevertheless, it is maintained that really he has nothing on, is not actually being religious! In this case, not believing in religions merely makes the religion of choice an inadmissible and surreptitious intrusion. It is that sort of pretence which is not on, being a disgrace episode for any political process UNDER law, under constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom.

This then in such movements, spills over all; but it does not enthral, merely instituting thraldom.

When LEADERSHIP becomes presidential, as now appearing to be drawing near, and it does so in this setting and with developments in view, then In essence, this begins to have unpleasant implications. It begins to remind one of the type of situation in North Korea, as to result, with its so very dear leader, if not as to mode of impact.

Thus, to be objective, as this case bids fair to develop, and is developing, let us ask what religion (except of course the official one, which says what is so with authoritarian though irrational force, serving up persecution with grim mouth and official power), can stand except by enduring official assault from the nouveau religion, apparently too sacred to be mentioned! Therefore WHATEVER does not abide by this, the imposed fundamental understanding of reality, adopted like a lost child by the government of the day, is WRONG. You are in effect dealing with a political theophany.

Often what start as implications end as impositions; what begin as vulnerabilities, end as flayings, just as mild over-steppings of what is reasonable, end as treasonable, because some probability was not presented in the prescribed fashion, in formalities acceptable to the authorities, the critics in powers. Thus, as in Germany, with some endorsements, a horror enters into power, at first with much support. One loves Australia too much to see it duped, wafting away all thought of danger, or equity, in broad sweeps which do not meet careful thought or broad consideration, before being bound, just as were the feet of many in China, in the days when missionaries were pointing to something better. Ideas enter, ideologies proliferate, rights abound and wrongs with them, based on inadequacy^*6, desired and so demanded, with nothing rational their basis, bound to desire, new duty allegedly their task.

Governmental theophany is not funny: Mao and Stalin both engaged in a measure of it, their absurdities the basis of the death of millions. The current movement from CABINET rule to LEADER in charge, is one towards that dangerous place. The more God is forsaken, on the way to a God-forsaken land, if so be, the more the 'leader' is in danger of the wrong kind of self-forgetfulness, space itself in prospect for some, as not the limit!

What then, when it comes to religious intolerance, such as is often featured, even in this land, and was notorious in the relatively recent Victorian case of the two Daniels^*1, you have the ruling concept: whether it be that all religious persons must be uncritical of the religion of others, and this by the RELIGIOUS order of the State, in making its OWN religious orientation to be asserted with both authoritarian assurance and vehemence, or that you must revere the non-religious pseudo-religion of the State, or both. From this religious basis, not even acknowledged to be such, there is planned hurt to far more than feelings on the part of its victims, so that the future beckons to doom. It is the spirit of the thing which markedly makes its nature, and the spirit of supine subservience to unbased religious posturing as here, becomes merely a form of mental imprisonment and dehumanisation.

Can the notably independent spirited people of this once great nation become like hens, feeling on the grain permitted, ordered and organised, told their morals, blasted with meteoric rhetoric, arriving erratically from the space where conscientious thought should be, while the mind of man is subdued by the mission of proselytising politicians ? It seems so.

How ? Partly by confusing issues, partly by over-stating cases, and gaining acceptance of vast new powers, or innovatively expressed ones, without filtering off the slothfully or artfully included pretensions, partly by having a new Constitution which in its Pre-amble would omit reference to Almighty God, and so enable an ostensibly almighty parliament, without omniscience, or indeed one without the needed wisdom or real authority. Thus is founded one set to be a superficial and perhaps vicious substitute. It has happened in the past, a slow seduction, gathering force till its rules, perhaps as in the USSR, that doomed State, while claiming it has religious freedom, liberty, tolerance or some astute combination of zeros, which lack a number in front, and so amount in practice to nothing, nothing at all!

Just read about the Covenanters, and the persecutions, they received, or the Communists, and those they showed in the field of religion and related issues. Are the people of this nation to be gulled into the trap for the gullible? to cease thinking ? To make this or that race, on this or that ground or pretension, to have superior rights, as if racism were part of the Constitution ? for how else can you specify some one race as being invulnerable to what contains other races in the land, so dividing and conquering equity and national equality. If people need help, then you may help them; of they need taxes, then you can tax them aptly and with sympathetic thoughtfulness for one as for all; but dividing up the land is merely an institution of inequity likely to lead to other iniquity as it is exploited by many, some in this way, some in that, man of any race, being not without originality.

Are some viewpoints to be protected and privileged, and is truth to become a racial matter, or are racial matters to lose contact with it, in a fit of impassioned remorse, and confusion of good and evil, both having been done on large scale to our own native people in the past! Does the wanton and unqualified apology for things which were meant well sometimes, not so well at other times, led to deliverance from immorality sometimes, perhaps led to immorality at others, were requested sometimes, not at some other times, were wrought sacrificially by some, or selfishly by others, to be set in one unqualified and loaded basket of guilt, so calling good evil and evil good!

If such was done by a slouching piece of wholly unscholarly and incorrect summation, did it not lead to OFFENCE and INSULT to many who had sought to do well, and did well, amid these varied proceedings ? Is this the new two-sidedness, two-sides for example of the mouth, speaking peace while breaching the peace, speaking equality while dealing out division and inequity with a hollow sound, like a call to assault Christianity where many acted for the good, and did it! This done, by careless generalisation, then it is easy to make those so 'rescued' a religious preserve for government religion, in a new mission to merge all religions, and lambast those who have done well as an incidental charm!

The racial offensiveness, making OTHER RACES in this land, in much more subordinate in their liberties, than some one race, can do more than hurt feelings. Surreptitious racism is foul on two counts, hypocrisy and oppression. If you want to be kind, there is a way to do it; to stop mere abuse, there is a way to do it. If you want to substitute a new god of no freedom for honest discussion however, so that whatever the motive, mode or intention, some with their own religious sensibilities deem it offensive or humiliating, then it must be served,only don't forget the hangover from such intoxicatin. Foolish the people who support such unbased and unwarranted religious torment, fouling the peace of the nation which has grown to a relatively good height in the past.

It is the same in religion in much, as in race. Leave it free, protect from physical persecution or mere wild statement inciting physical violence, and while sensitive to real discrimination (making careless assumptions about all because of some), do not prescribe to replace the heart of the religion, by your own! Do not seek that anaesthesia of conscience from which we all need to be delivered no less than from thugs assaulting us, from obstructionists attacking our businesses and the like. The game of legal assault becomes a new form of reinforced discrimination against those who prefer truth to fiction, and realism to dreams.

Soon, having started with peace, the STATE characterises this or that religious approach as unacceptable, because of new cultural norms, and the invents ethical transfers from its dreams, to law and so becomes vastly more offensive than any others might have been. It may not SAY so, but just do so. Yet, having contradictory premises and in god-like flourish of power, it acts with various denunciations offloaded like evil perfumes, enforcing these prejudices on the servile people. Such is the scenario not to be scoffed at, since its specialty is scoffing. There are times when failure to speak out is cowardice, even if feelings be hurt, and refusal to listen is tyranny.

Freedom, Menzies rightly pointed out, has to be pursued painfully. It is not found by painful extemporaneous propaganda, based on a government's own concept of religion, without truth or justice or equity playing much part, since prejudice has made judicial discrimination a legal necessity.

Look back once more and see how at the Exodus, Israel escaped. No Israel did not in the divine mercy, at the confrontation with both Pharaoh's armies and the Red Sea in one testing trial, return to that kind of authoritarian State, where popular feelings swallows all else, having been made god separately. It did not submit itself to such extemporaneous discriminatory laws at will, and killing liberty, return to Egypt. It was God who intervened, and who else in this present peril of our nation!

The people in that Exodus situation were met by the kindness of God, who acted for them, instead of their great danger, in that peril, of conveniently defined morality as it served its desires. Thus it was kept on the path of vision, not divisive laxity.

Let us hope Australia will not return to some of the evil governmental antics so many have suffered in so many places in the past. It is easy to transfer a logical presentation for good, with goodwill, to an evil thing, on the neo-moral idea that it might hurt someone. So might a bicycle, if you do not bother to see it.

The liberty to ride may make some have hurt feelings - WHY should this bicycle interrupt and limit my walk! and so forth - but it is wise to realise the land is large, and you do not have to step in front of it and be too concerned at the w ay it is going. Treating any one race in a cradling way cam intimidate and mock more than any robust and well-intentioned meeting of minds. Care is needed; but not corruption by indulgences which bid fair to destroy many in any race, were they applied more broadly.

Inflammatory involvement in the work of others if to be censored and assaulted as is governmentally in view, involves such a level of understanding and goodwill as snarling objections and pompous pronouncements are not likely to find. Surrender to the State in its state of the art neo-morals ? By all means, if you like to be like a caged bird, that comes in for a few grains and stays in, as if unable to remember flight. It is easier to demolish the house in order to admit the elephant, than to get rid of the thing from amid the ruins.

Israel, in the Exodus case, followed Moses who followed the Lord and escaped those things. They did not have to come out of Egypt in the first place. They chose to do so. They did not have to continue to follow him. They decided to do so. They grumbled and complained and were ungrateful to the point that they did not even enter the promised land where their God could freely be worshipped as before, because of a fit of fear. That is another danger.

People sometimes feel vulnerable if they have to follow this or that, or even have the choice, and like to leave it all to someone else, especially if that someone tempts them with superficial things, like vast debt as it it did not matter, while spending as if that did not matter, valuing things as if the world were a free service station without any menace or danger. Thus they throw up the hands and say, Well let's allow them all to decide everything, as when on the very way to the Promised Land, most of the danger past, they even looked for a new leader back to the old ways of servitude.

This was in fact a CHANGE of leadership, and if Australia makes a similar change, so be it. Let us not imagine it will be without results, or that our present state of relative bliss compared with many nations which fight each other or parts of themselves, endlessly with ruinous arms, does not have an historically precise basis! Thankfulness is not in itself a sin; it is not a bad thing to be realistically thankful: or is it to be illegal also ?

However, Israel had many opportunities to wake up on the way to the Promised Land, many reminders, pardons, mercies; but they did not heed. When then they actually came to it, they had few gold medals, not being in training in most cases. Earlier they had awakened to their folly, but alas, at the very threshold of the Promised Land, as with the boating case at the Peking Olympics, when a gold medal looms and a capsize right near the end stopped it, so in this case, they not only failed to enter: they even refused, and threatened to stone Moses as an additive. So do things mount and results accrue.

When Christ came as predicted, and He had completed the sacrificial offering to cover sin, declaring, "It is finished," there was a certain glow. When was the earlier one ? You see it early in the Exodus when they were miraculously delivered from the army of Pharaoh which for all times was humiliated in direct power play with God, concerned for His people, and intent on delivering them. They were OUT of Egypt, the seas had swallowed up the pursuing army, they were FREE! The exulted.

Look at Exodus 15 and see the glowering replaced by the glow of delight and the warmth of deliverance! See it in the disciples when, in the very day of the resurrection, they had Jesus HIMSELF personally come to their midst so that accounts became actuality, and reports were replaced with reality Here He WAS, saying peace to you! You could hear, see, realise, communicate; and again, see him eat fish (Luke 24:41-43). Similarly, as in the 20/20 vision of John 20:20, when He showed them His (wounded) hands and feet, then they were GLAD, we read. Who wouldn't be when death is showed conquered, not just for some, as Christ worked before His crucifixion, notably with Lazarus, whom He conspicuously called to come out from his burial place, where death had him all wrapped up, but through the Saviour, for all who are His, and to be His!

There is joy in the service of God, because He is so unlimited, so gracious and so generous, and especially because He understands.

Christ, who for the glory before Him, despised pain was GLAD when He accomplished what was required for the salvation of those who receive Him (Hebrews 12:2).

Joy was set before Him for the accomplishment, and it was gained by obedience, paying the price of liberty in ransoming from the sin which causes the confusion which seeks misrule, whether individually or nationally. He had earlier notably rejoiced in spirit when the disciples returned having tasted the power of God in their mission while He stayed and prayed.In this, they had seen the guileless delivered and the oppressed freed by their means (Luke 10:21),in the name of Christ. Be glad not just for the power of God, Christ advised, but that your names are written in heaven. Those who in faith so went forth, so found, and were so counselled! THAT is the sort of power that matters; and it is not dictatorial (Matthew 23:37ff.).

So too do the angels in heaven rejoice at one new sinner saved, in the afterglow of accomplishment, of one more entering the spiritual promised land. The matter is in essence complete, the vast dangers are past, and the problems of pilgrimage are small beside that. What Christ did cost even for heaven. What man now does, may cost heaven by contempt for the way there; or it may lead to it, through receipt of the entry payment, and walking through that door, by faith, which is Christ Jesus Himself. There is the afterglow of things attained, whatever new challenges come, they are in a new and now established setting. HE has attained them, and in I Peter 1:5ff., you find the joy in the dawning of that day in the heart, before the end of the Age, indeed, when heaven and earth eventually pass away, being made for time not eternity (Matthew 24:35).

So after the end of World War II, what rejoicing in the streets of Melbourne, what an exhilaration, what rest after possible subjugation to an authoritarian government, now finished as a current issue, because it had been beaten! How was freedom was delighted in. What liberty could be so sweet nationally, many felt then, as this; and there was an after-glow, now in danger of becoming but a prelude to new tyrannies. Still, it was there and it was relished greatly at the time, and for some time after that.

There is a far greater war. When Christ won the war against the provocations and dupings of Satan (Matthew 4, I Corinthians 2:9ff.), there was the afterglow of Acts 2-3, where the people began to realise that DESPITE the enormity of what they had done, there was the pardon of their notably, and known to be, longsuffering God who even in the midst of such things, would appoint as sharers of His triumph, a people some of whom may earlier have consented to His crucifixion. Small wonder that they were so radiant as in Acts 2:46-47, this personal salvation liberally shared with many, this the result, instead of immediate national ruin. Indeed, they could and did so present Christ that many others believed in Him, and their satisfaction, without becoming satiety, brimmed (Acts 4:23-31). It would not be for a whole generation before they, unrepentant as a NATION (the Church containing but a small percentage of them, though many thousands), gained the result of their mischiefs. Rome utterly destroyed their city, ruined their temple, reportedly crucifying many in its putting down of 'rebellion'.

In the meantime, consider for how many years they were free to continue, many with such eternal joy (Isaiah 51:11), all being given time to repent; but most did not.

For every great work, or major project, wrought in purity, sought in godliness, effected by His power, accomplished by His grace, based on His pardon and acceptance (Ephesians 1:6, Romans 3:23ff., 5:1-11), there is a certain joy in the presence of the Lord (I Peter 1:5-8), accentuated by His presence by the Spirit of God and His own joy in those who seek Him to find Him, and to serve Him. There is an after-glow but it is not to be confused with self-congratulation, for that is both absurd and irrelevant (Ephesians 2:1-12). There is a combination of release and looking up to the source of the work in the first place, and a meeting of minds as one relaxes for a moment, and is re-charged, re-directed and salved of wounds or bruises gained on the way. When God salves, there is intensive comfort; when God saves, there is eternity for rejoicing, and the heart leaps to have found its place through grace.

The greatest after-glow, it is in glory when this life's toil on earth is done. Thus in Revelation 14:13, we read this:

It is rather like the wake from a speed-boat, reaching out behind you; but it is not that which provides either the boat or the power or the fuel or the desire in the first place. In plain terms, all that which works, is the gift of God, and His gift is both eternal and irrevocable, so that your works do not even contribute to your salvation, though they certainly express it. There is a free joy in all this! that of acceptance and vitality in things vital in themselves!

When you know the truth, in this Gospel wonder Age, it is quite unnecessary as well as abhorrent to try to FORCE it on people, whether at the front door by storming the home, or through the back door, by displacing truth itself in psychic philandering. Likewise, making facts and objectives to become irrelevant, or assessable by the pseudo-divine appointed beings, this is merely another use of force, with legal penalties the lunge, while the children are likewise indoctrinated by law. Use of force in matters of faith is also forbidden by Christ (John 18:36-38, Matthew 26:52ff.). Christ's kingdom, as He states, is not of that kind, not established by fighting, however much some have combined some of its concepts with just that!( cf. SMR pp.1032 -1088H).

Forcing man into moulds in the realm of FAITH, such as religion requires, in whatever thing, entity, model or idol, to whatever is chosen, this is mere confusion. Already^{*1, *2}, we have tasted this style of thing, already indeed rules in religion and various other fields, have been subjected to force-ideas, and our coast is by no means unsullied by such reefs. Already some of us have had occasion to bring the issues by letter to MPs in this State (CLASSIFICATION BILL), and narrowly was the deliverance obtained!

Christianity, in its biblical dress, based on the historical Christ (cf. SMR Ch. 1, in the trilogy context, with Appendix C and D), however: this it makes for a hallowed kindness and a love of goodness and truth, which is based where force is irrelevant and grace is grand. It makes for peace, BECAUSE of truth. (Cf. SMR pp. 62ff., Appendix D). Accept it or not, but do not try to force the area of faith into the arena of political appeal, Olympian grandeur based on man, propagating by human power and limited to human wisdom, variable as the winds, and potentially vicious not in hurting feelings, but assassinated careers, reputation, freedom of movement, finances.

Religions may be more vague or precise, depending on the case, and some seem to aim at virtually inexpressible concoctions of terms. However, in general they tend to have an orientation of some kind, principles of certain specificity somewhere, and though at times it is hidden in narratives not perspicuous, the results are differentiable. Some stress good works, some bastions of evil power, or moral laxity, others stringency of life, or vacuity of thought altogether, being pragmatic in type, and without logical foundation of any kind: but even here, there is an implicit assumption of one kind or another. They are quite recognisable in general.

It is this, not some technical use of the much-assailed term 'fundamentalism' which is here in view. The religion of the Secular Apotheosis, as self-contradictory as the term itself, simply is based on desire, dynamic and force, with lingering semi-references to various ethical bases, not assembled, but in new premises or formats, all but dissembled, often simply treated as more or less obvious or to be desired, on inscrutable but psychically promoted grounds.

However, certain fundamental issues can become notable in religions, and in the case of biblical Christianity, the fundamentalist movement sought to itemise these. The flack from a free-moving world has been intense; and indeed, it is not just premises but the entire Bible which is the doctrinal foundation (Appendix C and D), so that merely slicing off this and that needs to be realised in context, and other things not minimised. That Jesus Christ should have the pre-eminence in all things, and is as pre-incarnate, the Creator, alive from eternity before becoming man, is not only fundamental, for in Himself, He is the foundation of life and salvation for man (Acts 4:11-12, I Cor. 3:10-11, Philippians 2:9-11,Colossians 1:15-18, Micah 5:1-3, John 8:58).

Because of the manipulative misuse of the term by many with emotive eruptions, one prefers 'plenary inspirationism' (cf. I Corinthians 2:9ff., Matthew 5:17ff., 24:35, I Peter 1:10ff., II Peter 1:19ff., Isaiah 34:16, 41, 43, 48), which has the advantage of saying what is meant at the level meant, and with the intent in so saying.

Mr Blunkett in his official role as Home Secretary in 2004, was reported as making the following pronouncement.

That is the kind of mind-set, confusing zeal with violence, love with intolerance, announcement of truth on sound grounds, with arbitrary invasion, provision of opportunity with odious importunity with force, that is excellent for the launch. Of what the launch ? That of the oppression of those who dare NOT to hold man the criterion of man, man the measure of man, a futile exercise in advance. The slander of such spiritual items, of the very name evangelical, is mere occasion for confusion, one of the best means ever known for inducing violence, odium and assault.

	rejecting the morals and law of God Almighty, to which this country was first of all directed as preferred position, so that Churches tended to be given help in founding their work in terms of land,
	and by this rejection making thus a new god, or even declining to name this new moral determinant, in objective manner: