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





The Australian, April 2, 2016





A reported Sydney University move to de-register a religious body because its executives had to hold to the religion of that body (like a Policeman's Union requiring that police personnel be its executive,  or a diver's club requiring divers for executives) has been delayed but not yet abolished. You are not allowed, say they, to require your executives in ny religious Club to toe the line to ANY creed or belief. But that is a red herring, an irrelevant jibe. Who is talking about toeing the line in a group in itself VOLUNTARY where you want to hold to, act on and join with others of like and stateable mind. If you wanted a chameleon religious group, then it would indeed by a fault to have any fixity, but this is not that.


The thought of such executives being FORCED to sign or affirm something was too much, they were saying. But consider. Is it not that those who WANT to conform to this mode, or that,  who are therefore wanting to join, and so willing to sign ? What is this talk of force ? The only force being used appears to be that of the authority trying to remove the nature of a given club, by denaturing executives, religiouslyl neutering them, as if a monarchists' club should be able to have Communist or  ISIS executive; and that is where religion by such means is aborted and freedom is trodden on. A parallel occurs when an educational phase of the State's activities becomes a philosophical panzer division, as with exclusive evolution indoctrination or sexual harassment from a denaturing viewpoint. Some want ideas, not genes confer gender. This again, is touted as something desired as a COMMAND. Bear with it or suffer.

What then of this University issue ? What is the sustaining  ingredient in this ogrish compulsion being proposed to govern religious clubs in the said University ? It appears to be this. You must be at heart, a spiritual chamelion. WHATEVER you may FREELY say and write concerning your will, wish, understanding or faith, in fact you must be willing to be led ANYWHERE by executives of ISIS or Nihilism or Communism, or even of glitterati gel, in order to be non-discriminatory in order to survive in the mutable academic air.

What then is this discriminatory dynamic ? In these terms, it appears to be one of hypocrisy. It culls conviction by making it multi-directional, and it does this by FORCE and DISCRIMINATORY DYNAMIC in the name of some AUTHORITY which GOVERNS ALL to the point. The cost is the implication of universal desirability of hypocrisy or jejune religion.


You can talk about "deep matters," but in the end, this is in general contrary to the Australian Constitution which forbids directive intrusion in this religious field, whereas this appears not only intrusion, but invasion, manipulation and that on the part of what authority ? It is some idea that it is hurtful to the interests of freedom to have any. What an oxymoron! What an ingenious way of being disingenuous, of engaging in religious engineering!


Who is this who so proposes ? It is possible that it is a body which receives Commonwealth funds ? Who gave it this lordly authority to wave a religious wand and institute its own brand of religious basis, at cost to all, for it is their own exclusivism in their conditioning of all religion thus to their own will which makes those who would so decree,  themselves authors of a new religion, vying with the rest by removing their practical  compass, and deploying deregistration as a stick, harassment, directive and penalty. What is this ? Is it beginning to look like some kind of secular Inquisition ?