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

CHAPTER FIVE

AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS MADE SAFE FOR

IDEOLOGICAL PREDATORS

News 486, The Advertiser, Thursday, February 25

Instalment One

The Safe Schools program in Australia, said to have some  500 schools in its corrosive cover, has been described by one State Member of Parliament as "absolutely outrageous and not something that the education should tackle." Doubtless he felt response appropriate since it is reported that there are 50 State Schools in this State, caught in its travails.

The words of the MP are well chosen in this case, right down to "absolutely",  for that is where the chief problem lies. Indeed, this is only one of a number of tyrannical, despotic, socially dynamised invasions of the mind, morals, nature and purpose of man that is currently seeking or pursuing a place as a new, unannounced species of life, as absolute as Hitler's in its authoritarianism, as negative as Stalin's at the personal level and as intrusive as rape.

Let us be clear on the last point. Rape has a number of utterly wicked elements.

First, it is use of force where it happens to be present but cannot be justified in use.

Secondly, it interferes with a system given for other ends or achievements, namely the continuation of the race in a relationship including great joy as an assist; and scars the mental tissue in that area with violence and self-centred vileness in the very midst of an intimate act, associated with mutual delight and duties to come, with its results.

Thirdly, it is done without regard to the wishes of both parties, but only those of one, and in the case of women in particular, leaves one party with the results to take care of, while the other may disappear in a dust of lust.

Fourthly, it changes the responsibilities of one party by an act of invasion as clear as any country seeking to subjugate another to its wishes.

Fifthly, it leaves a considerable likelihood that the result with have only one parent available, and so miss a complementarity which in two, has more to offer than in one, and hence generates without consent, a liability which may last a life-time.

The similarity in the Safe School and allied approaches which wish by law (with this or that degree of application depending on the case) is this. Force of law, local or other, with school option to enter or not, comes at least to standardise a certain approach. It does not matter that evil terms are used of those who reject this mental and life-rape - the so-called heterophobia hate. It is of course aggressive, normally irrelevant, logically out of bounds (the ad hominem error, which is an invalid approach) and a red herring, a phase of deception by introducing an notion to offset proper aspects of rational discussion (se Ch. 6), but that is just a further error.

The mere fact that the ethical maze is given an outlet in this type of attitude, and terms of abuse are added (as if to call a rape victim a whore!), that a new common position is being advocated and applied, and that those who differ from both the bases and the purpose are merely called haters, when they may be believers in  using facilities the way they are made and have been successfully used in the generation of the race for thousands of years, may be slandered by talk of being possessed of a phobia. Such misuse of language is a ludicrously twisted verbal dump and logical lapse, and evidence of this new form of State bullying, taking it in its overall and total impact from  various sources. It can make the lives of children the private play-ground of specious philosophy.

Point two above has parallel. So does point three, in that many do not desire to dabble or have their child led into dabbling with new mental pictures, moral rules, hate expositions, especially when often enough linked to ideas of what appears obsessive folly not applicable elsewhere in human life. Thus if you want to be a millionaire, there are different paths. Firstly, you may earn it. Some do not care for this despite a possible want.

The other alternative, if we make of this a parallel, is to believe you ARE one, and to have other people tell you that this MAKES you one. That is a straight lie. You are told to believe what does not through belief become actual, in facility or actuality or normative power in the ingenious combination which helps generate the human race. Whatever i) may in due course be done physically, and ii) be the non-normal case with any individual (just as occurs sometimes when a child is born without various functions or with added extras), there is no change in the standard case and statistical norm. It does not operate like that. The wish is not the work. This is not only to teach what is not true (whatever hopes with whatever ground may be entertained for the future, and with whatever wisdom or otherwise)  but to endanger engulfment in delusion in other spheres as well. Wishes are not facts in gender, degrees, diplomas, money or physical construction (). Mental visions and hopes have their place, but they do not as such and of themselves confer such changes. Vision may be confounded with fact, and wish with reality, but in no phase of life is this the case.

In the  case of Christian regeneration, there is no difference in this, that it is God who performs the operation, not wish, and He is shown acting like a physical surgeon, He has all power and various promises in the Bible touching the point. That is a model with a special context avoiding nullity. That is wholly unlike the basis for some of the associated illusionism. Hence it is not envisaged as a wish or will equals fact illusion. It is a duly causative divine dealing, superadded to creation on a basis of thousands of years. Not necessary to this point, but again as a matter of fact,  this site demonstrates His being, promises and power. The difference in the two cases is thus infinite.

When again, this new moral teaching and illusionist-appearing approach is taken in a social structure with components (children, who are ALSO individuals), then there is a conformist quality which can become integral, and stimulated by abusive heterophobic seeming language, as some call it in protest, leading to action. In this case, what is not sound logically in the midst of exceedingly sensitive recipients in a growth situation, is proffered to the children with penalties of name-calling or other discrimination if it is not adopted. It can even become legally dangerous to resist and teach otherwise, or made socially to be as if despicable, just as was done in Nazi Germany if you 'dared to be a Jew'! It is in such a case witlessly prejudicial and grossly provocative.

Teach children to booze by example and precept, and it is unlikely you will always fail to lead them in intoxication without understanding and peril without recourse. When this is done, not only may horrendous misuse of immaturity occur with those incapable of parenthood find themselves in due course involved in it, or abortion; indeed, direction of a voluntary area may be achieved and maintained for life, by mere habit, custom or other ingredients of the impact of experience on growth in tender areas. Volition and character may enter in, but they may have a work to extricate. 

Further, and far more importantly than all this, vital and crucial as some of it is, all of it being relevant, there is the religious element. Where did man come from, to what is he responsible, where is wisdom, what is his destiny, are there variants available, where does choice fit in, what and why is right and wrong in existence ? These are questions to which many religions provide, or seek to provide an answer. On this site, they have been addressed over some 236 volumes in a coherent set of theology, with the answer of a particular kind. In this, all of those questions are given logical answers, and options to hand in other directions are noted in kind, and shown logically inadequate in their coverage, contentions or compass, claims, metaphysical base and moral scope. The Bible with Almighty God its author is shown in precise terminology, to be the answer; but the point here is this; THERE IS AN ANSWER, and indeed numbers or efforts to this end are set forth in various religions.

To assume that a certain answer applies, is a sweeping slide. Even making morals an issue of society, when man is far from being so fallen in intellect as to be unable to see that a lot of people agreeing that they endorse something, and using a name for it, and indicating a desire or even recommendation, is a popular thing: not a moral ground. If Germany was gripped by the Hitler craze, or USSR  by the atheist obsession, this is not even relevant to religion, or reason for morality, Yet it was very present vitriolic in spuming speech, celebrated and followed with all the fidelity of voltage with electricity. They went together. Hitler having tried in vain to co-opt his own form of Christianity by deception, and failing,  his religion, conception of ultimacy in significance and meaning, remained. There was a force, a motive, a singular reality which he envisaged. It was not even relevant to the truth, being fuming and spuming, not defensible teaching.

As to that, there are grounds for morality when the Maker makes the morals for the result of the creation. The swish of wishes can force or leave option to vote for a religion, but does not even come close to justifying it ... unless Dreamland is the desire, preferably without the pin-prick of truth!

By hate words or illogical lapses, simply to pretend to eject God-based morals is not a rational option, and thus in the Australian case, to virtually extradite God in these fields, is utterly contrary to the ATTITUDE shown in our Preamble to the Constitution, in terms of which we came to exist as a nation. If it is not legally binding, it is certainly socially indicative. If this is not relevant, then why is not history irrelevant ? If there have been discernible results especially in certain areas, of a stable and reliable kind in this country over  time, compared with other internally visible options, so that peoples swarm to our land and out of what remains of their own, then is this a due ground to have NO character, assume there is NO culture in the land, no basis for specific social features, as if cause had lost sight of effect and went abroad moaning and mourning ?

If people do not want to DISCUSS or debate options, including that of creation, in the education complex, but act dogmatically as often found now, then a tertiary tyranny in the Nature-Myth of organic evolution proceeds, having long preceded the gender desires. That is another mental rape in education which reaches professional levels (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!). If there is simply a determined wish to enshrine some popular views in a Constitution, in laws, in penalties for any who do not share (in atheist terms) a particular popularity, then it simply means this: the land is becoming a tyranny over truth, aborting thought with force, invading scientific method which has its own methods, leaving social statistics as ground of moving. At every point the myth fails, yet it continues to be taught, as if fairy tales were to be  revered even in adolescence.

Once a medical specialist, declared this: Nothing is nothing. The meaning was that there is no matter however small which is without significance, which is true. But it was pointed out that in the context, which was one of a special interest in a given facet of the case, there was the assumption that what was to be deemed nothing is otherwise, was a special feature, to be found present or not. Yet the point  has an application outside such limits.

If you want, in atheist style, as so often found, to start without God, one initial thought is to replace Him with nothing as the basis. Now nothing has no future, for that would be something with a future, no potential, for that would be something with potential, and is not another name for something, but for its absence. When this is metaphysical, that is dealing with the whole of reality, and not just some question in particular, so that ALL things are the issue in view, then if ever there was nothing, even for a moment, there would never be anything. Nothing as such, in power, potential, form, format, force, space, time and so forth, including causal capacity (which would similarly not be nothing but something with causal capacity), if truly present as the totality, then it could neither develop nor increment, nor receive resources^*1 from elsewhere, since ALL is the TOPIC, and accounting for it is the test of rationality, of whether or not the approach can stand.

In this case, it falls, and the procedure became about as unscientific as possible. Why is this ? It is because  in science you tend to look in explanations, for what is most closely allied, in some way, to what you are getting, and see if there is something similar, or even sufficient here, using the most probable first as you test. You may gain a special insight, and be shown right later, but only when this is DONE, is scientific method utilised. You do NOT look at what is even by definition about as far from the need and the result as you can get in your tests, let alone push the idea and omit the evidence, let alone contradict it (cf.  SMR pp. 145-159).

It is clearly a mischievous ramble so to rove and propagate, binding subjectivistic and preferred ideas; that is no answer, no apt method and existing in state only by the reckless misuse of logic. That being so, logic is being removed from authority, so that such persons logically cannot even argue for their case, if they wish so to base it, since it stands on what falls, and can stand ONLY if logic falls. Found yourself on something is the only rational way. It must be endless as above shown, so it is something eternal of necessity. It may be so characterised, in whatever way it exists. It is cause (cf. SMR Ch. 5) as distinct from result. It has to be adequate or there is a definable and sure failure to gain the outcome, which as we speak, exists! ... and so on (cf. SMR Chs. 1 and 10).

The power to create personality with its mental, moral, aesthetic, systematic, logical resources  must contain an original at least as great, and of course far greater, as in making anything - say space-craft - requires more in the way of operating ability, than is to be found in the space-craft, for all its automation and programmatics, as a resultant and contrived thing. The term God is normally applied for the making, and it is small wonder that so many believe in Him.

Actually, information is simply not known ever to come without intelligence and our generation by generation rebuilding, through infants growing,  is founded on information, composed by its methods, transmitted by mathematical and engineering symbols, staggering in complexity, amazing in correlation of symbol and work so managed, unsurpassed in any work of man. To live by what you deny does not appear excessively rational.

This is so, but the case is even worse than this. Thus, you would not expect to find a nation, as noted in its pre-amble, in such an historical setting as still to retain it, and to have so much of this kind of careful  approach in its earlier commencement and many of its ways distinctively, wishing to ASSUME that this is to be discarded. Is it to go like a wrecked car, old coat let alone, like poisoned milk ? To act on the contrary, on atheistic totalitarianism as is now the trend (whatever the inconsistent disclaimers^*2), and to assume it wrong not to indulge its anti-moral irrationality, anti-scientific propaganda, actually made in the name of science^*3 (a little subtle that, but not so very hard, just name-calling), and to make it a kind of hatred to love God and what accounts distinctively for our race, is not exactly ravishingly obvious, or even rationally conceivable except perhaps in the midst of some mordant and negative mood. When this neo-culture comes rustling the cattle if not with curses, then with recriminations,  so distancing itself from praising what both He and the usual nature of our bodily functions attests, it is almost incandescently mere political bullying.

It leads to anti-professionally short-changing those who hold the more rational view. It becomes as so often in politics in the past, a matter of subversion when, without voting, it is made mandatory, an invasion already likened in schools, to rape.

At least, a change of constitution (lest we be declaring what does not accord with actuality) would appear more apt than shiftless wandering equipped with teeth. True, you may have in mind a witless God who made our wits, who makes things that are not suitable in design despite their functionality, or one who gets the greatest intricacy visible from ineffectuality, but this is not rational.

If you are a spawn of nothing, naturally you are meaningless and can accord any meaning you like to life, but it is neither a thing of reason nor restraint. Calling others to copy you, and assuming it some kind of defect to believe in any adequate and articular source for the rational, who holds to account what appears to toy with truth and accuse what accords with it, becomes just like declaration of war on the spur and spurt of the moment: something which seems necessary at the time but is only impatience and unwisdom wedded to vast suffering where consultation and consideration might have saved millions not only in currency, but in persons in life.

There is, as shown in these approaches to life in study and living it, an emotional approach, words without meaning or applicability, and these as if observing design and biblical morals were defunct, though these alone fit all the facts (cf. DEITY AND DESIGN, DESIGNATION AND DESTINY, esp. Sections. 2 and 8).

It would be more composed, less contrived, more apt and less disruptive, more sensitive and less tyrannical, to ASK the voters whether they wish such approach to reality to be made, such religious assumptions to be in force, whether in schools or life as exemplary and to be taught, or whether they prefer a scientific approach, with equal teaching on both sides, competitors compared rationally with equal freedom, with a decision following. This would either do what the Constitution does as in Section 118, and leave religion (whether insidiously hidden or blatantly open) out of State control, including individual States which receive Commonwealth funds for education, or make a considered change.

If they want as now, to become a religiously invasive State, then this too could be voted on.

NOTES

*1

The lucky dip approach, in which you first put your hand into the nothing bag, and pull out the making of space and time and pressure and force and potential and so on, and then from time to time pull out more components, ordered, adapted, on the same logical and procedural platform, until all has come out in its various pre-assemblages (so that it can work and so exist, let alone survive), is mere magic. Nature has laws and ways and limits; it is never found making new information (cf. Not Only is God great, but Gracious Ch. 5). The idea of having to do what it cannot do is asking rather a lot, like requiring a grade one student to do a Master's thesis. This would be especially so if what is called 'nature', the child could neither read nor write.  Adding page to page does not really help in such a case, being merely a bemusement of hope, distraught in its agonies of fraud. This may not be intentional; but it may be a fixation.

*2

See for example TMR Ch. 8 and the following link.  The pretence of kindly treatment of religion in the 1988 government Circular to Principals is as shown in these fields, in many aspects, unprincipled. Religion may be a matter of revering and good luck to it, is the underlying thrust, but when it comes to what happened, we look decidedly elsewhere. That is its message. This looking elsewhere, amazingly enough, is not at all  to the establishment of science through its so famous method, but to note one outstanding example from Harvard University, it is a matter of philosophy. This is not the only such indication of the thrust of these philosophical  extravaganzas, raging amidst science for no other discernible reason than this, that some scientists like them.

Professor Lewontin of Harvard shows this religious aspect succinctly: 

Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

 On Kant's confusion, see Predestination and Freewill, Section 4, SMR Ch 5. On his error, indeed, if you could believe in Kant, you could believe in anything, since he assumes the realities are obscured by very method of knowing. If this were so, and it is multiply shown wrong in the work noted, then Kant could not know enough to tell us about it. He would be introducing, presto, reality. A pity he too could not know it, being not an exception from his own depiction of the human race and its limitations. Such self-contradiction is not an ornament to philosophy.

The entire appeal of Lewontin here, the ONLY justification amidst his appalling confession, is a matter quite starkly, of philosophy. What does that have to do with science, except to investigate its standing! Before him, Stephen Jay Gould fell into the same  muddle of non-conformity of current features in scientific thought here, to actual evidence. On this, see Wake Up World! ... Ch. 6.

*3

See Scientific Method ...