W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc

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

CHAPTER EIGHT

FREEDOM, JUSTICE, MERCY AND HYPOCRISY

Things to Void, Avoid and Pursue, Where Freedom is Sought

FREEDOM AND PSYCHIC WANDERING

First of all, freedom is to be yourself ? But what if you are constrained by things not thought of, not desired, partially desired, habitual and so forth ? How then are you free ?

To be free from the defects of yourself, whether self-perceived or not, whether you are ignorant of them or not, it is necessary to be able to see what one OUGHT to be. That requires an understanding of the Maker. If you reject your Maker^*1, you cannot reject the way He made you, and thus never become freer than in part, absent from understanding, milled by circumstances within or without, willingly or with resistance, the latter conceived or misconceived in the dark light of ignorance.

Without the knowledge of the true God, who actually made matter and mind and spirit, and the means of their conjunction in the human body allowing for the operation of mind and spirit, and this relatable to Himself, you have an inherent lack of freedom. The truth, said Christ, shall set you free; and that it is the necessary condition. Of course, you might reject the truth, so that you would not then be made free; but Christ was talking of those NOT in that position, but His disciples (John 8:32), who actually know and follow His word - just as drivers on roads do not lose their freedom by avoiding head-on collisions by keeping to the correct SIDE of the road, but rather gain it. This in mind, however, is far deeper, and is ultimate.

Yet, these basics said, there are elements of opportunity and indeed opportunism by which some seek to act to the detriment of whatever residual or actual freedom others may have. To this, in the light of the word of God and the ways of man, we now look, in particular in the case of recent events in Australia.

PRESSURE ON THE PRESS AND ON PERSONS

In the last few months, as 2013 has moved towards the current Spring, various attacks on citizen-freedom have been made. That on newspaper freedom amounted to an effort to silence a Press when it had a contra-government ideological base, or a counter-government-culture to forward in its perspective, or in terms of its investigations of news, of what is happening. Thus with Press freedom diverted by fine or prison, from unacceptable views, understandings, approaches, there would be an end to an open review of Government policy, ideology and implementation, including the question of the comparison of ideology posted at election, and that hosted when it is in power! Standards for operation would be summed up in terms of the culture of the day (which tends to operate without first gaining permission), and applied by right-thinking parties, who would normally be paid for so thinking, and acting accordingly, like police dogs, perhaps, watching out for offenders. The intention might be far other; the reality alas does not have internal power to escape the limits of the binding and blinding of this or that phase of cultural preference.

ANY effort to counter counter-cultural movements can readily develop into harassment of freedom of thought, using other ground plans, diverse designs for man, and these for a people increasingly and by government attitudes, speedily being divorced from its formal and former religious base. This is the case to the extent of the nature of the Founding Power for the Australian nation - it was never a nation before this, one involving unitary government of all its parts, and the statements made.

That, given the downgrade from the heights of assured approach formerly so very readily available, and notable even mentioned in the Constitutional pre-amble, then functions as a neo-cultural accelerator, speeding change and curbing criticism of change, even in terms of praise of original approaches, such as contributed to the extreme appeal now possessed by this nation, for others. For it is not mere wealth (now greatly reduced), or power (now strangely delayed in availability by long-waiting manufacturing ideas for armaments), which draws, though some may find this the case, but rather in basis, the relative peace and stability, mutual concern and care which is found in a degree not often found elsewhere - of course some nations are not so different in this, many decline in these features and many more lack them conspicuously. Some come from such very different other nations as missionaries to make us more like their former nations, from which they fled, in some cases for reasons not readily discernible as honest; for who will say, I come to conquer so that you may resemble what I find now intolerable at home!

Immigration however is only one, and perhaps not the chief one of the grounds for such a movement to limit freedom. Intimidation is another, as above, through law; and this does not at all depend on races, but on ideology. Thus as the GROUNDS for objection to this or that news approach grew into more and more subjective ideas, and the liberty to use elements or aspects or concerns in print, even those in no way allied to any violence, was reduced even to scare-crow proportions, so could the enlightened, waiting on no God, or if doing so, not allowing this to direct their mouths and ideologies as presented to the people, force the Press to conform. A Press Czar could control the Press medium.

It is not in the nature of man as such, to know the truth. He has to find it. He is not born with it any more. Hence this muzzling, even if some news presenters were nothing less than irrational propagandizers, was a potentially fatal thing - especially if linked to a second assault on personal expression.

As if to confirm the direction of flow of this dynamic thrust at the heart of freedom, such an assault was also made, at the individual level. That neither law was passed does not limit the designs of what, being a minority Government, mercifully failed in these large efforts. But the nature of the legislation remains, for it is still being held up as the intention of the Government to continue its plans in this domain, if re-elected! It is not a Party as such, but whatever gains the power to implement such tyranny, which matters.

Conspicuous in the personal realm for control^*2, was the concept of offence: in this, the subjective was quite clearly elevated above the objective. Offend someone ? don't expect the case, if recognised, to be a matter of intention or actuality: it is feelings which count.

Truth became irrelevant. Your intention could not save you, however beneficial, once the hounds of neo-culture raged about you, once charges were laid and found acceptable for resolution. A Conference Czar was to enact a scenario, and lead offenders in the presence of those asserting the sensation of offence, into reconciliation or possible penalisation.

AN UNEXPECTED FALSE MOVE IN TERMS OF RACISM

Such a kind, at least, of approach is already law concerning aborigines, and of course is racism, although this is not part of Australia's international commitment.

If then racism is any approach to race which, upon identification of its presence, allows, enables or secures for any of that race, a different element of justice, or a removal of privilege or opportunity, than is present for others, this is precisely what racism is. Thus Australia has already been found actively PURSUING racism already, and making it a self-contradictory passion. This can then be used to make for oppression of a biblical culture, by making man all by implication, and so putting chains on liberty, in the appearance of helping those in need. It is a particularly unpleasant synthesis, whether of intention, or otherwise.

Let us however examine it as it has this potential, indeed potency to wreak havoc, even if through merely inefficient or badly formulated measures. Further, if you make one exception to equality before the law, where does it end ?

Let us then return for this reason to racism.

Of course, if people of a given race (say Jews in Germany in the thirties and the earlier forties) have been actively harmed by a nation, that is an entirely separate question. It is then a matter of finding the extent of the damage done, the reason for it, the results of it, the ideals held by that nation concerning this (not by somebody else), and taking such steps in the interest of justice, as might seem apt. Few ever do this, and many are they who glory in their achievements against other races or nations, as with the Incas and Aztecs, as some profiting by plunder might do. However, there is an issue requiring care, and consensus, and it can be made in a restitution format as in reparations after World War II.

THAT is quite different from making a difference between people of one race and those of another BEFORE THE LAW, which is not only a racist pre-occupation, but abhorrent, persecutory and unjust. This is the current position in the stated regard. Again, one might wish to consider tenderly the needs of those who have been afflicted, and make special efforts to encourage and assist them to find what is good; but that is not the same as INEQUALITY before the law, which merely at best, adds one evil to another. DOING evil is NEVER right!

Imagine now, if a people develop a station and make it a commercial venture, and labour for decades to exploit it, and then after people of a given race have worked on it for long, find some of that race suddenly wanting to refer to sacred sites, and to want reparation or cessation or money or whatever, because of this concept as affecting some site in the property. Imagine further that several representatives of this race have to come and their coming has to be paid for, and they then require the station holders to refer to their racial rights to the land and their being original inhabitants, and to read out a concessive statement on this topic, and then pursue negotiations on those premisses... Is this just ? Is this equal ? Do people of the race in question have to hear the station holders read out a statement of their conception of the matter ?

Vocabulary here matters. Remember we are merely hypothesising a case, so we can have it serve to explore several questions. ANY Australian may conceive of the aboriginal race as having been prior occupants of some of Australia, not on a national basis, not as having organised or even virtual rule over all of it, and not necessarily the first That is a fact and there is no problem with that, except it be put in an exaggerated format, where truth cannot connive,

Occidental, Oriental or Asian, various and of varying duration may be the occupation of any part of it, various the effect and significance. Man is not omniscient. Thus station holders might happily acknowledge what is certainly true, that the aboriginal race had parts of Australia for living, and preceded the British occupation and integration for rule, of this land. As a fact, if this offends anyone, it does not matter. Truth does not have to be ashamed either of lies, or of itself!

THE FIELD OF FORCE IN RELIGION

When a mention or proclamation makes such a race the first to come or inhabit, then matters of knowledge are replaced by matters of conjecture. One cannot proclaim what is not sure without compromise. This, if required, therefore, becomes in one way a lying approach, laid down by any government that does this. If someone in this way refused to proclaim what is not certain, legal or other penalties might come, in support of forcing people, made racially unequal before the law, to say what may not be true, or suffer. Worse, suppose that an earlier race were to be referred to as custodians, or former custodians, or original owners or any such phrases, then we enter into force in the field of religion.

We are dealing, as noted, strictly in the area of supposition as this case develops. The biblical approach is that God made man and matter, earth and land, ocean and all things, and owns it all (Psalm 100, Exodus 19:5, Isaiah 45:12,18-19, 40:9-23, 48:12ff., Jeremiah 27:5). Hence no one by any means can be that owner, anyone who did not MAKE it in the first place, in religion following the Bible. Limited tenure may be obtained by finding some land, cultivating it, connecting it systematically part with part, ruling all those parts, and such means. This constitutes a claim. If all who had ever done this to any land were to be made contenders, there would be havoc.

That involves questions of different approaches to ownership, at a subordinate level, before and under God, in terms of the Bible; and this relates to a religion, which in this country, supposedly relates to liberty.

To require someone to be made to appear as having some approach to the land other than what is simply factual, involves questions of origins, values and ultimate meaning, the balancing of aspects and so on. To REQUIRE an earlier people, for example, to be STATED to be or to have been custodians assumes such a role, by religious-style estimation, for it is not apparent of any people by their living anywhere, that this is applicable, except by fiat or desire; and indeed, the only custodian on such a scale as this is, in biblical perspective, is God. Men do not normally make the affairs of the land their goal, and even if they did, they would be far down in the scale of custodianship, let alone ownership, in biblical terms.

In fact, to take some approaches to task: to regard persons as owners of a land because occupying part of it, or custodians because living here is first of all, is to leave God out of it. As noted, the Bible has God as Maker and therefore owner of the earth. No one else gets to primary owner simply by living in it. Again, to live in some land is not the same as being custodian of all of it, unless you make religions assumptions about human rights according to your personal assumptions, or your fancy of an unhistoric kind in novel approaches to things.

Many features may lead to subordinate ownership of land or a land among men, such as productive use of the land, capital investment in it, political governance over it in unitary form, intensive works directed to that end beyond others, and so on. Even this is not entirely sufficient in itself. What IS necessary is non-racial, non-ideologically warped justice before all. Even if this is determined, and not confused with an entirely different field, namely that of mercy which is spontaneous and an insertion, to require views in this field to be READ out with penalty if not, draws near to an Inquisition. It appears as a hateful infiltration of views that grossly overreach and force on mankind, what is the prerogative of truth.

Thus such a readout, or proclamation, to be made by some Australian citizens to others, determined by race, would not only be racist, abusive of racial equality before the law, but religious oppression; for how could one read out what one did not conceive a correct analysis, or a presumptive one, in the field of ultimate values, priorities and reasons for them!

This therefore contravenes the UN idea of the
        Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
          Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
to which Australia is a formal party. This is by no means to agree with that document, but its breach should be very measured by any Government, when committed to it.

What does it say ? It is this.

          Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought,
          conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom
          to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice, and freedom,
          either individually or in community with others and in public or private,
          to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance,
          practice and teaching.

You are not expected to have to compromise religion or belief by law. Of course, if you wanted to use religion to kill or mutilate people, that is just a form of murder or physical mischief. However, at the speech operation level, where force is not in question to quell or subdue, then thought and speech and action are ostensibly free. That arena stretches wherever such themes appear. This is not to proclaim this; it is simply to NAME it as legally operative in this land (cf. Mystery of Iniquity).

Thus in forcing such attitudes as may be contrary to one's religion, in terms of what is not contrary to someone else's religion, whether the agent by the PM or Parliament, is not a permissible course by law; and yet law may require it. That would constitute hypocrisy, the simple assumption that when a particular view involving the meaning of the human race and the ultimates which have been its source or indeed the Source of it, directly or by implication, is common or politically prevails, force enters. Then what is not acceptable to many, may be forced on them nevertheless. They must STATE or DO what this other religious approach requires.

MERCY, HOWEVER DELIGHTFUL

IS BY NO MEANS IDENTICAL WITH JUSTICE

OFFENCE as a FIRE-BUG

Now if any want to make gifts to a race here before, including a Government, then that is another option, and one which is mercy and not justice. Mercy is free. Justice must take account for all before all of what is in all aspects, the case. That is the difference, in just one aspect.

Mercy should never be confused with justice, or the needs of some made to eliminate those of others, or to abort justice for all without discrimination. Jingoism is not attractive because it is a superficial substitute for justice, and if it has any mercy in itself, it is often so tilted as to collide for some, with the carefully based desires of others.

Thus gross injustice can readily arise when for racial reasons, a preference for one need cancels equal concern for others, and when special rights at law, as is now the case, are granted to one race above others.

Racism is never sound, nor is religiously based legal requirement in word or deed, in this world among men, ever to be reasonably exacted by the Government of any of its citizens except it is sanctioned by vote, and acknowledged as intention before it. In this country, this is so, unless hypocrisy is a plan for a given election and its own commitments are stated, so that justice is not on the political agenda for that Party. Even that exception makes for disruption of opportunity for further elections, and so is not even democratic.

The racism element has been a useful example. But the concept of offence as a basis for prosecution, the subjective to be given rights over objective questions of motivation, ideology, factuality and forms of values, makes of this merely one field. Others are almost endless. OFFENCE replaces truth in its whole entirety as criterion.

You can have people offended in business, in marriage, in romancing, in egotism, in self-regard, with agenda for self-enrichment via manipulation of law, actually hurt or pretending to be so, and you can enrich the purses of the practitioners of law, with disruptions of reality in favour of the meandering world of taking offence or not. This same offence may be for psychic, monetary, psychological or even political reason. In such legal mansions granted by government, you could laugh at realities, and stick closely to the absorbing condition of your inward being. You can be featured for this, given a certain importance, made a centre of attention, a person aggrieved, even praised for it, made to seem heroic when in some cases, merely self-indulgent; and then even paid! It is madness to divert from truth, and to turn mercy into laws of grievance. If someone can be helped, that is one thing; but if a regal sort of sanction is involved, as if in some commoner could invoke lèse-majesté, then subversion of liberty holds power, and furores can come from mere distemper.

Worse, the offence alleged may be through sincerely held religion on the part of the 'offender' and this readily becomes simply an indirect and potentially profitable way of harassing religion, taxing it, subduing it or detracting from it, of muting it or belittling those who so believe.

INTELLECTUAL SERFDOM

The same applies of course in another area, the parallel to racism, in terms of the realm of offence as subjective.

We move now to another related region.

It is that of intellectual serfdom, such as is practised in many schools, colleges and places of higher learning in this land. IF you do not follow a line of naturalism, or of making religion an inoperative ingredient in the matters of the origin and nature of earth and man, then various results follow. In the terms noted in detail (cf. TMR Ch. 8), let us briefly identify some.

	First of all you are denied adequate and equal attention to other views than the official one, even when these are covered by large numbers of highly qualified or even outstanding scientists.
	Secondly, you are not given systematic instruction concerning the elements of the case, between these viewpoints.
	Thirdly, the presence of logical fallacies is not a topic given academic treatment.
	Fourthly, examinations tend to be in naturalistic terms, as if Bible believers had to be examined by atheists, or atheists by zealots.
	Fifthly, scorn is often poured on what alone meets scientific method and its insistence on considering what meets, or fatally does not meet, verificatory procedures and logical consistency (cf. SMR pp. 50ff., TMR Ch. 1, The gods of naturalism have no go!).

Such measures, often formally, arise and become violations both of truth and scientific method alike. Truth is not gained by Inquisition, formal or implicit, or by subversion of liberty through a ramifying series of regulations, defamations and degradations.

That is a kind of intellectual racism, if you will, in which the question is just as much one of subservience; yet here what is the beneficiary is not a race, but an ideological group, or a religious preference. Let truth stand freely; it needs no bonus.

Neither in religion however, nor in logic, nor in truth is there any room for mere wilfulness. Where truth, as such, is not believed in, then neither is there consistent power in logic to maintain such a view: for that very idea COULD not be truth! It cannot therefore stand.

Where truth is believed in, then it must be pursued, not by law as if it could change hearts (though law may indeed give structure and if based on assured truth, be most helpful), but rather by conviction. As the Bible says, let everyone be persuaded in mind, in one's own mind.

Manipulation by superficial substitutes on the part of politicians, philosophers or gurus is very different from giving them liberty to hold their views, provided they do not use force physically to injure or kill others. Finding the truth is not a matter for less regard than how to set about one's income tax return. It is even more than romance. This is the ultimate romance, finding the adventure of the way to truth^*1. In Christ it has come to earth in human form and made its precisely predicted testimony; in Him the reason for our conditions is found, and the remedy for it. As this is being rejected by this world, so the prognosis, the predictions covering the human race, are coming true at a staggering rate, and never faster since Christ came, than in this generation.

Why not believe in Him who came as foretold and acted as forecast, before whom history performs as predicted, and show mercy to those who do not yet understand ? not in the talons of law or the persecutions of being lord over the conscience of others. If results of various religions differ, then people may indeed vote in this or that preference for a given action, so long as it is first of all unintrusive into the conscience: but this will become an action showing what sort of a country we have become. However, for man to make it unacceptable to prefer another order, approach, perspective, and to hold fast to it and present it, the more so when reason supports no other, to speak of it freely, or to apply its precepts in speech and approach: this is not liberty but tyranny. Truth is far better. For long the Lord has left man free to be fair; though the truth, as always, will be final.

It is well to come where it may be found (cf. Isaiah 55, John 3).

NOTES

On the objectivity of truth and its identification,

see SMR, TMR esp. Chs. 1 and 5,

LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST.

Various issues of freedom and increasing oppression through misdirected laws of cultural conformity, where culture is assumed as if vying for place next to the Ten Commandments, but to be enforced, disruptive of past liberties, corruptive of moral and personal freedom, of paganisation of this land and compulsions to impurities of various idols and preoccupations have been noted previously.

These include such presentations as:

The Paganisation of Australia

Now the Highway, Then the Heights Ch. 8

Man in Prospect, Retrospect and Bold Relief Ch. 10,including *6

Oral presentation - follow this link.

See also the collection over years, especially 2013, in

Freedom, The Nation, The Internet and the Next Generation.