W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
The Advertiser Nov. 30, 1998, p., 12
FREEDOM FOR DICTATES - or
HOW TO LOSE FREEDOM BY TALKING ABOUT IT
Here is a find! The Advertiser Editorial is expressing a well-shaped view which seems at least in the direction of the angels!
In fact, it is dealing with a declaration by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, following an enquiry into freedom of religion and belief in Australia. As a matter of fact (see Appendix 1, The Other News) the UN Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, as confused as the title is long, was proclaimed on 25 Nov. 1981, and was filed down into Australian law in 1993. It just needs to be gazetted, in this case an announcement by the then Commonwealth Attorney General, Michael Duffy, and given a little time, there it is, the burden of the Australian people. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Act of 1986 rendered the coast clear. Now the raider can enter the land as easily as that.
Meanwhile, to revert to the Advertiser editorial, in this case so very welcome, there are some interesting features of the latest movement towards making laws of our own to the great end of meeting world community opinion (whatever that is in a hotbed of war, rumour, riot, bullets, dissension among Russia, the US, China, France, to name some, and without bothering to look at the Koreas, the Taiwan affair of China, or if you will, the China affair of Taiwan, that sad slaughter house, Afghanistan, that bleeding heart of Africa, South Africa, Indonesia, the division on President Clinton, Yugoslavia and so on). However there is a pulpit in the UN, although there is no cross in the chapel, and the pulpit is a high one: the High Lurch Pulpit. It is essential that signatories who sign in the swim beneath the pulpit, do what they are told. Australia has to be reporting on its "progress" towards these decisions of the UN to the recording angels on high, though in this case they are decidedly sub-stratospheric.
In the Advertiser some of the more obvious features of the latest move towards this kind of conformity are indicated. Thus it notes that not only faith in the supernatural God, but belief in anything is to be focused. People who do not believe in God, believe, it is felt, in something; and the thrust is that no one who believes what he will, is to be compromised, unless of course he starts being dangerous ... dangerous ? Christ was dangerous to the equanimity of the ruling junta who murdered Him, not last because Rome might have misunderstood Him and so invaded the country because of their 'king'. That is the scriptural report, along with 'envy'.
It is certainly upsetting to the ubiquitous and iniquitous god of self-esteem, to see its devotees left flat-footed and inept before someone who not only TALKS of the supernatural God but WALKS and WORKS with Him in manifest ways so delightful to the people that a whole refreshing sense of practical religion arises anew. Rather than be troubled by this, murder Him (John 11:47-51). That was the way when He came, and remains the way with what in His name interferes by precept, argument or life, with the practice waywardness and the emptiness of discreditable enterprises that arise like weeds, strong and useless.
In China, to take a merely political case, the latest in this sad month of December 1998, is this: dissidents in China who presumed - is that the word ? to start setting up a new party which could allow people to choose between the Communist delicacies and a democracy were taken away (that can mean loss of face, health, food, privacy, mental freedom, various invasions of the person, loss of life, torture) because they allegedly posed a danger to the State.
Now freedom relates to personality
and personality relates to principles of operation for that freedom, values,
purposes, and these relate to the purpose of man, and that relates to who
he is, and to the directions of God. So in the end, this merely political
freedom has a religious aspect. Now people may be deemed threatened, incommoded,
the State upset, security at risk and so forth .
It is this which has happened
in Russia which had so VERY great freedoms of religion, so that as often
attested, people could be invaded, excluded from University, bashed, meetings
broken up, ludicrous discrimination shown against church buildings and
Bibles. State security, the ESTIMATE of what was NECESSARY for the community,
involves the removal of what THREATENED because of its inherent power,
the current rule. The current rule of the contemporary rulers had
to be good (by definition quite literally in the case of Communism,
but by 'social consciousness' or cultural norms in this country - the
phrase is not so important as the oppression), and therefore
anything which could in the remotest way even suggest that it was not good,
or that there were better principles in existence than those which it deemed
The Advertiser editorial in this case most justly observes, therefore: "Many of the commissioner's recommendations suggest an interference in institutional and individual affairs so inquisitorial as to be dangerous. Many stem from a contemporary attitude towards religion that it is merely a sociological phenomenon."
The editorial adds: " Nor is the report free of an element of empire building. " It goes on to note that if its recommendations were all followed, endless committees might cumbrously so act as to "exacerbate divisions without our society". It might do far more! History is an active consultant in such things. The Second World War, which was a physical thing, COULD NOT happen in the minds of many who loved the status quo and did not see that it should be threatened by looking at what seemed at that time mere possibilities, and in the pre-1939 euphoria of imagined evolution of the best of worlds and the most convenient of societies, why look back ? Look on to uninterrupted goodness! It is there: in God. It is needed in man. It is not obtained however by imagination but by what God has specified for the purpose: the cross of Christ as the exhibition of our sin, the place where it may repose as an alternative to the polluted heart of mankind and the call to cleanness of life, love of truth and fearlessness without persecution, purity without compromise and joy without cloying.
But without that ? (It is like saying of life, But without air ?) Much awaits the wayward world.
FREEDOM FOR AN INTERNATIONAL RELIGION
It is of course true that there is an element of freedom which is quite central in the UN Declaration on Religion noted above. It is freedom for an international religion to be policed. THEY would be free to do that, so that is freedom of religion for the State, and its particular preferences would thus be freely instituted by compulsion. There is about this however a slight difficulty. The people about whom supposedly the concern exists in the field of religion, they would not have religious freedom. Such protection is like having a police escort for the bedroom, a political facilitator for the class-room and a guard to keep you safe at your desk, who watches your writing lest you should inadvertently do something not deemed right, so helping you to be free from prison - another freedom! Excellent! Notable and remarkable! But alas nothing to do with religious liberty for people.
Let us give merely one example of this international religion which is subversive of freedom, surreptitious in method and deadly in its end product as seen so often in human history's millions of once suffering bodies, which were turned to twisted corpses and then, those to dust while the spirit went to God who made it (Ecclesiastes 12:7). Thus we find in the prologue to the Declaration on Religion of this UN, these words: "Considering that it is essential to promote understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief and to ensure that the use of religion or belief for ends INCONSISTENT with the Charter, other relevant instruments of the United Nations and the purposes and principles of the present Declaration IS INADMISSIBLE..." (blocks added).
From this two relevant features arise. First, ALL the 'instruments' of the UN, its many divulgements, declarations, are to be viewed as one whole. What goes contrary to these, secondly, is inadmissible.
Inadmissible*1, not allowed, forbidden, verboten! What sort of things does the UN then say on such topics. For information let us turn to the Declaration on Child Rights, which is already named in one of the Human Rights powers by law. It has this to say in Article 5:
"... the child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. He (sic) shall be brought up in a spirit of ... universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellowman." Moreover, "practices of a religion or beliefs in which a child is brought up must not be injurious to his physical or mental health or to his full development
Who, however, determines what is injurious ? is the criterion for 'full development' ? Of income ? of harmonious conformed personality ? What is this universal brotherhood ?
Christ said this:
"You are of your father the devil" (John 8:44) to some most religious people.
This would certainly have been inadmissible to the religion-constructors of the UN, for it clearly involves truth and falsity, not harmony and acceptability as the criterion. Speaking of the dividing power of truth, not as a policeman but as reality, Jesus, who stated "my Kingdom is not of this world", declared:
"I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake find it" - Matthew 10:34-39.
While He BORE and did not INFLICT the cross, it is apparent how this relates to universal brotherhood. While this is a freedom of the spirit and the heart in the service of truth, and truth from God freely received, involves no tanks and no aircraft and cruise missiles, UN inspectors and police, yet it is not consistent with the this-worldly harmony charter of the UN. It is quite clear that Jesus would be regarded as a dangerous revolutionary, and suppressed just as surely as in His own day; except of course that in His own day He came because sent (cf. Isaiah 61, 42,49, Zechariah 12:10), and went where He had to go to deliver the prisoners from their sin so that they might live in the peace of God which passes all understanding and is not enforced by motor-bike escorts and machine gun sermons, such as were proposed in an RC newspaper in Europe about the time of Hitler's power (SMR p. 952).
What happened then, and in Yugoslavia in particular at that time, is merely illustrative of what religions which lay claim to, or desire the subordination of this world to themselves by law and rule, compulsion and control, can do (Vatican Imperialism in the Twentieth Century pp. 255-256, "Ravening Wolves", Monica Farrell, 1957, SMR pp. 920-921, 951-952). The most mellifluous propaganda and the most idealistic conceptions can cohere, in such cases with such worldly desires, with the most manifest brutality. Here in China now, the Communist odyssey, one more this worldly religion, affirms human rights at the same time as determining that this and that dissident (which means someone who does not agree with the government's concept of this worldly religion, ultimates, desiderata, morals, rule) must be apprehended and given prison sentence for a dozen years or more. This sort of passion is NOT notable for compassion. It IS notable for verbal devices which do not relate harmoniously to the harmony it proposes. It is ever so with force.
Thus truth can be outlawed by such devices as these, precisely as HAS BEEN THE CASE in Russia and China, and in some ways still is, especially in the latter. Thus what is the phrase ? The STATE SECURITY (harmony could be ruled to be part of it) REQUIRES the dissidents' detention in these last few days in China, WHILE at the same time the official government declaration is that they will BE PRESERVING HUMAN RIGHTS. Tender mouths in horses tend to suggest easy riding, but in politics it is different. Tender mouths are here seen in complete composure with the hardest of treatments, for these mouths do not obey reins, they rather direct traffic.
One might have hoped that truth or falsity would relate to evidence and evidence would relate to freedom, but that is not the way of the devil, who as Christ noted, was a murderer and a liar from the beginning. Hence the freedom to be conformed to a religion of convenience, and certainly to a RELIGION, and an international religion, one in fact diametrically opposed to Jesus Christ in fundamental principle in the case of the UN which directly affects Australia through its commitments and desires or lusts for that kind of international rule, is what is being offered. In view of the oppressions of history, and the abundant use of propaganda in the past 60 years on this earth, in association with the vilest of uses of force and discrimination, often on the part of those who KNEW WHAT WAS BEST, from Pol Pot to Stalin, from Saddam Hussein to Mao, there is no excuse for any further blunders.
Meanwhile Australia, a difficult nut to crack for the oppressive forces of delusive propaganda in view of its tendency to let all speak and act and do what they want to do, while a shrewd or careful look is often given to the product, is drifting to the ruin of the rest. Only great vigilance and integrity is likely to diminish the dynamism of this fateful thrust to the subversion of evidence, reality and truth in this country, for the sake of international convenience. Only Christ can deliver it, and those who FREELY come to Him, whose earth it is by creation, to whom we owe ourselves by the cleansing offer of redemption, but who does not like earthly governments, so press that personality is prostituted to convenience, whether of the many or the few; but rather liberates back to that form of reality which is our own, allowing and enabling friendship with God whose glory is not dimmed, nor beauty lost, whose love is not that of a dictator, but shines through His sacrifice in Christ, exhibiting what He is, who He is, and where we must go if we would love the truth and become what He made us to be ... freely.
Talking of real rather than notional inadmissibility (to utilise the choice UN term) , there is the little matter of the Australian Constitution. It forbids any establishment of religion by law. Since, as shown, the UN dictates in the Religion and Belief document quoted here IS in part the establishment of a religion, with explicit religious references which happen to be wholly contrary to the Bible, to mention but one religion, it is of course in open conflict with our Australian Constitution. The fact that this intrusion arises adventitiously through the international affairs loophole, so that the Australian people do not need to be asked but merely to receive things sent on this wave-length, because it is INTERNATIONAL: this might seem enough. The fact that it is also contrary to the constitution on the TOPIC OF RELIGION as well as brought in by this surreptitious seeming method, without real exposure to the wishes of the people, does nothing to ameliorate the injury to this nation.
The further fact that the present PM, John Howard, made reference adversely before election, to this surreptitious kind of bringing in of laws by the international loophole, makes the continuation the more remarkable, and it is to be hoped he will act in terms of his prior and due concerns on this matter as the area of religion is brought forward for consideration in law, just as the UN document was already adopted before his term. It is doubly wrong, this international song, and grave music does it make indeed for a nation being sold.
The Commonwealth Constitution in Article 116 prohibits the Commonwealth from making "ANY LAW FOR ESTABLISHING ANY RELIGION, OR FOR IMPOSING ANY RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE, OR FOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF ANY RELIGION, AND NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION..." Both the imposition and the prevention of free exercise is involved, in that what is contrary to Christ, for example, in this UN document is now law. The effect of the law is not entirely the point; it is the PRESENCE of such a law, which, being the case, is in contravention of the Australian Constitution.
In a similar way, although the issue is indirect in the case of a State, and it is a matter of to what extent Commonwealth quality provisions in the Constitution are to be expected to be honoured at the ethical and freedom level, by the States, the State of S.A. is violating to the uttermost, religious freedom in its own midst. Before we note the area in view, let us observe this: when a State wishes to establish a religion by law, or help to establish it, or to negate another, or to help to negate it, there might seem in a democracy and in any honest body whatever, a need to declare the intention before election. In this State, however, such declaration has not been made. Thus the subversive work continues at State as well as at Commonwealth level.
The S.A. matter involves State-funded education which excludes the scientific position of creationism from consideration in science classes within the Government schooling system, while allowing organic evolution as a theory and suffering no view contrary to it to be assessed. This it does in opposition to the far more tolerant and scientific position of the Queensland Government, and indeed, it contravenes scientific method IN THIS VERY SELECTIVE and governmentally MANDATORY MANNER OF APPROACH (cf. That Magnificent Rock Ch.8, p. 220, note 5; and Ch.1), as well as in the internal procedures which allow such preference in detail for such (inadequate) theory over raw facts with freedom to use honest steps to assess all comers, examining and discriminating as evidence and logic require.
The religious aspects are amongst the most vital and corrosive, being wholly contrary to Biblical Christianity in particular (see The Shadow of a Mighty Rock SMR - pp. 179-190, 485-498), and without evidential support of any kind as well as debased and debasing (cf. That Magnificent Rock Ch.6, A Spiritual Potpourii 1-3, SMR pp. 124-128, 231-234). The circumstance that they involve a wholly illogical philosophy beneath the approach does not help (cf. SMR pp. 934ff., Ch.3, That Magnificent Rock, Ch.5).
Further the assault on religion is EXPRESS AND EXPLICIT, being in fact a rather tired old form of liberalism being brought out from moth-balls without any vestige of rational support EVEN ATTEMPTED, one which seeks to characterise all religions in a manner so unscientific and unscholarly as to be no more nor less than an abuse of power and the making of religion a personal fiefdom of government. It is also a vilification of Christianity, Biblically defined, in particular, so slackly casual, and a generalisation so wholly imprecise as to show for all time the folly of government without divine sanction, simply ruling its sweet will in the most ultimate affairs of the life of mankind. (Cf. SMR pp. 179ff., 485ff..)
All this is shown, the breaches in a Government document to schools and the errors in detail, in That Magnificent Rock. Ch.8. It has been shown to successive premiers, who have since fallen with some disgrace, to a Minister who shelved it after asking for an alternative treatment and getting it, without reply, and to the present S.A. Government which continues to provide no rational ground for its action, merely citing others who favour it, accepts no debate and continues in a most disgraceful exhibition of pertinacious philosophic dictatorship in the area, of which too many examples have already been seen in this century, from nominally opposite camps, during various wars. Such is not the path of peace, and though Christians are peaceable, and honest and open debate is mere delight when it is available in a way this State has been notable for omitting both in University in Adelaide and in Government areas, yet the fruits of such dark unrighteousness do not exalt a nation.
Indeed, the free examination of all things and the freedom to point out logical errors in anything are vital and healthy; and restrictive confinements of facts in subordination to feelings and fantasies are only one step from disaster; and that is only for good which is interested in healthy debate and honourable evidencing of reality. Dictatorship is only one step away when reality is philosophically bound for citizens as a condition of citizenship; and indeed a healthy desire to avoid stuffy obscurantism once was strong in this country. Now it is in danger of being tamed, so that cancers of the soul may be protected under mandate, established by law; and they are being established by law, and may soon be further so.
The Biblical position is notable for its internal insistence (e.g. Isaiah 41,43,48) on CHECKING THE FACTS, examining the evidence and not shutting the eyes. Honesty and integrity are like milk to the Biblical Christian, whilst privilege-giving laws can act like sledge hammers on watchworks! We do not really need a Government to think for us, far less international governments whose records in tolerance and fidelity are not always such as to evoke a keen admiration.