SATANIST STATUE IN OKLAHOMA

A large plaque of the 10 Commandments erected on the Statehouse lawn in OK City has prompted a group of satanists to demand equal status for the so-called “prince of darkness”. They have commissioned the statue (pictured) and they argue that it’s hypocritical to allow one faith to be publicly represented and not another.

Of course, this unorthodox new demand has met with stiff opposition from Oklahoma officialdom. I quote from a Fox News online report.

“Oklahoma officials say there is no way in hell that a statue of Satan will ever assume a position at the Capitol. There will never be a satanic monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol and the suggestion that there might be is absurd," Alex Weintz, spokesman for Gov. Mary Fallin, said in a statement to FoxNews.com.”  (Emphasis mine – sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

Where is the audacity in all this? The legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Brady Henderson, said: “We don’t think the state should place religious artifacts on state property unless the people of the entire state agree with its message.”

Sounds reasonable. Until you remember that the 10 Commandments are a well-known and accepted moral code of behaviour. They are not religious artifacts but reminders of the ethical foundations on which the nation was built.

In seeking to give satan his thoroughly undeserved recognition in American public life, the perpetrators of this farce are taking the attitude: “We’ll show ‘em!” It’s not about reverencing the un-reverent one but about annoying and upstaging those who hold to Christian values.

p.s. I hope no-one is worried that I posted the picture. Satan (capitalised only because I'm starting a new sentence) has no authority or power in my life. If a picture of a statue representation of him bothers you, call on Jesus, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He will set you free. Greater is He (Jesus) that is in us than he that is in the world. Amen!

FEMINIST AGENDAS - ARE WE THERE YET?

Deborah May is “a feminist guru… being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to teach federal public servants to be fairer to women in the workplace” (Herald Sun 12/5/14).

On her blog page, I found an article titled: “Women and the Glass Ceiling: Are we THERE yet?” Here’s a pertinent quote from that article.

“I’ve been working to advance women’s leadership for the last 15 years and frankly if we don’t start getting creative nothing is going to happen before I die!

Are we there yet? Far from it, but I guess it depends on where ‘there’ is and I would suggest that ‘there’ should be 50% women at all levels across all organisations within all industries and sectors.”

All levels. All organisations. All industries and sectors. Wow!

There are many organisations and sectors where women dominate: think teaching, hospitality, nursing, social work. But, according to May, there should be NO organisations or industries dominated by men, even to the point of 51% domination.

May’s goal, her description of ‘there’, is thus heavily biased against men.

Do women have equal opportunity in Australia? I guess this would be a point of contention. May laments that: “In smaller companies – especially those in industries generally regarded as ‘blokey’ – IT/engineering/manufacturing/construction there are far fewer women and there is no particular imperative to change.”

But then she goes on to quote figures that, in my view, clearly indicate that women in fact have BETTER opportunities than men.

“This is the case despite the fact that:

• Women comprise 50.8% of our population.
• 87% women attain year 12 qualifications or above, compared to 82% men
• Over 50% of university graduates are women.”

Well, what if some women don’t WANT to be the CEO of a mining company or a major engineering enterprise? What if there are some jobs that demand time and energies that women are not willing to commit, given that work is not their whole life? What if some women actually want to stay at home and be hands-on raising a family?

God has given both men and women certain unique characteristics. It makes sense that men are more suited to some jobs and women are more suited to others. We have just celebrated Mothers’ Day and women have been loudly appreciated for the very role that no man can fill.

I’m certainly not saying that women cannot flourish in the workplace, or that they cannot assume important leadership roles, but the calling to motherhood should never be denigrated or trivialised by foolish ideals about female quotas in occupations that are more suited to men.

TEACHING CHILDREN TO HATE

Apologies that I missed doing this blog last week. But a picture in today’s Herald Sun made sure I was motivated to write my Answers for Audacity for this week.

The annual May Day march in Melbourne, organised by unions, included children wearing t-shirts that read “F--- Tony Abbott” or “Abbott Hater”.

In what moral universe is that OK?

There are many heated political and cultural issues. I fully appreciate, of course, that people get angry. But don’t we all want to live in a decent, respectful society? Don’t we want our children to grow up in a society where people can state a case and make a point intelligently, without obscenity and hatred? Have we discarded the old mantra that you “play the ball” not “play the man”?

The problem, of course, is that we are a media driven society now. And the media aren’t interested in nice, peaceful arguments. They would rather report obscenity than decency. If you want your protest to get air time, you have to do something shocking.

And as for the organisers of the march this past weekend – shame, shame, shame! John Roskam, from the Institute of Public Affairs, was reported as saying: “The idea that children are being used to push offensive views reveals the depths of (sic) which the Left in Australia will dive.”

How sad that we have come to this.

 

IMPRESSIONS OF EASTER 2014

It’s Easter Monday, a public holiday in Australia. And my thoughts today are probably getting a bit away from the Audacity theme. Easter 2014 has been a mixed bag.

The media always gives some time to reporting the Christian emphasis of Easter, especially Good Friday and Easter Sunday. But, if you’re a church that wants more than a token exposure, it’s a good idea to preach a sermon about something that’s currently high on the agenda of mainstream Australia. One Queensland Church focused on the problem of domestic violence. Others focus on ongoing problems of poverty or bullying.

The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne ran their most successful Good Friday appeal ever this year, raising almost seventeen million dollars. Would such an appeal work as well on any other day? Who knows? It may be that sacrificially giving to those who are suffering is a subtle outworking of the Christian heritage that we have as a nation.

There have also been suggestions that next year the AFL will abandon it’s long-standing policy of refusing to stage football matches on Good Friday. I think there’s a general willingness to respect the day but it seems inevitable that commercial interests will encroach still further into Australian spirituality. We have become an extremely secular nation that gives the occasional nod to Christianity but then gets on with the “real” purpose of life – the pursuit of happiness through financial gain.

Perhaps, in the end, the ultimate audacity of a godless society is not to rail against Christian culture and ritual but to marginalise it, to divert attention away from it, and to condescend to it like the party hostess who finds an unwanted acquaintance and quips: “Oh, are you still here?”

Yes, Christians are still here. And we are an important part of this nation. We will continue to testify to the death and resurrection of Christ because that is the only real hope for life that anyone can possess.

THE DEBATE ABOUT CRE IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS

When you visit the religionsinschools.com website, you are immediately confronted with a picture of Fr Bob McGuire and a quote: “At school, there ought to be a general religious curriculum to introduce children to the ideas and motivations and rituals – in a word the ethos – of all the religions.”

Really? All the religions? Must schoolchildren be taught about Sikhism, Shinto, Scientology, Mormonism, Bahai, Unification Church, etc, etc? And what about all the multiple sects of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism? Sorry, Fr Bob, there literally wouldn’t be time for anything else in the school curriculum.

Christianity is different because a basic understanding of Christianity is necessary for understanding Australia and the values that have made us what we are.

Back to the FIRIS (Fairness In Religion In Schools) website. Another headline quote comes from Cathy Byrne who, among other things, a sociology and ethics teacher. She says: “It is time to expel dogma, discimination and special privileges and to teach children to think critically about religious ideas and ethical worldviews.”

Well, Cathy, the CRE program in Victoria is certainly not pushing dogma. Volunteer teachers cop a lot of very unfair flak on this website and others like it. They are actually trained to say “Christians believe…” rather than to dogmatically assert their own beliefs.

Jacqui Tomlins, another freelance writer, says: “Why would you expose your kids to unqualified volunteers teaching a curriculum you know very little about? And do you really believe they’re teaching acceptance, tolerance and open-mindedness – or something else entirely?”

Well Jacqui, you can always opt your own children out of the CRE program. But the truth is that CRE helps to open the minds of children to things that are otherwise kept from them in school. Do you really think that your lack of “acceptance, tolerance and open-mindedness” when it comes to CRE is helping to broaden the minds of children. I would suggest you are doing the exact opposite.

The battle over religion in schools is dangerous because it’s being fought on the wrong issues. A truly comprehensive, multicultural approach to religion in schools is impossible but, I repeat, Christianity deserves special privilege in Australian schools because Christianity has been by far the dominant religion ever since the First Fleet.

If you are a Christian reading this, I urge you to pray for Access Ministries, the provider of CRE in Victoria. They really are facing extraordinary pressure at the moment, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of schools appreciate the half-hour CRE class each week and the volunteers who work so hard to do it well.

EMERGING AUDACITY IN CHRISTIANITY

OK, so it’s not only non-Christian heathens who come out with outlandish stuff. Some Christians are very good at it. Hey, I might even be accused of audacious writing myself at times.

Today, I’m sharing a book review that I did back before Christmas last year. I have no doubt that the author is a very sincere Christian but… well, the review can speak for itself.

BOOK REVIEW – THY KINGDOM CONNECTED - Dwight J. Friesen

I understand that some people will love this book, especially those who are following in the footsteps of Emergent Village. The back cover contains the following gems of praise: "a treasure chest of insights" "for a unified and healthy body of Christ in a connected world", "the first contextual ecclesiology for a networked world."

But, to be honest, this book just annoyed me.

It didn't help that the author goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid using masculine pronouns for God. 'Godself' instead of 'himself' just seems too ridiculous to be cute. But this is only the beginning. A whole new vocabulary is invented to make subtle nuances seem like radical new thinking. Language becomes almost fluid. For the purpose of "reimagining the body of the institutional church" a local church becomes a "Christ-Common". For the purpose of "reimagining the soul of the local church", gatherings of Christians become "Christ-Clusters"."Chaordic life" is a strangely positive term for the interaction of chaos and order in the Kingdom of God. Pastors become "network ecologists", whose main task is "stewarding" a network of nodes and links. Even worse, relationships between different things are often described in terms of a "dance".

The occasional stories in this book that are intended to demonstrate the practicalities of these supposedly new paradigms are unconvincing. There are plenty of churches doing innovative things in their communities but they don't talk a foreign language amongst themselves.

Ultimately, I think the message of this book is that networks are everywhere in nature so the Kingdom of God is learning to function more connectively, with "flattened leadership".

Without its excessive verbosity, this book could have been much shorter, and possibly more helpful.

THE AUDACITY OF MODERN SCIENCE

Some of the most audacious (and ridiculous) comments are coming these days from otherwise respected scientists and academics. I’ve just finished reading a 2013 book called “The Science Delusion” by Curtis White. Here’s a part of my review of the book.

“From a Christian perspective, one may cheer from the sidelines as one anti-faith mentality is thoroughly and wittingly dismembered, but then, we must shake our heads at the stubborn refusal to consider the possibility of a Creator God as the answer to the supposedly unanswerable questions posed in the book. Art is put forward as our best approach to the unknowable metaphysical aspects of life but, ironically, in a discussion of what it means to be an "I", the author fails to even mention the God who identified Himself to Moses as ‘I Am’
 

This book strongly challenges the philosophical self-limitations of science and the deterministic idea that we are all basically just very complex machines, but it fails to break free of a different kind of self-limitation, the idea that humanity must find its own way to explain its own existence without reference to God. The author accuses science of ruling out any knowledge outside its own but, really, he does the same thing by ruling out, in effect, the knowledge of God.”

So the book is a rather audacious attack on the audacity of science. (How could I resist doing a blog about that?!? I hope I didn’t come across as audacious in my review!)

To be clear, we are talking here about neuroscientists, evolutionists and molecular biologists who have been making grandiose claims that their scientific disciplines are on the verge of explaining things like human thought, creativity and personality. Richard Dawkins talks about ‘memes’, which are basically the cultural equivalent to genes. In other words, we inherit a set of genes that determine how tall we will be, what colour eyes we will have, etc, and we also inherit a set of views and values (memes) that determine our culture and personality. Why is this audacious? Because it’s presented as fact (or so highly probable that we may as well present it as fact) when it’s actually nothing more than sheer imagination.

The great obsession of science is to be able to explain everything – yes, literally everything! But, by ignoring the evidence for God (eg, in the brilliant natural design that we see everywhere in the world) on the basis that they will someday be able to explain these things without reference to God, these modern scientists only demonstrate their own foolishness.

(By the way, if you can't read the slogan on Dawkins' shirt, it says "RELIGION - together we can find the cure."

THE DEFINING POWER OF A NAME

I was astonished to read an online article this week about names that are banned in Saudi Arabia. The list of mostly Arabic-sounding names also included ‘foreign’ names like Linda, Alice, Elaine and Sandy.

Then, yesterday, there was an article in the Herald Sun about names that have been rejected in Victoria by Births, Deaths and Marriages. To be honest, I hadn’t even realised that B,D & M had authority to do that.

But it makes sense.

What parents, in their right minds, would name their child Lord or Prince or Fireman Sam? Sadly, one of the responsibilities of government continues to be protecting citizens from their own stupidity.

Other names that B,D & M rejected, as listed in the article, were Glory Hallelujah New Covernant (sic), Princess Diana and Anarchy. One couple apparently wanted their baby to be called Wonderful Beautiful. Umm, really? That might be ok when the child is a babe in arms, but how is that child going to cope at school, not to mention later in life?

Reminds me of that old Johnny Cash song “A Boy Named Sue”.

Some really bad names were given to babies in Bible times as well. Think Ichabod, which meant ‘no glory’ or Beriah, which meant ‘in trouble’, or Nabal, which meant ‘fool’ or ‘dolt’. Isaiah called one of his sons Mahershalalhashbaz, which meant ‘they hasten to the booty, swift to the prey’. But we can’t blame Isaiah for that one; he was only obeying God. The boy with the unfortunate name was a prophetic message to the nation.

Jacob’s wife, Rachel, dying in childbirth, wanted to call the child Benoni, which means ‘son of my sorrow’. Fortunately for the newborn boy, his father overruled, calling him Benjamin, 'son of my right hand'.

The audacious, ridiculous names that some parents give their children only serves to highlight the importance of our names. Parents should consider several factors in naming their children. Pretentious, unconventional or embarrassing names, even sometimes names with absurd spellings, can become a heavy burden, leading, in the worst cases, to resentment and alienation.

Good names, however, help to create a positive identity. The message of the Gospel is uniquely expressed in Isaiah 62:2 – “The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name.”

Jesus offers a new life and a new identity. When we become ‘Christian’, we have a whole new name to live up to.

CELEBRITY AUDACITY

Why does our society continue to celebrate celebrities who indulge in bold, audacious behaviour? Gossip columns in magazines and online are filled with stories and pictures about shocking things said and done by famous people. It might be a near-naked selfie, a cheeky outfit, a nasty tweet about another celebrity or an overly extravagant purchase. Things hardly worth viewing or reading about but millions of people will.

These things are audacious in the sense that they are brash and daring. They push the limits of decency. Music videos, by artists who want to be noticed, commonly feature scandalous and outrageous behaviour. It’s not new. Think Madonna, the Rolling Stones, or even Elvis in years gone by. But I think it’s definitely getting worse.

So what’s the problem here? And how can the Christian Church compete?

The following quote from my book “Our Culture in Christ”, p80, seems relevant.

“When it comes to appealing to the flesh, the world will always do a much better job than the church. If we’re trying to grab the attention of the world through worldly methods, we will run up against a major problem. The world entertains by sexual titillation, innuendo, violence, crudity and profanity, all things that do not belong in Christian witness… Christian [TV] programmers may be creative geniuses but there is a line that they cannot cross because… well… they are Christian… The problem is not that the Christian program is boring. The problem is that so many of the people we are hoping to reach are steeped in sin.

“Non-Christian songwriters and performers are not limited in their lyrics, their stage effects or their off-stage antics. They will always be more interesting to unsaved people. They routinely do and say things that would cause Christian artists to lose their ministries.”

So the problem is that Western society glorifies sin rather than honouring integrity and righteousness. The audacious behaviour of celebrities will not stop as long as there is a market for their shock tactics. We can’t change that but we can certainly pray!

ps: Apologies that this blog didn’t come out last week. I had a week’s holiday in beautiful Tasmania.

HOW LEGAL IS THE SYDNEY MARDI GRAS?

People who marched in Saturday’s Mardi Gras in Sydney may see the annual event as a celebration of diversity, or even compassion. This year, several groups have used the parade as a platform for political comment. And not just the ever-present push for the deceptively named “marriage equality”; all sorts of left-leaning political issues were highlighted.   

Media coverage of the event has been overwhelmingly positive. Of course it has! Anyone who dares to criticize the event is liable to be publicly slandered, pilloried and persecuted. Any public figure who dares speak anything other than celebratory praise for the gay lifestyle will be in danger of losing their job.

I decided to do some research on public decency laws because, despite the fact that I know the NSW Police appoint an officer each year to check on such matters, I wondered how some of the costumes (or lack thereof) can be deemed acceptable.

According to justanswer.com, Section 393 of the Crimes Act 1900, “A person who offends against decency by the exposure of his or her person in a public place, or in any place within the view of a person who is in a public place, commits an offence.” 

What would happen if a man appeared outside a school wearing nothing but a small cloth covering his private parts? What would security personnel in shopping centres or sports venues do with someone cavorting around in such a state of undress? In more personal situations, proponents of such behaviour could even (quite legitimately) be charged with sexual abuse.

I realize, of course, that people who deliberately choose to watch the parade cannot then complain about what they, or their children, might happen to see. My point is that the Mardi Gras actually celebrates and promotes things that would be illegal almost anywhere else.

Public decency laws often include exemptions for things done in the name of entertainment, and perhaps this excuse might be used to support the legality of the Mardi Gras parade. But who could deny that this event deliberately pushes the limits of public decency? Who determines what is acceptable and what is not?

It is not a celebration of diversity but a celebration of perversity.

WHEN SHOULD A POLITICIAN RESIGN?

Federal Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, has come under fire this week after it was revealed an Iranian man, Reza Berati, died in the riots at the Manus Island detention centre. Labour Senator, Doug Cameron, made it quite clear that he thinks Morrison should resign. Another Labour Senator, Sue Lines, said that Morrison “definitely does have blood on his hands”.

Before going any further, I should own up that I have recently taken out membership in the Liberal Party in Victoria. Over the years, when I was pastoring churches, I always felt it was inappropriate to align myself too closely with any political party, even the Christian ones. But I was very impressed with Cory Bernardi when I heard him speak recently. So, yeah, we’ll see how it works out.

Anyway…

When should a politician resign? When something tragic happens somewhere that falls within his or her area of responsibility? Obviously not. No Police Minister can guarantee the safety of every individual on our roads, or even in their homes. No Sports Minister can take all the blame if someone dies in a freak sporting accident. No Finance Minister, even with the best will in the world, can ensure the prosperity of every individual in the nation.

Politicians, by the very nature of their work, deal with many complex, difficult issues. If they are working hard on an agenda that they honestly believe is the best course of action, and problems occur, the responsibility of judgment comes back to the voters, who can remove them at the next election.

The Bible actually exhorts us to pray for government authorities (1 Timothy 2:1,2). Wouldn’t it be something if, someday, a government minister was trying to deal with a crisis situation somewhere, and the opposition MP said: “I know Minister X is working hard in extremely difficult circumstances. Let’s all pray that God will give Minister X the wisdom and discernment to find an answer to these challenging problems.”

But yes, I believe there are times when politicians should resign. If they are involved in criminal activity of any kind, if they have abused their position to financially benefit themselves or close friends and family, if they have deliberately deceived the public, or if they are unable to carry out their duties due to ill health or any other circumstance.

We have a great political system in Australia but I think maybe we have imbibed a little too much Red Indian culture. Politicians are always looking for the next scalp!

DISRESPECT FOR MARRIAGE LAWS

Last week, according to reports, a 35 year old Pakistani-born man was arrested in Parramatta for officiating at the Newcastle wedding of a 26 year old Lebanese man to a 12 year old  girl. The detectives who arrested the man apparently said that the iman was “no longer part of the mosque” that he had been involved with since 2009.

I would not wish to draw unwarranted conclusions about Muslims in Australia from this news report (I certainly am not privy to all the necessary facts) but I think I can detect the smell of audacity here.

I cannot believe that anyone could imagine it was OK to officiate a wedding involving a child bride anywhere on Australan soil. Ignorance cannot possibly be an excuse. We are left with two possibilities. Either the people concerned are simply thumbing the nose (in total disrespect) at Australian laws and values, or they somehow feel that people will respect their culture enough to turn a blind eye.

But enough clichés. It must be assumed, in any case, that they placed obligation to Islam ahead of obligation to life and citizenship in Australia.

So am I, and many others like me, wrong to fear the potential islamisation of our nation? Even apart from the fact that Islam misrepresents the Jesus that Christians love and worship,  it contradicts the values of decent Australians in countless ways.

Multiculturalism argues that we can find room for these people in our society, and that we can make some allowances for their particular cultural and religious requirements. I strongly suggest that this argument is flawed.

If we allow Muslim men to marry young girls (more than just one if they so desire) and if we allow Sharia banking, Muslim courts to rule on issues involving Muslims, public toilets and facilities to be Muslim approved, and food to be halal, the supposedly minor accommodations in the name of multiculturalism will, by stealth, completely transform our nation.

Muslims will get everything they want and the rest of the nation will just have to “get over it.”

The audacity here lies in the expectation (by some Muslims at least) that they should be allowed to fully live out their faith in Australia. It is, I’m afraid, an audacity that comes from a supremacist view that will remain largely unspoken, lest too many Australians begin to speak out against Islamic progress here.

SOCIALIST PARTY – ALWAYS UP FOR A FIGHT

I was concerned yesterday to read that the spokesperson for the group of protesters who have been trying to stop the East West Link project in Melbourne is a member of the Socialist Party. Even more troubling is the report in the Herald Sun that they have considered bringing children to the protests, just to boost numbers.

One video on the Socialist Party website shows a man speaking to a small group of protesters outside the offices of Land Lease in Melbourne. He describes the East West Link as “an unpopular project that nobody wants.”

If the letters to the editor in today’s paper are anything to go by, that description would be more apt for the protesters themselves.

The current news section of the website contains an article that says: “We are on track to turn the 2014 state election into a ‘referendum’ on the East West Link.”

The question we must ask is: Why would socialists be so passionate about a government infrastructure project? The answer: they’re always up for a fight and this just happens to be an issue that they can find ways to justify.

The socialist party claims to represent the working class (their international parent organisation is the Committee for a Workers’ International). In their own words: “The Socialist Party has a proven track record of campaigning and fighting for the rights of working class people. Over the years we have led and supported countless struggles. We have consistently campaigned against imperialist wars, racism, sexism and homophobia.”

So how does protesting against alleged marriage “inequality” have anything to do with the rights of working class people?

The conclusion is inescapable. The raison d’etre of the Socialist Party is to fight and to be seen fighting. They attack Tony Abbott as Liberal Prime Minister but they also attack Labour and even the Greens as caving in to big business.

The protesters have admitted that they are losing the propaganda war at present. Well of course they are! Anyone in this country can write articles and newsletters claiming the moral high ground, but sabotaging public works and deliberately attempting to stir up social unrest is not the way to make friends and influence people.

WHEN HATE SPEECH IS LEGAL

Anti-Christian hate speech has reached an all-time audacious low in Australia. Bill Muehlenberg, on his culture watch blog, has alerted us to a blasphemous performance on the programme of the Adelaide Fringe Festival which starts later this month.

In “Come Heckle Christ” Joshua J Ladgrove poses as Jesus so that people can abuse and insult him, or throw stuff at him. The promo says the performance is for “Anyone who enjoys yelling at Jesus whilst watching a dramatic re-enactment of everyone's favourite fairy-tale: The Crucifixion of Jesus The Christ.”

The same “show”, which is no more nor less than hate speech in the guise of comedy, is also booked for the Melbourne Fringe Festival.

http://www.melbournefringe.com.au/fringe-festival/show/come-heckle-christ/

Bill, quite rightly, asks why these people are targeting Christ, not Mohammed or Buddha. “They are gutless cowards once again picking on a soft target. They would never dare to do something like this to Muslims or other easily offended groups. They are just a despicable bunch of Christophobes who think they are being oh so clever.”

This is a game for these people. Let’s see just how much we can get away with. Let’s see how many Christians we can upset.

Bill urges Christians to contact the festival sponsors, chief of whom is BankSA, also the festival organisers and the politicians who allow public money to be spent on such rubbish. See these details on http://www.billmuehlenberg.com . Click on the article ‘More Ugly Anti-Christian Bigotry’ and scroll down.

The National Civic Council has set up a petition, which I believe every decent Australian should sign. You don't have to be a Christian to recognise that this sort of stuff is unacceptable. http://againstthetide.org.au/the-petition-against-the-blasphemous-fringe-show-come-heckle-christ

Personally, I think the promo for this show already crosses enough lines to warrant legal action in that it specifically and blatantly incites hate speech.

GIVING OXYGEN TO RACISM

The best way to kill a fire is to deprive it of oxygen, right?. Without air, a fire will fade away and die. So why do the most vocal opponents of racism in Australia keep giving oxygen to the fires of racist issues?

Today is the official Australia Day holiday and our new Australian of the Year, aboriginal footballer Adam Goodes, will highlight racism everywhere he goes. Instead of just getting on with living together as Australians, we’ll be talking about racism more and more.

Some aboriginal groups have provoked racism by publicly referring to 26th January as “Invasion Day”. Or “Survival Day”. Do they not understand that such rhetoric keeps the issue alive? Do they not see that they are stoking the fire?

Some incredibly ignorant vandals scrawled the words “26th Jan Australia’s shame” on the walls of Captain Cook’s cottage in Melbourne. Newsflash: the only thing that does is to add more oxygen to the fire!

Yes, there have been terrible instances of racist violence in our national history. A new book by Carl Weiland, of Creation Ministries International, documents the horrific results of Social Darwinism in the aftermath of Charles Darwin’s ideas about evolution. Australian aboriginals were seen as unevolved throwbacks to primitive ape-like ancestors. Therefore, it was believed, they were scarcely human and could be killed with impunity.

When Adam Goodes pointed out a young girl in a football crowd and called her “ape” remark a racist slur, he was actually giving oxygen to this misguided theory that should have been snuffed out long ago.

The best antidote to racism is not stomping on the fire again, but acknowledging what the Bible has taught from the beginning: God created humans as humans.  We never were apes or ape-like creatures.  We are, as per the title of Carl Weiland’s book, “One Human Family”.  In God’s eyes, we are all the same.

The irony is that no-one is really black or white.  I know supposedly white people who are far darker in skin colour than, say, Adam Goodes.  The so-called differences are not all that great.  In fact, genetically, it’s been proven that there are more differences within so-called races than there are on average from one so-called race to another.

Nothing we do now can change the past.  We cannot atone for the ignorance of people who lived more than 200 years ago.  Our energies need to be directed towards love and understanding in the present, living together under the grace of God, and moving forward to a more harmonious future.

Let’s stop giving oxygen to the fires of racism!

CONGRATULATIONS MR PUTIN

The Winter Olympics will be held from 7th to 23rd February, mostly in Sochi, a resort city on the Black Sea in Russia’s deep south. Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, has been widely criticised for his comments in defence of Russia’s anti homosexual propaganda laws.  Some gay activists have tried to link the Russian law with a claimed increase in anti-homosexual violence.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported Dmitry Isakov, the first person to be charged under the new law, as saying: “The problem with that law is that it sends a signal that says gays are people you can fine, who you can insult, who you can maybe even beat up,"
Isakov is also quoted as saying: "Effectively, we don't even have the right to fight discrimination."

Mr Putin, who is passionate about ensuring the success of the Winter Olympics, has openly denied that he is prejudiced against gays. But he has asked people from Western nations to respect the traditional Russian culture on these matters.

But no, respect is not something that many gay-activists understand. Mr Putin said that Olympic visitors could  “feel quite secure, at ease, but leave kids alone, please." This, of course, sparked an outcry. How dare he suggest that homosexuals are paedophiles?

Homosexuality is heavily promoted in Australia, even to children, on the theory that people are either born gay or not. Therefore, children who are not gay cannot be affected by the propaganda. This assertion is based on ideology, not facts. It has certainly never been proved. To the contrary, evidence is beginning to show that the “you may be gay” message is leading to unhealthy sexual experimentation and severe gender confusion.

I congratulate Mr Putin for standing firm in the face of international misunderstanding and condemnation. Protecting children is more important than bowing to the insatiable demands of the homosexual lobby.

THE VITRIOL CONTINUES

Last week, in this blog, I wrote about the attack on Senator Cory Bernardi over his book “The Conservative Revolution”. Well it seems the attack has only intensified since then.

Herald Sun columnist, Susie O’Brien, never short of literary audacity, weighed in with comments like: “It’s not just women who want abortions that he’s attacking, but people who have IVF, step-families and single mothers as well. What a disgrace.”

No Susie, Senator Bernardi wasn’t attacking these people. He actually wasn’t attacking anyone. This kind of vitriol is equivalent to attacking a Police Commissioner for reporting data on road fatalities. Drawing attention to the data, and suggesting options for dealing with social problems, is hardly a personal attack on anyone.

But attacks on him have grown more and more personal.

Paul Sheehan, of the Sydney Morning Herald, was rightly appalled at what he called “the avalanche of hate”. He quoted one question that was directed at Cory’s staff. “Can you ask Cory how I should insert my tampon, as he wants to tell all women what to do?” Other women accused his female staff members of having “betrayed the sisters by working for him.”

Worse comments than these are easy to find but hardly worth repeating. The audacity of such comments is rivalled only by their ignorance.

I was a little surprised, however, to read Melinda Tankard Reist’s comments. While she would evidently agree with Senator Bernardi on most things, she objects to the way he addresses issues.

“Regarding Bernardi's views on abortion, I, too, am pro-life. But polemical divides do nothing to address the needs of women.”

She goes on to complain that he has not adequately considered the reasons why, for example, children from single parent families do not do as well. It’s true, of course, that more effort needs to be put into understanding the different situations that different people face in life, and the factors that got them there.

But, Melinda, I would have thought that shoving aside the politically correct spin and highlighting the problems would be a step in the right direction.

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT UNDER ATTACK

No shortage of good fodder for this blog today. Federal politician, Anthony Albanese, has attacked conservative senator Cory Bernardi over some comments in his recent book, “The Conservative Revolution”.

Mr Albanese, who almost became the Leader of the Opposition in the wake of last year’s election, must be an early favourite for the most bizarre and audacious comments in 2014. He has called on the Liberal Party, from Prime Minister, Tony Abbott all the way down, to distance themselves from Senator Bernardi’s beliefs.

But I’ve read the Senator’s book in the past few weeks and guess what! It’s brilliant!

There are two main sides to politics in Australia, conservative and leftist. Senator Bernardi has done an exceptional job of explaining the conservative position. Far from representing an extreme position, it is actually a call for understanding, for better citizenship and for smaller, less dictatorial government. He is certainly not trying to force his views on the Australian public but he does demonstrate the importance of faith and family if Australia is to be the nation that it should be.

Some of Mr Albanese’s comments were gross distortions of what Senator Bernardi has actually written. His overall portrayal of Senator Bernardi as a dangerous extremist is nothing short of offensive.

But demanding that the leader of a conservative government distance himself from well-reasoned arguments in favour of conservative politics is not only an attack on free speech, it is, in fact, a call for the “thought police” to be given unlimited powers to ostracise and punish anyone who disagrees with the new radical agenda.

Is Senator Bernardi’s book controversial? Absolutely! But guess what: if anything is controversial, by definition it means that different people have conflicting views. How audacious, then, to demand that only one side of controversial issues has any right to be spoken or written about!