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

Chapter 6


Three Biers for Folly, its Blight, its Assaults and its Legalisms!



News 386, December 2006

The Advertiser December 22, 2006


When Law is Judge and Justice does not Rule,
you have the State of Folly

It is apparent that the follies of the Russell Report (cf. Lead Us Not into Educational Temptation!), and the Circular to Principals*1, the former in Victoria and the latter long exposed in this State of SA, are mere approaches to the tyrannies held in store. One cannot be surprised: it is foretold. It is however always with a measure of astonishment that one finds the name of Christ open to subtle but perilous blight in one's own land.


We read in The Advertiser, December 22,  2006, in the Letters section, a heading:

Back to the Dark Ages. It is apt. Just as in a rainbow, however, you see, and seek to distinguish the different gradational changes from violet, through indigo to black, stirred by the shifts to ever deeper darkness in such progression - though from the light point of view, it is anything but progress - so here. You move as you go forward to greater darkness.


In the Dark Ages, it is easy to see that old rainbow with its sad and scurrilous, its brutal and its unfeeling, its exultant and its vainglorious Inquisitions, Islamic invasions, militant maestros, anti-semitic persecutions, and grasping intolerance of truth. It has passed, but there is as sometimes may be seen, a second rainbow, above it, and later. This is the one seen now.


Its darkness is strangely deeper, its solemnities of sin more munificent if it be possible; of mercilessness, its  scope is broader. Now, in a way made  popular by Communist fantasies, we have the STATEMENT of protection in the very act of the FACT of misuse of force to  strangle freedom, just as then we had  a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and a 'liberty' about as near to a new child of joy, as a prolapsed uterus. As some Communists apparently felt,  if this is heaven,  what  can hell be! for it was no haven,  let alone heaven, which slaughtered  by the tens of millions,  and strangled souls  as far as it might, by clever and gradual  tortures,  mixing hope with compromise, and horror with its own version of the holocaust, if by any means it might make some betray what stood by contrast as the cliffs above the abyss.


The newspaper letter published with this Back to the Dark Ages heading, then, is not without light.


It refers to the Equal Opportunity Bill, which most mercifully escaped being rifled into law recently, and is to re-appear like a hangman in February next year, and contrasts the approach of that document with that of current defamation laws.


In fact, from January 1, 2006 a new nearly national defamation law code was brought into being by the Commonwealth Government in the Defamation Act. In this, we learn from the Press Council, February 2006,  there is much ground for gladness.


In this, TRUTH is a most material ground for defence if anyone is assaulted for defamation, wrongly. What the case is, is most relevant, and the fiction of feeling*2 as king is removed by the necessary consort of Fact as Reality. Obviously malice can be like a weapon in itself, but this is a construction often subjectivistic and readily defamatory in itself. The fact of what is said becomes applicable, as well as the speaking of it! Otherwise of course, justice is without ground, and becomes a shrug of the social shoulders, of no more significance than that. The Commonwealth is to be congratulated on such a unifying move, in this direction, for the nation.


To this importance of FACT in defamation, then, the correspondent in The Advertiser refers. Under our defamation laws, he insists,  truth or substantial truth is a defence. It is good to know that fairyland is being distanced, since this earth is real and is no place for fairies outside the imagination.


It is then noted in the letter posted in The Advertiser, that on the basis of what is now the South Australian Bill for Equal Opportunity, hideously misnamed in this, that truth would be no defence for those attacked as 'victimising' by their explicit divergence from the opinions of others in these things. "People could lay complaints of victimisation against those who disagree with their opinions on nationality, sex, sexuality, marital status, disability, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, chosen gender, chosen profession etc (the list seems endless) " ... 


Is the position really as bad as this on victimisation ? Certainly the word is ludicrous in terms of the scope of the Bill, since to 'incite' contempt for a class of persons MIGHT be deemed to have occurred if one were to criticise what they hold, if it is deeply grasped, and to exhibit its fallacies.  Since so many things in history HAVE been ludicrous in logic, in misstatement, in casualness of evidence and wallowing in offence at what is the actual weak point, to point this out, with adequate courage and character for the case, might induce a vast reaction. It could well be as so often in history, one of outrage on the part of those wrong, and in power, or viewed with favour by them.


What is the all too possible result ? It is this. It would be to expose those who seek good by helping to circumvent error (as Churchill did, for long, before, almost too late, England awakened and made him PM), to what ? It would expose them to legal assault. They then become the victims of intrusive law, passing beyond defamation to feelings, sacred sites of the psychic mind, be they godless or other. Intimidation becomes the instrument of Equal Opportunity; but it is not equal. It is sensitised to what rejects being sanitised; and which is which being in deep and turmoiled contest, the possibilities of objective truth in a legal situation with the law tilted this way or that in the first place as to which sacred sites are to be honoured and which not, confusion should have a heyday.


Victimisation should taste its glory; but despite the law, but because of it.






A class of new victims would arise, made so by the inadequately formulated law. These would be the victims of those legally assaulted on grounds where truth is not paramount, where justice is tilted by social convention or contemporary philosophies, by power pockets or by modish preferences. It is not necessary to surmise misuse of the law for gain – though this is all too possible on the part of the calculatingly litigious – but merely the rifle shots of confusion and mischaracterization, contemporary passion and presuppositions*2A, sent by convention, with the imprint of preference and the velocity of induced change.


What then of this new legally generated class of 'crims' ? THEY would then be victimised and society would be in deeper distress than it already is. Worse, truth itself would become a pawn and feelings and estimates, subjectivities and - people being human - cultural claws would be out to make this or that appear as horrid and vexatious. In a few years time, it might be seen, as in the above case, that the 'victimisation' of daring to expose ludicrous errors, would become the courage of truth and the blessing of the people. It might then get a new name; but too late for the victim. Here is the channel for turning alleged wrong-doers into victims, and alleged victims into legally sanctioned wrong doers. Not all are in this class; we would not expect it. But you would scarcely make laws which would not make all motorists be charged wrongly: it would be enough to have them err significantly or at all!


What therefore might be deemed to be  'inciting'  such things as 'hatred', 'serious contempt' or 'severe ridicule' , because of current philosophic, historical, military, religious, social or other critiques, could in fact be a mere assemblage of realities in contrast with feverish fictions. Cooler heads could be called hot by hotheads, and those in tune with reality could be eschewed by those who hypnotised by new conventions, imagine them true, and those who object to them, and warn, to be false.


To be sure a 'fair report' is exempted, but in view of the social dynamics, and the observation of what people actually say and feel in issues of contest and contention, such as now abound,  it is apparent that many things might be deemed 'unfair' because of presuppositions, of customary but erroneous analysis. This is a thing MOST common in history, looking back,  and often deadly. It is as possible with judges, or those those who prescribe and pronounce the law, parliamentarians, who after all, are as much in danger of cultural occlusion as anyone else.


In this, we do not discriminate, but avoid idolisation of any and insist on reality and equality before the law, for all! This includes not only judges, but Parliamentarians, a point to which we have occasion to return shortly.


"Reasonable*3 public discussion, debate or exposition is likewise is exempted; but who is to determine what is reasonable! If it were that men were angels, the point might not arise; but they are not. Reasonable men (by reputation or expectation) did worse than merely hang Christ: they crucified Him; or slowly kill Socrates or make a horse a god in the Roman Senate. They slaughtered by the million in Cambodia and made gods of natural things! And this, they  still do*3A. Look at the Sudan, and at multiplied attestations (cf. Divine Agenda Ch. 6; and Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Ch. 3, Spiritual Refreshings ... Ch. 13, Earth Spasm ... Ch. 1, News 94, Wake ... Chs. 5-6, respectively).


 There needs in any realistic assessment of the situation to be something categorical and clear, to prevent the Government from becoming the first 'criminal' to be taken in its own law. After all, if you provide for others to be arraigned for various behaviours, it must apply to your own legislators, unless they be deemed above the law - a law in this case, mercifully not yet passed. Such an attitude, indeed, is as old as the paranoia of Louis XIV, of the State, It is I! variety.

¨   If then people who voice what is not deemed reasonable,
and none was more reasonable than Christ, just  as academician
(Dean of the Philosophy Faculty at the University of Prague) John Huss,

¨   cooked like a goose, was most reasonable;


¨    and if many thousands more have been eminently reasonable, though deemed guilty

¨   by those who suppress freedom of speech in terms of what they deem reasonable, in view of their philosophies, prejudices and pre-conceptions:

¨   if these are to become criminals, what then ? 

What then if people who hold, present and propagate the Bible, for example, which roundly condemns many things which many find most desirable, and in terms of which they desire 'equality' to practise and not to be confronted in any way: what if these be held responsible for criminal faux pas ?  

What if current cultural pre-occupations become law and truth a fief to that thief, freedom a supernumerary and justice partisan ?

What if any who hold anything at all,  present this and it is deemed unreasonable by those who, like many, take their 'reason' from current convention and contemporary modes ?

Are  they not to be arraigned! Are they then not being victimised if anyone ever was, and is this not assault, and is not causing someone to be deemed a criminal, a matter of bringing someone into "serious contempt" in society ? Is such a routine, a schedule, a farrago and action in all its hideous misdemeanour, itself by its own law, to be deemed a crime!

 Convention becomes king; prejudice and presupposition, enshrined in law, become rulers. It is as if Lord Hategood of Pilgrim's Progress were to live again. It is not the instruments who apply the law who are here in question, but the structures invented and misconstructed, which cause condemnation. At least we are not yet in the position where even to indicate the defoliation of society by mistaken social engineering, by legal means, is a crime. It is well then to fight the Bill, an enemy of Australian values, liberty and life. We in Australia are more accustomed to seeking to deal with our own distresses, and those who are Christians, in the Lord's power: we do not desire to be cocooned. Where right, let us show it, and argue for it, and live it. The Churches wisely rejected such privileged treatment a few years ago; now it is being propagated for others.

 In this way, we gain a new cultural aristocracy, supported in bringing litigation, with a State largess, most carefully removed from those who become the new victims, legally created. The hideous irony is this: the Bill is linked to the term Equal Opportunity. Here inequality is its very being.  



What then ? Does a judge tell a convicted criminal that really he is not at all guilty, and must hold his head high in society, that the law is the law and is rather an ass, as Dickens has it; or is the condemned person deemed grossly at fault, to the point his or her liberty is removed, like a gullet, and is that person to be hidden away, financially or physically as the case may come to be, subjected to humiliations and in this State perhaps to much worse ? If this is not serious contempt for truth, and those who seek it, then what is! Studied social mores become absolute canonized law, and man is judged erratically by common consent, consensus or preference. Thus the Government which passed such a Bill would stand, in principle,  through its own contempt for those to be afflicted, itself indicted as criminal  at the moment of its passing it. This is social confusion resulting from social manipulation, and like all other disorder and senseless division, is not to be commended. 

Man is so vulnerable, as history has been showing even to the blind in the last 150 years, through all sorts of variable ideologies, based on nothing   *4,and claiming everything, while being embraced in increasingly authoritarian panache, by what are seemingly the most powerful or even in some cases, the most eminent. Some of these, like Dr Spock then suddenly wholly change their former approach after a few years. Millions perish from the outcomes of such pleasant things, ostensibly held by all (apart from the masses incarcerated, starved, reduced by manual labour to bones and then sent to the pit as far as the residues of their bodies are concerned. And these canons, they are allegedly reasonable in the society where it pays to say so, or is costly not to do so. 

Trading truth is always horrid, but when travesties of the illimitable brilliance of revealed truth in Christ, in the Bible (cf. *9  below), become the airily autocratic ground for discriminatory legislation, and this becomes licence for law to oppress, inciting, inducing or enabling contempt for biblical followers of Jesus Christ, or else imposing silence or maiming enquiry and its results freely spoken, then the situation approaches the graveyard of man.

The case must begin somewhere: thus while MERELY being fined, or perhaps in due time, imprisoned is not the same, the principle is.


To  aggravate the matter, the Bill also provides that the potential victim, that is the one against whom complaint is made, cannot have LEGAL REPRESENTATION except by permission specially given at the will of the body in charge, and will not be given assistance in the area of legal expenses. Nothing is to be found about compensation if the charge or challenge is found to be false.


Let us consider that. If someone brings a false charge against you, so that you are guilty of crime, if it be found true, and you may be stripped of financial competence as a result, he is to be paid for it, and you have no compensation. Anything further from justice it is hard to imagine! and this, it is not in terms of the Unequal Opportunity Bill, which would be well-named, but its opposite. The opposite is not apposite. The thing is tainted to the point it is a mere mirage of law. Enemies could readily ruin, by true or false charges, and gain through prejudice in the social conventions of the moment, their desire. They could ruin, as one party or in pre-arranged concert, whom they would, stripping funds from competitors or those they for their own victimisation process, detest.


Such would have the vast privilege of State support for their plans, here, in the arena of legal expenses which are no stranger to escalation.


Indeed, as to the conduct of the Tribunal investigating, it is in the power of the presiding officer to conduct the matter as he wishes (1984 Act, 105), which could mean in private with such exclusions or provisions as desired. In this way. In effect, with whatever intention, false accusations could be kept from the scrutiny of the Press. The tyranny of feelings hurt because truth was told by the one charged, could thus be augmented into a lordliness of psychic and social dynamic. As surely as in Fascism, those out of contemporary favour could be systematically crushed, reputations ruined, finances corrupted, and with a vast irony, those guilty of victimisation could receive compensation for receiving it!


Feelings, like arguments, can be incited by prejudice, folly, distemper, greed, guile or disability, as well as being at times for many, in the power of passion. Self-inflicted wounds can then be added to the case, as grounds for inflicting wounds on the victim, perhaps merely subjectivistically charged with 'victimisation'.

There is no end to folly, where it has its chair unbacked by truth; nor beginning to justice when what is felt becomes what is dealt.



If it were to be made law that


feelings miffed or vexed,
whether those of the judge in estimation or of complainant in psychic flurry, that


some sense of depreciation or insult,


some impact of whatever logical validity or meretricious cause,


and so on in the galaxy of negativity,


is ground for legal action or assault:


then truth is made supernumerary, reality is axed and fidgets and upsets reign supreme.


We are all too well aware of what seems to be precisely this at various stages of the eruptive history of various countries at which we look with pathos and concern; it is another thing gratuitously to import such powers of turmoil, as if admirable, in this land. Objectively, it was founded in its entire contemporary structure by a Protestant Christian nation (with whatever errors in its structure); and in fact, much of temperance, self-control and toleration, in this land, has arisen from just that. As well,  there is much less NEED for it, to the extent that morals internally in many, applied over hundreds of years of our history, have left less turmoil outwardly for others.


The surrender of truth as an absolute criterion, and the arising of feelings without objective truth as a barrier, as the assault force with legal backing, is like blinking when you are in an eye test, or shutting the eyes for a little repose, while driving. This is not the time for that. This is by no means to ignore feelings, but it is to limit their often evanescent flow to a filter of reason, justice and truth, to something more and other than what is currently felt to be desirable, acceptable and ruling, in place of what was, but is so no longer.


We can then return to the letter to take its major thrust.


In view of some of things, such as those mentioned above, the writer concludes thus: "Justice in this state is heading back to the Dark Ages."


Indeed, a December 4th, 2006 presentation by the Australian Christian Lobby has this information to the point.

Ros Phillips of Festival of Light reports the results of a meeting she had with the Chief of Staff of the Attorney-General's Department Peter Louca and SA Equal Opportunity Commissioner Linda Matthews, on the SA Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill (the "EO bill").

She said; "the meeting confirmed our fears. The Equal Opportunity Commissioner told us that if the EO bill passes, complaints could be laid against doctors who publicly warn about the health risks of sodomy and against pastors who tell their congregations what the Bible says about divorce or homosexual behaviour.

The trauma suffered by Pastor Daniel Scot and Pastor Danny Nalliah under Victoria's law against religious vilification could happen in South Australia under the proposed law against vilification (called "victimisation" in clause 61 of the EO bill) on grounds including sexuality, sex, marital status, chosen gender, race, age, pregnancy and chosen legal profession. Religion is not included, but no other state has laws against vilification on so many grounds. Truth is no defence, and there is no exemption for acts done for a religious purpose."

The SA Family First leader is known to be concerned at this Bill and working to have the draft amended to remove Christian concerns, and it is believed, having some success.

In view of the reference in the above finding, to the Victorian case, it is fitting to provide information on the parallel law in that State *5. It is one which has led to spies, as such or incidentally, proceeding to churches in order to see whether it might be that something offensive is being said. This is close to entrapment; but it does not seem to matter. Not only so: it is then a case of SEEKING to be offended. As to attending a service for the worship of GOD in order to find cause for legal action, knowing this worship is 'tainted' in the view of the spy, what may be justly said of this ? It is a spiritual massif of maladroitness; for it makes the name of God a part of an attack on man, sought out for the purpose. If in fact the matter were suspected to be bad, is it fitting to 'endure' it, in all sincerity, by attending to hearing it!




Let us turn to an existing matter, where the same kind of principles apply.


It must be categorically asserted that the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, which is now law in this land, in some things well, in some not*6 , is confronted by what the S.A. Circular to Principals January 1988 (see below) has wrought, This UN Declaration is affronted no less by the current form of the Bill for 2007 in SA, on Equal opportunity. In these two missives, there is a pattern, a philosophy.


In each case, persons, young or old as the case may on this or that occasion or instance be, are subjected either to deprivation, or scorn implicit or explicit, or contumely, or embarrassment, financial or other,  without sustained ground; and in the latter case (2007), are exposed to the potential for discriminatory legal assault, on the ludicrous ground of what is contained in the Bill for Equal Opportunity. It is as if irony should become a mountain that filled the land. It is precisely like the USSR or its minions of old, calling itself a democracy, or tolerant in religion while persecuting in practice to an extent almost beyond belief.


For a State so negatively to act, against the reasoned presentation of views, beliefs or religious convictions or authority concerning such matters as ultimate power and authority and its manifestations, or against their practical pursuits in goodwill and peace, in schools whether in the fields of  science or social studies, is vile enough. To call it a 'curricular' affair, is worse, since it hides the philosophic oppression. It harasses truth, prejudges issues, precludes resource-provision and acts as if to intimidate in examination assumptions and the like. For the young, this is notoriously unjust and hopelessly unscientific in methodology, both in general and in particular  (cf. Scientific Method, Satanic Method and the Model of Salvation, SMR pp. 140ff.)


To add to this deplorable deprivation and manifestly discriminatory suppression and exclusion to the detriment of the learning and liberty of the young, even more duress for the adult, what is this ? It is moving into the heinous with haste. The affair of 1988 now becomes the potential fiasco of 2007, tragic as such things go, but still in the realm of the ludicrous. This is the third bier of the dead.


When we move into the realms of thought and assessment in view in the Bill, there is of course the legitimate aspect. It is good to make it necessary for people not idly to taunt, intemperately to assault, grossly to ridicule for the pleasure of their own personalities, that with which they simply disagree. It is not, however, at all the same thing to prescribe the mode of reasoned and decisive presentation as foul, unless found to be otherwise, at the will and desire of some person or persons, be they in the form of a Tribunal, as in the case dealing with Christ, or otherwise. Freedom does not wait upon assessment to allow as in the former USSR, ostensible liberties to become licences for  State oppression.


Not only therefore should any trial,  for that is what it could become, be public and without option for suppression from the press and the attention of one's peers; not only should  fair play rule so that those who attack will be EQUALLY LIABLE to financial loss, if found wrong, as those whom they attack, lest it become a medium to oppress this or that group  according to the current climate of opinion: and this, as history makes most clear is far from unlikely. The truth for which these claimed to be hurtful by their 'victims', is often acknowledged to be such by later generations. What an opera of pent-up feelings and screaming songs lies here! As so often in opera, someone dies in the interim. Here it is legislated, not as yet for death, but for a degree of destruction. Is it not possible to learn, then ?


This, it is part of the thing called justice, and of the other matter called prudence and fair play, or in the Aussie parlance, a 'fair go'! There is no reason why victims should be manufactured by the simple ill-will of some who  use the system to assault what they do not like. There is no reason to shut the eyes to history, distorted or distorting human nature, and the milling of philosophies, now inciting against this, now that, and to take a snap-shot, now, at some time, and then apply this with a straight face, or in a legal frown!


In addition  to this,  there should be liberty to pursue approaches in science and social studies which are at variance with the currently popular model, such as in the case in creation, where hundreds of Ph.D. scientists in the relevant field, present their conviction, just as many debaters in Universities notoriously debate successfully, in the same field, against any opposition, however highly placed, or in whatever grouping (cf. Desire of the Nations ... Ch. 2, What is Life for ?,
Life What is it ?,
 Beauty for Ashes Ch. 3, and the written and oral work of such academics as Dr Duane Gish, Dr Phillip E. Johnson and Dr John Hartnett). Such is the simple fact.


The guillotine of law  should not intrude into the market place, whether academic or social, to the point that fear becomes a taunting machine, and favour a necessary acquisition for any who should seek to live in the place. Without such  deterrents and restraints, SA could become unfit for human beings to inhabit.


The earth has enough of such places, where authority, whether disguised or not, rules the roost and reason dies, whether explicitly, or in terms of the lordly opinions of those who rule, whether in law courts, parliament, university or school.  Liberty is not only part of the necessities of reason, but of caution for man. His madness has already destroyed much of the globe, and his present powers endanger the rest. To silence those who would act otherwise in the ostensible interests of protecting those who are favoured by the tide is merely propaganda with a legal gown.





The most endangered species is man; not merely physically, but spiritually. Thus you can be permitted to retain your head and heels, and the sensory equipment that goes with them,  but without liberty of thought, acute reasoning and practical provision for it, for or against the majority, in goodwill but realism, and of course without physical assault or any or desire intention for it,  what follows ? In many cases, such persons may be all but dehumanised. What man is, then, this becomes a secondary creation, as far as man may do this, as if to turn him into a resultant of social constraints, psychic preferences,  mists of feeling, legal abuse  and financial rashes of  deprivation,  all devolving on the spin of the psyche of culture's current mode.


If then people may not voice with impunity, what the Bible teaches, and assert their concurrence,  reason for it (we are COMMANDED, who are biblical  Christians, to give a reason for the faith to  those who ask it, and many do,  either directly, or by derogation), there is not only religious discrimination, but personal unequal opportunity, since others of the current sway of social feeling do not so suffer for their divergence, but rather glory in their conformity.


The UN Declaration noted however, declares it wrong to deprive people of equality, so that favours are not available to some because they have this or that conviction, belief or religion,  while made available to others. In the school situation, of course, this includes the current practice of


1) not allowing the  debate by open reason in science or social  studies, of the objective truth, or even fidelity to scientific method of this or that approach, for example that of creationism or evolutionism,


2) not providing the professional, trained Staff time to facilitate investigation indifferently into either approach or others,


3) not providing adequate literature in an impartial manner  on both.


In the adult and social sphere, the castigation or potential for it, to be delivered by this 2007 Bill, if it proceeds to law as it stands, is the equivalent in deprivation. People could be deprived of earned money, in order to sate  the sanctions of those who hold otherwise,  and  deem it 'unreasonable' not to join them, in style or substance. They could be labelled criminals,  and made  victims of oppression of thought. They could be deprived of time,  seeking without financial assistance to meet what might often be the  callow  and uncalled-for claims of those who follow socially normative views. Being 'reasonable' does not in itself  allow  at all for the presuppositions on which such considerations may be based, as is  all too apparent in regime  after regime that has passed into oblivion in this or that country,  over the past  few  centuries.


Thus the trend of the Bill is towards social manipulation, just as was the  Circular for Principals of January 1988; and the  failure of the Government*6A to RESPOND to multiple, reasoned and constraining text provided for it, in book format, in critique of their educational, rational and substantive errors, or to respond to the challenge to open  and public debate over nearly two decades is evidence enough, by past performance, of the dangers of coming events, if this new  and additional burden to liberty be passed.


Indeed, should it come to that,  so that those who differ, and  say so - on the various sexual, dispositional and allied matters specifically in view, and much is implicit as we have seen above, for various things have various sources and varied formulations over time - may become 'crims',  what then ? If these, assignable groups of assignable belief or religion,  may be so treated at the will of current constructions in the contemporary whirl-pool of ideas, then the UN Declaration is manifestly broken. It refers to matters of belief or religion. The action of the proposed legislation would then itself appear essentially illegal, disenfranchising SA citizens as if they lived in another land, rather like what Scotland is considering. Perhaps we could have our own defence force ?.


Such a law then becomes legally inadmissible. What is law for Australia, then comes into  crisp and crumpling collision with envisaged law for South Australia; and those in this State become disenfranchised from the legislated liberties for the land. What species of crime this may be, and indeed in what way it is legally characterisable at all, or by what kind of kink it is brought into violation and legal  collision with what rules Australia: this is  matter left to the lawyers. That it is contrary in tenor to the Australian way is manifest, being discriminatory against the religion or belief of some, and confirmatory of the freedom for the same, in the case of others, indeed giving them assistance in their complaints. 


However, that it is in collision with this UN  Declaration is past contest. Offend those of particular susceptibilities and characterisabilities by presenting biblical conclusions, and where is equality ?  Is there not equal opportunity to be offended at the offence, which seeks to dictate what may so much as be said! Further, in making mouthing of what the Bible states, or the way that it states it,  to be susceptible to criminal interpretation, the proposed law is itself assailing the liberty of Christians, of speech and the very definition of equality. It is not so for them alone, but it is so for them. Here is the example.


If their Book, the Bible, is deemed so bad that it becomes crime to present it clearly and categorically, and this at the mere say-so of someone or other, how bad is that! How vicious then is the assault on the book! The feelings of Christians then do not matter ? Only some people have feelings of the legally qualified kind ? There are two sorts, or multiple sorts of persons, and only some are human ? In what way is this justice, equality or truth!


In this way, equal opportunity in religion is mocked. What is condemned by implication from the proposed law, does not matter. Those who condemn the condemnation do.


Equality is thus replaced by discrimination in the name of equality, a DIckensian magic of asinine law. It is not law yet; let us hope it never will be. Yet if it should become law, it will extend an appalling record of harassment in the field of religion and creation in particular, at the learning level, with assault now levelled at parents. Bow before such misrule in a democratic society, and you deserve its yoke.


Amazing failure of many to act since 1988 at that oppression, now predictably has led to a broadening of the assault onto those who being older, did not protect their young before. How many churches did not so act! How many were sought, but declined! How many other groups did not act!


Alas, deferment, whether to the Hitler of 1938, or to the huntsmen and those blinded by convention, since 1988, is defilement; and what in that case was a threat, in this is no less. What man is, as man, is more important than being alive, just as what an aeroplane is, as an aeroplane, is more important than whether you can salvage any junk from it!


What then of the UN Declaration, for all its faults, in this regard ? What that provides, this removes; where that insists on equal privilege, this demotes to submission. In terms of Equal Opportunity, it both discriminates against the liberty of some, and acts as if to intimidate truth by sanctions.


What cannot be freely stated, with due background available, because some disagree and find feelings flutter because of it, or heart to be disturbed, becomes if not police oppression, as when people were  taken by secret police by  night,  and not seen  again, then instead, legal  oppression, where people have to meet this and that Tribunal requirement,  make appearances and pay for them. Moreover, all this is done with the obviously unequal opportunity of having to do this, while the assailants are not so disadvantaged. If this is law, it is not justice; if this is liberty, it has lost its name. If this is truth, it is slain in the streets, as in Isaiah's day (Isaiah 59).


In particular, to take a case, the commanded practice of Christians, to testify and speak the truth and warn, exhort, give reason (I Peter 3:15, II Timothy 4:2, Proverbs 24:11-12, Ezekiel 33), is subject to being axed by an aroused State, just as this felicity is already imprisoned, though the children be physically free, in schools. To allow such an appalling defilement of life in the land, after the governmental performance of 1988-2006 would be  to ask for all you get.


People watching the pride of the Kaiser, or the propaganda of Hitler begin, who preferred to be basking in the advantages of the short-term,  soon found the disadvantages of social and historical slant, however popular and pragmatically useful it may have seemed for a time, to become a a recipe for ruin.   Whether this was derived from a tilt to an expansive and growingly scientific community, as in World War I, or for an injured and beaten people, a condition resulting from the first error, in World War II: the result was the same! Ruin and rubble.


In Australia, there is no such excuse, if it could be called such indeed, as in the latter case, nor constraint as in the former . There is no 'need' to become aggressively paranoid, in order to express national identity, even if that were not a foolish syndrome in itself.


Moreover, even in the current case since 1988, there is in view not only the assault on the liberty and learning of children by a defilement of availability and expression with direction, through gratuitous dictation, but an assault on the very nature of religion, via a generalisation of ludicrously unscholarly character, as part of the cited background for the resolution of the matter.


That foul play was then, but it continues.


Now 2007 becomes the new date for the fate of the State.


To entrust to such authority as this, the ultimate oversight of new modes of tempering and tampering with liberty, dependent on the ever variable assessment of the 'reasonable', what is this to be, and how might it be characterised? It would be to entrust a leopard with a lamb. What the lambs suffered is already, for many years since 1988, already demonstrated; and how ready the State is to halt either the attack on religion or on liberty, has been similarly exhibited. It is not ready at all, it will not move, it will not reason, and on the two major issues, it will not reply. It hides in its shame and continues in its dictatorial direction.


Is this not merely to continue but is provision to now be made for its extension!


Sell liberty and you import established folly, whatever the cause.


Justice requires truth, and is in no need of its subversion; indeed, it departs alongside it, when truth is debarred in its own privileges. What for millenia has been the susceptibility of man to follow folly and imagine it true, or even reasonable, is no ground for disenabling the hard-won liberty, by partisan concessions, inaugurating some things as worthy of defence, while in the very act making others available for assault, far less is it excuse for assailing them in principle in the process, before the action even starts.


Man is the most endangered species precisely because, granted power to reason, he violates its principles, and becomes his own little god; and this being not so, he famishes in spirit, through pride of heart, and is dashed in his own dynamics until the entire surface of the sphere called earth is now at risk. This is of course as foretold (Matthew 24). He even manages to blame God for his forwardness of aspiration (Romans 1), and backwardness of understanding, and wonders endlessly how to live in peace with his neigbour until there is no help (II Timothy 3, Jeremiah 5), and then he tries whether through communist or Nazi practice, to force conformity, as if tight-fitting shoes removed bunions. The 'god of forces' (Daniel 11:37-38, SMR pp. 707ff., Of the Earth ... Ch. 13) however does not help. Man is capable of far better things than self-inflicted robotism (Little Things Ch. 5, It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, Life, What is it ? Christ Incomparable, Lord Indomitable Ch. 2).




Let us consider now the text of the new Bill, this monument to the spirit of indictment, and social unrest. After all, if justice were the intention, contempt would be for what is contemptible, and not a crime. Further, the deeming of contempt for PERSONS is readily a false and falsetto voice to be found in this type of proceeding: the principle is made to appear as if it were the person, so that it, with its utterer,  must be muted on the fallacious ground of being personal.


BECAUSE someone shows the folly of something in clear and reasoned terms, however unpopular and however deeply it may affect some, whatever concern they may evince, is this response to become a god! Is it to be bowed to, or given attention as to the Director of the Universe of Human Concourse! Is man to be so demeaned, and truth so devastated! To be sure, when He was on the earth, the same intolerance was shown towards Him, as now to His word.


Thus the mere declaration of truth, of principle, of proposition may then be felt to be offensive to some, and deemed to be personal  contempt, even if it is not. If the truth hurts, will it be well to seek to make it wilt ? As to reason, how much of it is shown in the tangled compartments of politics and political thought, where frequently trade-offs are made of this and that approach, principle or position ... Are trade-offs truth, or is what is convenient actuality! Is this to become the legal ground for the judiciary, in the casting of the law in the first place, which judges merely administer!


What then of pursuit of truth, and its articulation, of its principles, of results as they come, of the principles of the Bible, for example, unchanged over the millennia in the midst of contests against it, and of diverse demanding domains  in  their frenzied and feverish collisions with each other!
Is this pursuit to be protected by such means, and machined by such machinations!


What, is the alleged offender to become criminal on the basis of the feelings and susceptibilities of those who despise or demean the Biblical faith themselves, and SO are offended ? Is justice to become a joke! How COULD there be such offence unless, in this instance, the Bible were deemed in the point in view, not only wrong, but outrageous ? Would you be offended if it were good and fine, or even tolerable! Who then is making the assault, the one paid by the State, against the one who must pay from his or her own pocket, the defence of the challenge, the charge! Law becomes the mother of its breach, and the father of its demise. So is folly made to rule, and truth and justice to submit.


Ah yes, this is the passion, it seems; but the point here is that in such a most readily envisaged case, the prosecution would itself become criminal in victimisation into extreme contempt of  a person used as a ground of offence; and acting with State support,  it may the put the prey into penury, so removing the power to operate freely,  or financially impounding that to act at all to the point.


The manufacture of victims in this way is scarcely a way of preventing victimisation; but rather a method of making it. Indeed, what becomes of the one in the instance in view, victimised by the claimant to being victimised ?


Is not the code of RIGHT then broken, is not what is GOOD and PROPER and ACCEPTABLE, in the very conviction and penalty, alleged to be broken ? And is not the person who by mouthing the Bible in such a case, taken to task and to court, if not to poverty, made into a criminal operative, derogated, flayed in ...  feeling! In this case, is not his Book made the source of the evil, brought into implicit contempt by the colour of the current philosophy, which lacking reasonable defence, uses force by means of the State!


Is that equity or is it its very nadir!


Is this not breaching the law. by applying it; and what kind of a law is that! Moreover what of the result for the one arraigned, of the stigma, the fine, the litigation in its lordly domain and quietus to rest and enquiry, assault to conviction and that moral, religious or ethical! Society by these means inflicts vast damage on itself, as it did in France, in its relentless abuse of the Huegenots, whose fines become monumental. If the law breaches what it seeks to preserve, is this equity in party dress ?


Again, is that equity or its very nadir!


If indeed, as in the biblical case, the objectively presented perspective of that Bible and of the one presenting it, be to help, to love as does a physician the one whom he warns of smoking leading to cancer, then is good intention, without violence but in the hope of averting it, made to suffer evil by legalistic do-gooders, with their own ideas put in the place of the palace of wisdom, founded on nothing (*4).


What then readily comes as a result ? It is this.


Legal expenses and  cultural blindness could readily combine to make articulation of truth, presentation of religious realities, of perspectives and priorities,  in terms of the Bill,  a criminal thing. It readily could become tantamount to a victimisation of the alleged culprit, who is then transformed into a victim by false reasoning, imagined intention or various ad hominem fallacies confusing issues with persons. Manacles are then put on mental creativity, spiritual advice, counsel and godly hope; and what society is this, and what is its direction, in spiritual terms, which so magnifies its office and demands of its disciples, such obedience.


Thus in imparting such judgments, as part of the office of the proposed Tribunal in this allegedly Equal Opportunities Bill, there is free scope for impiety, imperiousness, and the de-manning of man; or else, the removal of those who would lead, by those past all leadership, in being led by statistical convention, preferred priorities and social constraints.


It is as so often in such cases, a ready outcome that leaders are led away; and if in Cambodia, it was to death, yet in principle, the ravage of reason and of man as man, is no less. What then of the all too feasible victim in such operations as the Bill would enable, of the one whose intention is to be kind, gracious and helpful, and obedient to his or here religious conviction ? What is his or her position when thus arraigned, condemned, fined, admonished ? Your principle is wrong and ours is right; your Bible is wrong and our concepts are right; you are a loathsomely violating person, and we who are knowledgeable, we assail your name, your reputation and your finances!


Was ever such a mix, that in the interests of fair play, foul play becomes operational by legislation!


Where then does the victim in such a perversion of justice stand and what is the impact for such a condemned one ?


That becomes a near approach to prison. If this is the beginning, that may readily come to be the end (cf. *5).  When prison is brought into it, which is far from being a merely imagined case in such a context, it is an action on a person  AS A PERSON (to the extent that you do not put the ideas he holds in prison, but his own person goes there!). This simply escalates the power to fine, to eviscerate the finances of any falsely accused, with feeling seizing its victim all too readily.


Where truth is not the criterion, there is no end to injustice; and justice becomes a complex mix of money grabbing, thin-skins, genuine causes of concern and tragic conformity to cultural preconceptions. Freedom lies dead in the streets, with her consort, truth.






What then of the Bill of Equal Opportunity which in the above respects is ludicrously misnamed. It is  in this a Bill for the Provision of Unequal Opportunity, so that those who wallow in the social dynamics may have great room to spread their wings, and those who seek truth beyond the tides of the times,  are quickly to be seen at the bar of injustice and feeling, fraught with whatever pathological basis it may so readily include.


We look at a part of section 61, to consider its weakness here.


61—Amendment of section 86—Victimisation is unlawful


Section 86—after subsection (3) insert:


(4) For the purposes of this section, a person also commits an act of

victimisation against another person if he or she engages in a public

act inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of the person

or a group of persons of which the person is a member on a ground

of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue of this Act.


(5) However, an act is not an act of victimisation under subsection (4) if

it is one of the following:


 (a) publication of a fair report of the act of another person;


(b) publication of material in circumstances in which the

publication would be subject to a defence of absolute

privilege in proceedings for defamation;


(c) a reasonable act, done in good faith, for academic, artistic,

scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the

public interest (including reasonable public discussion,

debate or expositions).


From the above presentation, it is apparent that this is an inadequate defence, and leaves the victim of any victimisation move, whether from monetary greed, pathological feelings, or genuine ground, readily able to replace any illusory victim who nevertheless stands ready to be paid for his or her efforts. Thus there is provision for persecution to be paid-up, prejudice to be sanctioned in splendour, litigation to glory in its new arenas, and society to become segregated into conformists to current moral formulae, based on nothing, and non-conformists. It becomes buffoonery unless it is protected by careful analysis and due awareness of life in reality. To this end, two further exemptions could be made.

These follow. If this request were to be rejected, it is still a test. IF this or its equivalent is NOT found acceptable by those wishing to impose this Bill, then they are producers of victims at least in terms of negligence, whatever the intention may be, as well as seeking to give deliverance to victims. The situation becomes one of confused stirring. Since this can benefit only lawyers, the test is a sound one. Let us ponder then two additions.  


Add for review, then,  these two further points of exclusion:


d) a sincere religious statement of warning, exhortation or challenge, based on the source or book of that religion, and as such  intended to serve and to help mankind in general or in particular, and this without express or implied and intended incitation either to physical violence, or to discriminatory personal hatred or personal contempt. 

e) a statement of demonstrable, assured or indefeasible truth,  such as relates to the general approach of the new Commonwealth Defamation Act of 2005, operational from January 1, 2006, so that it may be shown to be so, or cannot be shown not to be so, and that truth is always a categorical defence: provided its statement does not breach the conditions of d) above.  


Such provisions would be exceedingly liberal to those waiting to be offended (who alas, are not to be excluded from those actually misused); but they would at the same time prevent the Bill from becoming an Act for the incrimination of religious persons, such as Christians, whose biblical basis ensures attitudes and assessments wholly contrary to those frequently found in the current social climate. If on the other hand, such addition be excluded, it then at once becomes clear, just as in the report from the ACL given above, that the intention includes an ANTI-CHRISTIAN element, for then what COULD be excluded is intentionally kept! Thus, freedom of speech could wither like the grass in drought.


Drought indeed is a good image of the field of the Bill, for it requires that assessments by 'reasonable men' or in 'reasonable terms' become king, and the heart of the king, who can know!


If there is any religion which can be demonstrated to be true, it is Christianity (cf. SMR, and Bible or Blight); but what is deemed reasonable by reasonable men, it is another question. It varies like the wind. You become subject then to the wind.





What then is to be found ? It is this. If the additional exemptions proposed be not received, or their equivalent by any means, this will demonstrate by that very act,  that there is scope in the intention of the law for the victimisation of Christians, for example, in their proclamation in public,  instruction or exhortation when they preach and teach the word of God. It is by no means apparent that the intention of biblical Christians is to bring serious contempt, hatred or violence to bear on those to whom they speak,  and the Biblical claim is precisely the opposite; but if this amendment be not added, or its equivalent, they are without legal safeguard, and become open as victims of desire. Their persecution is authorised.

While the Lord can protect them, it is not to deliver from pain He acts, as if this were the criterion, as you see in the infamous case, so germane to this Bill, of Stephen in the New Testament (Acts 7), whose stoning was from hurt feelings on the part of those who could not meet him in logic.


To them it appeared reasonable to stone to death. What then of the Bill unamended ? Are we to become slow learners in the courts of history!


With the Bill as it stands, people are then free to dismiss the intentions of some such as Christians, as false or irrelevant; and so frame them. If it is not intended, the result is the same by oversight or the blinding of passion. What does not exclude, having power to do so, in the face of such openings to evil, becomes guilty of it by intention when warned at least, and given option for avoidance of such. That then becomes religious persecution BY INTENTION. Hence this test is very fitting, and the more strongly the Government may argue that it has no such intention, the more certain it is that avoidance of such exemptions would belie any such claim. The test is certain, simple, direct and true. Meanwhile, what of past discriminations in history, have they no word for the wise, nothing for those who trust in the present orientation of many, as if it were god, and no thought or parity was desirable, while prattling about liberty ?


This type of conduct has been commonplace throughout history, and failure to allow for it would be more than injurious and less than just. Indeed, this very government, and others preceding it, has been guilty of gross defamation of biblical Christianity as shown in That Magnificent Rock Ch. 8 (*1), and that to a degree almost inconceivable in that it is without any rational ground, and wholly subjectivistic.


On the other hand, in this, it is wholly contrary to rational ground. While the author has on many occasions, and with various colleagues,  sought government action to remove this assault (couched in general terms, but none the less for that), never has reasoned answer been given to the challenge.


Clearly, the new Bill would at once make the Government guilty to the most exaggerated degree conceivable, of victimisation in this, that students are required, if at a State School (and many are in a similar position if not), to be cocooned in a captive darkness where subjectivistic views of religion rule, where curricular results from these are cited, and where indoctrination joined with gross derogation, not in word but in idea, is freely indulged.


Further, protest has repetitively been made, including that by hundreds of petitioners, about this victimisation, without either practical result or even acknowledgement of the offence. Far less has there been any willingness for public debate on such degrading, demeaning and utterly unsupported statements as appear in its Circular to Principals, January 1988. This challenge has however been repetitively presented. We are not in the business of being offended, but of having a free avenue to truth.


Thus, it is not that offence is the relevant term here, merely that it would be citable under the new Bill. What is relevant to those concerned, is the removal of the miseducative hegemony of various philosophies neither supported nor supportable*7, installed as virtual governors of curriculum. Education is not the programming of devotees, far less those not devotees, but devoted to their disciplines and passions, by others, like children sent, with uncertain moral intent, to temples.


This merely illustrates the point that there is no mere theory or hypothesis about possible government error in the field of religion, exacerbating the working of the Bill in practice: for we have here an illustration all too potent, of its vulnerabilities in the workings of its power. It is a demonstrable reality that the most outrageous misuse of governmental authority has for nearly two decades occurred in binding what is neither defended nor defensible*8, and that not just on employes ... but on children! Hitler had the idea of cultivating youth for his philosophy; it is not such a good idea, however much reasonable men, in their own opinion, desire it. The dictatorial quest from the chest of those afflicted with desire, at first attractive, ends like the uprooted, looking for meaning, as if a car could think, and sought a garage after an accident, having first blasted garaging as a program.


Who can estimate the impact of programmatic education based on the baseless, imposed by importunity, on schools as has been the case since 1988, in many things! Who can compute the failure in example, to have minds ready to examine whatever is available, and to argue, reason and sustain what may be shown ? What worse example could be imagined for scientific method! If many adults will wilt, and complain, what then of children ?

Are they thus to be served in the coal-pits analogically exported from the worst of the industrial revolution, bondslaves of the desire of their mentors, free of freedom and constrained to be still! Are they to be fiefs of the framers of policy, or free students, learning ?


Offence here by Christ has not for no reason been signalised in the most dramatic terms (Matthew 18:6). With the curricular conditions segmentalised into mere preference, what charge may be laid before the celestial courts! But God will judge for Himself. He has spoken as we have been at pains to show. Assuming the contrary is mere imposition; but following the reasons to find this is a task of delight, for it resounds on all sides with reason*9.


This however is not our present point; again, it merely reinforces it, and shows still more broadly what confusion the Bill for 2007 could readily attract.


That exposure may be made to various positions is one thing, in education; that others of great historical weight and imposing authority are excluded, and that without access to objectively reasoned debate (as is the case in the Circular for schools), is quite another. This mini-excursion into previous government religious action intensifies the issue; but it does not alter it. Let us then return to the amendments in view, for the Bill, evidently proposed for examination in February 2006.


Such amendments as those presented and recommended above, would prevent such victimisation by not bringing those who teach or speak otherwise than according to current social norms (suddenly vastly changed) into contempt, through such provocative misrepresentation as undefended prejudice may impose.  The point about prejudice of course is this, that if you decline to argue, you may not know what you have got; but your minions will know! Are they not minions who, thus unprotected, are so treated under the entirely amazing title of 'education', while public debate itself is excluded!


The very nature of the law in view, by exposing to the charge of crime what some may incorrectly deem Bible preaching and teaching to contain, and many find unacceptable to feeling in any case, transgresses it. Accordingly,  to pass it is to break at the outset, its own conditions, in tending to bring into contempt those so charged, and so making of the law makers, in principle, criminals in their own terms, for the very thing they seek to exclude.


That is the case IF and only IF the addition noted, or some allied and adequate provision is refused; for then, upon such exclusion, there is no doubt that this is within the intention of the proposed law; and that by simple test. In vain could any claim that this was not so, though the avenue to it was consciously and knowingly left, on the ground that it was necessary so to act on other grounds, and this was a painful necessity. If a person is moved to murder his mother because this is the only way he can find to deliver his sister from persecution, and regrets the 'necessity' so to act, this in no way reduces or limits or qualifies his INTENTION to murder his mother. It only shows what is the price of matricide. Some murder for money, some for desire of this kind or that. When a man murders by intention, the REASON for the murder alters neither the FACT nor the INTENTION.

Whether the power so to act is used, reserved or awaits 'need', it is the same. The intention is there when this is the mind of the party who conserves the means for the sake of an assured need. Failure to remove the means necessitates preservation of the field for the intention. Utter abhorrence of murder of the mother so that the action is not entertained, far less facilitated by 'law', is the only other option. In this case, the Bill STATES on what ground the 'murder' in our image, would be invoked.

Our point is this: the Government, if it does not agree to any such amendment as here shown, MUST have such an intention, since it is proven UNWILLING to remove the way to it. Further, it means that the action of the Government in the matter of the Circular to the Principals automatically qualifies as an offence against any such new law, since if anyone could ever have brought action seriously to bring in serious contempt, this is it. What! legends which claim to be the word of God; meaning stories which claim to be the things we have seen and heard (Acts 2, 4-5); a resurrection which is not infallibly proven by investigation, but infallibly legend, before investigation; miracles of testable, visible and public character found to be untestable! is this not to derogate to a deep and abysmal crevasse the Lord of glory, the testimony of history, the necessities of logic, and how ?

It is by pseudo-divine fiat of a political papacy never offered at election, and only imposed after it. It is in the face of many years of formal protest by Ministers of the Christian faith, pursued in detail, backed by works, including books, never answered, as by offer of public debate, to which response has not been given.

Indeed, the case here is determined by political fiat, not empirical fact, by political will, not logical presentation; and how otherwise, for if this were even possible, logic would cease*10, and so any ground for law other than pure arbitrary persecution by those of one religion (as stated in the Circular) against another.

Hence those who pursue such gratuitous, such unreasoned, such dictatorial, such anti-biblical and such ludicrously contra-evidential political pronunciamentos, and authorise their imposition would be in the front rank of offenders against their own new law, should the EO Bill become law. Naturally, those who voted FOR such an amendment, and AGAINST the Bill without it, or simply against the Bill, would not be so involved; though nothing would remove the complicity of the Government in the affair of The Circular to Principals, whatever becomes of the Bill: except of course that document be removed, and its offence annulled. It is not, let it be repeated, that it has a message, that is the problem, not even that it is anti-biblical. It is rather  than it is undefended by reason, presumptuous in prescription, irrational in basis*11 and a peremptory pronunciamento instead of a document to encourage learning without pre-empting truth by authority.

What then ? what of such a Bill in the setting of the Circular, should the Bill become law ?


To have a law made which incriminates the makers, in the very act of passing it, is assuredly a confused and wholly unacceptable piece of social engineering.


Secondly, specifically as to the other addition proposed to this list of exemptions (e) above), this may be said.


The addition of truth as a defence is not only within the nature of the 2005 Defamation Act of the Commonwealth; it also would further remove the new SA Bill from the charge of being subjective, discriminatory and open to vast abuse. Without such a safeguard as this, the Bill presents within its scope, an avenue for a hideous combination of implicit verbal assault on many who are sincere and kindly-disposed religionists, and a derogation wrought with emotional pretension and open to psychic upset, abuse and canons of preference.


The latter derogation is available in two sections, that based on ill-will and misunderstanding, and that based on mere opinion, posited as belief. However, a claim for a religion should not remove the necessity of truth as a criterion in its challenges to the integrity of others and their ways. Justice without truth is mere verbal prevarication.







The commencement of the chapter here linked gives a preliminary idea of its content, and  as will be seen, its  relationship to our current topic. It is all about relativising, subjectivising and victimising the word of God, and hence the attitude of those who follow it, by mere verbalisation, in this as devoid of reason as a bikini of cover. It is worse, for it has has no cover at all.


THAT abuse of authority for what was not elected as a political papacy, was the work of 1988, and a recent word from the department dealing with the discipling or education of children - or whatever may be its imagined task - has recently advised that the doctrine of this Circular is still BEING ENFORCED (their word). Perhaps it would be at least courteous, and certainly far from devious, if the Government were either to abandon its use of mere authority in the field of religion, in a regulatory manner in schools, and an indicated component for curriculum, or else clearly announce it has ambitions for the political papacy, disregards the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination ... noted, and will decree things, as in the Circular, by fiat. It must always be remembered that the Circular has a religious section and another; and although they are linked, each is categorical.



1 - The Orientation

A. The Circular to Principals

The assault on the minds and hearts of youth is exposed in a Document, a Circular to Principals of January 1988* which has been contested, rejected, appealed against and condemned by persons mounting to the hundreds of Christians, in this way or that, over all those years. From Ph.D. and from Th.D., from pastor and layman the protest has come. The Government however does not arouse itself from sleep, not alas in this, the sleep of the just.

Issues, as we shall see, involve:

·       a) invasive misdefinition of religion at will.

·       b) intrusive direction in the field of religion in schools.

·       c) unethical directives at the religious level, to school Staff which also impact on students.

·       d) the misuse of authority to direct the minds of children, by fiat.

·       e) the abuse of educational liberty, to establish philosophy desired by the State.

·       f) denigration of the claims of major world religions without established ground, and contrary to grounds presented to it.

·       g) denial of important debating liberties to students in the very field where the authoritarian abuse of political power in the field of education has occurred.

In ESSENCE, there is

·       INVASION of academic liberty, by DICTATING what is to be entertained as rational, evidential and artificially creating barriers on the word of God, as if it were KNOWN by some mystic (certainly by no rational) process that God does not deal with facts in His speech. In fact, in the Bible constant appeal is made to them, both Christ and the apostles declaring that they are saying what they see and hear, whilst Isaiah constantly appeals to greater  factual reliability from God than from any source which neglects Him. To assume what you have to prove is not science. To ignore, what in fact is demonstrably true, is neither logical nor just.

·       INVASION of religious realities, without ground, BY MERE AUTHORITY and presumption. Thus we have the principles in view in this application to a particular theory: "While the two views are in competition, they are in a sense not alternatives in that rational debate between the merits of each is unable to be conducted on common ground - one being a scientific theory and the other based on belief."  WHY however is it assumed that the belief relating to ALL religions is non-rational; and why is it also assumed that factuality is foreign to religion ? (See also End-note 2 in Section II, The Situation, below.)

·       EVASION of responsibility for so doing, BY FAILING to debate, or even give sound ground for the presumption/assumption procedure, at the very heart of the tax-paying parents' education system. NO rational response has been obtained from 3 Governments on this topic, mere appeal to authority and imposition of it. The latest response appears to have ignored the religious aspect altogether, as if all the States in the land had performed the same blasphemy/belittling/indoctrination/presumption. No evidence has ever been provided for such a claim.

·       What neither can nor does stand in logic, is forced on the schools by legal power and governmental intrusion, making a mockery of the academic approach.

·       What has been debated for millenia, is suddenly produced into a certain thing, namely that it is all unfactual anyway, a frontal assault on Christianity which claims factuality and physical reality in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ in particular: and what is demonstrably true, is without reason, removed to the shadows of a sovereign State's factual spittoon: NON-FACT. The impudence is only equalled by the effrontery and the irrationality; but both are in danger of being surpassed by the IRONY:

·       EDUCATION was never more affronted than by this cavalier invasion, evasion and definitional fallacy: SAY what it is, and lo, it IS it!



    Damages for hurt feelings are legislated into being in the original 1984 Act, of which the current one is partly a revision, at 96 (3).


*2A See *4 below.

Excursion on Change of Ideas, Presuppositions, Nugatory Necessities and Intoxicated Intuitions

Man is forever being intoxicated by ideas, views, calumnious to some, brought to bear with force on others, partisan preferences, often vile and sometimes soon seen to be so, by the changing of the ideological guard, the ideational flux, and this leading often,  to practical abuse. This appears a solace for those electing to be unspiritual, ungodly, for without their actual basis, there is not merely no rational answer, so that not only irrationality is predictable (cf. Barrister of Bliss ... Ch. 9, SMR Chs. 3, 4, 5, 10, 422Eff. ), but vexation of spirit, leading quite often to the use of force as a supplement to refractory thought.

That is the sort of picture painted on the one hand, in Romans 1, Ephesians 4, Isaiah 1, 59, and on the other, seen repeatedly in elements of the last few centuries of history, duly to be surveyed in many of the chapters cited in *4 below.

What of these adventurers in adventitious thought, their potions often injected into strong-arm rulers ? Imperious they come, slatternly they go, sometimes leaving trails like a meteor. In this is sludge and dirt.

The Bible, on the other hand, having no vulnerabilities (cf. *9 below), and searchingly declaring those of man, changes not at all, neither in this generation, nor even millenium, nor in that: once complete, it stands like a vast oak, its many initial phases now consummated, its trunk true. 

Its teaching unfolds like a flower; its lessons enfold one another, like the strands of a woven belt, and its thrust has been clear (Proverbs 8:8) where the plates of understanding are purged and the heart receives all of it, for millenia. The schools of thought merely emphasise by their enormities, the need to reject the partial and digest all (cf. SMR Ch. 5, The Glow of Predestination ... Ch. 8, On Standby!, Easter Alert, TTT  2 
incl.  End-note 1 ; and see Unity, Island and the Mainland).

Long, indeed from the first, looking for this Coming, Sacrificial One, whose kingdom is not of this world, this word of the living God has moved the eye, the heart from focus to focus, just as finally the whole outcome, point and meaning of vicarious atonement and victorious life becomes apparent. The Gospel with direct frankness and guileness goodness presents the pith (Galatians 1); and while many dither in the deep, it is necessary to be decisive and follow every scripture (II Timothy 3:16), in order to find those resonances and self-confirmations which truth in its customary manner, presents. No wine could compare, nor any elixir to this mutuality of reinforcement, and sweetly of ring as in the bells of the deep.

Then, on the due fulfilment of His foretold first atoning mission, the word of God looks for His return to rule where freedom failed (Psalm 2, for example).

In what way did it fail ? First, it failed to live without Him, and then to live at all, as we look down the corridors of history with its holocausts on the one hand, never so indefatigably and awesomely vile as in the last century, and toward the coming climaxes for which the preliminary fires are now well lit (cf. SMR  Ch. 8). Indeed, all is close to the final constellation of fugues and figures (Luke 21:24ff.), features and fiascos, restorations and intimidations carefully foretold in the Bible (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5), as God with that leisurely certainty which comes from the truth, first speaks and then does (Amos 3:7, Matthew 5:17ff.).

Levelling laws at this book, on the part of any State, or at those who speak, teach, preach, deploy it by its own command, as if such human laws were a gun held by governments, gurus or potentates of whatever kind, what can be said for it ? Assuredly, it produces mayhem as violence replaces reason; but it produces neither peace nor purity. This levelling process, not of man with man, but of gun to those who testifer according to this word,  however,  produces neither peace nor progress. While the Christians become as sheep for the slaughter, this violence, legal or military, proceeds as might be expected when force replaces reality, and desire substitutes for duty, where preference rules like a monarch, and the current chaos of creeds which humanism embraces, becomes in this way or that, the new mentor of morality.

Its credentials do not exist, but its arm does; and this suffices for some. It compels; for it can do nothing else.

Just as the Sudan reeks with blood squeezed out by the oppressors, their violence often directed at this very book, and its kingdom's citizens (Philippians 3:21), so have various philosophies and religions acted with violence in times past. The rule of Christ remains that violence is not the modus operandi of His kingdom (Matthew 26:52-56, John 18:36), and what is using it as a means of impetus for any religion in the name of Christ, is other.

Indeed, how many millions milled around or shouted "Gorbie!, Gorbie!", as the former Russian leader toured Europe with a State bordering on bankruptcy, leading to retraction of the rule of force, with new independence for the oppressed ? Force is not the answer, but the method of those who despairing of truth, or wanting to engage in the very perfection of paranoia, thrust themselves, like marauding babes, into the midst of life. Unfortunately, many control armies, and others manipulate laws.

The USSR with its drab dynamisms for deleting millions and its specious speeches for entrapping them at the first, while promising to be delivering nations to freedom, and in fact delivering individuals or families to dread tortures or Siberia, with slow death in intense labours in the frigidities of thought and climate alike, to death by attrition for the sake of drunken ideologies (cf. News 97, 98, SMR pp. 925ff.) - it is gone.

Who will bemoan it!

The lust for law that smiles, words that soothe,  and teeth that chomp, rulers that collapse liberty like a TB lung deflated, this continues its riot; and many are fooled by its debased deformities.

Meanwhile, devious, various and numerous are ways of replacing liberty with law, so intoxicating at first, as clear to view as stubbies at the races; and yet so sad at the end. Wisdom does not yield to them, nor is the saw amiss, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty- though it is only a first instalment.

It is therefore the more necessary not to yield to the laceration of the countenance of liberty with the sharp teeth, or even shrapnel of explosive law, favouring these, dishonouring those with principles soft like putty, immune to justice, but not to the empty utterance of its name. The Bill of 2007, the EO Bill, it is one indeed in which he owes, who consents, and the bill will be paid if the Bill be passed.

We need a Government that will with careful planning and thought can supply water from the vast treasuries of it in this land (a fact the PM pointed out), using prudence and foresight; not persecution piped by law for this or that group, let alone with spurious sentences daring to voice the name of Equality.




Not only does Stephen's death, in the situation of fury of hurt feelings and inability to answer in reason the prevailing sentiments of the people, illustrate the need for more care when dabbling in social dynamics; that of Christ Himself is the very criterion. Did they admit even to themselves, that their failure to prevail was relevant ? Was not a warranty for the sense of outrage reasoned about (John 11), in terms of social dynamics!

One has had occasion to review this issue before, in News 145, from which an excerpt is taken, below (adapted for this purpose). The issue was one of censorship, a close parallel to personal censorship in terms of fines or other acts so readily becoming the  artifices of exclusion.

What is 'likely to be objectionable to a reasonable adult'  is the phrasing reportedly used by a former Attorney-General, in a Murdoch University speech. Under these circumstances, this tends to become the criterion of liberty, as sure as the winds, as secure as the waves, as ill-defined as the clouds, nugatory, nebulous, nubilous extravaganzas of unholy humbug, waving phrases, not praises, and making the very waves the ruler.


Did reasonable men make Hitler ruler ? sustain him as he advanced ?


Did reasonable men seek to exterminate the Jews to the extent of some 50% of the world population, and continue it for years ?


Did reasonable men twist the thumbs, crush the bones and extort 'confessions' from countless impoverished and persecuted victims, in religious persecution during the Inquisition  in Europe, and continue such things for centuries ?


Did reasonable men put millions of kulaks into Siberian torture and deprivations unspeakable, over years of horror, because they had the eminent crime, a matter judged to be so, by those who doubtless deemed themselves, reasonable people -  of having farms ? …


Did reasonable men make thousands of slaves, and make them work, after kidnapping them, in conditions often both miserly and inhuman, or deem them 'something else' than human ? actions which whole sophisticated and civilised nations by repute, engaged in over long periods of such insensitivity and closed thought as makes one more amazed than does any atomic bomb!

At their time, such people, were they not of this persuasion ? Is superiority to become a criterion of judgment, then, for this nation ? We are too good, perhaps, to be so duped ? Delusion frequently precedes destruction, and elevation, depression.

Are we then, even in Australia, to make hay while the sun shines, even if it be of the skin of the backs of those victims assailed by agents of the so noble cause of victimisation! Alleged victims on any urbane and inadequate basis, readily become victimisers, and the horrible cycle of subjectivity proceeds to its wanton end.

If the evils are real, so must be the corrections, and not a mere instrument for releasing more evils. Law needs adequate safeguard, if it is not to become the mere agent of sects, sectors and socially charged incursions.

Or again, is the UN notable for being 'reasonable' even though such an appeal is one of its benchmarks ? Look at this aspect which has been little other than a new religion, based on articulated premises, where the tyranny of presumption becomes the assumption for action! What the UN SAYS, like Simon says in the children's game, is to BE religion, under whatever name, and in THIS way, says its own documentation, is the child to be brought up! (See - Mystery of Iniquity, and News 152, especially in these two sites.)

If then the UN is so cavalier in its disregard, and so voluble in the wonder of its good intentions, is anyone to conceive that 'reasonable' as a mantra will secure any sort of safety from statistical culture, divorced from truth, aligned to feeling, enforcing its wishes in persecutions as notable as many in the past. In Victoria penalties can already be severe, take years of labour and odium; and when once a people suffers the merely desired, based on premises as secure as sand, to become the code, then it asks for all that history so abundantly informs it, it will get.

Why ask! there are far better  things to ask for, like truth and justice, wisdom and that toleration which fears no truth, and allows truth as a criterion in all things, lest the current psychic twinges and cultural binges become just one more tyrant.



On this, see for example:

 Delusive Drift ... Ch.    6 - and the moron;

Joyful Jottings Chs.   5,  8 , 16,

Repent or Perish Ch.  7

Deliverance from Disorientation Ch.  7,

TMR Chs.   1,  8, Questions and Answers   3

SMR pp. 252Aff.,  3-10, 14ff., 999, Ch. 3;

The Pride of Life, the Prince of Life and the Destiny of Man Ch. 5,

Dig Deeper, Higher Soar, Divine Glory Delights the More Chs.   1 and   2

A Spiritual Potpourri  13

Ancient Words, Modern Deeds Chs.   9 , 13;

Swift Witness  6, Licence for Liberty  Ch. 6

It Bubbles Ch. 5 (News 132) - and chaos: 
cf. SMR pp. 264ff., 284ff, News  80, Deliverance from Disorientation Chs.   1  7;

Earth  Spasm, Conscience Chasm and the Renewal of Life Ch.   1
(incl. ref. to the simplistic substitute for creative thought, 'blind watchmaker', and conversation with chance),

The Desire of the Nations Ch.   2, Wake Up World! ... Chs.    5,  4,   6,

History, Review and Overview Ch.  5

News 81, 82; Little Things Ch.   5, Beauty of Holiness Ch.  7;and

The gods of naturalism have no go!

See also Naturalism, Index.



See Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed, Barrister of Bliss Ch. 9,
Barbs ... 6-7, His Wounds
Opened Eternity Ch. 3.

Some things similarly are founded on thought that occurs to someone, founded on nothing, correlative with nothing, stampeding like wildebeests in motion, the dust beneath obscuring any view of the ground for their action!

For some idea of the scope of this virulent, variable, passionate, intemperate pushing to propel people into now this, now that haunt of the irrational, see SMR pp. 422E-W with Chs. 3, 10,  and TMR Chs. 1, 5-7, Gracious Goodness... Ch. 3, Anguish, Ecstasy ... Ch. 5. The flows comes also in branches, which impact here and there, with flood plains where the silt is placed, and becomes mud.

On this see:

Aviary of Idolatry, Highway to Hell

The Pitter-Patter ... Ch. 2,

Overflight ... Chs. 1, 5,

Christ Incomparable, Lord Indomitable Ch. 2

Downfall from Defamation Ch. 1,

Deliverance from Disorienation Ch. 7,

Light of Dawn Ch. 5,

Repent or Perish Ch. 7,

Dizzy Dashes ... Ch. 6,

History, Review and Overview Ch. 5,

Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 3

Lord ... Ch. 5,

Dastardly Dynamics Ch. 4,

Calibrating Myths ... Ch. 9,

His Wounds ... Ch. 4,

Beyond the Crypt ... Ch. 1,

The Wit and Wisdom of the Word of God ... Ch. 6,

The Christian Pilgrimage Ch. 9,

Highway of Holiness 10,

Of the Earth, Earthy ... Ch. 13,

News 97, 98, 150,

Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 5.



See NEWS 156, Galloping Events Ch. 7, End-Note *2. We see the 6 months prison term which evidently could be imposed in the overview of that case, as it developed.



See Mystery of Iniquity for details of this UN instrument and its place in Australia.



See Government Composite, tracing in more detail the injustice of the Circular's provision, its prejudicial and discriminatory posture and the lapses and failures of government in response to just criticisms and proper requests. Students by the 10,000s suffer as a result, the education field is travestied, scholarship is inundated with propaganda, scientific method is subverted and a shameless example of political indoctrination invading a field of learning or disputation, such as is common as nations fall in history, is exposed further.


For a short summary of the major defects of the Government, dictatorial substitute for proper didactic function and informative teaching see below, taken from
Beyond the Crypt, the Divine Script and the Face of God
, Ch. 8, at *5A.




For provision of some of the material provided to the S.A. Premier in the pursuit

of the removal


of the affront and denigration to Christianity,
via a gratuitous definition of religion per se, to be found
in an official educational document, and


of the irrational construction of an approach to the teaching
of creation and evolution in schools,
built not least, and explicitly,  on such a gross and officious misunderstanding
of the topic of 'religion' :

see this link.

In the material presented and referred to, it is shown:

that this official document and governmental approach is 
a travesty of the claims,
duly authenticated and verified, of Biblical Christianity, whose religion,
as religion
is here attacked;

that there is no justification is to be found for acting in such a manner,
which could with considerable point, be characterised
as a secular pontification.

that the result is unconscionable for education, unsustainable as philosophy,
irrelevant as science. 


For a detailed critique of the DECS document (Department of Education and Child Services), sent to school Principals, containing this assault and confusion, without ground: an extraordinary,  presuppositional pontification: see TMR Ch. 8.

For an exposition of the apparent conflict between this setting up of an assumed, and unsustainable religious profile in this manner, and Australia's commitments to the UN, see Chapter 1, *1A above.
In view of Commonwealth financial partnership in State Education, the Australian Government is directly involved. 

The point is not made that the government ought to do the job
of Christian ministers for them,
an idea which is a useless bypass if not a red herring
in the reply to the Evangelical Presbyterian Alliance,
which is seeking the deliverance of children and youth from this mistreatment.

The point however
is made that


1) it should not so act without at least open and public debate and logic,


2) it should not seek with neither reason nor argumentation to the point, 
to present a definition of religion which constitutes
a direct and major assault on Christianity:
for not only is this an affront produced out of air,
but it is readily shown to be logically fallacious.


3) Nor should it set up a religion of its own, by means of multiple theological dogmas,
asserted in a Circular to Principals, for the reason noted above,
that the Commonwealth evidently uses considerable funds on State Schools,
and it is not permitted to favour a religion, as here.

In fact, the religious pronouncements in the Circular represent
a compulsory cradle for all religions,
and an answer to basic questions of religion,
giving the parameters of religion from an outside view,
not even defended, a position shown not only shown to be indefensible logically,
but apparently so legally.

With this, one must add:


4) Nor should the State Government build curricular elements using religious confusion,
partial or total, as a basis for them, as occurs in the Circular in view:
the method is an appalling educational gaffe;


5) nor should it omit significant areas of scientific research in a manner
which defiles scientific method, in the scope of science teaching,
by mere appeal to what is in fact divided authority;


6) nor should it use mere denigration as a substitute for experimental and logical survey,
in setting up its invasion of the religious and educational fields.


It is also pointed out that it should face these issues, instead of:


7) avoiding debate,


 8) excluding interview with the Premier
who must bear the responsibility (there being no Minister for religion),
on so vast a defacement of Christianity; and


9) failing to face and even reply to the legal issues,
which appear to make this illegal in this country,
and certainly contrary to the Commonwealth Government commitments
against discrimination to the UN (Chapter 1, *1A above). 

Instead, this Government has now twice given a reply from a Minister, simply omitting these basic issues, while talking of the pattern preferred, and various religious irrelevancies. There is a vast chasm between objective reasoning and this document, the government Circular; and this needs to be faced, inspected, and replaced with a reasoned approach, differentiable from a series of presuppositions so gratuitous as to bid fair to become destructive of any educational reputation for this State.



10) the government should not fail to take steps for such replacement
with a sense of grief, shame and urgency.

The fact that this appalling and ten times multiple failure, in educational procedure, has been in force for some 17 years makes it a more-than-Party issue; it is the whole of South Australia which is involved in this cultural swagger. If this grave error is not purged, the consequences of such slackness, logical slither and religious affront alike, are a matter of grief for the State, which does not need such abasement.




See That Magnificent Rock, Chs. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8.



The gods of naturalism have no go!








See for example,  *4, *7, *8 and *9 above, with SMR incl. pp. 374ff., 378ff., Chs. 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, Repent or Perish Ch. 7, Secular Myths and Sacred Truth.



See *10 above, and note that any presentation which makes a world view based on no known absolute truth, in presenting its view as the truth, and hence to be obeyed, is in self-contradiction, as well as persecutory mode in the field of religion. See Barbs ... 6  -7.