W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page, All Bulletins, What is New



Movement from the biblical God and Christ

with a Marriage-to-State Religion and
Gross Breach of Constitution Article 116



IF you love totalitarianism,

where not only the meaning of words, but their placement,
and the thoughts behind them are all subject to autocratic permission,
bureaucratic rebuke and various orders,
as is increasingly the case now in various topics,
with this folly open to great increase, very soon;

and IF you find appeal in being indoctrinated by force,

with penalties for non-conformity and lack of  uniformity
from your authorities,
for not bowing,
your  independence of thought and creativity of mind
restrained by their convenience and the new morals,
remembering Caiaphas and John 11:48-53;

and IF you find the Constitution wearisome in Section 116,

so that when it prohibits the Commonwealth
"making laws for establishing any religion,
imposing any religious observance,
or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion,"
and you just want to make it mean whatever you like (literally):

then what?

Then you have a wonderful opportunity to indulge your wishes.

You could do the first group in the eye (the NO people in the postal vote), by acting as if to force them to mean and think and say things contrary

not only to their religion -
and under duress, also to the national Constitution -
yet such as you may love,

but even to the presentation of reason

(cf. The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, for example).

With a YES win, you might even have the marshalled minority lectured by people of neo-morals while the abused non-conformists find themselves fined for not following the furious and unfounded dogma and teaching. What is happening NOW to various challenged people, especially in Tasmania, but not there alone, and has repeatedly happened already, will be the warning easily ignored, but not wisely.


Religion, concerned with where we came from,
what we are, who we are, whose we are, 
and where we are going and why,
obviously is back of the views of the sanctity of marriage.

It is seen

 AS either

in accord with our construction
and vastly clear,
normal genetic commands concerning for example gender,
in terms of which our bodies are manufactured every generation, 
the Bible for example confirming
this commanding genetic imprint

set in nature
and instructing man to avoid defiance
of both divine orders and ordinances;

or NOT.

If not, then on the contrary, it follows from an atheist or agnostic setting. Thus the term 'marriage' might become INCLUSIVE of almost anything you choose to imagine, though it does help if it signalises and distinguishes the way the race does not die out, in terms of male and female gametes.

Religion, or in this case, making a religion of doing without God, is the ultimate basis of views to the contrary of the current marriage definition, whatever may be the intention.

Indeed, IF you want the Government to get ahead of itself,
and NOT first change the Constitution to allow meddling in matters of
"prohibiting the free exercise of any religion,"

as does the untimely vote  in the coming clash, and to do so quickly -

just as Christ told Judas to act quickly in his fateful program of murder:

then here may be a near ideal way to do it.

If such motives as these operate, then to add to the "yes" vote would seem indicated. As an example, it would do much to liberate humanism and defy God our Creator, just as so much teaching in South Australia has been doing since 1988. This has happened, despite repeated challenge both to this obliterative and irrational practice, and to debate*1.

Why should many refuse such a legislative revolution and constitutional affront ? 

It is because their religion and the facts would make this a surrender, betrayal and dereliction of duty.

From whom ? from the God whom we are allegedly free to worship without government interference! It is an old story. In Rome, they used lions to follow the matter up. Is the use of lawyers, bureaucrats, progress ? Is teaching those in religious disagreement with the new religion, dubbing it counselling, an advance ?


In fact, if your aim is

if this is your aim or preference:

then you might indeed vote "yes". 

It works for that. It helps that religious preference enormously. It is discriminatory to the uttermost, a virtual paragon of abuse. State-made religion smiles. Will no group or body rightly placed to challenge at law this divorce from religious liberty in terms of Section 116, do so ? True by voting 'yes' to this imposition in view, you are confronting the God of creation (SMR, The gods of naturalism have no go), but this too may appeal. If this is so now, what then! If even a small limit to allow some liberty in some cases ever should happen, it is readily removed, and what of all the rest! The Constitution is for the people of Australia, not just some suffered exemptions.

                   #4    IS IT A STEAL ?

If again, anyone is glad to gain the reputation earned over millenia for the term 'marriage' which, though subject like much else, to abuse, is exceedingly considerable, without having to earn it, then here lies open an advantageous way of securing this rapid deal. Possibly some  may find this a gain, for It can become a form of theft. They earn it, you use it.

Why, you would no longer need two people, ideally, who love each other, using their difference to form a child of this love without addition, to which their so productive love naturally leads, if you want to participate in this desired term, 'marriage'. What that earned through such means, for so long, this can take  and attach, through a subsidised act.

No tyranny of the tongue or law, can change this truth. Whatever the intention, this result stands ready. Nor is it usual to find people realise that this envisaged change is an affront to those who delight in what the term currently means, and for centuries has meant,  and without confusion would continue to mean. Is it then impossible to discriminate against such ? Does it work only one way!

It is like having shares transferred to the register of another company, even one with the religious background so closely involved here, that it would be to a company maximally undesired for that reason. It not only changes the term for normative and clear reference to what you have, seizes and applies it, but does so in a way religiously repugnant, inventive and unconstitutional, and intrusively directive. In essence: this is a religious and not a personal matter at all. Follow your political mummy or be smacked, is the result.



As for the concept of equal love, as the strange saying goes,  as if people were being unfairly treated unless the current definition of 'marriage' be robbed of its deep meaning, as if love itself were being denied because homogeneous or same-gender sex was not included in the marital package: this is a strange assault on what love is. There are specialised applications of love, whether of sacrifice of life for another, for example, or production of children.

Confusing the two, love and sex, is unfair to both. Making one of these essential if the term love is to be applied, is confused, mismatching concepts as well as applying religious antipathies and vital contrasts to each other, with indifference  (as in #2 above). Moreover, loving those who offend you, is one crucial thing; and it is indeed not to be implied that what one finds wrong implies hatred; for on the contrary, it may imply love, as when a doctor uses the term 'disease' for influenza, and prescribes a remedy, out of concern for the patient.

Indeed, for our part, in terms of the Bible, the love of Christ constrains us (II Corinthians 5:14), for the basis of this current national choice is at the outset to dismiss the source of the remedy for man, for many hate the commands of God reflected not only biblically but in the construction instructions normative in the human genes (cf. Bulletin Eighty Eight, *1),  and so face by choice what is spiritually worse than any disease in its effects (Romans 1-3). The Gospel itself contains the command to repent ( Luke 13:1-3, Acts 17:30). There is no force.

Choice has great value. So to choose is one thing; but to follow unwittingly what is based on and leads to it, is another. It is good to help people to  escape from a confused entry into such a national situation, with its own individual afflictions and social commands to follow.

As to this equal love gambit and application, then, implying that a refusal to let some loving people sexually unite with the term 'marriage' attached, or even that this molests freedom to love: this is simply untrue. The use of the usual, natural gender difference, if the definition of marriage is not changed, to specialise in what is naturally provided, is one thing; but to insist on its extension to a radically diverse situation acts to confuse the issue: this is a matter of definitional abuse rather than due expansion,one leading down the track of religious domineering.

Since when has the term sex meant love ? It may signify it, or not. That is incontestable. But it is not the only expression. Indeed, let the people love to the uttermost, delightful; but let them not pretend that a denial of sex to go with it, outside 'marriage', as such, is a denial of love, or assert such moderation as this to be less than avoidance of assault, on what many already have, now re-designed and incorporated in an utter mix.

If on the other hand, you want to say no

to this galloping change,

to this butterfly of liberty turning to the grub

of commanded social conformity

and demeaning degradation of a free (ish) nation,

the opportunity may soon be available.

If you want to negate the abuse of force of one kind or another, you can do so in two letters. N after M and O before P. NO! It is your choice.


Let us remind ourselves, meanwhile, may one suggest, that results that come, do NOT define purpose and intent; and that many become blind on various topics, and plunge headlong without realising what they are doing, and later acknowledge this. But the results do happen, foreseen or not! Therefore it is necessary to take care.

While it is true that biblical Christianity is not the only body that is slammed by this proposed governmental action; yet it is a distinctive one relative to our national and formal past and our Constitution's relevant orientation, express in its Pre-amble. In this new proposed challenge by coming vote, the confrontation in terms of religion is in fact vast and deep, pregnant with meaning and enforced religious orientation. History has a way of sticking around. Denying this reality does not alter it. Ignoring the Constitution neither obliterates it nor satisfies it.  Failing to safeguard it is merely one feature of the confrontation.

Remember, pardon for past errors is available in the Bible's Christ. That is part of a reality over millenia, which many are seeking to remove. It is as if our Australian Constitution were not relevant in indicating the States grew a Commonwealth "in dependence on Almighty God", and as if in this current  anti-Christian move, to speak in biblical terms, there is signified no real change at all!

THIS, it is indeed not mere change, but a part of a complete transmutation, so that we may become one more controlled nation, where notion and not God is in mind, and the God of the Bible in particular, is discounted and attacked, as if this were a mere nothing, which none minded while none were discriminated against.

Thinking a thing to be nothing, however,  does not make it so. Being free to move without violence as in John 18:36, the biblical way in Christ's command, one of appeal and not enforcement, is precious because it regards man as  more than fodder for manipulation and a butt for various thoughts, schemes and plans as he happens to think of them. Despite disclaimers, his freedom matters, and violence is NOT the way, whether this be per legal lash, as now threatens and in part already is the case, or whether it be military in kind, at the whiff of a dictator, or the sniff of an enforcer.

Are we free to follow one side or the other NOW ? If not, for what is the postal vote, that is mentioned! If so, then let it be openly discussed without attacking one side before the result is known. Let there be no persecution. Let not the orientation in the Preamble to the Constitution, or the Section 116 in it, now direct, by somersault, not freedom of religion, but instead that it  may now become

 a focus for legal assault or harassment,

or even an area for hostile, demeaning and presumptuous 'instruction'. Nor let the change be simply assumed as a basis of choice, even before the imposition is arranged!

That would be like mock turtle soup, making a laughing stock out of your stock approach. It would also illustrate one of the points being made.






You can turn off facts and turn on will, as with the matter of creation,  many institutions have done, and so increase the compulsory radicalisation and paralysis of thought. Here is your chance to SECOND that motion, already academically common (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go! Bulletin 82 and 83, and Government Approach), and like the Nazis as they grew, assess what is to be made permissible, and what not, and how, and maybe even torment those who refuse to change.