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





Australia Ruptured ?



To abandon or not to abandon
truth and promise, that is the question.


Part II

A Particular Case


The Advertiser July 6, 2014

Let us consider the issue.



In Chapter 4, we considered the Australian development in the dumping of an election undertaking to enable without penalty, ROBUST discussion, as apt, needed and right in a free society, with attention to be given to laws impeding this, that they should be corrected. Open and vigorous discussion was to be the new view, duly supported as part of liberty, a function of freedom.

This undertaking, partly on the basis of which a government in this land is elected to enact the will of the people, has evidently been abolished. The Prime Minister, asked concerning the fact that he had now resolved to drop this stated election intention, perhaps with the thought that maybe he would be reserving it for later performance, having it nearby for implementation in due course, declared rather decisively, to the contrary. As to this promised change in the law, his word was this: it is out, gone, not there! So the fitful desire for more freedom in speech, without government intervention, was like a fever: now it is gone. But this desire was no fever.

We have  seen something of the general nature of the present laws, which now no more are to be changed in the interests of robust, realistic, truth-seeking discussion, but swept back into the imprisonment of thought field, as shown in the last chapter, with the virtual assumption by government of elevation in this to the post of lord of lords. It is time to apply this more extensively.

If any religion be held by a given citizen, then penalty will occur if government stipulations as noted in Ch. 4, apply. If such religion has a god in it who claims to be the God who made man, his powers and his responsibilities, and gives commands to act and speak and believe in a certain manner, then the government provisions, conflicting with this, put the State above that god or lord or sovereign, enabling it to assume a power that makes any such religion, and its god, to be subservient. In this it becomes a lord of lords, in principle.

If however any religion be held by any citizen, and the God back of it claims to be God Almighty, the same one referred to in our Preamble to the Constitution in this land, then those who follow the Bible on this point, as was the background for this country in terms of God Almighty, reach not a possible, but an actual conflict with the law. They DO have the God over all, and He does have commands and they do determine conduct in terms not only of beliefs, but of their expression, its manner and its requirements as part of having such a religion.

In this case, we have identified what is countermanded by the Section !8C in point, for example, as a start. Further, let us take the possible case in Ch. 4 where the Lord  or Sovereign in a given religion IS God, which in abstract coverage has to be faced: then the Government of this land has made a law which makes it sovereign over God Almighty, in addition to being an institutor of a religion of authority and power to which, as in the days of Daniel, all must bow or have legal assault and penalty. Since at this present time, it has, contrary to its election pledge, decided not to change that particular law, let us further take the case that this religion taken as a case, IS the deposition of God Almighty. Then this  Government through any such laws is challenging and changing the acquiescence in this country to such a religion, and making a head-on clash with God.

Sometimes people use the sardonic expression: Good Luck! meaning that what you are attempting or planning is so misled or dangerous that you will NEED it! In other words, you are about to step into a maelstrom or pit. Stepping into a pit, however, is not a prominent way of obtaining good, especially when it is done in a peremptory fashion, in terms of some 'insight' which is just words. If Australia decides to play fast and loose with all gods or God as the case may be, then it forsakes with a profound thanklessness what has nurtured many of its best qualities, such as concern for the aged, weak, sick, to be kindly and helpful to those in sudden need, considerate; and this modus vivendi becomes a sickening failure to consider why, or from what this comes, so that the ground of is lost and the meaning of it is discarded, and trusting in itself, it becomes a stray dog, ready for any master. But you do not have to become subject to whatever moves, in characterless chasms, in order to be kind. Kindness is not the same as capitulation to whatever.



It is not unusual amid tyrants, common in the past amongst unruly rulers and those who adulate State oppression, as if itself were a god, over the minds, consciences and actions of man, to  take repressive and directive action at deep levels, and to ignore such results as violation of virtue, morals or religion. It is not uncommon to attack peace-loving people on the part of imperialists, totalitarian characters and movements, which love to oppress and impress their thoughts into the conduct of others, not by reason, but by desire, will and force, in terms of their own cultural acclivities and thoughts of standardising mankind.

It is unusual in this land, however, and many are those in the world wars who thought they were fighting for freedom from just such a fate, even those whom the nation delights to honour.

We can go further. Throughout the years, many are those who have sought to obey the biblical commandment to give a reason for the faith for those who ask (I Peter 3:15, cf. Philippians 1:7), providing a "defence" and "confirmation of the Gospel," and no doubt, if there is any thought of justice left in this area, this would be RELEVANT if one were to be condemned by representatives of governmental oppression in such a case, as might arise when judges proceed to APPLY as a duty, the State law made. You can't as a human being, as such, have two masters, for "either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other," Luke 16:13. In contest and challenge, where roads divide, there is choice, and outcomes bespeak it!

Suppose then in a case of offence being taken at some word spoken in terms of what is commanded to be said or done, or the way in which it is commanded to be said or done, that the victim of this law speaks out. Let us imagine that he gives the reason for his speech (although this could be ruled irrelevant by a canny State). Then the production of such a reason might be STILL MORE offensive  to the authority imposed, or to the party disposed to attack the speaker, making the challenge to Jesus Christ still more acrid. On the other hand, the failure to give a reason could well be breach of commandment. If however the court does NOT ask and will not TOLERATE the giving of a reason for the action, which led to offence, saying that it is a matter of offence occurring, or insult being felt, and has nothing to do with reasons for it, views antecedent to it, or intentions, then this is a direct action to subvert, oppress, being intolerant as applicators of law, making the State lord of all gods, and even of the Lord.

Remember now the language of the Racial Discrimination Act:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

We have been conceived with the ethnic expansion aspect, but consider a) above! One wonders if the one who wrote those words, was on a trip in the Bahamas, and temporarily lost contact with the real world, as it is called, where real people interact and respond, and principles operate, and laws have results that can gather like a tsunami and roar into destruction because of injudicious, restless ideologies, unrefined words, lack of due caution, so allowing for thrusts of political power,  like this.

Is it reasonable ? Let us pursue that further. As to that, it is amazing what man may deem to be this.

Galloping Events Ch. 7.  

Excerpt  from Galloping Events Ch. 7.

It is not "reason", but "reasonable men". So does grasping culture, with rapacious hand, prepare itself to place the dagger of preference into the heart of truth.



Did reasonable men (of course, how dare you suggest otherwise!) make Hitler ruler


Did reasonable men seek to exterminate the Jews to the extent of
some 50% of the world population ?


Did reasonable men twist the thumbs, crush the bones and extort 'confessions' from countless impoverished and persecuted victims, in the Inquisition ?


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,
of having farms ?

Do you trust in humanity ? Then you are a humanist, rather than an historian, and certainly this is the nadir of ANY religion that deals with any actual God, for man, he is born and dies, in neither case (except in suicide) at his pleasure. Worship is not fitting FOR but FROM him, and that for His Maker, on whom in production as in practice, he depends (cf. Repent or Perish Chs. 2, 7).

It is an exercise in the ridiculous to clothe mankind with divinity; but if you do, that is humanism. This then becomes in whole or in part,  your religion, and this is then being forced onto other people. This in cases where they do not share this, in that event,  YOUR humanistic or relativistic religion, then of course you are VILIFYING their religion, by making it illegal in application, while, with a hypocrisy which would be admirable in audacity were it not duplicitous,  asserting your own 'faith'.



Apart from this, reverting directly to the 18C law in view, we must remind ourselves that the word "reasonably" may suggest the use of reason at the outset, relative to the words and the issue, and the need to exercise probity, truth, and consider motive, vision, religion, ethics and so on, as the case is examined. However, its use is confined in this law. Being "reasonable" here does not relate to the old chestnut 'what would a reasonable person think,' which is bad enough, since 'reasonable' people in the grip of passion  frequently in history, or what would pass as such, have acted in travesty of truth, abomination of all restraint and madness of blindness of aim. It is quite useless to pretend that the human  race runs itself by being reasonable in any comprehensive fashion, though it may on occasion be so, or in various areas, when disruptive passion and foolish dreams retreat a while, for a short distance. How little it can take, one of the vast vulnerabilities in the race, to stir up hatred, evil thoughts, war, invasion, evasion and disregard as horror takes the helm, and man decides that never again ... soon to re-indulge!

Far from the cynical, this is the realistic; and while wonders are also found in delicious contrast, and mighty faith, unfoundering love, that does not cancel, any more than good food cancels lung cancer, the perils that prudent government must watch are both deep and abiding.

Here, there is not EVEN that protection, whatever is called 'reasonable' as the basis for examination of the case. The ONLY use of reason, consideration in depth and realism of ALL the aspects before guilt is collectively asserted through law, is not whether a person ought to be GRIEVOUSLY insulted and offended, or such was a justifiable result (subjective enough, dependent on what 'people' are supposed  to be by the latest foible of ever changing and unsustainable philosophy).

It is not nearly as good as this, even this! Here the light of reason is but a ray. Rather the limit is this: was it reasonably clear that it could be expected that the person, for whatever reason, and in whatever dimension of heart and mind, might have been offended. Perhaps some one in some realm conceivably relating to race or ethnicity or other extensions or applications of the same, potentially almost ad infinitum, might be deemed - given the way they just may react in certain cases, reasonably likely to be offended. Rationally, this  may be little more than the exploitation of a feeling; but psychologically, or for any other reasons, good, bad, indifferent, ludicrous, sophisticated, unsophisticated, this feeling event might indeed occur. Too bad, if it is an intemperate and uncontrolled expression of hatred.The question is not WHY but WHETHER it is felt ?

It may be BECAUSE of race and so forth (that extending bracket of considerations), on the one hand, or LIKELY to stir up feelings in a given race, on the other, or a nation, a sort of blank cheque for recrimination and legal assault, with regions to  explore, intimidations to effect, and marvellous opportunities, to be sure, to experience jaw closure or else the sovereign risk of State assault. That may, when duly extended in the given direction, lead to the recently expanding feature of Australian attack on Christians, who follow the Bible, with its directions based on truth, and what may be tested concerning it, not feelings, whether these be fictional or sincere.

Consider. Could a Hitler-once-more person of German race be offended by a light-hearted reference to his moustache, or a grave one to his final solution ? It would seem reasonably likely, for some feelings, or at least not too rarefied. Could a Union  zealot be offended by a reference to unionism as commandeered by very different  powers,  whether constantly or fitfully, from those which first saw it seek equity ? could this be some kind of ethnicity, cultural bloc matter, refined away into some kind of apparent relevance, and then as such imposed ?

Could this be deemed correlative to an ethnic slice of persons in this country, for example ? Define away and see what can be managed! It does not have to be a REASONABLE application that is in view, but one which someone may FIND offensive, in some way which someone might construe it to be likely they would respond, whether stirred by haughty, arrogant, money-seeking, cultural norms or otherwise.

This then is, only if it be possible, a worse case of the 'ethnicity' point, since it is as open as a cheque for infinity, and covers the worst of all  possible motives, since these may have lodged in the deceitful hearts (there are enough of these as history reveals, and they may be naturally gifted by the ability to cover-up) of those wishing to secure gain or satisfaction unscrupulously. This may be achieved by walking on the corpses of other people's reputations, which they usefully and gratuitously assault; or which before becoming social corpses, have engendered their dislike, whether because of atrocities or slights or on the other hand by their mere courage to stand for what, FOR WHATEVER reason has become unpopular, or outside the mainstream of reactionary thought, or acceptable approaches. DOWN WITH this or that may be a key component, whether realised or not, and given its psychic presence, it may pressurise even in some rather better cases, the mouth that protests and claims satisfaction by law, to spit out offence or insult, as the sea its spray.

The grounds of assault on the  victim (one of the two possibilities of the sweeping net of attack on people for speaking their minds) do not need any kind of classificatory definition at all, besides having some relationship, it would seem, to racial, ethnic or parallel considerations, disappearing into the distance like ranges upon ranges of hills. It may deal then, directly with race or colour and so on, or instead with ISSUES known to be sensitive in some nations or races, so that they are almost viewed interchangeably with that race or nation, by SOME in it, a vanguard or rearguard. It could be reasonably likely that some in the race in question might respond in some such negative fashion to such issues being raised, or grab the ethnic card which may be played.

Such rational references may then become taboo, in CASE some judge might make the connection. It suppresses thought, on pain of penalty, however patronising; or else it makes law to be itself offensive, and its presuppositions an insult to those about to be attacked through it. It thus cheapens justice and is cavalier with truth. Offence of persons BY THE LAW or its presuppositions, persons of some ethnic group or nation, does not seem to matter. If the offensiveness deemed to exist in the one assaulted by law, proves offensive to the victim, whose offence takes precedence ? The first to call ? is it a game!



What then do we find  ? It is to be offended that becomes more important than any God or His laws, and in terms of the forgotten party, the God Almighty whom he or she may worship. In addition, it subjectivises to a  psychic response in one or some, free in a particular case to despatch the freedom which was objectivised in our Constitution, and indeed, make irrelevant any other form of law or ethics or code whatever. If this were not meant, it should neither be written nor construable, and what IS meant should be given due force, something towards which the election undertaking was moving!

Thus instead of the Commonwealth not being free to establish any religion, and institute its effects, it becomes free to disestablish ANY religion, and have its legal presence breathe down the neck of what is contrary to its floundering faithlessness, and the gavel by which it outlaws.

This situation conducts to the supervening superiority of people not elected to such rule, nor making it even an issue, religious as it is;  as to the folly of putting man in his or her mere psychic response, above all gods, principles, and making our land not only a ninny State, waking at a stirring in the psychological bushes, but a woefully oblivious State, versed in the state of the art of subjectivity, suffering from an acute case of interventionitis and utter contempt that does not fail to dare to take on, for its own little part, the source and destiny of man, as portrayed in any other presentation. Might some reference to the objective consideration of Constitution not occur ? Might it not for a little while stop the subjection to such illicit restrictions in the field of religion, stop this violation of freedom in the exhibition of religion, for the obedience to its laws and the fulfilment of its precepts.

These developments represent the precise opposite of what is guaranteed in terms of religion in the Constitution. It is an outrageous outage, default and failure.

Because AIM and OBJECTIVE and ACADEMIC research and ANALYSIS for social clarity are irrelevant in terms of insult or otherwise, then risk comes into righteousness and peril into a robust attempt to be realistic. The ninny-isation of Australia proceeds, culture king, and this subject to whatever fulminating flow of ideas settles like mist on this or that section of the populace, be it Scottish, or European, those of a given race of this or that conviction or religion, where race,  notion, nation or ethnicity may be DEEMED to have some application, for immigrants old or new.

What godlike powers are thus torn from an independent Australia, and handed to specialists in this or that which connect this phase or feature with that, and so deeming, disregard reason on the issue of reality, in favour of what people are likely to FIND in themselves, and their psychic outcomes. Face replaces function and deeming becomes king, with power to interpret how the waters roll a most convenient extra as this and that function in society is used to increase the subversion and dignify it with appearance.

This is not because of breach of limb or dishonesty, on the part of the potential legal victims, but because of the self-love of the nation, and the elevation of some in it to the position of rulers of the mind, and if not, then to abusers of means of taxation of purse or power, of name or standing, of reputation or aim, as if such subjection were made by some authorises religious posture, where force replaces reason, and truth is subject to  irrational proclamations. That those to be offended and so forth, may change from generation to generation, even year to year, as different feelings emerge to relate to racial or ethnic groups, so that other grounds of offence arise in almost kaleidoscopic wonder, does not alter the principle, but makes it the more offensively directive to the heart and conscience of man.

However unreasonable a spark may be, the question here is whether it is there!

In all these things, except in the apparently ignored Constitution (which some indeed may want to change!), there is a confused connection with racism, and all the gall of those who generalise about what is not stated in principle, but only thought to be found in practice. Exalt feeling, make nation or race a category of canons, with legal cannons to fire at the people, ethnicity an air raid to prevent safety in any cover, make condemnations based on offence of man rather than the Maker of man, so that human racism becomes the deadly substitute, crucify the Pre-amble to the Constitution ?

Here is a list to which some seem to list, as the vessel of State perilously lists!  Behold, the feelings of man become the implements of majesty.  Readily does this come among the broader blasts from this unfortunate and ultimately godless law.

In this case, though the proclamation of  some religion is not actually verbalised, it is, whatever the intention, in terms of available outcome, viciously applied. Man is made captive of man, and managed by man, without reason or ground, but the filaments of feeling; and the considerations of these put into the mouth and made a burden to others, would make of some an inferior race, law-breakers. This then is readily wrought, especially through any culturally privileged in the current passion for this or that, as times change and mood swings in the popular approaches appear in vogue.

The view could well be taken that whatever the cause of the felt offence or experienced insult, the insult is there, a sort of reverential thing, an object in nature. Hence, since this is the law that it be not found, and if it is, then it is in breach of law, then the allegedly guilty-party founders, inarticulate, reason quashed, reasons for the action, disposed of, implicit religion through law implemented, with its psychic dogmas unfurled.

Then the governmental, legally binding, the chosen kind of cultural rule, which is the forbidden kind, Constitution-wise, proceeds on its way. RELIGION is thus impelled, though excluded as impelled or officially applied in the Constitution, and compelled: though to be sure, some will sacrifice and bear the loss for Christ's name and sake. With themselves not using force as a religion, or for the propagation of their own, they currently so suffer in many countries. Is this type of imposition to come here  ? The concept is born, and it soon  may have many children.

And that ? it is in a superlative smashing of independence of thought and belief,  in Australia. Further, if any race is given special privilege even beyond this in terms of the arrival of insult, then that is merely racism added to subjectivism, extending the scope for assault on truth. Not what ought to be, but what is; not what reason would find grounds to proclaim, but what the norms of psychic subjectivity might actually find: this becomes the assault rifle at hand for any racial or ethnic grouping, national enclave or ethnic construction that may be imagined, and many are the cases construable.



Then it readily becomes man versus God: in the case of the Christian with a reason for the faith that stands; and it structurally becomes man versus reason as well.

It would not seem to be a particularly brilliant law for a free country which has shown no power to establish by power, reason and righteousness anything comparable to Jesus Christ, and His biblical authentication, when reason is used to examine His credentials and compare them with those of anyone else.

It would not seem a small change for a nation pleased to have stated that it instituted the Commonwealth with reliance of God Almighty, in the context of that declaration, to come to this. It would seem to need at least a referendum, lest a radical change, challenging the Constitution, be allowed to come in or be continued through a particular Parliament, at that, abandoning an election promise to disallow a continuance of such a position. It would seem the very nadir of responsibility, without a referendum, to change effectively the Constitution in this respect, any such movement contrary to election promise making this the more appalling, dumping the alternative option of changing the law in the necessary respects to avoid, inter alia, this readily envisaged collision with God Almighty.

Deny Him and you are not only moving far from the approach in the Preamble, though it be not enforceable, but you are making rules concerning religion and religions which are subject to your sway, the result of your own convictions, which reduce competitors to your applied cultural code and those showing disagreement with your concepts, to the status of subversives, those immoral, insensitive, or wrong, or  all of these. It would becomes step by step,  significantly more than offensive as offensive laws rule on offense.

The further certification of such governmental action as war with God, in addition to whatever claimed gods some may have in view, depends not only on faith, but on reason for the faith,  given and not overthrown; such as has often been done, and in particular in SMR and TMR and the other volumes, of the total number of 230 on this Web site. Of course, such considerations can be ignored; but that is not taking due care. Yet even if reason be despised, or argument deemed irrelevant, still the same situation applies.

Further consideration enables additional point. Government has instituted or upholds laws which make in some cases ANY offence in the area of a particular race objectionable, and in another, any re race or ethnicity or colour. We have been specially considering the ethnicity case, and the view which some may hold, that this term includes religion. It may be brought in, indeed, in other aspects of the law in view. If it therefore is, all the above applies in terms of that law alone, apart from others. If however, on the other hand,  the Constitution is to be recognised and applied, then law re offences, the racial law, CANNOT mean this, since that is an automatic deletion of that section of the Constitution which requires no establishment of a religion.

That would then become a law in rebellion against the commands of the Constitution. So it may be presented that the Constitution at once controls aspects of the 18C law. Yet such a thought ignores the legal tangles, wrangles, challenges, appeals, and the remedy is simple. Recast the laws to conform to the Constitution and to avoid religious dictation, directly or indirectly, except where what cannot be changed is made target for those too unreasonable to show due restraint: that is those who happened to be born this colour, in that nation, or immovable grouping beyond choice, one should not adversely generalise.

Consider again:  term 'ethnic' is often used of what relates to a linguistic or situational grouping, coming from a particular people in the world, or place, and whatever cultural baggage they may have, in terms of characterisability. It is by no means commonly used to refer to groupings which do not relate to a place or a people in or about a place. It is not normally used to signify an ideational approach, universal in kind or covering whole regions, in the world, such as much of the Middle East, of North Africa, with outposts not a few in Indonesia and the Caucasus area. That is not ethnic in the normal sense, but religious, ideational, a matter of dots here and there, or partitions of whole continents, mixed with other groupings blending, or clashing. That would be illustrated in the Moslem case. Nor would it normally apply as a religious designation for Christianity, whose bounds have moved to tribe and nation, land and continent, and nominally at least changed this way and that, and which has an ideological character not at all limited to this sector, race, land or group within a region.

If however the term were imagined to mean this, then for the reasons given, it breaches the Constitution so to use it, and it would for those who value the Constitution, be good to clarity this; for confusion is no man's friend, and it is possible here, even if unwarranted. Moreover the expression because of a race, which includes what it does, plans to do, says what it will do, has for its philosophic credentials or religious domain, to the extent this is characterisable, this too is given its marching orders in the law under review. Stifling oppression comes at the cost of safety, truth, justice and reason. Readily are thinkers, proponents in their most reasonable presentations, made differentially contrary to law, in a bout of illegality through law. Readily does anyone become an "offender" against this part of the non-Mosaic law of State morals, the new one.

ANY  law which makes it an offence to offend absolutely, in a given area, without regard to reason and grounds and the liberties of the one to be attacked by law, meets the same prohibitions from the Constitution, making the government either lord of lords (in a generic superiority and direction WHATEVER the lord of any religion may require), or combatant against God in the case of a religion, like that of Jesus the Christ, which not only claims to be from God Almighty, with verification and proof, but gives reason to that effect. Even if anyone chooses not to heed this, or to substitute mockery or false claim for this, yet the same result is present in terms of the SCOPE of ANY such law compared with the domain of the lord of ANY religion.

If the government were to decide that there is no such absolute God, no such arena of commandments, then that is the final assumption of lord of lords power, determining in advance that NOTHING occupies the position of ultimate authority, no god or God whatever, and that final and supreme power is vested in itself (though it be by no one but imagination only), in the affair of religion, this by law determining a subordinate status for any god in any religion whatever, compared to its own. Thus it proceeds to authorising itself as the end of all gods, the renderer as subjective of all power other than its own: the lord of lords complex of mere man. Moreover such mere men show themselves very different from lord of lords! The assumption of such power is not only in breach of the Constitution, but of common sense, proclaiming for itself a liberty denied  in the Constitution, but not in that alone. 

It is not good to have such presumption around, let alone on the almost facetious concept that it is to protect people from injustice. Race and colour, as distinct from religion, are not opted for, but given to those concerned anyway. It is actually foolish to condemn on the basis of prejudice alone. Religion, however, involves a measure of preference, whether for reason or anything else. It is not in that domain of what comes to you whether you like it or not, like race or colour. Moreover, even if the case involves not mentioning religion as such, the point remains.  If any body, power, group, race, part of a nation be given power by law to attack people who say things that those who hear or  read deem to be offensive or insulting, then the same thing applies because response or reaction is set above any contrary command which may figure in the mind of any person.

IF then it is deemed insulting to carry out the commands of a given religious lord, then the law enables this lord of lord power to the government, through its law, which overturns the conception of righteousness in that obedience to that religion involves disobedience to government law, set above it, inducing assault on the name of the legal victim.

In both these cases, religion is made subject to governmental law, which becomes a religion of its own, evaluating as it will the objectivity of a religious position or otherwise such that none is left open. Thus comes the regality of religious intrusion into such a state of affairs as it dictates and determines. The intrusion is then ITS OWN. But to make SUCH an assumption is the acme and ultimate of religion, determining what is to be revered and what not, in principle, in advance, whatever the case, for any god or religion or lord or command which it has not itself made.

This land, which once sought to remedy racism by ensuring that a particular race was  NOT set above another, in principle and in general, thus would be descending to racism in the most emboldened fashion, by doing that very thing, allowing a race or ethnicity or national imprint to dictate to others via law; and a land in which religion is not subject to human intervention and rule becomes creator of penalty for doing this or that in its chosen proclamations and practice.

This is so, even assuming the religion in view does not attack the very bodies of those others who do not belong to it, thus constitutes a U-turn from what this country is, and so far from merely pushing its 'luck'  merely pushes its preference into the arena of squalls of problems, abandoning what did so much to make have any resemblance to greatness. It is more than one who has pointed out that even our current Parliament, because of various presumptions and weaknesses, flaming quarrels and ostentations, is so lowering standards of understanding, that direction is starting to fail and folly spatters. Whatever view one takes of this, standing stalemates such as afflict in measure this nation, do not come by chance. There is a basis, in things added, subtracted and contracted.

Thus the Commonwealth, which may not act to establish any religion, is doing that very thing in the most blatant fashion, determining without acknowledgement, the subordinate character of any religion to its rules about human reactions. Under the guise of protecting feelings and from injustice, whatever its intention, it launches into the sea of conflict, disregarding religious grounds as if ephemeral, subjectivistic or dispensable.

The DECISION to act on such a basis, by giving superior power to offence, putting it over rationality, or grounds, or reasons, or intentions and so on, is a religious one. If it deems that this is no offence to any god, then this is the rule of a religious evaluator, pushing its own premises onto the nation, without grounds for the assumptions implicit. If on the other hand, it is aware of these implications, and yet carries on with its lack of due care, then it becomes not only authority over all gods, but where one of these IS God, becomes an assailant on God and on His people.

You can rightly seek to protect people from the hideous and invidious misuse of mere abuse, using emotional unruliness to cause harm to their lives and peace. Yet when these endeavours either subjectivise the claims of all religion as a method of procedure, by implication, or reject them or claim that no one of these objectively has God, then it itself becomes a religious ruler,  analyst, orderer, just like past tyrants, telling you that no gods of this or that kind or any kind, as the case may be, will be tolerated, without penalty.

The principle is there; let princes decide where they stand,  and not fall in line with this practice, without due consideration of what they are doing. It is like jdrikving over a high cliff: it is best to give it thought first, and to consider rationally at leastp  and to watch impulse purchase of law, abolishing brakes.