In its 116-year existence as a sovereign state, Australia has largely been sheltered from being a theatre for wars, natural disasters, and large-scale political unrest. We have been blessed as a young nation; we survived the Japanese assault on our borders in the Second World War and, while the rest of the “coalition of the willing” suffers ongoing incidents of domestic terrorism because of their involvement in the ongoing War on Terror, we enjoy relative peace. Yet, while the integrity of our borders may not be actively threatened and our people largely safe and living in (relative) freedom, the battle we face is not one against another nation, nor against any person but against the powers of this world. To quote St Paul:
“[…]our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)
Since the legalisation of no-fault divorce with the passing of the Family Law Act (1975), there has been a gradual push by the radical left to further distort and erode the meaning of marriage, culminating in the resounding loss of the “No” campaign in the recent Marriage Law Postal Survey. No more than a decade ago, the Christian understanding of marriage was, for the most part, the prevailing view in this country. That is, marriage is a union of one man and one woman ordered to the rearing of children. Indeed, the vast majority of politicians who came to support a redefinition of marriage and, more recently, the “Yes” campaign in the recent postal survey once held that view as well. Many having been on record as recently as 2013 with statements which strongly opposed any change to the law. Yet, it seems, in the course of just one electoral cycle (2013-16), their views have shifted. Both major parties have adopted a more progressive bent and voting record now than at any other point in history. A frightening thought, but a reality with which we must now live in.
More recently, the release of the postal survey results – at 10:00am (AEDT) on November 15th, 2017 – casts a yet more darker shadow over our nation's history. While the rest of the Western world celebrates the victory of the same-sex marriage campaign, and as Australia joins the rest of the Anglophonic world (bar Northern Ireland) and continental Europe in embracing the destruction of marriage and the family, the Christians of Australia (read: Orthodox, Catholic, and mainline Protestant) are now preparing for the backlash that will inevitably follow these results. Persecution and discrimination on the basis of faith will be a new and lived reality for Christians residing in contemporary Australia. The sight of red flags and icons of Communist “heroes” amongst the marchers during the “pride” parade past St. Mary’s Cathedral on the night of the announcement only serve to confirm that these fears are far from hysterical.
The results of the postal survey leave Australia entirely at the mercy of the Cultural Marxist LGBT agenda. Much as the East and West did not break communion overnight, this result owes itself to a combination of a general embrace of Enlightenment values in the West, a failure of the Church to transmit the faith and its teachings to her faithful (the last century in particular), and the proliferation of Frankfurt School thought throughout most of our cultural, social, political, and educational institutions. All of this has, naturally, and, in turn, led to a departure from the traditional socially-conservative values and Christian belief system which underpinned our society (from her foundation) for an embrace of the depraved, atheistic and nihilistic values of the Marxist left. Only a few pockets remain in the West (such as Northern Ireland) that are, as of yet, free of this societal rot and madness. But, the left will not rest until the entire world embraces “progressive values.”
Next Target: Freedom of Religion
November 15th marks the acceleration of the ever-present and ongoing push to restrict the rights and freedoms of Australian Christians to speak freely and express their religious beliefs without fear of intimidation. Not even a day had passed from the announcement of the results and already the Australian mainstream media had begun their assault on proposed legislation to protect religious freedoms. In fact, not long after the announcement, the Sydney Morning Herald ran an opinion-editorial authored by Michael Bachelard titled, “Same-sex marriage debate: Religious freedom is, and should be, limited.” In it he referred to Senator James Paterson’s attempt to introduce the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Protection of Freedoms) Bill 2017 which would have exempted the wedding industry – planners, bakers, accommodation providers, florists and the like – from the federal Sex Discrimination Act (1984) and other state-based anti-discrimination laws. Sound familiar and reasonable? Sure, to any well-meaning person it should. Not to Bachelard, however, who goes so far as to suggest that the aforementioned pieces of legislation are what people (presumably by “people” he means himself and like-minded individuals) “accept in the name of a civilised society” and then proceeds to lambaste Christian business owners in what seems like an insufferable and interminable screed. I will simply quote the sections which I will make reference to/address. He asks two pointed rhetorical questions:
“Why should the "conscience" of a homophobic florist be able to override those laws? Why should he or she be able to humiliate a same-sex couple by denying a service in the lead-up to that couple's happy day?”
The answer to that is simple: a business should have the right to refuse their services to whoever they like in principle. That the individual-in-question has a particular sexual preference should not enter into consideration here. Let us consider the leftist paradigm here on discrimination by businesses. The vegan café Handsome Her in the Melbourne suburb of Brunswick charges their male customers 18% more to account for the supposed “gender pay-gap” and for no other reason other than the fact that they unfortunately happened to have been born male.. According to the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) §5B(2) this is illegal, and I quote:
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of the aggrieved person’s gender identity if the discriminator imposes, or proposes to impose, a condition, requirement or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons who have the same gender identity as the aggrieved person.
Yet, there was no widespread outcry from the left, instead, most of the liberal media celebrated this decision by management to charge men more. Returning to Bachelard’s questions, it is not as if the entire wedding industry is full of “homophobic florist[s]” and nobody is forcing the LGBT community to go to these florists, bakers etc. Whatever happened to “taking one’s business elsewhere?” It seems that the modern left are such precious little snowflakes that the law must be changed to protect their emotional fragility and volatility. He continues, this time moving the goalposts and attacking the right to conscientious objection:
“Let's be clear here. This is not a question about protecting mainstream religious observance from same-sex marriage. That is already protected in the mainstream bill, put forward by Dean Smith and the Liberal moderates. No religious minister under that bill need marry a gay couple against his or her conscience. Paterson's bill radically extended this existing principle to any "conscientious objectors" who call themselves a "proponent of traditional marriage". This bill said they should be able to voice their objection by refusing a commercial service.”
According to Wikipedia, religious freedom “is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.” (Emphasis mine) Accordingly, observance of traditional Christian teachings would see one wanting to uphold the institution as something sacred and which can only validly be contracted between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, it would be logical to seek not to tarnish that belief in actual marriage by recognising the union of a same-sex couple, “throuple” or whatever. A business owner thereby puts into practice their beliefs by denying their services to such people. So what’s the problem?
Ultimately this is nothing surprising, really, as the Sydney Morning Herald had two months and a day prior published an opinion-editorial by Matt Holden titled, “The best guarantee of religious freedom is keeping religion out of politics.” Apart from being the usual censorious tripe and generally riddled with misinformation, Holden asks, rather pointedly I might add, “since when has Christianity been so concerned about religious freedom?” Of course, rather than leave his audience in suspense, he deigns to provide his reader the answer, which should not surprise you either,
“Not ever, really, is the short answer. Since the beginning, Christians have been busy attacking other people's religious freedom by trying to convert them. Christianity has suppressed other people's religious freedom everywhere from Rome to the outback.”
Sorry to rain on his parade, but I feel it necessary to clarify one glaringly obvious omission: this is literally the modus operandi of every faith, it is not exclusive to any one faith but is endemic to all. Of course, he, and the rest of his ilk, would have us believe otherwise. And, equally unsurprisingly, and, sadder still, many do believe this misinformation. These articles are innocent compared to Crispin Hull’s opinion-editorial of November 18th titled, “Marriage quality: we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.” Again, the usual claptrap save for his calls to actively dismantle religious freedom.
To his credit, however, he does argue for a removal of religions from civil marriage law altogether. I agree. That, however, is the extent of my agreement with him. His article is laden with querulous and calumnious charges. Like asking why our parliamentary sessions begin with a prayer, because it is part of our tradition as a former British colony and because this land was historically referred to as “the Great Southern Land of the Holy Spirit” and founded as a Christian nation (there is no shortage of speeches from historical luminaries in Australian politics which support this claim).
He continues, and these are my favourites:
“Why should religions get tax-free status for money raised and spent for proselytising their religion, as well as for raising money through commercial enterprises, even if there are grounds for tax breaks on charitable work? And on the charitable, medical and educational side, why should religious institutions escape ordinary anti-discrimination employment laws, especially when they get very large amounts of public money for this and are significant employers?”
Why do religions get tax-free status? It is not because of proselytising, it is a simple recognition of the fact that all money poured into religious organisations is not the fruit of investment or business dealings, but generated, on a purely voluntary basis by their respective congregants for the stated aims of that religion. As for why charitable, medical, and educational institutions that the churches run, the answer is simple. The government, as a general principle, funds the good works of all private institutions who perform charitable work, provide medical care, and educate children and adults with the knowledge and skills necessary to become functioning members of society and ready for the workforce.
Much like Bachelard’s trumped-up charges, Hull makes the mistake of assuming that no other providers exist. This is simply untrue. The problem with Hull’s charges lay in the fact that people send their children to Christian schools to receive a Christian education as well. People go to Christian hospitals to receive medical care that does not violate their conscience. People donate to Christian charities because they are non-profit organisations which take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to heart and try to spread His message through their life and not just mere proselytising as he charges.
This sort of language would come as unsurprising to those who are well-read and aware of the Cultural Marxist agenda which these journalists, or, more accurately, propagandists subscribe to and spruik – whether they themselves are conscious of it or not. Even as they celebrate this victory, the left are still unsatisfied as is made abundantly obvious by the myriad articles published in the mainstream media. Articles which have deviated from the standard narrative and were scathing in their attack of the predominantly migrant-populated, and religious electorates of Western Sydney for their majority “No” votes.
Such articles are, of course, written by journalists and commentators who fanatically adhere to, and subtly promote Cultural Marxism, though not to a degree that they would fail to realize the contradiction in both supporting same-sex marriage and non-European immigrants, whose religious and cultural backgrounds firmly oppose same-sex marriage. However, because many immigrants are not of the Christian faith nor of European ethnicity, such articles will quickly be consigned to the dustpan of history, while endless articles will continue to be published on the supposed “bigotry," “intolerance,” and “hatred” of European Christians to an ideology that is diametrically opposed to Christianity and seeks its annihilation or capitulation, much like their continental predecessors in the late 19th and early 20th century. The left will not be satisfied because whilst the battle for same-sex marriage in the West may have been won, the war to annihilate Western Christendom and its traditional values is far from over.
What is to Come
What else can Australian Christians expect beyond the suppression of their freedoms of speech and religion, whether expressed in business, their political and academic careers, or even their own daily lives?
We can expect more Madelines, the name of an 18-year-old Christian woman who was fired by her employer for merely expressing her intention to vote “no” on same-sex marriage.
We can expect more Joshua Sutcliffes, a Christian teacher in the United Kingdom facing a formal disciplinary hearing for accidentally “misgendering” a transgender student while praising her for her work ethics, despite immediately apologizing for his “mistake” to her.
We can expect more Felix Ngoles, a Christian student undertaking his Master of Arts in social work, who was expelled from his university for espousing a traditional Christian stance on marriage during a debate and on his personal Facebook account.
We can also expect a new Stolen Generation in Australia as we inevitably follow in the footsteps of Canada, where recent legislation has allowed authorities to forcibly seize children from their Christian parents if they do not accept the application of “gender theory” on their gender-confused child.
Employment and workplace discrimination will mark the beginning of this new regime, followed by intimidation, lawsuits, and physical violence. Christians in Australia, who are committed to and unashamed of their faith, must prepare for the emergence of a society where the act of simply expressing social views once commonly-held by most Australians as recently as the mid-2000s may now lead to the loss or deprivation of employment, social media witch-hunts, lawsuits and even acts of violence and/or terrorism. Acts which likely will be worse than the attempted suicide bombing by gay rights activist Jaden Duong outside the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) headquarters in Canberra on December 21st of 2016 an act which the police denied was “politically, religiously or ideologically motivated” which ACL Director Lyle Shelton disputed. Duong’s search history included, “countries with gay marriage,” “how much gas to cause explosion,” “how to make ammonium nitrate,” “pressure- cooker bomb,” “C4,” “how to buy a gun in Australia,” “gas leak explosion,” and “how much gas to cause explosion” with “Australian Christian Lobby” being a search term entered only a month prior to the bombing. He was also quoted by the police as confiding to them his belief that “religions are failed [sic].”
An affiliate member of Legio Christi, who had lived a homosexual lifestyle has come forward to describe the things he saw within the gay community for this article. When homosexuals gathered for a private house party, he describes witnessing an adult male, believed to be in his mid-twenties, groping fifteen-year-old boys who were sitting beside him on a couch, while in full-view of other homosexual partygoers, who did or said nothing about it.
When a former friend of his complained to the party host afterwards about the incident, where he also mentioned the ages of the boys, the host simply shrugged at him and told his former friend, “close enough” in regards to their ages. The former friend that made the complaint however, ironically turned out to be an alleged pædophile himself as members of the community had told our affiliate member that his former friend (a man in his mid-to-late thirties) had sex with a fifteen-year-old boy, who had been raped and abused by his own family. At sixteen, the boy ran away from his family’s house to live with this man and was now financially dependent on him for his wellbeing. Such an arrangement is illegal under Australian law, for a guardian or a person in a position of power cannot be in a sexual relationship with a minor under the age of eighteen.
He adds that he feels that many homosexuals are either too lax or tolerant when it comes to pædophilic behaviour, something many of us, who fight for traditional marriage and values, have already known for quite a while. They feel rather more disgusted with the label itself than the actual behaviour if presented before them. How does this make sense is anyone's guess? But the same question can also be fielded against the Left’s unwavering support of homosexuality and their just as equally unwavering support for immigrants, who come from countries, whose laws, religions and/or culture punishes homosexuality with the death penalty. Yet these positions are both proudly and openly supported by the Left, despite the sheer contradiction between the two.
This leads us to the next point: the normalisation, legalization and promotion of pædophilia from within the LGBT lobby by Cultural Marxists. With the LGBT movement already succeeding in its goal of bringing same-sex marriage to the West, the next move by the Cultural Marxists would be to slowly incorporate pædophilia and pederasty back into the movement. It has since been over twenty years since the last pro-pædophilia organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), had its membership revoked from a major LGBT organisation, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), in 1993.
Given the destructive effects that the legalization of pædophilia and pederasty would pose for a modern, developed society such as ours, where many children congregate on a daily basis around trusted adults in schools, orphanages, extracurricular clubs, and daycare centers, such a change in legislation would only make us even more powerless in protecting our children from predators, predatory behaviour, and general corruption of their youth and innocence, and it may as well convince us to avoid having children altogether in fear of their safety.