"In the 4th century there lived an Asiatic monk who had spent most of his life in a remote community of prayer, raising vegetables for the cloister kitchen. When he was not tending his garden spot, he was fulfilling his vocation of study and prayer.
“Then one day this monk named Telemachus felt that the Lord wanted him to go to Rome, the capital of the world – the busiest, wealthiest, biggest city in the world. Telemachus had no idea why he should go there, and he was terrified at the thought. But as he prayed, God’s directive became clear. “How bewildered the little monk must have been as he set out on the long journey, on foot, over dusty roads westward, everything he owned on his back. Why was he going? He didn’t know. What would he find there? He had no idea. But obediently, he went. “Telemachus arrived in Rome during the holiday festival. You may know that the Roman rulers kept the ghettos quiet in those days by providing free bread and special entertainment called circuses. At the time Telemachus arrived the city was also bustling with excitement over the recent Roman victory over the Goths. In the midst of this jubilant commotion, the monk looked for clues as to why God had brought him there, for he had no other guidance, not even a superior in a religious order to contact. “Perhaps, he thought, it is not sheer coincidence that I have arrived at this festival time. Perhaps God has some special role for me to play. “So Telemachus let the crowds guide him, and the stream of humanity soon led him into the Coliseum where the gladiator contests were to be staged. He could hear the cries of the animals in their cages beneath the floor of the great arena and the clamor of the contestants preparing to do battle. “The gladiators marched into the arena, saluted the emperor, and shouted, ‘We who are about to die salute thee.’ Telemachus shuddered. He had never heard of gladiator games before, but had a premonition of awful violence. “The crowd had come to cheer men, who for no reason other than amusement, would murder each other. Human lives were offered for entertainment. As the monk realized what was going to happen, he realized he could not sit still and watch such savagery. Neither could he leave and forget. He jumped to the top of the perimeter wall and cried, ‘In the name of Christ, stop!’ “The fighting began, of course. No one paid the slightest heed to the puny voice. So Telemachus pattered down the stone stops and leapt onto the sandy floor of the arena. He made a comic figure – a scrawny man in a monk’s habit dashing back and forth between muscular, armed athletes. One gladiator sent him sprawling with a blow from his shield, directing him back to his seat. It was a rough gesture, though almost a kind one. The crowd roared. “But Telemachus refused to stop. He rushed into the way of those trying to fight, shouting again, ‘In the name of Christ, stop!’ The crowd began to laugh and cheer him on, perhaps thinking him part of the entertainment. “Then his movement blocked the vision of one of the contestants; the gladiator saw a blow coming just in time. Furious now, the crowd began to cry for the interloper’s blood. “Run him through,” they screamed. “The gladiator he had blocked raised his sword and with a flash of steel, struck Telemachus, slashing down across his chest and into his stomach. The little monk gasped once more, ‘In the name of Christ, stop.’ “Then a strange thing occurred. As the two gladiators and the crowd focused on the still form on the suddenly crimson sand, the arena grew deathly quiet. In the silence, someone in the top tier got up and walked out. Another followed. All over the arena, spectators began to leave, until the huge stadium was emptied. “There were other forces at work, of course, but that innocent figure lying in the pool of blood crystallized the opposition, and that was the last gladiatorial contest in the Roman Coliseum. Never again did men kill each other for the crowds’ entertainment in the Roman arena.” This story of Telemachus from Church historian Theodoret is reprinted with gratitude from, "Loving God," by Charles Colson, pages 241-243. (I heartily recommend this book.) Some further information can be found regarding Telemachus at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Telemachus http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/20284a.htm
0 Comments
The rainbow tyranny. Fear has paralyzed politicians and citizens and silenced free speech already.30/6/2016 “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell.
Who would have thought that by defending traditional marriage someone would be considered a revolutionary today? The article in the Australian newspaper interviewing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Saturday 27th February 2016 was a rare ray of light in an ever darkening political and moral landscape in Australia. Former Australian Prime Minister Howard has sounded an alarm about the culture war in Australia, warning that people are being "cowed" (bullied or intimidated) and are too scared to speak their mind freely on issues such as same-sex "marriage." He has also noted the "dangerous anti-religious push" which has emerged in Australia generally, and specifically singled out Victorian Premier Daniel Andrew's anti-Christian pogrom as "pernicious" (evil or wicked.) As an encouragement for Australian citizens to speak up, he said, "There is nothing homophobic about supporting traditional marriage." It is not a crime (yet) to speak the truth, though it is fast becoming a revolutionary act. He said, "There is sense in which people are so frightened of being accused of being discriminatory or intolerant that they don't speak the commonsense view." "The standards of civil society in Australia were being undermined by a growing intolerance towards people who don't subscribe to a range of progressive views," (or agree with the intolerant rainbow ideology). "I think the problem is that too few people are prepared to call it for what it is," he said. The politicians are too scared to speak the commonsense view because they are scared of "losing votes." The people are too scared to speak against or act to stop this tyranny in case they "offend somebody," he said. He goes on to say, "there is a new form of minority fundamentalism" emerging, typified by the Greens use of the anti-discrimination law in Tasmania to silence opponents of the homosexual agenda. Noting one example of the new oppression which has effectively silenced Australian citizens, Howard said of Daniel Andrew's attempts to stop children singing Christmas carols such as Once in Royal David's City or Silent Night (as well as Away in a Manger), that it was "pernicious." "I am surprised there hasn't been a greater outcry about it." "Such cultural intolerance will provoke a backlash." How did such a "climate of repression" come upon our once young and free nation apparently so quickly? One clue comes from the recent calls from left-wing politicians and the pro-homosexual lobby to allow 16-17 year old Australians a vote in general elections and specifically in the marriage plebiscite. They understand that the decades long infiltration of our state and federal education departments by radical feminist, homosexual and Marxist proponents has now done its job of radicalizing a whole generation of young Australians, who are almost ready to vote away the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for. What they gave us with such cost we have failed to protect. Source "As Christians, we have a duty to seek the good of our nation. Australia currently enjoys the benefits of a stable society built on marriage and family. To change this foundation and embed motherlessness and fatherlessness in public policy is bad policy, and weakens our nation’s foundations. Know the consequences of your vote at this upcoming federal election:" David Cook, Moderator, Presbyterian Church of Australia
Reading through several books on Darwin's theory of evolution, a professor on the law faculty at University of California, with his sharp lawyer's eye, was astonished to discover how flawed the reasoning was, how flimsy the evidence for evolution.
"It dawned on him that Darwinism is dominant today not because of the strength of the scientific evidence but because Darwinism bolsters a worldview - one that rejects God and depicts humans as morally autonomous. He realized that the question of design (creation) versus Darwinism (evolution) is at heart a battle between contrasting worldviews." Taken from, "How Now Shall we Live?," Charles Colson, 426. Blaise Pascal, the founder of probability theory, concluded, in his famous "Wager" argument, that the wise man will bet that God does exist.
The mind of each person must come to a conclusion on this question, "Does God exist?" Our thoughts (and the very fact that we among all we survey have the power of thought should influence which way we bet) must at some time deal with this question. This is one wager we must all make. There are only two ways to bet, either God exists or he doesn't. Which way will you choose? Pascal argues that because the odds are even, reason is not violated in making either choice; so reason cannot determine which bet to make. Therefore the choice should be made pragmatically in terms of maximizing one's happiness. If you bet that God exists and he does, the winnings include eternal life and infinite happiness. If he does not exist, then you have lost nothing. However, if you wager that God does not exist, but he does, then you have suffered infinite loss. If you win your bet and he does not exist you have gained nothing. Therefore, Pascal concludes, the only prudent choice is to believe that God exists. There is a lot at stake. Choose wisely. If you bet that God does exists, find out more about Him and why not have a read of the book he has given us so that we could come to know him truthfully rather than make him up to be as we would like him to be. Blaise Pascal, Pensees, 343 W.L.Craig, Reasonable Faith, 68 It may well be accurate to describe "Western" man, generally, as living life on what Soren Kierkegaard called the "aesthetic" stage of life. This is the stage where man lives life only on the sensual level, where he is self- and pleasure- centered.
William Lane Craig says, "this need not be a gross hedonism," as "man on this level could be very cultivated and even circumspect; but nevertheless his life revolves around himself and those material things- whether sex, art, music, or whatever- that brings him pleasure. The paradox of life on this level is that it leads ultimately to unhappiness. The self-centered, aesthetic man finds no ultimate meaning in life and no true satisfaction. Thus the aesthetic life leads finally to boredom, a sort of sickness with life." William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith," 69 The increasing pace of the abolishment of truth in our society, particularly over the last few decades, is one of the major weaknesses which could further quicken the pace of Western decline. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) wrote about a "line of despair" which can be traced through recent Western culture, which penetrates philosophy, literature and the arts, and can be attributed to the philosophy of Hegel, specifically in its denial of absolute truths.
Schaeffer saw Hegel's system as undermining the reality of particular absolute truths, such as, "That behavior is morally wrong," or, "That painting is ugly." William Lane Craig says, "This denial of absolute has gradually made its way through Western culture," and results in despair, because, "without absolutes man's endeavors degenerate into absurdity." The cure for this despair can only come by reaffirming belief in the absolute God of Christianity revealed in the Bible. Only then can man and his culture avoid degeneracy, meaninglessness, and despair. William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith," 70 By Craig Manners
29-6-2016 In our "young and free" Australia we take freedom very much for granted. Yet freedom has been the exception rather than the norm throughout human history. There is and always has been totalitarian movements at work trying to subjugate and control peoples and nations, normally always motivated by greedy, power hungry people seeking to elevate themselves over others. It is also true that human freedoms, and especially liberties we enjoy such as political freedom, religious liberty, civil freedoms, and economic liberty, were and are decisively shaped by Judaism and Christianity. In our modern Australian society these sources of freedom, Christianity especially, are under intense assault. Political leaders on both sides are all seeking to remove the influences of our Judeo/Christian heritage from our society and replace it with the new state-sponsored religion "secular humanism." It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the Greens, the ALP and Turnbull's Liberal party apart as far as this drive to "secularize" Australia. Human freedoms are being trumped by totalitarian demands that the masses must now believe new things propagated by the new priests of this new religion. Worryingly, if you do not believe you are labelled a "bigot," you are black-listed, intimidated, and more commonly you will be prosecuted by the state if you do not believe or if you speak out against these new doctrines of secularism. If they are allowed to smash up our country's strong foundations and replace them with these new ones, what sort of "house" or nation will they build? Who would you rather trust, a God fearing person building upon time tested and trusted wisdom, which has resulted in Australia being one of the greatest nations on earth, or a self-centered, self-exalting, man-centered person building on foundations which have always resulted in corrupt and failed societies which benefit only the elite rulers. There is a wise old saying that, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." Australia has been built well and on strong foundations. There is absolutely no need to re-build. Just leave it to continue to flourish, to protect and preserve the human freedoms we all now enjoy. What we have needs protection though. Ancient castles had strong walls built around them because there are always enemies trying to steal or destroy what others have built. Todays enemies are not ones a traditional army or wall can always repel. The threats to Australia are from ideologies infiltrating our institutions and spreading their freedom destroying poison almost virus like. We thought we won the Cold War, but it may not be over! Who would have thought just a few short years ago that we would require laws to protect Australian citizens from being harmed by people just because they support traditional marriage? That is what former Australian Prime Minister John Howard is now calling for. The rainbow movement has gone so extreme that people are becoming fearful for their safety just for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman.
From the Guardian: "John Howard has called for conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage to be given legal protection, drawing attention to the prospect the Coalition could legislate to allow people to refuse to provide goods and services to gay weddings. Howard said: “I do think one thing that has to be addressed is the question of proper protection of religious freedom, and freedom of conscience in relation to people who might in a tangential way be affected by this.” The reference to people “tangentially affected” by same-sex marriage suggests Howard was referring to people other than ministers of religion, who Labor and the Coalition both agree should not be forced to conduct gay weddings. Last week, the attorney general, George Brandis, refused to rule out exemptions to anti-discrimination law which would allow bakers, photographers, venue owners and others to refuse to provide services for gay weddings. Labor has already ruled out supporting such changes. Howard reiterated his opposition to marriage equality, and said opponents should not be “frightened or bullied into silence” by accusations of bigotry. The Guardian Saturday's election is the most important in a generation. It is time to stand up for our children.28/6/2016 On Saturday, "suffer the little children"
by Lyle Shelton Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Saturday's election is the most important in a generation. At election times, many Christians leaders exhort us to cast our vote for others - not for self-interest. I agree. Like never before, Christians are concerned about their freedom to preach the gospel in its entirety and to live out their beliefs in public. We should be concerned about these things because they are under threat in ways not seen for hundreds of years in the Anglosphere. Who would ever have thought a Catholic Archbishop would spend six months tied up in a legal process simply for teaching about marriage and the rights of children to their mum and dad? Labor and Green election pledges promise more, not less of this. But the most important issue at this election is not our freedom of religion or freedom of speech. It is hard to rank injustice because injustice is injustice. Christians can agree to disagree on the most just ways to treat asylum seekers and to stop drownings at sea. While "whatever it takes" is never the answer, I am glad there are no children left in immigration detention. But I think the biggest promised policy injustice of this election still relates to how we treat children. Labor has made an election promise to use $6 million of taxpayers' money to teach children as young as four that their gender is fluid. The Greens also back this unequivocally while the Coalition promises to defund "Safe Schools" next year. The "Safe Schools" program gives children information about sex change surgery and suggests this can happen with or without parental consent. It encourages schools to let young men identifying as girls to be in the girls' toilets and change rooms. As former Labor leader Mark Latham says, this ideology is anti-biology and anti-science. Many feminists agree. Children struggling with gender identity issues should of course receive our utmost compassion and should never, ever be bullied. But meeting this aim should not mean inducting the rest of the class into contested gender theory. It is hard to go past the injustice inherent in another of Labor and the Greens' signature policies. Legislating same-sex marriage also legislates the lie that mothers and fathers don't matter to children. Causing children to miss out on their mother or father - not through tragedy or desertion, but through government policy - tramples children's most basic human right. Only elites are so blind that they cannot see this. The Greens have long advocated policy not in the best interests of children. They have long been against tolerance and religious freedom. But for one of the two major parties to have crossed this Rubicon is a big deal for Australian politics. It could take years to nudge Labor back to the centre on social policy. Most major and minor parties have responded to ACL's 26 election questions. Please take the time to study these before you vote. It is clear which parties took our questions seriously and which parties sent us spin. You can be the judge and I hope this informs your vote. Our election guide is another important resource and it was even mentioned on the ABC's Insiders program last Sunday. The children who will be affected by gender theory and family structure experimentation do not have a vote on Saturday. In the silence between the cardboard dividers of the voting booth, we must press our pencils and speak for them. From ACL: Vic Greens Bill attacks freedom of religion and association
Legislation making it unlawful for schools to have the freedom to maintain their religious values was introduced into the Victorian parliament by the Greens. If passed, this will significantly restrict religious schools’ freedom of association to form communities based on religious beliefs and values Read more Roz Ward, the Safe Schools Coalition co-ordinator, was forced to quit her advisory role with the Victorian government and faces an internal university investigation over a Facebook post in which she labelled the Australian flag “racist” and called for it to be replaced with a socialist red ensign. Is this (above) the Safe Schools flag?
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/03/safe-schools-rainbow-mostly-red/ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-malcolm-turnbull-bill-shorten-in-melbourne/news-story/32f49a9a9e0d90af8505f36a68dac513 The choice is stark between the political parties seeking to shape Australia for the coming years. Both major parties and the Greens are 100% committed to maintaining and expanding big government and increasingly encroaching on the dominion of the family and the authority of parents. Family First is committed to reducing government interference in markets, business and family.
With more of the same from the big parties we will simply see more of the same problems and worse. Big government departments such as the Education Departments have grown so political and powerful that they arrogantly seek to indoctrinate our children to believe ideological ideas which are incredibly harmful. They are unaccountable to the people and need to be restrained. That will not happen if you vote for the ALP, Greens, or even Liberals. Another example of massive government bloat and inefficiency is the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). I have personally known, and many participants in the financial investment sector know full well, that this well funded government body often ignores the serious cases and pursues the minor cases. It has recently come to light that during the period they were allocating 25 agents and millions of dollars to heavy-handedly pursuing a small case in the early 2000s, they were ignoring serious and culturally imbedded corporate wrongdoing at the Commonwealth Bank which was then allowed to continue for more than a decade unhindered, causing the loss of millions of dollars of small investors hard-earned savings. ASIC had a duty to those individual Australians but they chose to pursue something else for personal reasons. While ASIC were focusing the full weight of their resources on their over the top pursuit of a small case, they were ignoring insider's revelations and calls for help at the Commonwealth Bank. Because of their ineptitude and abuse of state resources for personal reasons there is now, 15 years later, a widespread and cross-party call for a Senate inquiry into ASIC, in part to discover why they misallocated funds and resources into their heavy-handed pursuit of an obviously unintentional small time mistake by an individual rather than investigating the obviously widespread, systematic and culturally embedded corporate misconduct at CBA. From Barnabas Fund
23rd June 2016 Australia: Advocates of traditional marriage condemned for saying they face abuse and intolerance. As we reported at the end of May simmering beneath the surface of the Australian election campaign is the issue of whether the state should promote a redefinition of marriage. Former Liberal Premier Tony Abbott agreed to hold a plebiscite (legally binding referendum) on whether marriage should be redefined to include same–sex couples, a pledge which has been maintained by Malcolm Turnbull who ousted him from leadership of the Liberal Party last September. However, in the federal election campaign which is currently happening the LGBT group campaigning for the redefinition of marriage has called for the plebiscite to be cancelled with parliament simply legalising same sex marriage, a stance that has also been adopted by the opposition Labor Party. In the latest twist in this story Labor frontbencher Penny Wong attacked the plans for a plebiscite on the grounds that a national debate on same-sex marriage could stoke hatred and homophobia. In response federal Treasurer Scott Morrison has stated that advocates for traditional marriage also have to endure hatred and bigotry. Mr Morrison said: "I understand the concern that Penny is raising I know it from personal experience, having been exposed to that hatred and bigotry for the views I've taken, from others who have a different view to me." "Frankly people of very strong religious views have been subject quite dreadful hate speech and bigotry as well, it's not confined to one side of the debate." However, he added that he was confident that the Australian public could conduct a civilised debate on the issue if a plebiscite was held saying: "I have a bigger view of the Australian people more broadly … I think the best way is for us all to have a say on this deal with it and move on." However, opposition Labor Leader Bill Shorten condemned Mr Morrison’s comments describing them as unwelcome and unnecessary. Mr Morrison has raised an incredibly important subject, which should not be brushed under the carpet. Indeed, it is one which we raised in our editorial last week. This is that those such as Christians who hold to traditional family values are increasingly subject to intolerance and bigotry. That culture of disparaging Christianity and values derived from it such as support for traditional marriage is currently being fuelled by a significant number of politicians. However, creating a culture that disparages one particular group of people or their beliefs inevitably emboldens those on the extreme fringe of that culture who are prepared to resort to violence. As we reported in that editorial, we are now seeing violence against Christians in the West. No-one is disputing the fact that the gay community have suffered discrimination and sometimes extreme violence. However, there is a very real problem that governments and politicians are refusing to address, which is that a significant part of this growing intimidation and violence against Christians in the West is related to some, though by no means all, gay right activists. Indeed, some of the incidents of intimidation and violence being used against Christians such as the violence and death threats issued against Ashers bakery that we reported last week – appear to have occurred precisely because they supported traditional marriage and in doing so disagreed with attempts of gay rights activists to redefine it. All prejudice, hatred, intimidation and violence, whoever it is directed against, is to be abhorred. However, politicians need to stop pretending that it is only certain communities that are victims of it – and as we argued last week, stop fuelling the culture which disparages Christians and traditional Christian beliefs, which is the seedbed from which such acts of intimidation and violence emerge. SOURCE From Warwick Marsh:
The people of Australia will decide who will lead the nation at the Federal election on Saturday 2 July 2016. Many people have written to us asking us who to vote for. We cannot tell you who to vote for because the Canberra Declaration is a non-partisan Christian ministry. But because our focus is promoting and protecting Christian values we want to offer guidelines on how to vote. In line with our mission statement we strive to 'educate' those who have signed the Canberra Declaration about the issues we face. We work with all parliamentarians who make a stand for Australia's Christian heritage and Christian values of life, marriage, family, faith and freedom. The heartbeat of the Canberra Declaration in regard to marriage and family is clearly heard in the seminal vision statement called The Australia We Live To See. The last paragraph sums it up well, "We live to see an Australia where the family, founded by the marriage of a man and a woman, will once again be protected, honoured and advantaged as the primary focus of the affairs of the nation; where our family relationships will be treasured; where mothers and fathers will be supported in the noble task of raising children; where we use our talents to build a better world as an enduring legacy for our children and grandchildren." Thankfully, each election time, our sister organisation the Australian Christian Values Institute releases the Christian Values Checklist. The Australian Christian Values Institute has been serving the Australian community since 1999. It has made a significant contribution to the ongoing protection and promotion of Christian values in our nation through these Christian Values Checklists, William Wilberforce Awards, the Australian Christian Values Award and various submissions to parliament. Source From Franklin Graham:
The descent into godless immorality and debauchery has accelerated so rapidly that unless God intervenes, our country simply will never be the same. Our culture is on the verge of a complete rejection of the moral restraining power of the church that has played such a prominent role in our nation’s incredible history. My only hope is in the Lord Jesus Christ and His power to transform hearts and bring revival and moral renewal. We should not be surprised at the growing hostility of the culture toward our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, Jesus told us that we should expect it: “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19, NKJV). Now, as always, my hope is in Almighty God and His Word. (Adapted from “The Only Hope for America” by Franklin Graham) What we understand about God and the world affects what we believe about everything else. "The Battle of Worldviews," an excerpt from Understanding the Times, is an insightful guide to discerning the ideas and forces shaping our culture today.
You'll learn what a worldview is and why it matters, how ideas spread, and finally, you'll be introduced to the six dominant worldviews of today, including Christianity. Download your free excerpt right now → (You can also purchase the full Understanding the Times here.) It is "Father's Day" in the US and Gillette have released a short advert which has become a potent conveyer of the truth that every son needs his dad. Government should not be involved in legislating intentional fatherlessness through changing marriage or adoption laws in Australia. VOTE 1 Family First on July 2nd, especially in the Senate, to stop the war on the family, war on fathers and war on our children. Australian Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison has become the target of heated, angry hatred and bigotry because of some comments he made in an ABC radio interview about the very subject of the bigotry and hatred coming out of the rainbow movement. Aspiring Prime Minister from the ALP Bill Shorten, with all the sensitivity of a seasoned union bully, joined in the tirade and instead of having any empathy for Mr. Morrison's pain and hurt attempted to bully Mr. Morrison into silence.
"Scott Morrison is getting a pasting on Twitter after saying in an interview that he could relate to the "hate speech" endured by the LGBTI community because he had been the target of a similar kind of vitriol for his conservative views on marriage. In an interview on ABC's Radio National Breakfast program with Fran Kelly, he said some of the attacks on him were similar to what has been endured by Labor MP and prominent marriage equality advocate Penny Wong. Here's how Morrison responded when Kelly asked about Wong’s concern that a plebiscite may have ramifications for the LGBTI community. I respect Penny’s fears that she has raised. Equally, there are many who have a different view to Penny and to others over what should happen to same-sex marriage. I have a different view to that and people have strong religious views, they have also been subject to quite strong hate speech as well. It is not confined to one side of the debate. That said, I have a bigger view of the Australian people more broadly which says we can once and for all deal with this issue where everybody gets their say. He said he understood Wong’s fears because he has personally experienced hatred and bigotry for his own views. I know it from personal experience. I have been exposed to that sort of hatred and bigotry for the views I have taken from others who have a different view to me but I think the best way is for all of us to have a say on this, deal with it and move on." http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/scott-morrison-is-getting-flamed-on-twitter-for-saying-his-beliefs-on-marriage-attract-hate-speech/ar-AAhpwbr?ocid=spartanntp FamilyVoice Australia Media Release 22 June 2016
Where do the parties stand on family issues? Party responses to the FamilyVoice election survey show big differences. With the federal election just ten days away, the differences between the major parties are showing more clearly. Christian community group FamilyVoice Australia has sent ten questions on issues relating to family, faith and freedom to all of the 1,625 candidates with an email address. The ten questions were also sent to the headquarters of significant parties. “The results, particularly for the major parties, are revealing,” FamilyVoice research officer Ros Phillips said today. “The definition of marriage marked a big divide. Minor parties including Family First and the Christian Democratic Party supported the man-woman meaning marriage has had since the beginning of history; the Liberal Nationals Coalition supported a plebiscite to allow the people of Australia to decide; Labor and the Greens want same-sex marriage by a parliamentary vote as soon as possible. “Incredibly, it was only five years ago that Bill Shorten personally told me he supported the man-woman meaning of marriage,” Ros Phillips said. “At a 2011 community forum in Adelaide he said, before several witnesses: ‘I believe the case for changing the definition of marriage has not been made’. No cries of ‘homophobe!’ on that occasion.” Other results include: Safe Schools Coalition program: Family First will cancel it and replace with a program to combat all forms of bullying. The Coalition government has significantly revised it and will cease funding when Labor’s contract ends next year. Labor supports the original program and will extend funding for it. The Greens will quadruple funding for the original program to $8 million per year. Free speech: Family First will re-introduce their bill to remove the words “offend” and “insult” from s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. They believe similar state laws need to be amended as well, to prevent the injustice of people being hauled through the courts merely for speaking, in a reasonable manner, truth that may offend others. By contrast, the Coalition will not change the wording of 18C, even though they promised in August 2013 to repeal it entirely. Labor has a similar view. And the Greens want to go further – they will not change 18C, and they will push to remove all exemptions for religious organisations from anti-discrimination laws, seriously undermining religious freedom. Ros Phillips said she had sent the ten questions to Nick Xenophon, but has not received a response. “He told me some years ago that he never replies to surveys. He does not decide his position on a bill until he has seen the final wording,” she said. “But voters deserve to know his general position on issues. Nick should at least tell us he supports same-sex marriage and does not want to allow a plebiscite. “This election could dramatically change the culture and the freedoms we have come to expect in our democracy. I urge voters to check our website and vote with care!” …………………. For contact details, etc, see this Media Release on the FamilyVoice Australia website - click here. By Craig Manners
17th June 2016 "Religion does inform the values of the current leaders" (ABC). Both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are publically professing to be "Christians." Why, and why now? The ABC are delving into the religious beliefs of the two men vying for voter trust on July 2nd 2016 to be elected Australia's Prime Minister. It is interesting that those who seek high office often try to convince voters they have a religious, mostly Christian, faith. Why? In our increasingly secular, even anti-God and especially anti-Christian society, where rainbow coloured "secular humanism" has become the new mainstream religion (and one, which like Islam takes no prisoners and allows no opposition), why is it that politicians clamber over each other to claim they are Christians? Why not Humanists or Atheists? I think the answer is, in part, that voters understand that if someone knows God is watching them, that they submit to a higher, truly virtuous authority, they tend to have more integrity, behave better, are more trustworthy, more likely to tell the truth, to be honest, protect children, build a better society etc. At least that is the hope. This is part of what is commonly known as having the "fear of God." Politicians themselves know that they will be more trusted by voters if they can convince the voters they have this "fear of God." But if they are not genuine in this, if they are just hoodwinking those they seek to "serve", does that not reveal something to voters which should also inform their voting on July 2nd? So a politician's religious profession of faith prior to an election should be something open to scrutiny, because it reveals what voters need to know about their integrity and character. From the ABC: "Now, neither Malcolm Turnbull nor Bill Shorten speak much about their religion – in contrast to Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, who led their parties to the 2013 election. But religion does inform the values of the current leaders. Over the next two weeks, we’ll look at the faith lives of the men vying to be prime minister after July 2nd. Our guide is writer Roy Williams. His most recent book is Post God Nation and he’s also the author of In God They Trust: The Religious Beliefs of Australia’s Prime Ministers." It is a fascinating fact that in most Western nations during elections, many candidates will inevitably manipulate the media to have a photograph taken of them leaving a Christian church holding a Bible. Then there will be the quick interview where the candidate publicly professes faith in something which sounds religious, like "I have always been a man of faith." But faith in what? Some even go as far as to say "I am a Christian," like Obama did, but whose eight years of action brought that profession of faith into question. Bill Shorten would have the voters believe he is from a devout Jesuit Christian background and is now an Anglican Christian. It took Malcolm Turnbull just a few days after the coup last year to visit a Catholic church and publicly declare he is a Catholic Christian. Christian's are followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has made it clear (1) to His followers that marriage is between a man and a woman, has always been so and will always be so. He teaches that human sexuality is between a man and a woman and that any other form of sexual activity is not in the best interests of individuals nor society, especially not its young. Yet like Obama, both Shorten and Turnbull are quite happy to pretend they know better than Christ and go against Christian teachings, which effectively says "man+man=sin not marriage," and pro-actively assist in the undermining of marriage, something which has the potential to force the State into an antagonistic confrontation with the millions of followers of Jesus, the Church. If marriage is changed, the law will suddenly teach, promote and protect a human behavior which the Church says is unnatural and shameful and which should be restrained. Bill or Malcolm would then be PM of a nation which, in unleashing such a cultural time-bomb, would likely soon be re-directing its resources toward outlawing the Church as a "hate group" and it's Bible as "hate literature" and labelling the founder of Christianity to be a "hater," a "bigot" and a "dinosaur" with "no place in modern Australia." Australian Christians could suddenly find themselves unable to freely carry out Jesus' Great Commission, in our once young and free nation, without being threatened with fines and/or imprisonment for "hate speech." Will Bill maintain his affiliation to the Anglican Church, or will Malcolm maintain his membership of the Catholic Church if the mainstream media and the machinery of the rainbow movement declare their church to be a "hate group" because it and/or their Founder is against same-sex marriage and behavior? That is certainly a legitimate question for two men who would profess faith so as to win the trust of voters, but who both support something which has the potential to unleash a tsunami of cultural destruction and persecution against Christians and push the Church underground. Both Shorten and Turnbull are actively undermining traditional marriage and lifestyle, in the process discouraging it to Australia's youth. They are promoting something which their professed religious leader, Jesus Christ, lovingly says will bring harm to people, something which is detrimental to human flourishing and wellbeing. Mr. Turnbull, the Pope is the head of the Catholic church, to which you now publicly professes membership. Here are a few quotes from a Pope regarding this cultural time-bomb: Same-sex "marriages" are nothing like marriage, they are really just "expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man...from here it becomes all the more clear how contrary it is to human love." There is "no basis for any comparison, however remote, between homosexual unions and God's design for marriage and the family." Pope Benedict XVI Even leaving Jesus out of the picture, will you side with your Pope or the radical left if you are elected? It would seem you cannot have it both ways. (1) Jesus made it clear what marriage is: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6). VIDEO: The War on Children. Please watch this video and make sure you vote ALP/Greens LAST on July 2nd. Parents need to act now before they can act no longer to protect their children. Let them know that they cannot have our children. If you want a short answer on how to vote on 2 July to fight this war on our children: - to vote FOR freedom of speech and freedom of faith - to vote FOR a post election plebiscite by the people on the definition of marriage - to vote AGAINST dangerous indoctrination of children in education, then:
That the anti-marriage movement has a broader agenda than just marriage is obvious to anyone with open eyes. It is just the frontline battle of the larger battle to spread an insidious Marxist political coup in Australia.
The Australian recently reported that Roz Ward, who set up the homosexual promoting Safe Schools Coalition, gave a talk to a Marxism conference in Melbourne in 2015. We all know where Marxist governments take societies. They end up as authoritarians controlling every aspect of human life, removing peoples freedom to discuss God in public, removing freedoms by deception, outlawing all opposition, and ultimately become murderous regimes which imprison or murder anyone who speaks against them. The only ones who really benefit from such godless regimes are the ruling elite, who, like dictators, live a life of luxury and privilege at the expense of the subjugated people. Australia may well need to start building bigger prisons very soon the way we are heading, as this intolerant movement continues to rise and is now on the verge of taking power in Canberra. It is a movement completely intolerant of Australia's cultural and religious history and diversity. Not just a little bit intolerant either, but brutally intolerant to the point where prisoners will not be taken, you will either believe what they tell you to believe or you will be hunted down and silenced by force. Anyone who disagrees with them for any reason, whether it is cultural background, religious convictions, common sense, moral conscience, whatever, will be targeted. If you find LGBTI behaviour disturbing you will be targeted. If you object to them teaching this stuff to children at our schools you will be targeted. It is one of the most intolerant movements which has ever threatened the freedom of our once young and free country. It has worked too. Australians are too scared to say anything bad about them. Nobody will even send their friends an email asking them to sign a petition to protect Australian school children from these indoctrination classes. Not many people will sign petitions or enter the public debate to defend marriage. Why? Because they are fearful. Fearful that they will be labelled haters, homophobic, bigots. Fearful they will be discriminated against at work or by the government. Fearful that they will come under attack by the social media mobs. With most opposition silenced, this totalitarian movement are rushing to take political control to cement their victories and give themselves bigger sticks with which to silence their remaining opponents. As they cement control they hoist the nationalist rainbow victory banners over as many of our government buildings as they can. Pat Byrne explores this further… He writes, “To the Marxism Conference, Roz Ward gave a Marxist analysis of how the ruling capitalist class imposed conventional notions of male and female, sex, marriage and natural family on society to “break the spirits of ordinary people”.” Roz Ward said, “To smooth the operation of capitalism the ruling class has benefited, and continues to benefit, from oppressing our bodies, our relationships, sexuality and gender identities alongside sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Both serve to break the spirits of ordinary people, to consume our thoughts, to make us accept the status quo and for us to keep living or aspiring to live, or feel like we should live, in small social units and families where we must reproduce and take responsibility for those people in those units.” Roz Ward advocated sexual liberation, saying, “Marxism offers both the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today, because Marxism has a theory of social change.” Pat writes, “Echoing this classical Marxist doctrine, Ward paraphrases gay academic Dennis Altman, saying that “the homosexual cannot win liberation without a general sexual liberation.” Article: Safer schools or a radical Marxist sexual revolution?, Pat Byrne, Online Opinion, 19/2/2016. We know where all this anti-family, anti-God, anti-freedom radical social engineering leads though: to broken relationships, broken homes, broken society, confused children, negative population growth, increases in mental illness, weaker economies and subjugated populations. Some of the above was sourced from: SaltShakers.org.au BreakPoint Daily June 17, 2016 LISTEN TO TODAY'S COMMENTARY SUBSCRIBE TO BREAKPOINT DAILY
Man Cubs Need Their Fathers Kipling’s Jungle Books ERIC METAXAS With Father's Day coming up (in the US), let’s reflect on the barest of necessities: kids having a dad in their lives. One of the biggest worldwide hits of the summer—or any summer, for that matter—is The Jungle Book, Disney’s charming new interpretation of the Kipling classic. Children are eating up this film. But it’s not surprising that the intelligentsia, which once called the book a celebration of British imperialism, are now calling it racist garbage, not to mention politically incorrect. Ironically, in their rush to condemn The Jungle Book, the critics are missing Kipling’s most politically incorrect message of all: That boys need their fathers, and need them desperately. It’s a message we should pay particular attention to on Father’s Day, coming up on Sunday. As Jody Bottum writes in The Federalist, Kipling’s writings for children “derive from his intense feeling of being an abandoned child, sent home from India to live in a boarding school at age five.” Bottum notes, “The subtext of nearly every one of his children’s stories is a boy’s desperate need for a father.” Kipling himself is “so eager for a father that he cannot write about a boy without casting every older male in a father role.” For example, in The Jungle Books, the story of an orphaned man-cub named Mowglie, we have Baloo the bear, whom Bottom calls a “kindly but learned” father figure. Bagheera, the panther, is another father figure, while the wolf Akela “is father as clan lawgiver.” The python Kaa is “father as source of ancient memory and possessor of mysterious powers.” We see the same phenomenon at work in another Kipling novel about a fatherless boy, titled Kim. Bottum notes that father figures in this tale include “Mahbub Ali, a Pashtun horse trader, [who] becomes the mature figure of worldliness for the boy, an elderly Tibetan Lama becomes the father of his spiritual unworldliness,” Bottum writes, while “a British officer . . . becomes the father figure who calls the boy to a high political purpose.” We see echoes and evidence of this need for fathers in modern life. It seems that boys don’t merely feel abandoned when their fathers are out of the picture: All the available evidence reveals that both boys and girls don’t do as well as kids who have a loving father providing a steady presence in their lives. For instance, family researcher Patrick Fagin of the Heritage Institute notes that “teenagers without a dad around are almost twice as likely to be depressed as teenagers from an intact family.” “They are more than four times as likely to be expelled from school,” and “three times as likely to repeat a grade,” as well as abuse drugs and alcohol. Even more depressing is the fact that kids without dads “are also more likely to have sex before they are married—setting the stage for yet another fatherless generation.” All of this shows that for dads, spending time with their kids, playing with them, teaching them right from wrong, and disciplining them, is the most important work any man can do. As for the movie, well, as charming as it is, Disney’s writers don’t seem to recognize what Kipling was doing with the Mowgli stories. For instance, they cast Scarlett Johansson as the python, Kaa, a pretty piece of reverse-sexism. Bagheera the panther is the only character left to truly represent a father. If you decide to see The Jungle Book with your own man-cubs, then give them a copy of Kipling’s The Jungle Books to read afterward—or read it to them yourself. They’re tremendously entertaining stories and poems. And be sure to point out to them what Kipling was saying with his children’s books: That boys (and girls) need their fathers, and without them, they are truly lost. Oh, and to all you dads out there, have a very happy Father's Day. NEXT STEPS Man Cubs Need Their Fathers: Kipling’s Jungle Books As Eric suggested, if you're taking your children to see The Jungle Book, point out the obvious in Kipling's fictional story--children need their fathers in their lives. For resources on why fathers are important, check out the links below. RESOURCES Life With -- and Without – Father Rebecca Hagelin | Heritage.org | June 13, 2016 Why Fathers Matter Heritage Foundation | familyfacts.org A Child’s Search For His Father Transcends ‘Jungle Book’s’ Racism Joseph Bottum | The Federalist | May 3, 2016 |
Craig MannersWhile much of what is written in this Blog may currently appear to be counter-cultural, given our post-truth culture, it is in no way counter-human beings. I am always for people no matter what they think, do, or may have done in their past. Where I put forward ideas or debate against certain ideology, behaviour, ideas, movements, politics, I remain very much on the side of the human beings even though I may be opposed to their worldview, behaviour and politics. Such opposition is generally out of concern for the ultimate consequences of such behaviour or ideas, especially for children. |