Our Government’s True Colours
Immediately after John Howard and the Liberals won their fourth-term in the 2004 election, Kevin Rudd called together certain Federal Labor members to see how they could win the next election. The main strategy was to win over evangelical Christians, who had helped to keep Howard in power for the past decade.
Rudd knew that the only way that Labor could defeat Howard was by ditching its secularism – at least outwardly – and appearing to be Christian. Thus Rudd went on a Christian charm offensive, seeking to convince evangelicals that he was one of them. He did a lot of talking and writing, hoping to convince the evangelical community that he would represent their interests.
Of course some key concerns of the evangelical community involve family and life issues. So Labor had to convince this target audience that they too were concerned about such things. And of course there was plenty of rhetoric about ‘social justice’. Rudd himself wrote a lengthy magazine article seeking to argue that Christianity is ultimately about social justice issues – issues that not surprisingly looked a lot like Labor Party ideology and policy.
Of course many of us prior to the election warned that we must be careful here. Jesus himself warned about wolves in sheep’s clothing. We knew that long-standing Labor policies which were hardly pro-life or family-friendly would not be abandoned just because Labor learned how to use Christian lingo and rhetoric to get in to power. See for example some of my warnings:
But Rudd’s strategy paid off, and paid off handsomely: Howard lost the 2007 election, and Labor rolled into power. Of course within weeks it became clear that this was the same old Labor. Soon after the election I documented ten areas of concern about the new government: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2008/02/25/reflections-on-the-new-government/
I concluded that there was very little evidence that there was much that was pro-life or pro-family about the new Government. And that perhaps there was not much that was very pro-faith either. (Of interest is how Obama and the Democrats utilised a similar strategy in the US. They sought to win over the evangelicals. They did win a number of them, and as a result they won the presidential election. But we are already seeing plenty of anti-faith, anti-family and anti-life policies rolling out of the Obama White House.)
Early concerns about the new Rudd government were not greatly alleviated over the ensuing months. Indeed, one especially outrageous example of the Rudd government’s true colours occurred late last year. Committed Christian and tireless advocate for men, Warwick Marsh was appointed as a men’s health ambassador by the Rudd government, only to be unceremoniously dumped a few days later. His crime? He actually thought that children deserve a mother and father, and that homosexual families are not in the best interests of children.
Here was a guy who had devoted countless hours of volunteer work on behalf of men, many of whom were on the brink of despair and suicidal. Yet our ‘Christian’ government thought he was totally unacceptable for this job because he dared to take the politically incorrect line of opposing the militant homosexual lobby. To make matters worse, some Christian groups seemed more intent on placating the homosexual lobby than in defending their persecuted brother. I have written up this sorry, sordid saga here:
Well, there remained one last chapter to be written about this outrageous case of political infamy, anti-Christian bigotry, and bowing the knee to the radical homosexual bloc. A replacement was needed for this enemy of the state, Warwick Marsh. Well, the replacement has been named. And you guessed it: Our new men’s ambassador is a homosexual.
The homosexual press is of course happily reporting this story far and wide. (You can also see “steamy” pics of the new ambassador in the homosexual press as well.) The homosexual lobby has certainly gotten what it wanted. Not only did it manage to drive out a pro-family champion, but it managed to get one of their own in.
One can ask hard questions here of course, but I won’t expect our Christian Labor leaders to take any notice of them. But I will ask a few anyway. Given that there are only a handful of these men’s ambassadors, one would have hoped that the well-being of men – not activist minority groups – would have been the top priority. Evidently not.
Indeed, given that homosexuals make up around only 1 to 2 per cent of the entire adult population, why were they singled out? Why not have other minority groups represented? Surely there must be 2 per cent of the Australian adult population that are male tennis players, or male stamp collectors, or male tuba players. Why don’t they get their own special representative ambassador?
Of course we know the reason why. The homosexual lobby is holding the Rudd government to ransom. If it dares to do anything that will upset the homosexual activists, they will simply throw a hissy fit, make a lot of noise, and the Rudd government will jump into instant submission.
Indeed, it is not hard for the Labor government to acquiesce and appease the militant homosexual minority. Labor has had long-standing pro-homosexual policies and preferences. Many of us knew this sort of stuff would happen under a Labor government.
But the tactics of winning over religious voters paid off. Labor knew that most people wouldn’t have a clue what the real Labor agenda was, and that social justice rhetoric would manage to fool many. So what we are now witnessing is simply what many of us warned about.
We are simply seeing the true colours of ‘Christian’ Labor. A tree, we were told long ago, can be known by its fruit. If the roots of a tree are basically anti-family, anti-life and anti-faith, so too will be the fruit. This latest outrage is simply another bit of Labor fruit. I hate to say it, but we told you so.
22 Replies to “Our Government’s True Colours”
I wrote to our local (ALP) MHR (a man who portrays himself as good family man, and he probably is) to complain about Warwick Marsh’s dismissal. He duly wrote back that he had forwarded my comment to the Minister.
Fat good that did!
I suspect that ALP has some reasonably decent people (like Kim Beasely), but the agenda is run by the progressive faction.
Don’t worry about Rudd, he also played the whole fiscal conservative line as well until he got into power and was fortunate enough to have a financial crisis allow him his big social spending spree he’d been waiting for. Bolt is good on Rudd’s “money for free” mentality:
And, speaking of “a tree is known by its fruit” have a look at this article from Andrew Bolt’s column:
It would be riotously funny if it wasn’t so stupidly expensive – with OUR money!
Perhaps our new men’s health ambassador could direct people to this information:
“Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span.” “The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy. ”
Oh, and in case this is seen to be too harsh, I believe the “Notice to reader” at the top of this website does a pretty good job of speaking the truth in love.
I realised that RUDD was not the type of Christian PM he portrayed himself to be after I had heard nothing from him when i had corresponded with his office twice regarding the plight of Christians suffering persecution in India. I decided then that I would have to question his commitment as a Christian and I still do question it.
There seems to be an unwritten law in the church (at least the type of churches I’ve attended) that the minister is ‘above’ party politics and so never mentions it. Perhaps this is due to the erroneous idea that the position of minister is held in such high esteem that he would unduly influence people, or a misunderstanding of what the separation of church and state means.
A reason with some validity may be that the sermon should be used to proclaim the word of God. This is true, but I don’t see why voting is different to any other application of the Bible to our lives which is quite properly preached.
Political issues are sometimes mentioned, but a link is never made to the policies of political parties.
It seems to me that the failure by our churches to explicitly point out the application of the Bible to voting is a reason why many Christians were so taken in at the last election.
Did things always used to be this way? And does anybody know other reasons / processes how we got to never mentioning party politics in church?
Mansel Rogerson, Melbourne
If we still doubt the anti-Christian bigotry of the Rudd government, see this newest example: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25105229-12377,00.html
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Re that last link, Bill. Evidently there is some dark magic that works against money when it’s spent on a school’s religious ed or worship centre. For some reason it won’t stimulate the economy, unlike money spent on other areas of the school. Maybe they are worried God will cut out the middle man and install the air-conditioners himself?
It has often amazed me that so many people can be sucked in with the transparent talk of Kevin Rudd. In the lead-up to the last election some of my friends and I warned others of the shallowness and insincerity of Kevin Rudd and supplied examples. In my experience, my opinions were greeted with blank looks. The reason for this, is that many people know little or nothing about politics, because they aren’t deeply interested. If they do say something on the subject, they feel comfortable and safe, with parroting what some journalist had to say on the subject. I spent 33 years in the media and can confirm that with a few exceptions, most journalists and reporters are mainly Labor or other left of centre party supporters.
Also space doesn’t allow me to list all the surveys, conducted throughout the world on the percentage of homosexuals in the general population, however they all back the figures of between 1 to close to 2%, supplied by Bill. In the media it’s a different situation, where the figure is higher, which explains why the homosexual lobby receives a sypathetic hearing and airing of their views. It’s interesting to note the much published quote from Kim Beazley Senior, on his retirement from politics. He said “In my young days, when I attended branch meetings, I found that the Labor Party was made up of the cream of the working class. As I leave it today, I find it is made up of the dregs of the middle class.
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
Rudd’s activities show he is as much a Christian as Obama. But their lives and actions speak contrary to the truth. They’re in the same boat as Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears who, in the earlier days, touted their supposed faith in God as a selling point.
And in a Christians’ life God’s truth becomes a standard from whence their belief system emanates. And it’s an unavoidable truth that we are known by our fruit.
Good quote from Beasley there Frank. The more Labor has walked away from their working class roots, the more degenerate have their policies become. The influence of Methodism in the British Labour party has been mute within the ALP. Jack Curtin was certainly an example of the cream of the working class, and he had even attended the Brunswick Salvation Army Corps, whilst crediting Moral Re-Armament with saving him from alcoholism. I do not see any person of strong Christian moral character in the likes of Curtin and Chifley in the current Labour Cabinet, rather straw men and women.
Thanks Bill for your analysis, It is so accurate. I found this map at American Thinker and wonder what you think?
“HOW HE DID IT : A DIAGRAMMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN .”
To me there are many parallels to the KRUDD campaign.
Bill, whilst I appreciate the main thrust of your article, may I ask for some caution re the “anti-religious” bit about education spending (in one of your replies).
I would read it as a reasonable limitation, in the same way that I would see a budget for day-school curriculum materials restricted to non-Sunday School items. It is a matter of spending for a defined primary purpose.
However, if that same restrictive clause appeared with all spending parameters in all areas, I would infer more strongly what we suspect in this case.
I am disappointed in Ms Gillard’s comments further down in the linked article, however. Statements such as:
are just silly politician-speak.
I recall prior to the previous election when Howard was elected that Rudd made a comment that when he goes into the party rooms, he takes his Christian hat off and puts his Labor hat on. If ever there was a cause for alarm as to his Christian credentials, that was it. Sadly, too many Christians didn’t see the significance!
Having spent some years in Australia, first as a ten pound pommie and then years later as an exchange teacher and since it is where God found me; I naturally have a special love of the Australian people. May I alert you therefore to what is in store for you?
In 2006 the UK Labour government brought in the Sexual Orientation Regulations; a year later this was followed by the Gay Adoption Bill and then last year they brought in the Incitement to Homophobic Hatred Bill. This last bill would have carried more destructive power if it had not been for a Lord Waddingon who successfully got an free speech amendment to the bill that said:
“In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
For those interested in looking in Hansard this now forms section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986. That clause is going to be overturned this year, barring a miracle wrought through prayer. This will mean that anyone not wholeheartedly supporting the gays could be deemed as inciting hatred and could face up to seven years in prison.
The zeal with which the government is attempting to overturn Lord Waddington’s free speech amendment is hardly surprising when we view Gordon Brown’s cabinet, particularly represented by Maria Eagle, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for justice, her twin sister, the lesbian, Secretary to the Treasury, Angela Eagle, and homosexuals within the labour party, like Chris Bryant, the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons – not to mention the ex secretary of State for Trade and Industry (original department responsible for the SORs) and ex European commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson and Lord Chris Smith who was the MP for Finsubury and Islington when the following was happening on his watch:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=518672&in_page_id=1770 (Haut de la Garenne, the children’s home under investigation and Islington)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-229953/If-iota-shame-Mrs-Hodge-youd-resign-now.html (Margaret Hodge cover up over Islington).
Lord Chris Smith is now the head of the Advertising Standards Agency and is still in the business of censorship: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9745.html
Though I believe Spencer Livermore has gone to fresh pastures, this un elected homosexual was at the hear of government: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6417.html
David Skinner, UK
You say that when you mentioned your opinions that you were greeted with blank looks. I wonder then when you mentioned your opinions in e-mails were you greeted in return with blank replies?
In my experience most people respond with “I don’t care” yet they then go out and mindlessly cast a vote for the Party they and their parents and their grandparents have supported all their lives.
John FG McMahon, Kolonga, Qld
John McMahon’s comments are spot on. I have always been amazed by the loyalty of Labor voters who consistently vote for a Party that treats them with utter contempt in the safe seats. Labor understands this loyalty and exploits it to the maximum. Labor has also been very successful at harvesting the migrant vote, particularly the Southern European’s, who are essentially Christian with a strong sense of the traditional family.
I’ve been waiting for the attack, Bill, so I can respond but they have been silent! Could that be because they have been unable to find any significant flaws in the ’21 Reasons’ booklet – just a few minor end note typos?
This is despite my placing a comment on one of their web sites calling for them to give justification of their claims it is flawed? Perhaps we should start a letter campaign going and get a bunch of people asking Miss Roxon and her department to tell us of the homophobic flaws they found in the booklet that warranted Warwick’s dismissal.
I was the person who tipped off Crikey and the mainstream and gay press about the woeful choice of two strident homophobes as men’s ambassadors. That, of course, quickly led to Nicola Roxon belatedly doing the right thing, at least in part. And my colleagues in men’s health rejoiced, because it had seemed that Labor was going to follow the previous government’s harmful, heterosexist tradition. Matthew Mitcham is a fine young man who has amply demonstrated the qualities of strength, determination and excellence. He is an inspiration not only to gay men and lesbians but indeed to anyone who is interested in the resilience of the human spirit. The cause of men’s health can only be bettered by his appointment.
Our government’s true colours have again been shown today:
Thanks Mr Rudd. Very Christian of you.
Of course all your comment does is reinforce the truth that the militant homosexual lobby is not the least interested in tolerance and diversity, as it so much rabbits on about. It is instead interested in coercion and conformity. Anyone who dares to disagree with their ideology and agenda will quickly be dealt with. Simply label as “homophobic” anyone who differs from the party line, and then make sure they are banished altogether. So typical of the homosexual lobby.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Homophobe? The etymology suggests “fear of the same”. Ergo, they like change. So homophobes were largely responsible for the election of Lord Hopeychange Himself, the Teleprompter Kid, B. Hussein Obamessiah.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane