Law, Licence and Lunacy
The law historically has done one of three things: it has prohibited something, permitted something, or promoted something. And we often see a certain behaviour or activity go through these three stages. Sometimes they can go from being promoted or permitted to being prohibited, as with cigarette smoking.
Governments in the West once fully permitted cigarette smoking, but when it became more and more clear what an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle it was, many active steps were then taken to radically reduce the behaviour. High taxes, bans in public places, advertising campaigns, and so on, were all used to deter the activity.
Perhaps one day smoking may be banned altogether. So that is one example of this pattern in reverse. But let’s consider another example, of the pattern playing itself out from beginning to end. Take the issue of homosexuality. In the West until recently this behaviour was pretty much everywhere prohibited.
But constant agitation by homosexual pressure groups resulted in almost all bans being lifted, and the lifestyle became fully permitted. But things did not stop there. Everywhere in the West the homosexual lifestyle is now being aggressively promoted and encouraged by governments and our ruling elites.
It has become a mission of most Western nations to force feed its citizens on all things homosexual, whether the majority like it or not. I have documented many dozens of examples of this on this site. Most Western countries are actively and relentlessly pushing the homosexual lifestyle, and in fact have gone so far as to now penalise and punish anyone who dares to resist this.
So we have gone full circle here, from prohibition to active and relentless promotion. The heavy hand of the law is being used to foist this lifestyle on everyone, even if the masses are not exactly thrilled about all this. And the odd thing is, in light of the cigarette smoking example, we are going in the completely wrong direction here.
With smoking, governments intervened heavily and were quite happy to step on individual liberties in the name of protecting the health and safety of its citizens. Given that smoking not only harms the smoker but can harm others, as in passive smoking, the state took often draconian steps to reduce the risk and save lives.
Homosexuality is of course an equally destructive lifestyle, which results in very real harm, and even in premature death. But instead of seeking to deter this dangerous and high-risk lifestyle, governments now are actively promoting it and celebrating it.
The double standards here are mind boggling. The power of the law to change opinions and behaviour is well known. We rightly speak about the normative effect of the law. When an action is given legally acceptable status, the state is sending out strong social signals that such activities are good and to be embraced.
So when governments promote and encourage homosexual behaviour, they are urging their citizens to accept and celebrate this unhealthy lifestyle. Soon almost everyone is getting in on the act, pushing the radical homosexual agenda, and mercilessly seeking to crush any remaining opposition to it.
Consider another recent example of this. A recent headline says this: “BBC ‘should be bold in gay coverage’.” The story goes as follows: “The BBC has been urged to be ‘more creative’ and ‘bolder’ in how it represents lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people across its output. The recommendation was made by experts contributing to a BBC review on its portrayal of LGB people. The report’s contributors called on the corporation to feature more LGB people in its news and current affairs, sport and children’s programming.”
There you go: the BBC is being urged to promote pro-homosexual propaganda everywhere – in the news, in current affairs, even in sport, and worse yet, in children’s shows. Yep, get ‘em while they are young. Indoctrination works best when started early. So just brainwash these little kids quite early on, and they will become loyal and compliant PC zombies for life.
Talk about promotion, endorsement and pushing an agenda. England, like the rest of the world, would never have dreamed of anything like this some short decades ago. But the normative effect of the law has taken its course: from prohibition to permission to promotion – all in a generation or so.
The truth is, the normative effect of the law can and does change everything. Even those groups and institutions which should know better end up going along with the government’s PC agenda. So we even get renegade churches promoting homosexuality, instead of standing on the Word of God and resisting this immoral lifestyle.
Consider what an apostate church in New Zealand has just done. It has erected a large billboard outside with the words, “It’s Christmas. Time for Jesus to come out.” Baby Jesus in the manger is pictured with a rainbow halo around his head.
As one report states: “‘Some scholars have tried to make the case that he might have been gay,’ St. Matthew’s Rev. Clay Nelson said in a statement. ‘But it is all conjecture. Maybe gay, maybe not. Does it matter? There is almost nothing in the record of his teachings about sexuality while there is plenty about the perils of being rich,’ Gardy added. ‘Certainly he always supported the marginalized in society’.”
This is what is known as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. No, Jesus was not homosexual; yes, Jesus did say a fair bit about God’s purposes for human sexuality; and yes, it does matter – big time. This is simply deception and apostasy on a major scale. This leader has abandoned the clear teachings of Scripture. Indeed he has rejected them, and decided to become an active promoter of the homosexual agenda.
This is yet another indication of the fact that when a society starts to promote and advocate for immorality and radical PC agendas, everything gets swept along in the deluge. We expect non-believers to embrace all this PC claptrap, but when so-called Christian leaders embrace and promote it, then you know we are in very dark days indeed.
We have come a long way from prohibition. Some would call this progress. But anyone who still has a conscience and a brain knows that this is not progress but regress. It is deterioration on a mammoth scale, and the scary part is it has not yet fully bottomed out.
20 Replies to “Law, Licence and Lunacy”
Not surprisingly the NZ church mentioned in my article calls itself “a progressive Anglican church”. http://stmatthews.org.nz/
As I said, progressive is often really a euphemism for regressive. They are abandoning the gospel big time to appear to be seen as trendy, cool and with it, but they are really going backwards, renouncing their faith and denying their Lord. Apostasy is the correct term here.
And I have written elsewhere about “progressive Christianity”: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2011/01/23/progressive-christianity/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
If this policy is implemented in BBC children’s programming, Blue Peter will become a little bit more blue.
Or a bit more pink.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
For years now, with very few exceptions, neither bishops nor priests of the Catholic Church have given sermons or made public statements in support of the biblical teaching on homosexuality. The usual reply is that it is not appropriate to preach on this issue or that they learn about this in the Catholic school. This attitude has allowed the MSM to become the unopposed voice on moral issues with the result that many catholics either accept the notion of a homosexual lifestyle or just don’t know what to think. It appears that our bishops and priests have, for the most part, chosen to avoid the issue. There has been a great silence on this issue but it is necessary for the bishop (who holds the office of treacher) to teach, lest his silence be construed as consent – or a lack of courage.
B T Walters
What can we do Bill? Frightening how quickly this has moved and how ingrained in the media it is.
your eg: England, like the rest of the world, would never have dreamed of anything like this some short decades ago. But the normative effect of the law has taken its course: from prohibition to permission to promotion – all in a generation or so.
Are Christians still seen as wearing cardies, socks and sandles?
There is heaps we can do. The first thing is to become informed about these issues. Then tell others. And get involved in the political process; speak truth in the public arena; write letters to the editor; do talk back radio; etc, etc. There is no limit to what we can do. All we need to do is to care enough, and the rest will be easy. It is getting people to snap out of their apathy and indifference that is the hard part.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
It seems like everyone is trying to revise history to make every person in history as homosexual. As with the recently released Gay “Bible” and the fact that they say that King James was gay yet more historical revisionism. First it started out with some people saying they just want acceptance, but those who knew, knew that they wanted domination, even though their lifestyle is totally destructive to society.
Yes quite so Ian.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
When so “momentous” a goal is in view as the “deconstruction” of “patriarchal repression” and its fossilised vestige, the family, the recasting of human history after the image of GLBTIQness is surely a mere trifling matter! Those who resist the evolution of the “collective gender consciousness” have abrogated their right not to be offended by the new “global consensus”!
An appropriate rejoinder to such Newspeak cant is found in St Paul’s tear-stained reference in Philippians 3:19 to persons “Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.”
I couldn’t comment on this outrageously false assertion at the original news site. Funny about that – not!
Just as smoking is dangerous to society, due to the dangerous effects of “passive smoking”, so too homosexuality is dangerous to a society, in that it promotes such an “unnatural” message as being natural, particularly to the children.
Not to mention the judgement it will bring from God. But in mentioning this, we would do well to highight all the “respectable sins” that seem to be acceptable at the moment in our society, even amongst us Christians.
Keep up the good work Bill. We need people who keep speaking the truth whilst we still have the opportunity.
Jerry Bridges of Navigators has written a book called “Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate”.
A couple of points:
B.T, I seem to recall Archbishop Pell refusing to give the elements in the mass to gay congregants who fronted in rainbow-coloured sashes? Now, whilst I am not R.C that seems to me to send a pretty firm message (feel free to disagree).
As for the BBC its promotion of homosexuality, whether blatantly or subtly is quite appalling. My wife and I are both fans of the show “Doctor Who”, a show which is aimed at a general audience (children and adults) thus it is disturbing to me just how many pro-gay references have been made in recent episodes of the show. Just some examples:
A couple of elderly women are sitting in the front of a van. The young man behind them calls them “the sisters” only to have one of the women turn around and brusquely correct him with the words, “we’re married!”
A female crew member on a space-station (set some time in the future) explains the grief of a Russian cosmonaut: “His husband died”.
Doctor Who, an FBI agent and President Richard Nixon are all standing in the Oval Office:
R.N: “How can I repay you?”.
D.W: “He wants to get married”
R.N: “Black, is she?”
Agent” Yes, HE is.”
R.N: “(hesitantly) Let’s deal with one thing at a time.”
Or this particularly absurd scene set in the 19th Century American West:
Minister (describing the horse the doctor is about to mount): “His name is Joshua. It’s from the Old Testament. It means conqueror” (The horse neighs.)
Dr Who: “His name is Susan, and he wants you to respect his lifestyle choice. I speak horse.”
The BBC tends to do this only once an episode but I find it enough to dampen my enthusiasm for an otherwise enjoyable show. (Please note that the dialogue is based on my recollection and may not be perfectly accurate.)
Thanks for that Mick. That event slipped my memory but it may come under my ‘with very few exceptions’ in my posting. Perhaps I should have said ‘with one possible exception’ as when I wrote that I couldn’t think of any. But was this an exception? Was the Cardinal’s intention to teach biblical morality or was he simply saying “I’m not playing this rainbow sashes game with the Eucharist”. The Cardinal was not willing to use the Eucharist in a gay rights promotional context. His firm statement that day was about the Eucharist. But I include your interpretation as also being valid Mick and my exception then becomes – Cardinal Pell.
B T Walters
You can add Archbishop Hart to your list too B.P as he also defended the right of the Church to refuse Communion to those dressed in their rainbow sashes. If my memory serves me correctly, it was during a ‘Special Occasion Mass’ at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. It was reported in the papers at the time and of course the rainbow sash mob got good press.
The ACBC have put out a pamphlet on same sex marriage and why it is not acceptable.
Thanks Madge. Consider the Archbishop added to my list but I think the issue is not communion but rainbow sashes. I have not seen the pamphlet on same sex marriage and I am a very regular mass goer, but I am pleased to hear of it. I still question the level of commitment of the bishops and priests to this issue. I would like to see something along the lines of the native title campaign. If they put as much money, time and people into promoting biblical morality as they did into promoting land rights they would change Australian society. My view is that many bishops and priests consider the matter to be not very important. I do hope I am wrong.
B T Walters
Jesus made thirteen references to love, thirteen concerning the poor and twenty six concerning sex. These twenty six references are directly related to either adultery, or fornication that describes all manner of illicit sex, including incest and homosexuality.
However, even with these references Jesus Christ said that any one who takes away or adds the least jot or tittle from the Bible would be the least in the kingdom of Heaven. Indeed in Revelations He says ” if any man shall take away from the words of the book of prophecy, God shall take away his part out to the book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
When Jesus Christ was tempted to turn stones in bread, or jump from the temple , or make himself king of the castle, what he did not do was to get engaged in talking about fast food , bungee jumping or having a make over, he simply said it is written.
David Skinner, UK
Not a problem, B.T. You may well be correct in your interpretation. Whatever the case the MSM was certainly quick to report on the matter in such a way that sympathy for the gay people was encouraged and not the Archbishop.
Closer to home, we have a prominent Baptist minister Rowland Croucher, who had come out in support of same sex marriage.
His photo and comments feature on a web site known as marriage equity where he says that he has been happily married for 50 years so who am I to stop anyone being married.
I was saved in a Baptist church and spent many years as a member but I am disgusted that the Baptist Union of Victoria has chosen not to disown him and Nathan Nettlelton, another Baptist minister on the same web site.
With all due respect, I would have thought that the Baptists would have a bit more backbone than to keep silent about leaders leading the people astray.