Militants Sue the Church

I have come to the understanding that writing books on the militant homosexual assault on Christianity is a lost cause: as soon as your book is published it becomes instantly out of date. There are so many cases of the activists engaging in anti-Christian bigotry, that old technology like mere books just don’t cut it anymore.

I did release a book on this recently: Strained Relations. And as soon as it was published it was already getting dated. All around the Western world the homosexual activists are attacking Christians and seeking to use the heavy hand of the law to silence all dissent and criminalise all opposition.

The Western world, which was once the product of the Judeo-Christian worldview, is now the main breeding ground of this anti-Christian agenda. And Australia is well ensconced in this war against faith and freedom. Consider the latest attack on those who dare to resist the homosexual juggernaut.

A pro-marriage pamphlet put out by the Catholic Church is now the subject of a lawsuit by an angry transgender Green’s candidate. I have elsewhere discussed this helpful and well-researched booklet: billmuehlenberg.com/2015/07/26/standing-fast-for-faith-family-and-freedom/

One news report puts it this way regarding the lawsuit:

delaneyMICHAEL BRISSENDEN: A Tasmanian woman is taking the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart to the Anti-Discrimination Commission over a booklet about same sex marriage. The booklet, ‘Don’t Mess With Marriage’, was sent to Catholics around Australia earlier this year. In Tasmania it went out to churches and the parents of children at Catholic Schools. It makes it clear the Catholic Church opposes same sex marriage. And Martine Delaney who is making the complaint says some of the content breaches Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act. Felicity Ogilvie reports from Hobart.

FELICITY OGILVIE: In the Booklet ‘Don’t Mess With Marriage’, the Catholic Church says marriage is a blessing from God; a holy, spiritual and heterosexual union between a man and a woman where children are born and raised. The church argues that since every child has a biological mother and father, messing with marriage is messing with kids. The booklet has infuriated Martine Delaney, a spokeswoman for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group and the Greens candidate for the Federal seat of Franklin.

MARTINE DELANEY: It appears to be a whole lot of statements of Catholic belief but then it also makes quite bold and I think very questionable statements, which together as a cumulative message give you the idea that same sex attracted people can never have a relationship that is equal to a heterosexual marriage, that they can never be whole as people, that their children can never be complete as people.

FELICITY OGILVIE: The booklet also cautions that if marriage is redefined, supporters of traditional marriage will be characterised as bigots and could run foul of the law. But Ms Delaney says the booklet has already crossed a legal line.

MARTINE DELANEY: It’s actually in breach of Section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act, in that it’s insulting, it’s offensive, and it’s possibly for some same sex attracted people quite humiliating.

An earlier article discusses why the Church had issued the booklet:

The Catholic Church has responded to moves to legalise same-sex marriage in Australia with a letter which is being sent to parishes around Tasmania. The letter is titled “a pastoral letter from the Catholic Bishops of Australia to all Australians on the ‘same-sex marriage’ debate” and carries the slogan “don’t mess with marriage”. It was compiled by the national body the Australian Catholic Bishop’s conference and is not specific to Tasmania. The same booklet has been distributed to Catholic school children in Canberra….
A South Australian Bishop warned children of gay couples will see themselves as another Stolen Generation because they have been denied a mother and a father. Tasmanian Archbishop Julian Porteous said the letter was issued to help Catholics understand why the church was opposed to changing the legal definition of marriage.
“This Pastoral Letter is offered to parishioners in the hope that it will deepen their appreciation of the beauty and dignity of marriage and family life according to the plan of God,” he said in a statement issued on Wednesday evening. The small booklet begins with a section titled “respect for all” and then goes on to outline why marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman.

Neil Foster, an evangelical Christian and Associate Professor of law at the University of Newcastle, has offered some legal background to this claim of discrimination. He writes, in part:

It seems hard to imagine that it was a surprise to parents sending their children to a Roman Catholic school that they would be receiving teaching on the church’s views on moral issues, especially on a matter of such great public interest in Australia at the moment. Nevertheless, a number of parental complaints were made when the booklets first came out. Complaints were made that the material was “discriminatory”. Yet, as the booklet itself points out:
Justice requires us to treat people fairly and therefore not to make arbitrary, groundless distinctions…if the union of a man and a woman is different from other unions – not the same as other unions – then justice demands that we treat that union accordingly. If marriage is an institution designed to support people of the opposite sex to be faithful to each other and to the children of their union it is not discrimination to reserve it to them.
The provision of the Tasmanian legislation being relied upon is essentially an “anti-vilification” law, presumably in its application to “sexual orientation” discrimination. It relevantly provides:
17 (1) A person must not engage in any conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person on the basis of an attribute referred to in section 16..(c)… in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed.
I have written a lengthy paper analysing Australia’s anti-vilification laws as they relate to religion, and many of the comments I make there relate also to what we may call “sexual orientation vilification laws” such as s 17, as it is being used here. In particular all such laws raise serious issues as to how they protect the important value of free speech, while balancing this with the right of persons in protected categories not to be the subject of “hate speech”.
One of the cases I discussed in that paper was a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 (27 Feb 2013), dealing with sexual orientation vilification. As I noted, in that decision the Supreme Court upheld a provincial law dealing with “hate speech”, but as part of its decision the Court struck down the sections of the law that targeted the mere causing of “offence”, as contrary to the Canadian Charter right of free speech. To be precise, the Court agreed that the prohibition on “exposing someone to hatred” was valid under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but ruled that the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” were invalid and should be struck out.

He concludes:

Unusually for Australian State Constitutions, the Tasmanian Constitution Act 1934 contains a religious freedom protection provision, in s 46:
(1) Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
Sadly this provision is, so far as I am aware, untested in the courts. I am not even sure whether it should be read as over-riding “ordinary” Tasmanian legislation, as one would usually expect in a provision of a Constitution. However, it may provide another reason to suppose that the Tasmanian Parliament may not have intended, by enactment of s 17, to prohibit the free expression of the Roman Catholic Archbishop’s belief, which of course would be a part of his (or the church’s) “profession and practice of religion”.
If there is, as seems suggested at the moment, to be a plebiscite on the question of recognition of same sex marriage, it is to be hoped that respectful public debate can be carried out without a polite statement of one side of the case being “shut down” as offensive or insulting simply because it makes a case which some disagree with. In any event it seems likely that Australia’s Constitution protects robust political debate on these matters.

It remains to be seen how this Tasmanian legislation – and this particular lawsuit – will play themselves out. But what we do know full well is a raft of anti-discrimination, equal opportunity, and various vilification laws have been used all over the West to silence Christians and ensure that the homosexual agenda is vigorously carried out and promoted.

These are some of the biggest threats we now face regarding faith, freedom, and family. It is up to Christians and other concerned citizens to steadfastly resist many of these draconian laws and nefarious legislation, and stand up for their freedoms before we lose it all.

www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4320710.htm
www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-17/catholic-bishops-explain-same-sex-marriage-opposition/6554500
www.biblesociety.org.au/news/same-sex-marriage-and-discrimination-claims-in-tasmania

[1512 words]

13 Replies to “Militants Sue the Church”

  1. The other takeway from this story is don’t vote for the Greens. Now I’m even more browned off (no pun intended) with them than I was before.

  2. “that they can never be whole as people”
    If you need marriage or children to make you a “whole”person, you’re entering into both estates with the wrong and selfish reasons. But then, isn’t the whole of the ME agenda, all about me?
    Christianity is about being “other” centred, not self-centred. The only person who will make me complete is Jesus Christ- not my wife, not my kids.

  3. Um, from what you said, the pamphlet was sent to the churches, and the CATHOLIC schools, which of course means the parents I assume CHOSE to send their kids there, and were paying for a religious education. It was not sent out to the general public, or public schools correct?? Why is it the Liberals cry “separation of church and state” when it benefits them, but when the church does something, for THEIR church members that may butt hurt them, then there is no separation of state and church?????

  4. If the law can be successfully used to punish or “re-educate” 1984-style any person or institution expressing a traditional view on marriage, the law is, as Dickens’ character said, an ass (which, being interpreted, means of course, a donkey.)

  5. Bill, I never thought I’d hear you say that books cannot keep up, but I agree. The world is Changing fast, more akin to lemmings hurtling over a cliff, or Nero fiddling while Rome burns and blaming Christians for starting it.
    The Greens, they are evil from start to finish Ross, I’m with you on that score.
    Persecution is coming, and so is the Lord Jesus.
    Good message Bill, stand fast, it’s all we can do, in the strength of the Lord, as we see Him drown the Egyptians.

    Come soon, Lord Jesus.

  6. Martine Delaney’s earlier success with the Anti-Discrimination Commission against the Exclusive Brethren entailed investigative media reports into that sect, reports which aired the religious group’s “dirty laundry” in public.

    Martine is a former student of St Vergil’s College, a boys-only school. The present appeal to the Anti-Discrimination Commission will no doubt enlarge Delaney’s political/media profile in the lead up to next year’s federal election.

    In the present political climate, GLBTIQ protagonists have become a kind of “officially protected species”. Adherents to biblical orthodoxy in matters of marriage, gender and sexual diversity are, I fear, fast becoming a “threatened or endangered species”. If “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”, how much more must the bride of Christ be above suspicion in our post-Christian, Post-Modern world, where everything is up for “deconstruction” and Nietzsches’ revaluing of all values is already an ever-morphing pillar of our twisted 21st-Century Western culture.

  7. I purchased ‘Strained Relations’ and it has been for me a very valuable resource on same-sex issues. Unrelated but interesting: I understand the Pope met with Kim Davis when he was in the US. Praise the Lord.

  8. “…same sex attracted people can never have a relationship that is equal to a heterosexual marriage…”

    This is the fundamental point I have been trying to make for years: Homosexual relationships are not equal to marriage because they are, by definition, sexually dysfunctional and so cannot be complete or “consummated”- as the term used to be. They do not unite families by blood ties. They do not respect biological parental rights. They do not respect the rights of children. They undermine the standing of biology under the law. They do not allow societal review of incest problems. They routinely cut children off from their lineage, often completely denying them knowledge of their heritage. etc.etc. They are, in fact, the opposite of marriage.

    The idea that, because old people can marry, then sexual function is not related to marriage is a complete “red herring”. Old people marry to comply with moral standards and societal norms, neither of which apply to homosexual relationships and when they do, it it does not undermine the institution as homosexual “marriage” does by redefining it.

    The whole idea that people are not permitted to disapprove of immoral behaviour and act accordingly is also a basic denial of human rights. It is very fundamental hypocrisy to say we cannot treat homosexual behaviour as though it is immoral while at the same time using the law to force people to act as though it is moral. We are not permitted to impose our morality on them but they are, apparently, completely entitled to impose their immorality on us.

    “Love” has never been the legal basis of marriage and to say it is makes marriage redundant and largely meaningless for the purpose for which actually it exists. There are so many lies related to the redefinition of marriage it is hard to address them all but when I see people like Justice Kennedy from the US Supreme Court saying nonsense in his ruling such as denying homosexuals access to marriage condemns them to a life of loneliness and then using this sort of lie to then justify the redefinition of marriage, we can see that the deception runs very deep.

  9. Bill. Thanks for your work.
    Maybe, as in the case of ‘the two Danny’s’, the case against Bishop Porteous, if it fails, will create a precedent, so that people are then free to speak about marriage, as they now can on Islaam. The ultimate failure of the case against the two Dannys means Bolt and others can speak fearlessly as they do about Islam because the precedent legal action failed. Let us pray Bishop Porteous will prevail against this devilish persecution and a precedent for free speech for Christians and true marriage will be set.

    I have a question: re the Kim Davis affair. I read somewhere that the US judiciary according to the US constitution cannot make laws, only the congress. So how is it that the judiciary seem to have made a law – allowing homosexuals to ‘marry’ for the whole US? Do you have any update on the Kim Davis case? Where is it at? Thanks

  10. Now here comes the legal curly one. When there’s a referendum of any sort, the national broadcaster are duty bound by law to present both sides of the question put. Seeing as the effect of homosexual marriage child development, this topic is a legitimate argument on the “no” to homosexual marriage side. The question therefore needs to be asked, will the ABC, in presenting the “no”case be subject to being sued? Or won’t they be allowed to present the cild aspect as an argument?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: