The Greens’ War on Christianity

Let’s face it: the radical secular left Greens hate conservatives and they hate Christianity. And their wrath is especially kindled against Christians who are conservatives. We see the ugly reality of this being played out in our PC kangaroo courts right now.

I have already written about how a transgender (of course) Greens political candidate has dragged Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteus before the Anti-Discrimination Commission because the Catholic Church dared to publish and distribute a booklet saying marriage is between a man and a woman:

And I have written about the perfectly sensible and non-threatening booklet, “Don’t Mess with Marriage”:

delaneyYep, for that horrific crime the wrath of the PC gaystapo has been unleashed. Indeed, they have moved on from simply persecuting the Archbishop to charging the entire Catholic Church with crimes against humanity! Shut it down altogether! This would be the dream outcome of the hate-filled lefties. As one report states:

All Australia’s Catholic bishops have been drawn into a national test case for freedom of religion and speech after Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commission found they have a case to answer over humiliating gay, lesbian and transgender Australians by distributing a booklet supporting traditional marriage.
The commission has signalled a momentous test case will be held, with a hearing in Tasmania, because of the issues of “public importance” in the case. The Catholic Church has argued that it had no intention to cause offence but was exercising its freedom of speech and religion before the promised plebiscite on same-sex marriage after the next election.
Various Christian churches have expressed fear that freedom of religion and speech will be limited under same-sex legislation, which Malcolm Turnbull has pledged to introduce if a plebiscite approves of same-sex marriage. Supporters of same-sex marriage have assured churches there is no danger to freedom of religion.
Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteus was initially singled out in a complaint by transgender Greens political candidate Martine Delaney that she felt humiliated and that he had breached the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act by circulating a booklet to the parents of Catholic school students called “Don’t mess with Marriage”.
Ms Delaney, who has changed from a male to a female and lives in a same-sex relationship with a woman, said she was humiliated by the booklet which only paid “lip service” to showing respect to same-sex attracted Australians but actually sent out negative messages about them. She said the booklet did immeasurable harm to “the wellbeing of same-sex couples and their families across Tasmania”.
Ms Delaney had also complained about the Catholic bishop’s conference, which represents all Catholic bishops in Australia, which had distributed the booklet around the nation. Last night the Tasmanian commission cited the bishops’ conference as the prime mover in the booklet and Archbishop Porteus as the second target.

Wow, what diabolical hatred of faith, family and freedom. The leftists, and the Christophobic Greens, should change their name to the Browns. They give Hitler’s stormtroopers the ‘Brownshirts’ a good run for the money. Just seek to silence and put out of business any and all opposition to the fascist homosexual agenda.

A new petition has been launched about this appalling case of anti-Christian bigotry and attack on free speech. With the title “Restore free speech for Porteous and every citizen. Repeal all ‘right to not be offended’ clauses” it is now available for signing. It says:

BREAKING: Following a complaint lodged several weeks ago, rather than dismiss the complaint, the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has decided to proceed with prosecution of Julian Porteous, the Archbishop of Hobart and the co-accused national conference of Catholic bishops. The complaint was lodged by an Australian Greens Federal Candidate for the seat of Franklin (TAS).
The complaint is over a catholic booklet explaining to catholic parents of catholic schools why the church for 2000+ years has understood the importance, sacredness and special meaning of marriage.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Whether you agree with Archbishop Porteous or not we must restore basic freedom of speech in Australia. Starting with Tasmania and any other laws, the so-called “right to not be offended” must be repealed! This is getting ridiculous if not deadly serious.
If Australians want to enjoy freedom to express our views, we must permit our opponents the same freedom.
How can Australians engage in a debate about the meaning of marriage if one side of the debate can not be aired without fear of prosecution? We urge you to move legislation that removes the newly invented “right to not be offended” from any relevant state and federal laws.

In a related story, a Senate attempt to protect free speech was defeated by – you guessed it – Labor and the Greens:

A motion to protect the Catholic church’s right to distribute an anti-marriage equality booklet that marriage equality advocates have labelled “divisive” has been shot down by the Senate. A former cabinet minister turned Coalition backbencher, Eric Abetz, put up the motion in the Senate on Thursday supporting the church’s pamphlet campaign.
The motion stated that: “The Senate, while not expressing a view on the contents of the booklet issued by the Australian Catholic bishops conference entitled Don’t Mess with Marriage, fully supports the rights of members of the Catholic church, including Archbishop Julian Porteous, to distribute it.”
It was brought on by Abetz with the support of a number of crossbenchers, including the independent senator John Madigan, Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm, Family First senator Bob Day, and Palmer United party’s Dio Wang.
Despite the crossbench support, Labor and the Greens joined forces to block the motion before it got put to a vote.
Abetz was scathing, saying that the two parties shut down the basic right of freedom of speech.
“Free speech is a key pillar of our society and the tricky tactics used by Labor in an effort to shut down debate and run a protection racket for the extreme Greens flies in the face of the open discussion we should be having about marriage,” he said.
“The motion firmly supports not only the right of the Catholic archbishop of Hobart and the Australian Catholic bishops conference but all Australians to engage in open discussion about the truth of marriage. I will continue to fight to uphold the institution of marriage and defend the right of people to speak up in defence of this vitally important societal institution.”

Abetz is 100 per cent right. This is a war on freedom, a war on marriage and family, and a war on Christianity. Can the left and the Greens get any more blatant about their hostility to all three? They might just as well come out and declare it openly: they hate Christians and Christian morality, and are hell-bent on destroying both.

[1124 words]

16 Replies to “The Greens’ War on Christianity”

  1. So I guess that means that anyone who wants to put the case for the “no” vote against homosexual marriage, runs the risk of being busted? OK then,maybe time for passive resistance. If enough people publicly put the case for a n
    “no” vote, the court systems will be clogged for decades. Time to exercise our freedom of speech rights. Also, why is it OK for these people to offend Christianity? The ABC has run programs which regularly use the expression “Jesus Christ” as an expletive. That offends me- can I censor the ABC?

  2. Let’s see:

    What is hard to understand in

    “We’re Christians and we followed the moral beliefs our God handed down over 4,500 years ago and then reiterated over the next 2,500 years. Yes some of our beliefs will offend people, but God says they offend them because they’ve rejected Him and want to go their own way.

    We don’t mean to offend anyone, but as most people have a general understanding of Christian beliefs if people choose to listen to them or read them knowing they might be offended then the offense is their fault, not ours”

  3. And most discouragingly, I am surrounded by ‘Christians’ who openly support and vote for the Greens and Labor. Every effort I make at trying to educate them about these parties is rebuffed and I’m told again and again that they are better than the LNP and its asylum seeker policies…
    I despair.

  4. Again we see how a society can be changed despite the majority, not because of it. A major campaign is run by the Left on behalf on the minority groups. Dangerous legislation is passed that makes it an offence to ‘offend or vilify including against same sex/transgenders’. They pick their battles and win court cases resulting in 95% of a society being held hostage to 5%!

    Question is what can the 95% do to put the society back on its tracks?

  5. The strange thing is that these same people seem comfortable with an open doors policy for Muslims. Or perhaps it is not so strange.

  6. There is a certain outraged, proudly confessed, self-righteousness about the advocates of sexual diversity: They are bound to loudly proclaim their claims to the “moral high ground” – a ground which they fondly believe they have shifted closer to Lucifer’s doorstep!

    C.S. Lewis’s complaint that modern man believed he had put God in the dock springs to mind – The arraignment of Heaven is ultimately an extremely perilous enterprise for those self-appointed prosecutors the King of Kings…

  7. This is an absolutely outrageous and intolerable impost on free speech and morality. Meanwhile in parliament we have such gems as:-

    Parliamentary Joint Committee
    on Human Rights
    Human rights scrutiny report
    Thirtieth report of the 44th Parliament

    1.517 An important element of protection of the family, arising from the prohibition under article 17 of the ICCPR against unlawful or arbitrary interference with family, is to ensure family members are not involuntarily separated from one another. Laws and measures which prevent family members from being together, impose long periods of separation or forcibly remove children from their parents, will
    therefore engage this right. Compatibility of the measure with the right to respect for the family

    1.518 By allowing same-sex couples to marry the bill would not impose any limitation on the right to respect for the family. (???????) This is because it would not reduce in
    any way the existing protections afforded to married couples and their families. (What absolute nonsense)

    Indeed, all actions taken by a State affect children in one way or another. This does not mean that every action taken by the State needs to incorporate a full and formal process of assessing and determining the best interests of the child. (???????) However, where a decision will have a major impact on a child or children, a greater level of protection and detailed procedures to consider their best interests is appropriate.
    361.539 In this regard, it is questionable whether the legal recognition of a parent’s relationship would have a major impact on a child. (???????)

    I find it absolutely astounding that anyone would believe this sort of complete nonsense but this is what we are seeing in our parliament these days. Absolute lies and complete misrepresentation.

  8. I think a lot of these types of Rights Commissions and their ilk are being exploited by the bored, the unemployed and the agenda driven. Most of these bodies are surely meant to operate passively, and reactively in our communities. In other words, like the judicial system. For most people who follow the law, the inside of a court is something they will never see.

    The activists weaponise these Commissions for political gain. It’s all quite childish really, and would be laughable if there weren’t such dire consequences.

    Now that I’ve signed it, I’ll be watching the petition, just to see how much support it garners.

  9. Dear Bill,

    With all that is happening around the world it would be easy to give in to despair Annette but we have Christ’s promise that evil will not triumph. The so called ‘Christian’ West will suffer a just punishment which it will have brought on itself for its may sins not least its indifference to the survival of its own Christian culture.

  10. This merely reflects the simple trademark of the Greens and Labor (with Liberals not far behind); that is, the trademark of an authoritarian regime.

    But their attack is really on Christ, who is a perpetual stumbling block for them. And thinking they will erase His truths, it is they who will be smashed by the Rock along their ideas and dreams, all to be blown away like fine dust in the wind. To be found no more. If only they would read the bible …

  11. I despair with you Annette as the same applies to many Catholics. It always comes down to the asylum seekers policy so I wonder how they will react to the news coming out of Paris today.

  12. Sad to see this happening

    The so called Ms Delany is actually in a heterosexual relationship as he’s actually a man

    Also I believe the Greens support the branches of Christianity that support same sex marriage and abortion (not Catholicism or other conservative denominations though)

    Got to pray for Australia

  13. LOL! The photo of that man pretending to be a woman looks ridiculous, I laughed at that photo, it’s so obvious that it is man and it looks like that’s a transvesdite.

  14. Jesus’ mission on earth lasted 1000 days with no social media, no twitter, no Facebook and his message changed history for ever. There was no violence, no guns, no swords, just words. Islam, with all its bombs, guns social media and chants of Allahu Akbar will no silence His words.

  15. As the greens are so anti Christian, respectable marriage, and those who do not share there views, maybe they will find their fulfilment in sharia law, They obviously are looking for some other form of society that refutes western values, (real values) so they are opening the door for their sharia law. then lets see how they react.
    Jesus gave up his life willingly for them, but they seem to prefer a god that they have to die for to appease.

Leave a Reply

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