CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Recalcitrants Versus the Rainbow Ruling Class

Feb 7, 2018

In our brave new world of radical minority activist groups effectively taking over entire cultures, things are looking very bleak indeed for anyone who dares to resist the revolution. The militants have now become extremely powerful as the political world, the media, academia, and other institutions of power and influence readily run with their causes.

Those who refuse to bow the knee are being made to pay. They are being socially and culturally ostracised, hated on, and treated as outcasts. And there are very real ramifications of this: people are now being fired from their job, fined, or even jailed, for refusing to submit to the new agenda of the coercive utopians.

The most obvious example of activist agendas terrorising the mainstream is the radical homosexual agenda. As they consolidate power, win ever more special rights, and especially when they destroy marriage and replace it with fake marriage, we see the heavy jackboot being used against all opponents.

There are now many hundreds of examples of this occurring all over the world. And even before Australia went down the path of redefining marriage, we have had plenty of notable cases of people, including religious leaders, being taken to the courts and tribunals all for affirming the traditional understanding of marriage.

The sad case of Archbishop Julian Porteous in Tasmania is but one glaring example of this. And with the new homosexual marriage bill enacted, the range of religious freedoms and other freedoms is exceedingly narrow indeed. The “exemptions” of Dean Smith’s bill are effectively limited to a tiny minority of religious people, such as paid, professional clergy.

Ordinary religious folks, including civil celebrants, those in religious educational institutions, government employees, and small business owners – to name but a few – basically have no protections whatsoever, and are now all at risk of facing the same sort of persecution that I have documented time and time again, including in my 2014 book Dangerous Relations.

Now, simply sharing one’s own personal views on things like the true nature of marriage – be it on a website or a personal social media page – puts people greatly at risk. Here are just five examples of this – out of 165 – that I featured in my book:

“Business owners threatened, face legal action for refusing to rent facility for gay ‘wedding’”
August 12, 2013
“A Christian couple is facing a state complaint, business cancellations, and vulgar, harassing, and threatening e-mail messages after refusing to rent out a business facility for a gay ‘wedding.’ Dick and Betty Odgaard said they could not in good conscience allow a homosexual couple to use their business, the Görtz Haus Gallery, to conduct the ceremony itself. . . . As the story of their denial broke, frightening messages began filling up the Odgaard’s inbox, the couple says. ‘F–k you, f–k your God, f–k your religion,’ said one message from an angry gay rights activist. The same writer enlarged upon his thoughts, adding, ‘You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f—er racist sons of b—hes from hell’.”

“Air Force Sergeant claims he was fired for refusing to endorse gay ‘marriage’: faces court martial”
September 10, 2013
“An Air Force sergeant who filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. military claiming he was fired by his lesbian commander for refusing to make a statement of support for same-sex ‘marriage’ may now face prosecution for taking his accusations public. Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk was relieved of his duties as first sergeant at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio in August after two separate confrontations with an openly homosexual superior officer, Major Elisa Valenzeula.”

“Transgender man wins complaint against bridal shop for not letting him try on wedding dress”
September 19, 2013
“The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission announced that a mediated settlement has been reached between the owner of a Saskatoon bridal shop and a man who presents himself as a woman. Rohit Singh, a student from India who came to Canada in 2010, filed a complaint against Jenny’s Bridal Boutique after the owner of the shop refused to allow him access to the women’s changing room. When Singh selected a dress and wanted to try it on, shop owner Jenny Correia refused him, saying “I don’t allow men to wear dresses in my store.’ Singh retorted, ‘I’m not a man, I’m a transgender and my sex-change procedure is going on,’ according to media reports of the incident that happened on April 21. The owner believed allowing a man to try on dresses would make female customers in the shop uncomfortable.”

“Gay activists launch complaint against teacher who included homosexuality on list of possible sins”
September 23, 2013
“Days after the Italian lower house passed the country’s ‘anti-homophobia’ law, the country’s leading homosexualist lobby group, Arcigay, appears to be testing the legal waters. Together with The Omphalos Association and Arcilesbica Perugia, Arcigay has launched a complaint, called a ‘denunzia,’ of ‘homophobia’ that they allege was committed during a religious education class at the Liceo Classico Mariotti, a university preparatory high school, in the Umbrian town of Perugia.”

“Mayors cannot refuse to ‘marry’ homosexual couples: French Constitutional Court”
October 22, 2013
“French mayors and members of municipal councils in charge of registering civil status will not be allowed to invoke a right to conscientious objection to justify their refusal to celebrate same sex “marriages,” the French Constitutional Court decided last Friday. Two groups of mayors had brought the issue before the Court. But the court’s decision now puts an end to their hopes of finding a loophole to guarantee that elected civil rights officers who object to same sex “marriage” will have their conscience rights respected.”

But this keeps getting worse by the day. Consider two brand new cases of anti-Christian bigotry and the crack-down on various freedoms because recalcitrants have dared to resist the new PC agendas. The first case comes from New Jersey in the US. The story begins:

A high school teacher was suspended for three years for sharing her views of homosexuality on a personal Facebook page. Jenye “Viki” Knox served Union High School since 2000 as a teacher and faculty adviser for the students’ Bible study group. She began teaching handicapped students 28 years ago.
An ordained minister, Knox communicated her opinion openly on social media. In 2011, she criticized an LGBTQIA+ promotion featured in the school’s display glass. “Why parade your unnatural immoral behaviors before the rest of us?” Knox posted….
Knox was summarily charged with conduct unbecoming a teacher and suspended without pay. Later, school officials filed tenure charges against her to take away her job security in order to fire her.
Included in the school charges were allegations that Knox alerted school officials via email that homosexual teachers were “targeting young and impressionable students for indoctrination into alternative sexual lifestyles.” Knox denied sending the emails.
Knox eventually resigned in mid-2012 under “stress.” In 2013, Knox sued the district for violating her right to free speech and her right to the free expression of her religion. She wanted her job back with back pay and the admission that she was within her rights under the Constitution to express her views on Facebook.

My second horror story comes out of the UK. It starts this way:

A government-funded pre-apprenticeship academy in Bristol reported a Christian teacher as a “radicalisation threat” for answering students’ questions about her beliefs, Bristol Employment Tribunal has heard. Svetlana Powell, a teacher of some 17 years’ experience, told the Tribunal that she was dismissed by the T2 Apprenticeship Academy in Bristol in July 2016 after being asked by students about her views on homosexuality.
In reply to a personal question, Mrs Powell said that her personal belief was that homosexuality was against God’s will, but that He loved every person, regardless of what they did, or who they were.
When told that one of the students identified as a lesbian, Mrs Powell in conviction of God’s care and love for every person, turned to her and said: “God loves you”. Two days later, the Academy’s HR Officer, Stacy Preston, told Mrs Powell that she was fired for “gross misconduct” with immediate effect.
The Academy’s Chief Safeguarding Officer, Sian Prigg, told the Tribunal that after a group of students complained that they were “brainwashed and preached to”, she decided to contact the local coordinator for Prevent – the government’s ‘counter-terrorism’ strategy group – to report the incident. Mrs Powell said she did not know of being reported as a “radicalisation threat” until she brought a legal claim against the Academy and read Mrs Prigg’s witness statement for the Tribunal.

These cases are now everyday occurrences all over the West. And with fake marriage now the law of the land in Australia, how many more such cases will we see here, all because folks – including religious folks – will stay true to their beliefs and their consciences, and not give in to the new draconian persecution?

We know that many homosexual activists and allied groups have insisted that there be NO religious exemptions whatsoever here in Australia. It seems clear that they will keep pushing this until all non-compliance is targeted and dealt with.

Broadly speaking the purposes of the law can do one of three things: prohibit, permit, or promote. We have seen the whole gamut when it comes to things like homosexuality. Now everyone is being made to conform to the new sexual orthodoxy, and those who refuse to do so will be subject to the heavy hand of the law.

We expect such state-based repression of dissidents in police states. But it is shocking when supposed free and democratic nations head down this path. The truth is, all sorts of freedoms – religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, and so on – are now all under great risk with the new homosexual agenda taking hold over our culture.

This is very scary stuff indeed.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/african-american-teacher-faces-three-year-suspension-for-calling-homosexual?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=110289d3d5-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S.&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-110289d3d5-401398773
www.lifesitenews.com/news/christian-teacher-referred-to-anti-terrorism-agency-for-telling-lesbian-stu?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=b657d0bdbb-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S.&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-b657d0bdbb-401398773

[1657 words]

10 Responses to Recalcitrants Versus the Rainbow Ruling Class

  • Hi Bill, your article paints a very grim picture of open persecution in Australia for anyone who openly & worships the Lord Jesus Christ. I know it deviates from the main thrust of this article, what now really frightens me is the lgbtqr’s next target, our kids and Christian Schools. As always Bill, I’ll keep covering you & your family in prayer

  • Why go looking for trouble ? Can’t the gay community just go where they are able to marry? To perchase wedding attire and things from ? Could there not be a transgender industry exclusively catering for all things same sex etc? If one has authentic beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman because of beliefs in God and God’s Word why is the LTGBQ community trying to enforce their beliefs by calling people “homophobic”, bigots and to f### yourGod , I would never demean those who want to live the homosexual life with words like q**r or f**s nor demand them to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman ,or else!!! I I’ll of course tell if asked why I don’t believe in homosexuality according to scripture . It is still their chose to choose . So why demand I do what they demand ,they won’t accept our point of view yet expect God believing Scripture people to cater to their every whim and demand . You can’t buy a person ‘s integrity or change their belief or get your own way by bullying people it just does not work

  • Sadly, Carmel, as demonstrated time and again in matters relating to Islamophobia, racism etc, the application of common sense and the law is a one-way street. Their case is recognised, ours isn’t.

  • On a positive note a surprising story out of California. A baker who refused to create a homosexual wedding cake, and instead referred them to a baker who did not consider such requests to be a violation of their conscience, was sued by a pair of homosexual women. While that’s not surprising, what is is that the presiding judge ruled the First Amendment protected the baker’s right to refuse, and that the rights of the homosexual duo were not violated as they were referred to a baker willing and able to take their order. The fact the pair felt they suffered an indignity by having their request refused is not sufficient to violate Constitutional protections and dictate conduct. Sadly I suspect an appeal is likely.

  • What must be understood is that it is NOT the LGBTQ crowd that is battling a Christian code of morality. It is Satan himself. If we allow the anti-Christian, the nominal Christian and the agnostics to establish the worldview of our culture it will gravitate quickly to a campaign against all Christian cultural standards and teachings. The battle, as scripture says, is the Lord’s. When we take His side we automatically become targets of Satan.

  • I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: all this happens because Christians aren’t prepared to stand up and stand together at the first display of persecution. For example, when a complaint was made against Archbishop Porteus, he first response should have been to send another circular to the schools condemning the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, the Greens, and the law. This should have been followed by a sermon the same subject to be read out in every church in the diocese. Then every other denomination should have done the same. And MPs should have been flooded with letters and e-mails from constituents demanding they speak up against the action, and against the law. And if the MP failed to reply, a reply should have been demanded. It is important to stand together and fight at the first sign of trouble. Remember: you don’t need to have 50% of the population to control government policy; you only have to control the swing. If politicians knew that immoral laws will always cost them at least 10% of the vote, they will stop making immoral laws.

  • This fight is to be expected, it is called persecution (TROUBLE). See John 16:33
    Eph 6:12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
    Satan is the ruler of this world, do you really think it is going to be easy?
    We can fight this, on our knees, its the only way to fight, and don’t forget God is on our side. One by one we can turn people back to Christ, one by one, its what He requires of us, “go into all the world and preach the Gospel. see also 2nd Chron 7:14
    If you dont know how, ASK and it shall be given to you.
    God be with all of you.

  • Feels kind of weird, after years of being “identified” as a “harmless, law-abiding old wowser,” to now be a kind of dissident, at odds with certain laws of more recent vintage than the Ten Commandments!

    Still, I suppose there’s no time to sit about in a state of shock, like a school of stunned mullet after some enterprising revolutionary just threw a lighted stick of gelignite in our river at high tide…

  • On a positive note, Bermuda has become the first country to revoke same-sex marriage law: www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/bermuda-repeals-same-sex-marriage/ar-BBISJ0G?li=AAgfLCP&ocid=mailsignout

  • Thanks Bill. I am just in the process of putting the final touches on my submission to the review of religious freedom. (Due in by Wed 14 Jan.)

    My strategy in the submission is to propose the committee extend the concept of freedom of religion to freedom of conscience, since not everyone is religious but everyone has a conscience and knows what one is.

    I then pointed out some examples of requiring someone of the left to commit an act violating their conscience, e. g. a print shop owner who is a member of the Greens being forced to print posters for Adani.

    I then asked the reader of the submission (if indeed anyone reads it) to think about what they would feel if their own consciences were violated. I pointed out the sovereignty of personal conscience and that they were not immune from the possible consequences of legal coercion. My parting shot was “Ask not for whom the bell tolls.”

    Oh dear, it took me hours to write what you would probably rip out in half an hour. Since leaving government to take on self employment in the financial services industry, I seem to have lost my wordsmithing skills in favour of numbers!!!

Leave a Reply