Left Menu
Life News
Are we using our memory for the glory of God? by Timothy Raymond
Can we in good conscience vote for Labor? by Andrew Lansdown and Dwight A. Randall
National MP slams perversity of Safe Schools program
Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex marriage by Kirsten Andersen
Domestic Violence: Women can be as abusive as men by Dr Augusto Zimmerman
With the Lord: Wilma Drew
18th Annual Walk and Rally for Life
Former senator speaks up for the unborn by Joe Bullock
Qurans deadly role in inspiring Belgian slaughter by Nabeel Qureshi
Germany:Christian refugees persecuted by Muslims by Soeren Kern
Web Design and Development - abcplus Publishing Australia
Pamphlets
by Andrew Lansdown
One for All
A Son to the war
Becoming a Christian
Train home
Sons Laid Down Their Lives
An Accurate Diagnosis
Starting again
Following hard after God
Starving our children
The first duty of fatherhood
The origin of fatherhood
An Easter Song
A Christmas carol
For This Purpose
In royal David's city
God's Placard
Believing the Bible: the issue of inerrancy
Marriage according to scripture
A biblical perspective on prostitution
Prostitution and social justice
Abortion: A biblical perspective
If people were dogs & other false arguments for euthanasia
How porn harms us
How Green is God?
Evolution?
Christians and Politics
When Christians Take Their Lives
The High Kings Watchmen

Our bigoted Australian Democrats

 

by Bill Muehlenberg

Many people would be aware of a survey the Democrats launched several months ago to look at the role of religion in politics. Of course, given the secular bias of the Democrats, the real purpose of this “survey” was not to see what people really think on the matter, but simply to get ammunition to continue pushing their anti-religious bigotry.

In fact, in the “God and Government: tell us what you think!” survey they stated this right up front: “The Australian Democrats say the neo-conservative religious right—much of it with roots in the US—is having a disproportionate influence on public policy.”

They continue, “while we support freedom of religious observance we do not consider that religion should have undue influence on the governance of Australian citizens and nor do we support the exploitation of religion and religious difference for political purposes.”

And the Democrats complain, “Conservative religious organisations appear more influential in the major political parties and are investing their considerable resources into electing their own candidates.”

These and other statements make it clear they really do not mind religion so much, especially if it is the liberal, trendy left-wing variety that pushes every radical cause, but is silent on the biblical gospel. What the Democrats can’t stand are believers who take the Bible seriously, and believe its dictates do have something to say about issues like marriage, family and abortion, among other things. Religion that is secular and radical seems to be fine for the Democrats, as long as we can keep those Bible-believing Christians out of politics altogether.

And the way the questions were framed is indicative of the predetermined outcome they were looking for. The whole tenor of the survey was geared to get a desired result: that religion should have nothing to do with political life, and it is always a bad thing when it does.

Consider just three of the 23 questions. “Do you think that politicians who have strong religious beliefs should try to use the political system to turn their religious beliefs into law?” “Do you think that religious leaders/churches/houses of worship should try to influence government decisions on issues?” “In the last 10 years, do you think that political leaders in Australia have used religion for their own political purposes?”

These questions are as misleading as they are biased. The truth is, every politician brings beliefs and values to bear on political issues. It is impossible not to. Values are being promoted all the time in the public arena. What the Democrats don’t like is when those values happen to be conservative and Bible-based. Evidently secular and leftist values are just fine, and those are exactly the values that the Democrats are imposing on all of us.

Thus this whole exercise was just another example of the Democrat’s left-wing, anti-religious bigotry. Or more specifically, of their anti-Christian bigotry.

However in the end the Democrats got a big surprise. People took their survey seriously and many filled it in. Instead of the usual 1,000 responses, they received over 40,000! And the Democrats were not happy with the results. Evidently the overwhelming majority of respondents were in favour of religion in general and religious values in the public arena in particular. Much to the consternation of the Democrats, they got the opposite result of what they were hoping for.

The icing on the cake of this whole story comes from a short item now on the Democrats web site. It reads in full:

SURVEY

Thank you to all of those who have completed our online survey and shared their views with us. The response has been very interesting and has informed our thoughts on this complex topic.
We hope that it has encouraged people to think about the issues and we look forward to more discussion. We do not plan to publish results of this survey. Online surveys are useful because they are fast, easy and inexpensive but they do not typically gather in-depth, rigorous scientifically valid information. Indeed some complained that ‘yes’/’no’ answers were inadequate for the complex questions raised.

Furthermore, respondees were self-selected rather than chosen at random. This means the survey, despite its 40,000 returns, is unlikely to be representative of the broad population. Indeed we understand it was widely promoted in ways likely to have skewed the results— in itself an interesting development in debate about the influence of the churches over matters of state!

Again thanks for taking the time to respond.

Amazing! And for a number of reasons. One, I dare say if they had received the secularist response they were looking for, they would have fully published and promoted the results, claiming Australians wanted a complete separation of church and state. But because they did not get the outcome there were looking for, they simply refused to release the results.

Second, why conduct a survey in the first place if you will only print the results if they are what you are looking for? Why bother? Why make the pretence of disinterested impartiality?

Third, they would have been quite happy to claim this was a reliable and accurate assessment of community feelings, had the results gone their way. But now they back pedal, claiming such surveys are not at all reliable and should be dismissed anyway.

Fourth, it is obvious that the overwhelming majority of Australians are religious and think that religion is important. And they think it is important in every area of life, not just in the private sphere. This should come as no surprise to the Democrats. Such information has long been available, whether from our census or other means.

Fifth, as mentioned before, it is really not so much religion as a whole the Democrats despise, just conservative, Biblical religion. They are quite happy with watered-down, liberal varieties of religion. And the best proof of this is the fact that the Democrats used to have a minister of religion as one of their Senators. John Woodley from Queensland was a Democratic Senator from 1993 to 2001. He was also a UnitingChurch minister. Of course much of the UnitingChurch has long ago abandoned any semblance of biblical Christianity. Thus Woodley was a champion of special rights for homosexuals and other trendy (and anti-biblical) causes. Strange, but the Democrats did not then object that Woodley’s “religion should have undue influence on the governance of Australian citizens”.

Sixth, the whole premise of the Democrats reasoning here, that religion (at least conservative religion), should have nothing to do with politics or governance, is simply false. All government and law is based on belief systems, values and worldviews. If religious values do not inform the debate, then other values will. And given that the majority of Australians are religious, we would expect to see these religious concerns reflected in our politicians, policies and legislation.

Seventh and finally, this exercise simply shows how out of touch and radical the Democrats are. They appeal only to a minority of secularists, leftists and extremists living in Australia, but certainly not to the mainstream population.

This exercise has backfired in their faces big time. They surely did not get what they were looking for. To put it in religious jargon, what they intended for evil, God turned around for good, as in the story of Joseph (Genesis 50:20). I dare say it will be quite a while before the Democrats try to pull a stunt like this again. Indeed, I wonder whether the Democrats will be around for much longer, to be able to try such stunts. It seems their days are numbered. Their own survey results are effectively telling them this.

Finally, two last questions. Just which bastards really need to be kept honest here? And, just how democratic are the Democrats?


This article first appeared on Bill’s Culture Watch website www.billmuehlenberg.com and is republished by permission.
Web Design and Development - abcplus Publishing Australia
Web Design and Development - abcplus Publishing Australia
LIFE NEWS ARCHIVES
2015 Vol 3 Jul - Sep
2015 Vol 2 Apr - Jun
2015 Vol 1 Jan - Mar
2014 Vol 5 Nov - Dec
2014 Vol 4 Sep - Oct
2014 Vol 3 Jun - Aug
2014 Vol 2 Apr - May
2014 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2013 Vol 5 Dec - Jan
2013 Vol 4 Sep - Nov
2013 Vol 3 Jun - Aug
2013 Vol 2 Apr - May
2013 Vol 1 Jan - Mar
2012 Vol 5 Oct - Dec
2012 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2012 Vol 3 May - Jul
2012 Vol 2 Mar - Apr
2012 Vol 1 Jan - Feb
2011 Vol 3 Jun - Aug
2011 Vol 2 Apr - May
2011 Vol 1 Jan - Mar
2010 Vol 5 Nov - Dec
2010 Vol 4 Sep - Oct
2010 Vol 3 Jun - Aug
2010 Vol 2 Sep - Oct
2010 Vol 2 Apr - May
2010 Vol 1 Jan - Mar
2009 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2009 Vol 3 Jun - Jul
2009 Vol 2 Apr - May
2009 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2008 Vol 5 Oct - Dec
2008 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2008 Vol 3 Jun - July
2008 Vol 2 Apr - May
2008 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2007 Vol 5 Nov - Jan
2007 Vol 4 Aug - Oct
2007 Vol 3 Jun - Jul
2007 Vol 2 Apr - May
2007 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2006 Vol 5 Oct - Nov
2006 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2006 Vol 3 Jun - Jul
2006 Vol 2 Apr - May
2006 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2005 Vol 6 Dec - Jan
2005 Vol 5 Oct - Nov
2005 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2005 Vol 3 Jun - Jul
2005 Vol 2 Apr - May
2005 Vol 1 Feb - Mar