In Defence of Cory Bernardi


Bill Muehlenberg suggests Tony Abbott took a knee-jerk reaction to Senator Bernardi's controversial statement about bestiality.

Editor's Note: For all our new readers today please note that Menzies House is an opinion website which publishes a wide variety of pieces, including numerous pieces in favour of same sex marriage and some advocating for an abolition of the Cth Marriage act, as well as pieces against. The fact that a piece is published here does NOT necessarily mean its contents are endorsed by any member of the editorial board – Tim Andrews, Managing Editor. 

South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi has just been hung out to dry by his own party. Why? Because he had the guts to tell the truth, and his PC political mates were too chicken and too spineless to back him up. He was speaking on the homosexual marriage bill, and had the courage to suggest where all this might lead.

He had given a very good speech in the Senate outlining his concerns about homosexual marriage and how children especially will be impacted. His entire speech is well worth reading (see link below). He also spoke of where this was all heading. He said in part:

“If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender and/or if they are in a sexual relationship, then what is the next step? The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society—or any other type of relationship. For those who say that I am being alarmist in this, there is the polyamory community who were very disappointed when the Greens had to distance themselves from their support for numerous people getting together and saying they want to enter into a permanent union. They were disappointed because they were misled that this was about marriage equality and opening up marriage to all people who love each other.

“There are even some creepy people out there—and I say ‘creepy’ deliberately—who are unfortunately afforded a great deal more respect than I believe they deserve. These creepy people say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, ‘These two creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union.’ It is extraordinary that these sorts of suggestions are put forward in the public sphere and are not howled down right at the very start. We can talk about people like Professor Peter Singer who was, I think, a founder of the Greens or who wrote a book about the Greens. Professor Singer has appeared onQ&A on the ABC, the national broadcaster. He has endorsed such ideas as these.

“I reject them. I think that these things are the next step. As we accede to one request we will then have the next one which will be for unions of more than two people. We will have suggestions for unions of three or four people. I notice the Greens are heckling, but the point is that they misled their constituent base and there was an outcry about this. Where do we go then? Do we go down the Peter Singer path? Those that say this is the end of the social revolution have no history of being honourable about that. They continue to push and challenge our social and cultural mores. We simply cannot allow such an important social institution to be redefined, especially when Australians do not see this as a priority issue.”

And he is of course exactly right. We have all sorts of our elites right now going into bat for bestiality, including Professor Singer. I have written about him before. He had for example written an article inNerve online magazine in 2001 entitled “Heavy Petting” in which he argues for bestiality.

In it he waxes eloquent about the virtues of bestiality, going into great details about the joys of sex with horses, dogs, orang-utans and donkeys. He said that as long as the animal is not hurt or exploited, what is wrong with it? As a strident vegetarian, all that he is really doing here is telling us that it is OK to have sex with animals, as long as we don’t eat them afterwards.

And bestiality is making a big come back in the West. As but one example, I wrote about this not too long ago:

In Germany we now have “bestiality brothels”. I kid you not. Let me simply present to you the entire article on this: “Animal sex abuse is on the rise in Germany, with bestiality brothels being set up across the country, according to a state animal protection officer demanding stronger laws to protect mankind’s furry and feathered friends. Madeleine Martin, the animal protection official for Hessian state government, said the law needed to be changed to make sex abuse of animals – known as zoophilia – a crime.

“‘It is punishable to distribute animal pornography, but the act itself is not,’ she told the Frankfurter Rundschau daily paper on Friday. ‘There are even animal brothels in Germany,’ she said. Sex with animals was being increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, and thus more acceptable. ‘The abuse seems to be increasing rapidly, and the internet offers an additional distribution platform,’ she said.

“She said the justice authorities had found it exceptionally difficult to convict a man from Hesse, who had offered pictures and instructions for animal sex abuse over the internet. ‘Zoophilia must be completely banned in the reformed animal protection law,’ said Martin, referring to the governments plan to rework that section of the law.

“Sex with animals was banned until 1969, when the animal protection law was introduced, but failed to include a specific ban on zoophilia, the Frankfurter Rundschau said. Martin said the current legal situation makes it too difficult for authorities to intervene – an animal has to be shown to have massive injuries before the animal protection laws prescribe action.”

But Australia is not immune from this. Consider a very recent news item which said this: “A film depicting sex acts between men and donkeys was screened at a Sydney film festival last week after an exemption from classification was granted to the festival by the Classification Board. I was almost certain they would ask for that film but they didn’t. The federal government agency responsible for classifying films, the Classification Board, did not ask to view Donkey Love before granting permission for it to screen at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival and Sydney Underground Film Festival.”

So nothing wrong with a bit of bestiality in our films, but when a Senator warns of such matters he is promptly treated like the plague and a pariah. Talk about shooting the messenger. Typical MSM hatchet jobs. I had the same experience some years ago.

In a research paper I wrote on homosexuality (now part of my new book) I simply reported what the homosexuals themselves were saying about bestiality. I simply quoted from their own sources. Yet when the Sydney Morning Herald got a hold of it they crucified me just as the MSM is now crucifying Bernardi.

They wrote a big story on it, attacking me, instead of the homosexuals promoting it! They were intent on shooting the messenger in other words. Instead of getting upset at the horrible things the activists were saying, they attacked me instead. Here is what I wrote:

“The Gay Report, a book much praised in homosexual communities, contains testimonials without adverse comment of homosexual encounters with Labrador retrievers, cows and horses. The 1992 report mentioned above found that 15 per cent of male homosexuals and 19 per cent of male bisexuals had sex with animals, compared with 3 per cent of male heterosexuals. As lesbian activist Sara Cohen puts it, ‘What’s wrong with a little bestiality?’

“And another classic homosexual volume, The Joy of Gay Sex became so popular that it was updated in 1992 to become The New Joy of Gay Sex. Written by a New York clinical psychologist, this volume was published by mainstream publisher HarperCollins. In this book the author says this: ‘Moralists condemn sex with animals as disgusting, immoral, and generally horrible. . . . Like other inexperienced city dwellers, we may not so readily fathom the mechanics of cow-, sheep- or horse-f***ing, but see no reason to condemn it out of hand’.”

Now if that bothers you, well it should. It is disgusting that some homosexuals approve of all this. Yet like Bernardi, the MSM decided to attack me instead for simply sharing these truths in public. They ignored the truth of what I said, and concentrated on vilifying me for even raising the issue.

So I know just how Bernardi feels. He was exactly correct to say what he did, and his party should be ashamed for not supporting him. But there are a few things we can do here. Please write and offer Bernardi your support, encouragement and prayers:

And please write to Tony Abbott and ask him to reinstate Bernardi:

UPDATE: You can sign a petition in support of Cory Bernardi at

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

When the Nanny State Starts Attacking Nannies


Bill Muehlenberg says we live in an age where we see evidence of cultural decline, the erosion of values…

OK, just a very short and sweet post here. I have written before about the nanny state and how big government feeds on itself, getting bigger and badder. Bureaucracies mushroom, egos expand, and freedoms lessen and shrink. The ever-increasing state gets more and more irrational as it thinks it must intrude into every area of life.

The trouble with soft totalitarianism is that it soon mushrooms into hard totalitarianism. Today’s bureaucracy on steroids becomes tomorrow’s Stazi or KGB. So keeping the state in check is an on-going work, one which must constantly and doggedly be engaged in. Or as has been said before, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.

So here is another example of bureaucracy gone mad, and the nanny state going ballistic. The story comes out of Western Australia, and begins as follows: “A young mother was issued with a $250 fine last year for talking on her mobile phone while pushing a pram along a footpath. Police have confirmed the woman was issued with the infringement as she walked along a Mandurah footpath on April 21 last year.

“Police Inspector Bill Munnee said today the infringement was issued by a Senior Constable from the Peel Traffic office to the woman for using her mobile phone while she was in control of a pram as she walked her child on a footpath. The fine, understood to be $250, was withdrawn within 24 hours when the Senior Constable’s boss realised the massive error.”

OK, so it is just one small example. But unfortunately it is not unique. Such madness is happening every day, and it looks like this errant statism shows no signs of bottoming out. Plenty of social observers and political commentators of all varieties have pointed out the dangers here. Let me cite just a few of them:

-“The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail. In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom. The secular state’s Bureau of Compliance is merciless to apostates to a degree even your fire-breathing imams might marvel at.” Mark Steyn

-“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” Groucho Marx.

-“Individual liberty exists in inverse proportion to the size of the state. The bigger the government/state, the less liberty the individual has. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” Dennis Prager

-“Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

-“Most bad government has grown out of too much government.” Thomas Jefferson

‎-”Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” P. J. O’Rourke

‎-”Now I am one of those who believe that the cure for centralization is decentralization.” G. K. Chesterton

-“In politics, the great non sequitur of our time is that (1) things are not right and that (2) the government should make them right.” Thomas Sowell

-“A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.” George Washington

Getting fined for talking on the mobile while pushing a baby carriage is one thing. Allowing the state to keep getting worse in this regard is another. A free people will always get things wrong. We will often endanger ourselves, and sometimes others. But the paternalistic state is not the answer.

Mark Steyn again: “Freedom is messy. In free societies, people fall through the cracks – drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care, and much else. But the price of being relieved of all these tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high. Big Government is the small option: it’s the guarantee of smaller freedom, smaller homes, smaller cars, smaller opportunities, smaller lives.”

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

On School Chaplains and Religious Freedom

Bill-MuehlenbergBill Muehlenberg looks at today's High Court decision on school chaplain funding, and asks whether it might not be time for Christian organisations to start refusing taxpayer funding:

A High Court ruling has declared that government funding of the school chaplaincy program is invalid according to the Australian constitution. This ruling raises many issues and many questions, and is a very important decision indeed.

One news report covers the story this way:

The High Court has ruled that the national school chaplaincy program is constitutionally invalid because it exceeds the Commonwealth’s funding powers. In a landmark decision that could cast doubt on other areas of Commonwealth funding, the court this morning upheld a challenge to the scheme by Queensland father Ron Williams.

The Howard government introduced the scheme in 2007, offering schools up to $20,000 a year to introduce or extend chaplaincy services. One of Australia’s leading constitutional lawyers George Williams said the implications of the case were massive and could potentially affect any program directly funded by the federal government.

The ruling came about as a result of a challenge a Toowoomba father made about the chaplaincy program. The ramifications of this decision may well be far reaching, and it is too early to tell just what all the implications of this will be.

The report continues:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott told reporters in Queanbeyan that he wanted the chaplaincy program to continue but noted that he hadn’t yet seen the court’s decision. ‘We invented the program, we support the program, we want it to continue,’ he said. ‘Let’s have a look at the decision and let’s see what the government has in mind. I think it would be a real pity if this program wasn’t able to continue.’

Scripture Union Queensland, Australia’s largest employer of chaplains, which was the defendant to the High Court action, said today’s decision was about a particular historical funding model. ‘Even though that model might be invalid, it does not keep chaplains from supporting school communities,’ chief executive officer Peter James said. ‘Instead, it means that a new funding model is needed.’

The High Court decision that government funding of chaplaincy in Queensland schools is invalid is only ‘a technicality’ and will not mean the end of the program, Australian Christian Lobby head Jim Wallace said today. ‘The government is committed to the program and I expect it will find an appropriate way of directing the funds,’ Brigadier Wallace said. ‘There’s no challenge to the religious aspect. I’d anticipate it will move quickly – we are talking about a bureaucratic solution’.

SU Queensland, which was the focus of this case, put out a press release saying in part:

“The High Court of Australia today ruled the Federal Government’s direct funding model is not valid. The Court left open the option for the Government to continue funding either under new legislation or a grant of funds to the states and territories. SU QLD Incoming CEO Peter James said the decision meant that the great work chaplains do across the nation will continue as long as the Government acts swiftly to ensure the funding continues.

“He said, although the historical funding model does not work, the court unanimously held there is no problem of ‘church – state’ separation from chaplaincy and that other funding models are possible. ‘Chaplains provide an important child and youth welfare role. This is recognised by the school principals and school communities who have chosen to have a “chappy”,’ he said.

“‘This decision means that for the vital work of chaplains to continue, we need a new funding model. We will be working with the Federal Government to ensure that happens.’ Mr James said that over 2000 school communities across Australia have chaplains and many will lose their chaplains if a new federal funding model is not put in place.”

Because it is early days yet, and because I am certainly not a legal eagle, my thoughts on this must be both tentative and limited. But a few general remarks can be made. While a program like this has done a tremendous amount of good, and helped countless children, the new strident atheism which is growing in voice and militancy is a factor to be reckoned with.

This particular father who initiated the case is obviously not a great fan of the faith, and it was his objections that have led to this outcome. Such opposition to faith-based charitable works like this is rather recent. In the not-too-distant past most Australians – even non-Christian Australians – would not have taken offence at such a program.

But the new atheism popularised by people like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens has resulted in a new activism by the secularists and misotheists. And given that the West is no longer just post-Christian but increasingly anti-Christian, we can expect to see more of these sorts of cases and decisions.

Moreover, given these realities, this case opens up the much bigger issue of just how dependent Christian groups of any kind – be they churches, Bible schools, charities, parachurch groups, and so on – should be on any form of government funding.

The simple truth is, as the saying goes, “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. That is, whenever groups receive state monies, the state can dictate how that money is used, and they can radically curtail or restrict what these religious bodies do and say. They pull the strings, and the groups must act accordingly.

This is a major theological, political and historical issue which cannot be fully entered into here. But one historical point might be noted. Many decades ago groups like the National Civic Council lobbied governments to extend education funding to Catholic schools.

This was seen as a real justice issue. Simply put, religious folks who sent their kids to non-government schools were facing double jeopardy. They had to pay their taxes to support the public school system even though they did not directly benefit from it. Then they had to pay for the Catholic education as well – so they were getting slugged twice.

So in the 1960s changes were made and government funding became available for Catholic schools. That seemed to work fine at first, but as I mentioned, as governments get increasingly secular and hostile to religion, and as various activist groups keep demanding and getting special rights, this then puts real pressure on any religious body getting government funding.

For example, the whole raft of equal opportunity laws and anti-discrimination legislation includes all sorts of pro-homosexual agendas, which many religious schools would not be happy with. Often there are now exemptions for these groups, but they are tenuous at best, and could be withdrawn at any time.

Thus given this adversarial climate, increasingly religious bodies getting public funds will be asked – or demanded – to do things which violate their own religious principles and scruples. So what is to be done? That is a question I will not seek to finally answer here, but it is a vitally important question which must be raised.

It seems to me as Christian persecution intensifies, and anti-Christian bigotry becomes solidified, including at government levels, then all real churches and religious groups need to ask themselves some hard questions. How long can they feed at the government trough and not be compromised? At what point must they reject such funding?

Maybe they need to fully trust God for their finances, and not put all their faith – or so much of it – in the state. Those religious bodies which are getting government funds: what will they do? Will they prefer to compromise their convictions and water down their beliefs and practises, simply to keep getting the money?

Or will they take a stand on principle, and renounce such funding in the interests of maintaining pure policy, teaching and practice? Many religious bodies have not yet reached this place of decision – but they may soon well. Thus it is incumbent on all religious groups to think through these matters hard and long, before it becomes too late.

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

Universities No Place For Tolerance and Genuine Choice

Bill-MuehlenbergBill Muehlenberg discusses how the radical left is trying to shut down free speech by pro-lifers at the University of Sydney:

If you want to go to a place where there is genuine learning, searching for truth, and openness of mind, then you better stay away from most Western universities nowadays. They can be the most closed, censorious and intolerant places around.

If the schools themselves are not enforcing fascist PC measures and ideologies, then you can be sure that plenty of students will be doing this. And we have a perfect example of this coming from the University of Sydney. For the first time ever a pro-life group just managed to scrape in there.

And already the tolerance brigade is spitting chips and blowing gaskets. Here is how one report has covered this story:

“The board of the student union at the oldest university in Australia has voted 6-5 to approve the nation’s first-ever pro-life student society

“The decision has been met with outrage by stunned pro-abortion students (one of whom described the pro-life society as ‘f***ed’ and ‘bulls***’), who have begun organising events, petitions and constitutional amendments which would ban pro-life groups from ever again gaining approval at the university.

“Yesterday, Friday June 1, the board of the University of Sydney Union (USU) approved the registration of LifeChoice Sydney, a nonpartisan, nonsectarian pro-life advocacy group which aims to ‘promote the dignity of human life from conception to natural death’ at Sydney University. The Ukulele society was also approved at the same meeting.

“Outraged students have begun composing a motion calling for the USU board to rescind the registration of LifeChoice, censure the board members who voted in favour of their registration, and amend the USU constitution to read: ‘The Board shall be forbidden from registering or providing any funding, resources, publicity or use of Union premises to a group discriminatory on the basis of sex, sexuality, gender diversity, class, race and ethnicity or disability, including any group which opposes a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.’

“Meanwhile, an online petition has been created on the website of activist group GetUp!, demanding that the USU overturn its decision to approve the group. ‘This isn’t about freedom of speech or equal opportunity,’ the petition reads. ‘This is about funding and giving legitimacy to a group whose sole target is women. This “LifeChoice” Society is an attack on women’s rights and by allowing its formation the Union is failing its students and undermining the inclusiveness it seeks to promote.’

“GetUp! has previously removed a user-suggested campaign titled ‘Human rights for Unborn children’, though it was ranked third out of 446 campaign ideas on its website.”

Ah, the sweet face of tolerance, reason, and acceptance! And above everything else, don’t you just love how very pro-choice these guys are! They foam at the mouth about how pro-choice they are, but this is nothing more than disingenuous rhetoric. They are not pro-choice at all.

They certainly are not in favour of the unborn being able to choose life. And they clearly hate anyone who differs from them exercising their choice. What a pathetic bunch of hypocrites and frauds. And note this appalling “pro-choice” group, connected to GetUp [Ed: you mean run by GetUp!], demanding that the pro-life group not have any rights at all.

These anti-choice fascists are simply getting so angry because their lies and double standards are being exposed here big time. They do not give a rip about choice. They are only about denying others choice. They are campus fascists pure and simple.

Indeed, just how bizarre is all this? We have several hundred groups already on campus. For example the following clubs and societies are now operating on campus:
-Communist Club
-Students For Palestine
-Atheist Society
-Greens on Campus
-Queer Review Society
-Muslim Students’ Association
-United Nations Society

These groups seem to be all hunky dory. So why is it so terrible to have a club that stands up for the rights of the unborn? Well, we know the answer to that one. The secular lefties who dominate most campuses today – both in faculties and student bodies – hate anyone who dares to stand up to their pro-death hegemony.

When a group finally comes along with enough guts to challenge the anti-life stranglehold, they throw hissy fits and show their true totalitarian colours. That is just what we are seeing here. Choice only extends to those committed to their own deathly agenda. No one else is allowed their choice.

It is a moot point as to whether this group will long last given all this pressure from the anti-choice brigade. We need to support them and keep them in our prayers. The group’s Facebook page can be seen here:

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

More Mean Green Madness

Bill-MuehlenbergBill Muehlenberg discusses the ugly consequences of radical environmentalism:

Way back in 1982 American sociologist Robert Nisbet remarked that environmentalism has become the third great redemptive movement in human history, following Christianity and Marxism. Indeed it already has its notions of sin, guilt and redemption, its sacred texts and venerated leaders. And like all false religions, radical environmentalism has its share of zealots.

This in part is what Nisbet said about environmentalism in his book Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary:

“‘From the Gospel of Capitalist Efficiency to the Gospel of Utopianism’ would serve very well as subtitle here. It is entirely possible that when the history of the twentieth century is finally written, the single most important social movement of the period will be judged to be environmentalism. Beginning early in the century as an effort by a few far-seeing individuals in America to bring to bring about the prudent use of natural resources in the interest of extending economic growth as far into the future as possible, the environmentalist cause has become today almost a mass movement, its present objective little less than the transformation of government, economy, and society in the interest of what can only be properly called the liberation of nature from human exploitation.

“Environmentalism is now well on its way to becoming the third great wave of redemptive struggle in Western history, the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism. In its way, the dream of a perfect physical environment has all the revolutionary potential that lay both in the Christian vision of mankind redeemed by Christ and in the socialist, chiefly Marxian, prophecy of mankind freed from social injustice.”

Now, thirty years on, this is even far more true. Radical environmentalism has become a pseudo-religion, and this has wide-ranging consequences. Consider three recent news items which clearly speak to this. The first has to do with how “climate change” has become an article of religious belief, and facts and evidence need not get in the way of devotion to the cause.

One news article covers the story as follows: “A global lobby group has distributed a ‘spin sheet’ encouraging its 300 member organisations to emphasise the link between climate change and extreme weather events, despite uncertainties acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. An ‘action pack’ distributed by Global Campaign for Climate Action said members ‘shouldn’t be afraid to make the connection’, despite the sometimes low level of confidence in the official documents of the IPCC.

The action pack, which was produced to coincide with the release of the latest full IPCC report into the link between climate change and extreme weather events, rekindled claims that overstating the case damaged the credibility of the science. ‘What this leaked document shows is again we have groups out there promoting more extreme situations than the report actually warrants because the latest report shows there are degrees of uncertainty,’ said Institute of Public Affairs climate spokesman Tim Wilson. ‘When the claims don’t correlate it undermines the confidence that people can actually have in climate science’.”

Of course this is not the first time the climate alarmists have been caught out playing fast and loose with the truth. And if there is one thing the true believers cannot stand, it is the existence of doubters. Anyone who dares to question the claims of the alarmists is seen as public enemy number one.

But don’t take my word for it. Consider this very frightening report: “Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a ‘sickness’ for which individuals need to be ‘treated’.

“Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that ‘cultural resistance’ to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change ‘must be recognized and treated’ as an aberrant sociological behavior.

“Norgaard equates scepticism of climate change alarmists – whose data is continually proven to be politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate – with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge ‘to racism or slavery in the U.S. South’.”

Wow, talk about radicals who see all sceptics as enemies to be harshly dealt with. But this is not just all theoretical. When the radical activists get their way and get into power, we all can suffer in very practical ways. Those who fall victim to the green totalitarianism pay a very big price indeed.

Consider this story which has just come out of the UK. It demonstrates quite clearly that when green hysteria takes on religious proportions, it means ordinary men and women will suffer big time. An article in the English press begins this way:

“An elderly woman was ordered to find a new GP because the ‘carbon footprint’ of her two-mile round trips to the surgery where she had been treated for 30 years was too large. Avril Mulcahy, 83, was told to address the ‘green travelling issues’ over her journeys from her home in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, to the West Road Surgery. The surgery wrote to Mrs Mulcahy, telling her to register with a new GP within 28 days.

“The letter said: ‘Our greatest concern is for your health and convenience but also taking into consideration green travelling issues. Re: Carbon footprints and winter weather conditions, we feel it would be advisable for patients to register at surgeries nearer to where they live. We would be very grateful if you could make the necessary arrangements to re-register at another practice.’

“Mrs Mulcahy, a grandmother, believes the decision was made because she complained about a doctor. ‘When I read through the letter, I found it absolutely ridiculous they were saying the reason was to decrease their carbon footprint,’ she said. “I have been a patient at the practice for 30 years now, and there has never been any problem. ‘To be treated like this, just because I live too far away or for what I feel is a reaction to my complaint, is disgraceful. It feels like they are just coming up with an excuse to get rid of me’.”

The green jackboots are out, stomping on anyone who will not comply with the tenets of the new green religion – even 83-year-old grandmothers. This is but one example of how radical green ideology is resulting in a new tyranny and the smothering of human freedom.

Environmental concern is always a good thing, if not taking to extremes and turned into a humanistic religion. But sadly we are now seeing that happen all over the Western world. As Nisbet warned three decades ago, this will only result in ugly coercive utopianism – all in the name of saving the planet of course.

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

The War On Media Freedom

Bill-MuehlenbergBill Muehlenberg comments on proposed changes to restrict freedom of speech in Australia:

The Australian Labor/Green government has proven to be no friend of freedom. Along with the various Labor state governments, we have seen many freedoms being whittling away. All sorts of legislation, such as vilification laws, anti-discrimination laws, and so on, have all taken their toll on freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.

Now things are set to get a whole lot worse. The government has just released some proposals, based on a 400-page report by former leftist judge Ray Finkelstein. It wants to seek draconian powers to clamp down on the media, including even such things as blog sites and Facebook. Bloggers such as Andrew Bolt and myself for example could be directly targeted and silenced.

A report in the Weekend Australian makes for frightening reading. It begins this way:

“Print and online news will come under direct federal government oversight for the first time under proposals issued yesterday to create a statutory regulator with the power to prosecute media companies in the courts.

“The historic change to media law would break with tradition by using government funds to replace an industry council that acts on complaints, in a move fiercely opposed by companies as a threat to the freedom of the press. The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.

“Bloggers and other online authors would also be captured by a regime applying to any news site that gets more than 15,000 hits a year, a benchmark labelled ‘seriously dopey’ by one site operator. The head of the review, former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein, rejected industry warnings against setting up a new regulator under federal law with funding from government.

“The major newspaper companies were unanimous in opposing a statutory regulator under federal law, with Kerry Stokes’s Seven West Media declaring it was inconsistent with the notion of a free press. Media companies also warned that government funding for the new regulator would undercut the workings of a healthy democracy, with APN News & Media bluntly opposing any increase in regulation.”

Not surprisingly the Greens are fully in favour of such restrictive and freedom-inhibiting measures: “Greens leader Bob Brown urged the government to establish its new media watchdog so it could enforce standards across print, online, radio and television platforms by the end of the year.”

Now I have not yet read the 400-page report, and it is early days yet. But already many are expressing their concerns. Andrew Bolt for example says this about the 15,000 hits blog concept:

“That comes to just 41 hits a day, which could be racked up by, say, 10 interested people, clicking a few pages each. And what this tiny band write for each other is now to be policed by men from the government, acting on complaints from activists, busybodies and the eagerly aggrieved.

“It’s easy to say that only the guilty need fear the consequences. But who the hell has the right to define ‘guilty’? Since when was free speech a threat – and a bigger threat than controls on it? Can even ‘responsible’ free speech flourish when the process of regulation is the punishment? Already it is easier for me and you to shut up about some subjects than to be forced to justify our statements to a tribunal, generally staffed by people of hostile political views.

“Just this aspect of the report defines for me the essential nature of the Finkelstein inquiry’s bid for ‘control’ of what’s written and broadcast – its gross impertinence, deep intrusiveness and only arbitrarily defined restraint on its passion to control the free speech of others.

“And be warned. In writing even this I have taken a professional risk. In no genuinely free society should I be scared to speak like this. Nor should you. Defend free speech while you still have what’s left.”

Obviously I have some vested interests in all this. I of course have a blog and it certainly gets more than 15,000 hits a year – way more. So CultureWatch will also be subject to the government censors. The truth is, there exist plenty of secular lefties who would love to see this site permanently shut down, along with many other sites.

If Big Brother gets involved in this process of weeding out politically incorrect speech then we are all in trouble big time. This certainly will be the end of democracy and free speech in Australia. This is of such great concern that already groups have been formed to resist this statist move. One such group is Free Speech Australia which can be found here:

As it says on its homepage:

“Freedom of speech is VITAL for any democracy to function. The right to speak freely without fear of prosecution or government censorship is at the core of our society. Yet freedom of speech in Australia is now under serious threat.

“A government-commissioned report just announced plans to create a multi-million dollar super-regulator to control not just mainstream media in Australia, but websites, private blogs and even Twitter and Facebook as well! Under this proposal, any online site that involves the ‘public dissemination’ of information that gets more than 40 hits a day will be subject to Big Brother censorship and regulation!!!

“Even worse, the SuperRegulator ‘would not have to give reasons for its decisions’ and the decisions ‘would not be subject to appeal.’ This super-regulator is a threat to people on all sides of the political spectrum: This is not a matter or right or left – this is a matter of right and wrong.”

This is very scary stuff indeed; real Big brother stuff – something every one of us should be greatly concerned about, and willing to speak up about before we no longer have the right to speak out.

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

It’s Alien vs Predator

Bill-MuehlenbergBill Muehlenberg gives us his take on the Labor Leadership battle:

In what must be one of the most ugly, most repulsive, most unedifying, and most deplorable public punch-ups in Australian history, we all have to endure the sad saga of two Labor leaders unleashing their fury and venom on each other. What a horrific sight, so much so that even the international press is amazed at this ugly spectacle.

What a wretched debacle the Federal Labor Party has degenerated into. It has simply lost the plot big time. All we are left with here are two colossal egos and power-hungry maniacs seeking to do whatever it takes to gain total control – even it its means destroying the Labor Party (which is fine by me), but more importantly, even if it means destroying the nation.

Both leaders seem hell-bent on laying waste the country and its citizenry, in this vicious, bitter and twisted battle for supremacy. The truth is, most Australians are sick to death of these political games, and most would be sick to death about these two inept, corrupt and contemptible public personas.

This battle is not unlike the Alien vs Predator films. Both creatures were ugly killers and the enemies of humanity. Most film-goers were quite happy to see them destroy each other, instead of destroying more human beings. A pox on both their houses is the common viewpoint on all this.

So too here. Let both these miscreants be consigned to the flames. We want our country back. We want an election, and we want it now. We are fed up with all the lies, the deception, the back-stabbing, the political intrigue, the power trips and the out-of-control egos.

Australia deserves better. What we now have are two megalomaniacs seeking to attain or retain power at all costs. Everything and everyone else can just be damned. They have lost all credibility with the public, and both deserve to be put out of their misery.

If Labor had any brains – and any guts – it would ditch both Julia and Kevin and try to find someone who could guide them through the wilderness here. The truth is, whoever wins the ballot on Monday, neither will be able to rule their own party, let alone take on the Coalition.

Both are dead meat now, and both will just continue to be a major liability in the days ahead – regardless of who gets the nod. Both are dead men walking, and Labor must be brain-dead to think that either one is going to save the day for Labor, and win the next federal election.

 This is a completely dysfunctional, divided, inept, out of control, and self-destructing political party – perhaps the worst ever in Australian history. No wonder the electorate is so fed up, and is so eager to have an election called immediately.

Of course it is not just Julia and Kevin who have destroyed this party. The rot set in decades ago. It has long ago ceased to be a party of the workers and the common man. Now it is simply a party captured by radical left-wing social engineers. Now it is simply a party driven by factional groups, party hacks, and faceless men.

It is not a democratic political party at all. It is simply a disgrace, and it needs to put up the white flag at once. Of course I might be biased in all this. So don’t take my word for it. Consider what Kim Beazley Sr said back in 1970 at the WA Labor state conference:

“When I joined the Labor Party, it contained the cream of the working class. But as I look about me now all I see are the dregs of the middle class. And what I want to know is when you middle class perverts are going to stop using the Labor Party as a spiritual spitoon.”

Clearly – and unfortunately – the Labor party did not in the least pay any attention to what Beazley said. Had it taken these words to heart four decades ago, and sought to clean up the mess and get rid of the rot, it might have transformed itself.

But instead it simply went in for more of the same. Thus what we behold today: one of the most frightful, dysfunctional, and inept governments on record. Regardless of who leads this wreck, it is still going down. Why all these political experts think some rearranging of the furniture is going to fix the problems is beyond me

The iceberg was struck decades ago, water has been pouring in at an alarming rate, and no cosmetic changes will fix anything. No leadership changes will fix anything. This is a culture of corruption. As such, radical sickness requires radical surgery.

A cancer-ridden body is not going to be healed by tinkering on the surface with bandaid solutions. Immediate and radical surgery is required. But no one is talking this way. And the joke is, both main contenders keep talking about how unfit Tony Abbott is to lead the country.

These guys must be on some very strong drugs indeed. They are both living in dreamland. This corrupt and broken government is in deep trouble, yet no one wants to admit it. Everyone else can see it is in terminal condition. Yet these two ego-maniacs keep ignoring reality and keep slugging it out to the bitter end.

It is not looking good for Australia. We need and deserve an election now. We want our country back.

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

Creeping Sharia, Yet Again

Bill-MuehlenbergBill Muehlenberg 

Hot on the heels of my public debate with a leading Muslim last week, plenty more examples of what I warned about in my talk are coming to light. Indeed, there are far too many to choose from, so let me just highlight three examples of how the religion of peace is not quite living up to its own PR.

The first two examples come out of the UK. The first has to do with the very worrying trend of a rise in ‘honour’ crimes. As the Guardian reported this week, women are experiencing a big rise in attacks associated with honour killings and retaliation.

The article begins this way:

“The number of women and girls in the UK suffering violence and intimidation at the hands of their families or communities is increasing rapidly, according to figures revealing the nationwide scale of ‘honour’ abuse for the first time.

“Statistics obtained under the Freedom of Information Act about such violence – which can include threats, abduction, acid attacks, beatings, forced marriage, mutilation and murder – show that in the 12 police force areas for which comparable data was available, reports went up by 47% in just a year.

“The figures, shared with the Guardian by the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro), also reveal that a small number of forces – including four in Scotland – are still not collecting data on how often such violence occurs.

“The 39 police forces that gave Ikwro figures recorded 2,823 incidents in 2010. Ikwro estimates that another 500 crimes in which police were involved were committed in the 13 force areas that did not provide data. But this is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, campaigners say, as so many incidents go unreported because of victims’ fears of recriminations.”

The article also contains the story of one such poor woman:

“When I was 16 my mum came into my room one day and said I had to get married to my cousin in Pakistan. I was horrified: I wanted to go to college and get a job, and I didn’t even know him, how could I marry him? But when I said no, my mum slapped me across the face.

“After that I wasn’t allowed out. My family treated me with disgust, as if I had shamed them. My father, mother, even my young brother, beat me on a daily basis. My body was covered in bruises. I wasn’t given any food for days on end, and I tried to take an overdose on several occasions. I just used to sit on my bed from morning to night. Prison would have been a better place.

“After around a month, they let me go out to the doctor. Terrified, I sat in the toilet and called a solicitors’ firm. I’ve not seen my family since that day. A wonderful solicitor got me a place at a refuge and a forced marriage protection order. But I’m still constantly paranoid: I’m always looking over my shoulder. I’ve lost everything. And I’m scared of what will happen if they find me.”

Now unless I have missed something, such honour crimes were never a problem in the UK before. But with the arrival of so many Muslim immigrants, it is becoming a very real problem indeed. And while I cannot enter into detail here, both the Koran and the hadith make it quite clear that such honour killings are an integral part of Islamic ideology.

A second case of creeping sharia and stealth jihad in the UK also took place quite recently. As reported in The Daily Telegraph, a “Christian worker loses her job after being ‘targeted’ by Islamic extremists”. The story opens this way:

A Christian worker has launched a landmark legal action after she lost her job when she blew the whistle on what she says was a campaign of ‘race hate’ by fundamentalist Muslims. Nohad Halawi, who worked at Heathrow Airport, is suing her former employers for unfair dismissal, claiming that she and other Christian staff at the airport were victims of systematic harassment because of their religion.

She claims that she was told that she would go to Hell for her religion, that Jews were responsible for the September 11th terror attacks, and that a friend was reduced to tears having been bullied for wearing a cross. Mrs Halawi, who came to Britain from Lebanon in 1977, worked in the duty-free section as a perfume saleswoman of the airport for 13 years but was dismissed in July.

As I and others have documented, this is not at all uncommon in the UK and in many parts of the West. Special rights and privileges being given to Muslims are resulting in Christians increasingly being penalised by the law, and losing their jobs and their rights.

Instead of real integration where everyone is treated equally, we have instead segregation and apartheid, where some are more equal than others. And of course this is all one way traffic. Christians in Muslim-majority nations never experience such preferential treatment – quite the opposite.

Lastly, a story of an Australian unlucky enough to be in Saudi Arabia. The sad tale goes this way:

The Federal Government will ‘urgently’ seek leniency after a Shepparton man was sentenced to a year in jail and 500 lashes in Saudi Arabia for religious offences.

Father-of-five Mansor Almaribe, 45, was charged with blasphemy last month while participating in the Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Shiite Muslim was initially sentenced to two years in jail and 500 lashes but then reduced the sentence to one year and 500 lashes.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade today said the Australian ambassador had been in touch with Saudi authorities and was providing consular assistance to Mr Almaribe’s family. ‘The Ambassador will urgently pursue avenues for leniency with relevant authorities,’ a spokeswoman said. Mr Almaribe faced the death penalty after he was accused of insulting the companions of the prophet Muhammad under the country’s blasphemy laws.

Ah, the religion of peace strikes again. The truth is, there is no freedom of religion in Islam, and there is no freedom of conscience. The only freedom is one-directional: people are free to convert to Islam, but they most definitely are not free to leave Islam. The penalty for such “apostasy” is death.

Islam is a political ideology and a totalitarian religion, which brooks no dissent, questioning or difference of opinion. Those who dare to question The Prophet or the Koran are regarded as traitors who must be silenced. Islam will never be compatible with Western freedoms and democracy

As Mark Gabriel, former lecturer of Islamic History at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt recently wrote, “The war today is between seventh-century Islamic culture and twenty-first-century modern culture. These cultures are incompatible. They cannot coexist because the values of one violate the values of the other.”

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

Whatever happened to the separation of mosque and state?

Bill-MuehlenbergBill Muehlenberg 

OK, I was wrong. I have complained about the war against Christianity and how the secular state is squeezing it out of every part of the public arena. I have noted how the iron wall between church and state has resulted in Christians becoming second class citizens in their own Western nations.

But one counter-example has just appeared, so I guess I was wrong. It seems there is hope yet. It appears that there is a Melbourne Council which is actually using tax monies to fund Christian outreach and evangelism. So I guess the secular crusade against Christianity is not so bad after all. Indeed, read for yourself what the Darebin Council is advertising:

"Darebin Christians Reaching Out – Project Officer…

An opportunity exists within the Community Planning Partnerships and Performance Department for a motivated Project Officer. This is a temporary, full-time (38 hrs per week) position….

You will be responsible for implementing the Jesus Peace – Darebin’s Christian Reaching Out project, funded by the Federal Attorney General’s department.

You will be responsible for: 

• Working in partnership with the Christian Society of Victoria to strengthen its role and effectiveness in organising events, dealing with the media, resolving conflicts, and managing stakeholders 
• Developing and implementing activities that assist the Christian Society of Victoria to dispel myths and misconceptions about Christianity and Christians 
• Organising a series of seminars and events around interfaith and intercultural dialogue targeting community members to learn about Christianity and its practices."

Well, I guess there is hope after all for our secular society that the state and Christianity can peacefully co-exist and work together. I guess the wall of separation between church and state is not as bad as I had previously thought. Wow, that is such a relief…


Oh, sorry, I just went back and reread that ad, and I actually made a minor mistake. All of the above information is completely true, but I misread ‘Islam’ for ‘Christianity’, and ‘Muslim’ for ‘Christian’. Hey, my mistake. So simply replace every Christian term in that ad with a Muslim term, and you will in fact have the real story.

So the Darebin Council is actually funding an evangelistic outreach with our tax dollars, but it is not Christian outreach, but Muslim dawah (mission). The Islamic Council of Victoria will get our big bucks, and you and I will be happily subsidising Islamic outreach in Melbourne and beyond. Aren’t you glad to know your tax dollars are going to such a vital cause?

Gee, for a moment there a few of you thought a ghastly thing was occurring: public monies being spent on Christian evangelism. Well, I am so glad I discovered my mistake. We can all now rest assured that Christianity will receive not one penny of taxpayers’ money. The strict separation of church and state will be fiercely maintained and enforced.

At least when it comes to Christianity. Evidently when it comes to Islam, our secular lefty Councils (and Federal Government) have absolutely no problem with cosy cooperation. I guess in our multiculti society, Christians dare not raise their heads in public, but we can all subsidise Islamic outreach, bringing mosque and state into real close alignment.

It is such a relief knowing that our vigilant secularists have not slipped up here. They are still fully committed to maintaining their policy of ugly anti-Christian bigotry. Maybe if Christians just changed their names to Muslims, they too could be the recipient of all this government help and promotion, and all those cool tax dollars.

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

Our Censors At Work, Again

Bill-MuehlenbergBill Muehlenberg looks at the smears against Senator Cory Bernardi proposing to bring Geert Wilders to speak:

Sack him! Kick him out of the Party! This is an outrage! No political party should allow such contemptible behaviour! He must be disciplined at once! Dump this creep! Wow, so what are all these frenzied calls all about? Are we finally getting serious about that Labor Party sleaze character, Craig Thomson and his prostitution scandal?

I wish. Instead we have something apparently much more horrendous. You see, a Liberal Senator actually wants to bring a freedom fighter to speak here. Someone who has taken a courageous stand for freedom, and who has warned about the very real dangers of the Islamists, and their war against the West.

I refer to Senator Cory Bernardi (SA) and his proposal to bring Dutch politician and defender of freedom, Geert Wilders to speak here. This has got Labor and its sycophantic MSM supporters in an uproar. 

So let me see if I got this straight: Labor and the MSM think ugly sex scandals involving Labor MPs are just fine, but daring to allow freedom of speech and a warning to the West about jihad by stealth is beyond the pale. Talk about inverted values and a sickness of the soul.

Note how the Melbourne Age introduces this story: “Ultra-conservative Liberal senator Cory Bernardi has provoked outrage by offering to help controversial anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders during his visit to Australia.”

“Ultra-conservative”? Gee, he sounds like he must be a Nazi. I wonder why the Age never calls a lefty an “ultra-radical”. Only conservatives it seems are ultra. So what makes him so evil? Well, he is pro-faith, pro-life, and pro-family. That makes anyone an evil Nazi who should obviously be crucified, in the eyes of the leftist controlled MSM.

“Provoked outrage”? Who’s outraged? Why only the Age, the Labor Party, and all the assorted hangers-on of the far left. Sure they are outraged. They are always outraged. But ordinary Australians? I don’t think so.

And what about this Wilders dude? He too must be a horrible Nazi who should be put away. What is his beef? Well, as it turns out, he is one of our most courageous fighters for freedom, and a real beacon of hope in a lost West which has surrendered to creeping sharia.

He has been one of the few men to stand up and be counted when it comes to the disintegration of the West and the onslaught of imperialistic Islamism. Not many leaders have been brave enough to stand up and be counted here. But he has. So that makes him Public Enemy Number One for the loony left.

Thanks for alerting us to these two evil character, Labor and the MSM; so nice of you to alert us to their hideous agendas. And so good of you to censor these men and their views. We wouldn’t want people to be able to think for themselves and make up their own minds on this now would we?

It is so reassuring to know that our lily white Labor Party (which is ever tinted with evil or corruption) and the Big Brother MSM are there to look after us, preventing any dangerous ideas from getting free circulation in our land. Boy we sure can be thankful for those watchdogs in the Labor party and at theAge.

We can all sleep so much better tonight knowing that these folks we never allow Wilders to enter this country and pollute us with his ideas. It is so nice of them to keep our thinking pure and untainted by their evil ideas. And we can be thankful that we have a means by which we can deal with dangerous Senators like Bernardi.

Yes, sack him at once, and for good measure, put him is a re-education camp, and throw away the keys, until he has renounced his crimes against humanity and has finally conformed to the dictates of the State. It is for his own good, you know, to reprogram him. He is much too dangerous as is at the moment, what with his willingness to speak his mind and resist conforming to the intelligentsia.

Clearly both of these evil creatures are guilty of despicable hate crimes. Censorship is the only obvious response. Perhaps locking both up in concentration camps would also be appropriate. We just don’t want such free thinkers to pollute our land and harm our citizens.

Consider also how the Age decided that Geert and Cory are to be identified with terrorists, while Islam is to be seen as having absolutely nothing to do with terrorism: “Islamic Council of Victoria secretary Sherene Hassan said it was deplorable that an elected politician from a major political party was cosying up to the European far right. ‘Especially given the tragic terrorist attacks that took place in Norway recently. Is this the future direction of the Liberal Party?’ she said.”

There you have it folks. Did the Age allow a counter viewpoint? Did it seek to mitigate this outlandish inference? No way bub. What we have here is a complete inversion. Islam is now the religion of peace, while those who speak out and share their concerns are the real terrorists.

The Herald Sun was not much better here: “Mr Wilders, 48, has faced accusations of racial vilification for his hostile views on Islam”. And why did the HSnot inform us that the Dutch courts have acquitted him of these trumped up charges? So the SMS is again happy to create false impressions, and we are left to believe that to show concern about Islam is to make one guilty of the evil of “vilification”. Whoa – evil!

Since the MSM is simply attempting to do a hatchet job on both of these men, while becoming an apologist for Islam, it is up to other voices in the alternative media to seek to provide a bit of truth in this matter. Indeed, I have already written about Wilders on several occasions. Since the Age and HSreaders will not get to know just who he is and what he really stands for, I refer you to these pieces for starters:

And Cory Bernardi has been an excellent defender of freedom, faith and family. Which is why the MSM hates his guts, and why Labor wants him banished for good. What an ugly and sick bunch these guys are in the Labor Party and the MSM.

If there is ever any lingering question as to why websites like this exist, there is your answer. This is the sort of nonsense we have to put up with every day from these outfits. No wonder Labor is on the nose and the MSM is in big decline all around the Western world. They are both well and truly past their use-by dates.

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch