Australia: Victoria’s ‘Anti-Conversion’ Law Passes in Upper House

-- Royal assent secured; law will come into effect on 16 Feb 2022.

The Victorian state government’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill passed in the Legislative Council on the evening of 4 February 2021.  

Despite a lengthy debate, the world’s most repressive LGBTQ+ anti-conversion bill passed without amendments, 27 votes in favour and 9 against. The nine opposing votes came from 7 of 12 crossbenchers, and 2 of 11 opposition members. 

While the Bill’s focus is sexual orientation and gender identity, its similarity to religious anti-conversion laws in Hindu nationalist India and throughout the Muslim world is remarkable. In much the same way, Victoria’s anti-conversion law will ensure that LGBTQ+ identity is essentially a one-way street and procuring conversions is banned. 

If Victoria continues along this trajectory then the next step may well be a law against “blasphemy” (to criminalise criticism of LGBTQ+ ideology) and/or the mandatory registration of state-approved, ideologically compliant churches and clergy.

Text of Bill (pdf)
Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 

Excerpt: (from pages 7-8)

Meaning of change or suppression practice 

(1) In this Act, a change or suppression practice means a practice or conduct directed towards a person, whether with or without the person's consent— 

     (a) on the basis of the person's sexual orientation or gender identity; and 

     (b) for the purpose of— 

          (i) changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity of the person; or 

          (ii) inducing the person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a practice or conduct is not a change or suppression practice if it— (a) is supportive of or affirms a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation . . .

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a practice includes, but is not limited to the following— 

     (a) providing a psychiatry or psychotherapy consultation, treatment or therapy, or any other similar consultation, treatment or therapy; 

     (b) carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism; 

     (c) giving a person a referral for the purposes of a change or suppression practice being directed towards the person. 

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), a practice or conduct may be directed towards a person remotely (including online) or in person.

-----------
For further background and analysis see:
Victoria, Australia: the church of LGBTIQ+’s war against ‘apostasy’
By Elizabeth Kendal, Religious Liberty Monitoring, 26 January 2021.
-----------

That the Bill would be approved was all but certain. Holding 18 seats in the 40 seat Upper House, the ruling Labor government only needed the votes of three crossbenchers to secure passage of the Bill. This was all but guaranteed, with the Bill receiving strong support from crossbenchers Samantha Ratnam of the Greens, Fiona Patton of the Reason Party (formerly known as the Sex Party), and the Animal Justice Party’s Andy Meddick, the proud father of two transgender children (a son who is now a daughter and a daughter who is now a son). 

On 16 February, the Victorian governor the Honourable Linda Dessau AC, gave the Bill her royal assent. The Bill will come into effect on 16 February 2022. 

Once the law is enacted, anyone found trying to suppress or change another person’s sexuality or gender identity will face a fine of up to $10,000 and/or a prison term of up to 10 years if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that their actions caused serious “serious injury” as defined by section 15 of the Crimes Act 1958: i.e. “an injury [to physical or mental health] (including the cumulative effect of more than one injury) that endangers life; or is substantial or protracted.”   

The Family Violence Protection Act will now be amended to make “conversion therapy” a form of domestic violence. 

BEFORE THE VOTE

In December 2020, former deputy Prime Minister of Australia, John Anderson took to twitter to express his concerns about the Bill. “A law before the Victorian parliament seeking to outlaw parental, therapeutic or religious discussions on issues of sexuality and gender is the biggest threat to our democratic freedoms in Australia’s entire legislative history.”  

A long list of organisations also criticised the Bill, including the Law Institute of Victoria, Australian Medical Association, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists,  Victorian Women’s Guild, Melbourne Catholic Archdiocese, Islamic Council of Victoria, and the Presbyterian Church of Victoria. 

Law Institute president Tania Wolff said their members were concerned that the bill “may impose limitations on conversations between children and their parents or other family or caregivers on the issue of gender identity or sexual orientation”. (The Australian, 4 Feb) 

Medical professionals expressed concern that the Bill's vague wording, broad scope and harsh penalties could see health professionals fined and/or jailed for giving professional advice that led to a patient choosing not to undergo permanent medical procedures to transition gender. However, Victorian Health Minister Martin Foley dismissed these concerns, describing them as “misplaced” (The Australian, 3 Feb).

In an open letter to Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, Victoria’s Catholic bishops and the President of the Islamic Council of Victoria noted that the bill risks criminalising conversations between children and parents, interfering with sound professional advice, and silencing ministers of religion from assisting some individuals who freely seek pastoral care.

“Unfortunately, this bill doesn’t just ban out-dated and insidious practices of coercion and harm, which we firmly reject,” the letter states. “It includes ill-conceived concepts of faith and conversation, vague definitions, and scientifically and medically flawed approaches. It places arbitrary limitations on parents, families and people of faith.”

The Presbyterian Church of Victoria’s “Church and Nation” committee described the legislation as “a solution in search of a problem”. 

From the Amnesty International Australia graphic:
"Conversion Practices in Australia".
(see RLM 26 Jan 2021)

We might also describe it as a “weapon”, purpose built for “lawfare” against “informal religious practices” that promote notions of “sexual sin” that are “harmful to LGBTQA+ people”, along with the “false ideology that their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender and sexual expression can be changed or suppressed.” 

See: What are Conversion Practices? 
Amnesty International Australia
22 Dec 2020 

As noted by Church and Nation: “The research used for the ‘whole of government LGBTIQ+ strategy’ was heavily skewed. The data was based almost entirely on personal surveys which measure each LGBTIQ+ respondent’s feelings or perceptions that other people treated them with hate or discriminated against them, and their subjective opinion that the perceived hate or discrimination was based on LGBTIQ+ prejudice. There was no indication of any analysis to ensure that their perceptions of “hate or discrimination” were correct, nor was there any indication of any analysis that any discriminatory behaviour was based on LGBTIQ+ prejudice as opposed to any other prejudice.

“There is no evidence that harmful ‘aversion therapy’ has existed in Australia for decades.” 

See: Conversion Therapy Ban, Victoria
URGENT CALL TO ACTION
from the Presbyterian Church of Victoria's Church and Nation committee.
-- includes links to the Victorian Government’s own publications: Whole of Government LGBTQI+ Strategy and Discussion paper on Conversion Therapy Ban legislation.

Only two opposition members – MPs Bev McArthur and Bernie Finn – defied their leader to vote against the Bill. Mr Finn told parliament that while he supported the general principle of banning gay conversion therapy, he could not abide the “bad parts of the bill”. (The Australian, 4 Feb) 

“This bill is an attack on basic freedoms,’ he said, ‘on freedoms of choice, free speech, freedom of assembly and an attack on freedom of religion . . .  If this bill was just what the government said it is [i.e. a law to protect LGBTQ persons from coercive, abusive or involuntary psychological or spiritual practices], there wouldn’t be a problem. But it’s not, it’s a lot more than that. This in its own way is an omnibus bill, and they’ve got a very, very nasty habit of doing this to people, and to the parliament, of putting bills up which are in part acceptable, and in other parts appalling, and this is one of them.” 

In a 31 January 2021 article for the Spectator Australia, crossbencher David Limbrick (Liberal Democrats) – who voted against the Bill – slammed the Bill as “shameful”.

“I have approached this legislation with an open mind – I am not a religious conservative – and sat through many meetings with stakeholders from all sides of the argument. 

“This idea that evil religious people are waiting in the shadows to deny people choices about their own sexuality is an offensive caricature, not just to faith leaders, but to millions of people quietly practising their religions.  

“What’s worse is that there are undertones of anti-religious bigotry. Anyone who thinks this particular brand of bigotry is better than any other kind is kidding themselves.”

AFTER THE VOTE

After the vote, Baptist pastor and blogger Murray Campbell gave voice to the question many Victorians would now be asking: “How can we respond when a Government makes illegal practices that have been part of Christian religion since the beginning of the Church and have their foundation in the teaching and example of Jesus Christ? 

“To be very clear,” Campbell explains, “I am not talking about aversion practices and non-consensual activity that stems from pseudo-science and bad theology. Church leaders including myself have repeatedly spoken against such things and believe they have no place in our churches . . .” 

However, “Among other things, the Conversion Practices Bill criminalises prayer and conversation where one person aims to persuade another that pursuing certain sexual activity or change is not the best course of action. A prayer for sexual abstinence can be considered ‘suppression’ and therefore illegal. Sermons are not targeted in this Bill, although the recently resigned Attorney General, Jill Hennessy, explained in the Parliament that sermons may be included at a later date.” 

What’s more, Campbell reports, “During tonight’s debate, one member of the Legislative Council [Ms Bath] asked the Attorney General [Ms Symes], ‘How will the Government up-skill ministers and pastors so that they know where the line is, [and] what they can and cannot say to people about sexual orientation and gender identity?’ (my [Campbell’s] paraphrase of the question). 

“What a revealing question! The Attorney General indicated that education materials will be made available. In other words, religious people must defer to the Government’s doctrine.”

See: Victoria Bans Conversion Practices Despite Significant Flaws in the Bill
by Murray Campbell, 4 February 2021  

Regarding the answer from Victorian Attorney General Ms Jaclyn Symes MLC, here is the quote from Hansard (p282):  “. . . when this bill is passed, there will be a 12-month implementation period. VEOHRC [Victoria Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission] will be providing education, materials and advice to religious organisations . . .” 

THE WAY FORWARD

As for the way forward, the Moderator-General of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, Rev. Dr. Peter Barnes, issued a statement on the website of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, encouraging the congregations of the Presbyterian Church of Australia not to be deterred from the obligation to proclaim “the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26-27).”

“We are obliged before God,” he writes, “to preach all that He has revealed to us, whether law or gospel, and to do so in a spirit of love and truth.

“There is nothing unique in such legislation. When King Darius exceeded his God-given authority, Daniel did ‘as he had done previously’ (Dan. 6:10). 

“It is our task to keep on keeping on, to proclaim and to live out so far as we can the gospel of Christ which has been entrusted to us.”

AMEN

---------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth Kendal is an international religious liberty analyst and advocate. She serves as Director of Advocacy at Canberra-based Christian Faith and Freedom (CFF) and is an Adjunct Research Fellow at the Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology.

She has authored two books: Turn Back the Battle: Isaiah Speaks to Christians Today (Deror Books, Melbourne, Australia, Dec 2012) which offers a Biblical response to persecution and existential threat; and After Saturday Comes Sunday: Understanding the Christian Crisis in the Middle East (Wipf and Stock, Eugene, OR, USA, June 2016).

See www.ElizabethKendal.com

Victoria, Australia: The Church of LGBTQ+’s War Against “Apostasy”

by Elizabeth Kendal

When the Victorian parliament returns on 2 February, one of the first issues to be decided will be the fate of the government’s unprecedented and far-reaching Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020.  

If passed, the Bill will – in the words of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews – ensure that “cruel and bigoted practices that seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity will be stamped out across Victoria”. 

SEE: Premier of Victoria, the Hon. Daniel Andrews 
Banning Cruel Conversion Practices For Good
Press release 25 Nov 2020 

The “cruel and bigoted practices” to be “stamped out” include both formal (e.g. professional counselling) and informal (e.g. prayer) therapies and practices. The Bill will make it a criminal offence to engage such practices even if they have been requested. 

According to the Premier, these “therapies” -- which he insists “are based on false ideology” -- are nothing but “the worst form of bigoted quackery imaginable”.  

The Bill – which was introduced to the Victorian parliament on 25 November 2020 – passed the Victorian Legislative Assembly (lower house) on Thursday 10 December, the final parliamentary sitting day of the year 2020. 

The opposition put forward an amendment, to pause the Bill so as to enable consultation over the summer break. When that failed, the opposition, opting to boycott the vote, rose and left the chamber. 

All 55 MPs remaining in the chamber voted in favour of the Bill. 

The Bill empowers the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to investigate reports of conversion and suppression practices. Criminal penalties of up to 10-years in prison will apply.  

The Bill is now before the Legislative Council (upper house) where its fate will soon be decided. 

Regardless of Council’s decision, we can be certain that the Church of LGBTIQ+’s war against apostasy has only just begun.

A TROJAN HORSE FOR ACTIVISM

In commentary for The Australian (26 January), columnist Nick Cater refers to the Bill as “an ugly law that purports to prohibit gay conversion therapy.” 

Yet, as Cater notes, “the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill is not primarily intended to outlaw a practice that almost every Victorian would abhor. It is a Trojan horse for activism of the most insidious kind. It is an attack on freedom of religion and parental rights by activists who regard the very existence of categories of sex and sexuality to be oppressive.

“To call upon the laws of biology when counselling a gender-confused teenager or to suggest they might want to think again before declaring war on their bodies will become a criminal act. The role of doctors, psychiatrists, priests and parents will be reduced to applying a rubber stamp”.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA

The Bill has strong backing from Amnesty International (AI) Australia, as well as from the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Change Efforts (SOGICE) Survivors group. In fact, SOGICE Survivors created a graphic for AI which outlines how churches go about attempting to “convert” LGBTIQ+ individuals through informal means, including preaching, conversations and prayer. [Graphic – 9 slides, full size.] 

According to Amnesty International: “This model [as outlined in the graphic] represents some of the common experiences of modern survivors of conversion practices. The manifestations of the conversion movement are broad and can include children, healthcare professionals and paid services. However, these are extremely rare in Australia. To be truly effective, legislation must also address these far more prevalent experiences of the ‘modern survivor’ outlined in the graphic”.

AGENDA TO SILENCE PEOPLE OF FAITH

Contrary to the premier’s press release, faith leaders were not consulted. Indeed, many are shocked by what they see as massive over-reach by a government clearly hostile to Christianity. 

In his opinion piece published in The AGE (14 Dec 2020), Barney Zwartz – former religion editor of The Age from 2002 to 2013, now a senior fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity – gave voice to the legitimate concerns of religious leaders. 

“Most Victorian churches are intensely concerned about legislation the state government is rushing through Parliament without consultation to ban so-called conversion therapy to change sexual orientation. It is not that the churches practise or defend any form of coercive conversion therapy; the problem is the massive overreach of the bill and the State arrogating to itself wide control over the religious beliefs and practices of religious believers.

“No faith leaders were allowed to see the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill (2020) before it was introduced to Parliament, and the Attorney-General, Jill Hennessy, has declined to meet church representatives herself.

“Many Christians – and people of other faiths – fear there is a broader agenda at work by a state government more hostile to Christianity than its predecessors. . . They fear the bill may hide an agenda to silence people of faith.

“And not only believers. Thanks to the broad-brush approach, this legislation might unintentionally intrude on rights and freedoms that are precious to everyone. . . 

“I emphasise,” writes Zwartz, “that the churches do not want to be a source of harm to vulnerable people, and it is clear that, sadly, in some cases that has happened, that people have suffered psychological and spiritual damage. A meeting of leaders of Victorian churches last Wednesday unanimously supported the intention of the bill to protect vulnerable people from coercive practices.

“Yet, so far as I am aware, the number of coercive conversion therapy cases historically in Victoria is tiny, certainly not enough to justify legislation of this magnitude.

“The text of the legislation is troubling, interfering as it does with Christian practices of prayer, conversion, Christian formation, spiritual accompaniment, family and church life, and the ability of individuals to seek advice or counselling to make their own decisions.

“Frankly, should someone actively wish to change their orientation, or to seek advice about practising celibacy, or any private matter of conscience, it is none of the government’s business.

“If a married adult is struggling with sexuality and asks for prayer so s/he can contain sexual expression to the marriage, are people praying for them guilty of a 'change or suppression practice'? What if a polyamorist is advised to stay faithful in a marriage but decides this advice has damaged him? The bill explicitly says these prohibitions are regardless of consent, or the desires of the subject.

“What if a pre-pubescent child requests gender-reassignment treatment, but the parents, who know and love that child, encourage him or her to wait and see if their feelings change? Are the parents guilty of a 'change or suppression practice'? That certainly seems a possible interpretation of the legislation.

“Further, the definition of sexual orientation has been amended extraordinarily broadly. . .

“Astute observers have also noted that the bill (under Section 57) requires an independent reviewer – chosen by the Attorney-General, so a political appointment – who must consider the need for a redress scheme. That raises the stakes.

“The penalties under the bill are severe, including imprisonment. The government wants to suggest that not much is changing but, with the bill as it is, that is clearly untrue. . .”

THE BILL IS EVERY BIT AS BAD AS PEOPLE SAY IT IS

John Steenhof appeals to church leaders.
source: Australian Christian Lobby

John Steenhof is the Managing Director and Principal Lawyer at the Human Rights Law Alliance. Working in partnership with the Australian Christian Lobby, Steenhof has issued appealed to church leaders, urging them to raise their voice. 

“Now let’s be clear;” he says, “no-one supports aversion therapies, where pain or nausea are used to deal with unwanted sexual attraction. These practices are abusive and rightfully consigned to the dustbins of history.

“But the Victorian Conversion Bill goes much farther than just targeting coercion. This bill is overly broad and fundamentally flawed. If it passes unchallenged you will face coercion, investigation, monitoring, re-education, potential fines and jail time just for promoting the teachings of the Bible.

“Hostile activists will be empowered to take complaints, and to weaponise the Victorian Human Rights Commission against religion and against churches. Pastors, priests, and ministers are under threat. The Bill targets religious practices and prayer specifically; and a pastor who would preach that God’s plan for those who are not married is celibacy could find the cops on their doorstep. 

“Ordinary Christians could be investigated if they have prayed for change with someone who is experiencing unwanted sexual feelings. Parents who do not affirm a child’s gender confusion could also face questions. 

“The Bill also targets the many members of the LGBTIQ+ community who themselves have benefited from spiritual guidance and have seen changes in their lives. This Bill will be fundamental breach of their human rights to live the way that they want, to seek the treatment that they want. It removes their support during a very vulnerable time.

“This Bill will criminalise a traditional Biblical sexual ethic . . .”

Law professor Neil Foster has done an enormous amount of work, analysing and following the progress of the Bill. He warns that it is “every bit as bad as people say it is!” 

“The Bill,” he explains, “creates a powerful set of bureaucratic mechanisms by which religious groups presenting the classic teachings of their faith may be subject to investigation and ‘re-education’ by human rights officers. It arguably makes the presentation of some aspects of Biblical teaching unlawful if the aim of that teaching is to encourage someone to follow that teaching in their own life. Despite the appearance of addressing horrific and oppressive quasi-psychological procedures inflicted on young people, the Bill goes well beyond this laudable goal, and will make it unlawful to provide assistance in obeying the Bible to those who explicitly and with full understanding request such help”. 

UPDATE:
The Institute for Civil Society has produced an excellent paper entitled Problems and Proposed Amendments: Victoria’s ‘Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020’.

Quotes: "Compared with all other ban jurisdictions, the Victorian Bill would create the broadest and harshest ban in the world."

"The Victorian Bill has the harshest criminal penalties of any legislation in the world – for 'change or suppression' conduct causing psychological harm 5 years’ imprisonment or a $100,000 fine or for serious psychological harm 10 years imprisonment or a $200,000 fine. Most other laws provide for at most 1 years’ imprisonment." 

------------------------------------------

Elizabeth Kendal is an international religious liberty analyst and advocate. She serves as Director of Advocacy at Canberra-based Christian Faith and Freedom (CFF) and is an Adjunct Research Fellow at the Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology.

She has authored two books: Turn Back the Battle: Isaiah Speaks to Christians Today (Deror Books, Melbourne, Australia, Dec 2012) which offers a Biblical response to persecution and existential threat; and After Saturday Comes Sunday: Understanding the Christian Crisis in the Middle East (Wipf and Stock, Eugene, OR, USA, June 2016).

See www.ElizabethKendal.com 

Australia: same-sex marriage debate heats up

By Elizabeth Kendal

Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd has shifted his position on same-sex marriage. As reported by The Australian (21 May 2013): "Kevin Rudd has thrown his support behind gay marriage as an important social reform for the nation, in a dramatic reversal of his long-held public position.

"After what he calls a difficult personal journey, the former Labor prime minister says he has concluded the secular Australian state should recognise same-sex marriage, while religious institutions should be legally allowed an exemption maintaining their historic position that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman."

What MP Rudd is not talking about is that the legalisation of same-sex marriage requires a change to the definition of "marriage" in the Marriage Act -- and that would have enormous, wide-reaching implications.

In the United Kingdom, in March 2012, a Home Office official asked the Department for Education (DfE) whether schools have a legal responsibility to teach about marriage, and how the introduction of same-sex unions would affect this.

According to the Daily Mail (2 July 2012): "Officials at the Home Office and the Department for Education concede that teachers may be under a legal obligation to inform children about same-sex marriage once it has passed into law.

"Under the Education Act 1996, pupils must learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life in sex education classes. . .

"Tory MP David Burrowes questioned whether schools will be able to exercise discretion on the subject. 'The issue of same-sex marriage is not just one about equality, but what happens in our school classrooms as well,' he said. 'Teachers should be able to exercise their consciences according to their own views on marriage, but that could well be constrained by these proposals. As much as I am sceptical about the Government being able to exempt churches from conducting same-sex marriages, I also doubt whether it will be possible to construct exemptions for teachers. They would be open to legal challenges.'

"Colin Hart, campaign director at the Coalition for Marriage, said: 'Marriage appears more than 3,000 times in law, affecting every aspect of our lives. It is simply impossible to redefine it without many serious unintended consequences, not least forcing schools to teach children about gay marriage, even if this goes against the wishes of the parents, children and teachers.'"

According to a senior lawyer, QC Aidan O'Neill, if British law is extended to include same-sex unions, then schools will be forced to promote same-sex marriage to their pupils, and parents with traditional and religious views who oppose same-sex unions, will be "hard-pressed" to remove their children from the classes.

It should also be noted that  the UK's Equalities and Human Rights Commission has deemed religious liberty a "qualified right" which "the state can interfere with" in some circumstances.  The equality regulator has ruled that whilst employees working in the public sector -- specifically marriage registrars, teachers and chaplains -- should be free to express their views on marriage without being disciplined they are not free to "opt out" of duties because of religious beliefs. In other words, religious beliefs will not be accommodated.

A survey has revealed that whilst 74,000 British teachers (17 percent of all teachers) said they would teach "the importance" of same-sex marriage (as required) but would not be happy about it, a further 40,000 teachers said they will refuse to teach on "the importance" of same-sex marriage despite knowing they may face disciplinary action or dismissal.

Meanwhile, France has drafted laws to ban the use of the words "mother" and "father" in the civil code, replacing them simply with "parent"; while the U.S. Department of Education is replacing the terms "Mother" and "Father" on student loan forms with the less gender-specific "Parent 1" and "Parent 2".

Redefining marriage would have a huge impact on society. This debate has not even started in Australia yet. Consequently, most people have no idea just how drastic the consequences could be.

--------------------------------

Elizabeth Kendal is the author of
Turn Back the Battle: Isaiah Speaks to Christians Today
(Deror Books, Dec 2012)

THE WEST: heading for "dogmatic tyranny" and "cultural totalitarianism"; UK debates teaching same-sex marriage in schools.

By Elizabeth Kendal

The West today is hurtling down the road towards repressive authoritarianism. For, as Peter Hitchens observes in his fantastic book, The Rage Against God (Zondervan, 2010), "the new anti-theism [that is taking hold in the West] is emphatically not just an opinion seeking its place in a plural society. It is a dogmatic tyranny in the making." (p 206)  

IMPLEMENTING IDEOLOGY

In September 2003, I wrote a Religious Liberty News & Analysis report for the World Evangelical Alliance on Belarus, entitled "Resuscitating the Soviet Machine".

The first part of the posting was devoted to a 27 March 2003 speech by Belarusian dictator Aleksandr Lukashenka, in which he declared: "Ideology for a state is what the immune system is for a living organism. If the immune system grows weaker, any infection, even the slightest one, turns deadly."

Lukashenka maintained that the inculcation of an official state-controlled ideology into the country's citizens was essential in order to protect Belarus from "infection".

To this end, Lukashenka recommended that an "official Belarusian ideology" be taught in schools, universities and workplaces, and promoted through the media and the Orthodox Church. Maintaining that dissidents could not be permitted to hold positions of authority or influence, he advised rectors of both state-run and private universities to get rid of professors and lecturers who oppose government policies or are "wavering" in their opinions regarding the government's course.  "If you do not accept the ideas declared by the government and the president, do not apply to a state university for a job," Lukashenka said explicitly. "Before the end of the year [2003], the state of ideological work in colleges, both state and private, should be changed drastically, or else we are going to lose our youth. I could say the same about vocational schools and general-education schools, especially those in Minsk."

Today when I read reports from the UK (example) and USA (example) of Christian educators, health care professionals, service providers and carers being expelled from their positions and dragged through the courts, I can only think of Lukashenka. For these British and American Christians are not being dismissed, expelled, sued, fined, struck off and closed down because of anything they have done. Rather, it is because of what they could not do: generally they could not affirm that all cultures, beliefs or lifestyle choices are equally good.

No Western state has, as yet, moved Belarusian/Soviet-style to formerly codify to implement an official state ideology. However, it is clear that forces with ideological agendas are comprehensively and aggressively yet subversively leading the West in that direction. Their success can be attributed to skilful organisation and propaganda with savvy use of media; and most critically, their devious hijacking of human rights.

Unless there is an awakening and returning, then the day will surely come when the Western world will follow the Belarusian/Soviet model, where no person may qualify for or gain employment as a teacher, professor, nurse, counsellor, doctor, service provider, administrator, supervisor, carer etc, unless they can affirm the official state ideology.

Individuals unable to do so will be deemed unsuitable for certain roles on the grounds that they do not comply with "minimum standards" (example). Institutions that cannot sign up to the state ideology -- something that will doubtless be determined through a registration process -- will likewise be penalised. At the very least they will lose government funding. At worst, they will be deemed illegal and forced to close or move "underground".

To justify the repression, dissenters will be vilified: made the objects of mockery, slander, vitriol and outright disinformation. This in turn will trigger an escalation in crippling discrimination and increasingly violent persecution. And if protecting the human rights of those vilified as backward, hateful, everythingaphobic dissenters is ever deemed politically unviable, then impunity will become the order of the day.

---------------------------------

UK debates teaching same-sex marriage in schools

E-mails between the Home Office and the Department of Education suggest that teaching materials may have to be rewritten to cover same-sex marriage if the law changes to recognise same-sex marriage.

Anna Davis, Education Correspondent for the London Evening Standard reports:  "In March a Home Office official asked the Department for Education whether schools have a legal responsibility to teach about marriage, and how the introduction of same-sex unions would affect this.

"The DfE responded: 'Under section 403 of the Education Act 1996, the Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools, they learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, there may be a need for the Sex and Relationships Education  guidance to include some additional material in respect to same-sex marriage.' "

James Chapman, reports for the Daily Mail (UK): "Officials at the Home Office and the Department for Education concede that teachers may be under a legal obligation to inform children about same-sex marriage once it has passed into law.

"Under the Education Act 1996, pupils must learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life in sex education classes. . .

"Tory MP David Burrowes questioned whether schools will be able to exercise discretion on the subject. 'The issue of same-sex marriage is not just one about equality, but what happens in our school classrooms as well,' he said. 'Teachers should be able to exercise their consciences according to their own views on marriage, but that could well be constrained by these proposals. As much as I am sceptical about the Government being able to exempt churches from conducting same-sex marriages, I also doubt whether it will be possible to construct exemptions for teachers. They would be open to legal challenges. Is the Government really going to order primary school teachers to go against the views of the churches that run them?'

"Colin Hart, campaign director at the Coalition for Marriage, said: 'Marriage appears more than 3,000 times in law, affecting every aspect of our lives. It is simply impossible to redefine it without many serious unintended consequences, not least forcing schools to teach children about gay marriage, even if this goes against the wishes of the parents, children and teachers.' "

According to a senior lawyer, QC Aidan O'Neill, if the law is extended to include same-sex unions, then schools will be forced to promote same-sex marriage to their pupils, and parents with traditional and religious views who oppose same-sex unions, will be "hard-pressed" to remove their children from the classes.

Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern expressed her fears teachers would lose their jobs if they did not want to promote same-sex unions.

Conservative MP Peter Bone has also previously expressed concern for freedom of belief in schools, commenting that: "It is simply inconceivable in today's world where political correctness runs amok in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views.

"Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts . . . discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for 2,000 years.

"And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same-sex marriage? Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers?"

----------------------------------------------------

In a brilliant article entitled, The new intolerance (April 2012) -- an article that serves as a perfect introduction to her book, The World Turned Upside Down (Encounter Books, 2010) -- commentator Melanie Phillip's writes: "Unlike Soviet Communism, the mass movements of today are not so much political as cultural: anti-imperialism and anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, environmentalism, scientism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, libertinism and multiculturalism. These are all not merely quasi-religious movements — evangelical, dogmatic, fanatical and with enforcement mechanisms ranging from demonisation to expulsion in order to stamp out any heresies. They are also millenarian and even apocalyptic in their visions of the perfect society and what needs to be swept aside in order to attain it.

". . . With both Communism and fascism defeated, however, the West has fallen victim to a third variation on the theme: not religious or political but cultural totalitarianism.  . . . Moral and cultural relativism are the order of the day. Any attempt to prioritise any culture or lifestyle over any other is illegitimate. Subjective individualism is the one revealed truth, the old order of Western civilisation has to be destroyed and any dissent is to be stamped out. "

Phillips wonders "what causes militant atheists to hate religious belief so much".

For an answer, she looks to the slogan that atheists promoted in 2009: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

"I think this fatuous slogan gets to the heart of why people have turned away from biblical religion," says Phillips. It's "not because it is irrational but because it puts constraints on their behaviour." 

Peter Hitchens concludes his book, Rage Against God, along the same lines. "A new and intolerant utopianism seeks to drive the remaining traces of Christianity from the laws and constitutions of Europe and North America. This time, it does so mainly in the cause of personal liberation, born in the 1960s cultural revolution, and now inflamed into special rage by suggestion that the sexual urge should be restrained by moral limits or that it should have any necessary connection with procreation. This utopianism relies for human goodness on doctrines of human rights derived from human desires . . . These must then be policed by an ever more powerful state." (p 213-214)

In his March 2003 speech, Belarusian president Aleksandr Lukashenka denied that ideology was an invention of the Soviet-era Communist Party. "In Western states, the very system of ideological work is concealed from the general public's eye," he stated. "However, it is as comprehensive and aggressive in Western states as Soviet standards, or even more so."

And he is right!

-----------------------

To follow these issues visit:

UK:
The Christian Institute
Christian Concern
The Christian Legal Centre

USA:
Alliance Defending Freedom (previously known as Alliance Defence Fund), in particular, watch the ADF video (2:36 mins): "In A World Where Marriage Is Redefined Religious Freedom Does Not Survive." (18 June 2012)

Whither America on Religious Freedom?

-- Implementing the OIC's Resolution 16/18 (with updates)
-- USCIRF prepares for closure
-- New foreign policy priority: LGBT Rights

By Elizabeth Kendal

During the week of 12-16 Dec 2011, the US will have two opportunities to either defend OR diminish religious liberty. Religious liberty is already in decline in the US (see Religious Liberty Monitoring, label: USA). But by the end of next week we should know exactly what path the Obama administration intends to take with regard to domestic and international religious liberty policy. Will the tide be turned OR will the Obama administration add momentum to the flow of world forces in this age of escalating persecution? Whither America?


The US and the OIC: implementing UNHRC Resolution 16/18

As I have noted previously, far from being a breakthrough for free speech, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation's (OIC's) new Resolution 16/18, "Combating intolerance . . ." is actually more dangerous than resolution 2005/3, "Combating Defamation of Religion". Indeed, the strategic shift from defamation to incitement actually advances the OIC's primary goal: the criminalisation of criticism of Islam. For, in Resolution 16/18, the OIC has deliberately and strategically adopted the language of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 20.2, which mandates: any advocacy of hatred that "constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".

As The International Islamic News Agency (IINA) reported on 1 Aug 2011, implementation of the resolution will require that domestic and international laws be enacted to prevent the incitement that results "from the continued defamation of religions." In other words, anything that could have been deemed defamation under Resolution 2005/3 will doubtless now be deemed incitement under Resolution 16/18 -- incitement which must be prohibited by law.

The question no one seems to be asking is: What is it that makes some people highly incitable to reactionary violence and destruction?

For full background see: UNHRC Resolution 16/18
By Elizabeth Kendal, Religious Liberty Monitoring, 21 Aug 2011.

The first meeting pursuant of Resolution 16/18 took place in Istanbul on 15 July 2011. The next meeting will be held in Washington from 12-14 December 2011. It will be hosted by the Reverend Suzan Johnson Cook, (profile New York Times) the new US ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.

In July 2010, Foreign Police magazine noted that the Reverend Suzan Johnson Cook's appointment was "welcome but curious". For while the Harlem-born Johnson Cook (54) has an impressive, indeed phenomenal, resume -- particularly in urban evangelistic and pastoral ministry -- she has no experience at all in religious liberty or foreign policy.

I would suggest that when it comes to dealing with the propaganda and religio-political strategies that threaten religious liberty both domestically and internationally, then lack of religious liberty background puts the cause of religious liberty at a serious disadvantage. A cynic might even question whether this was exactly why Rev Johnson Cook -- described by the New York Times as "Billy Graham and Oprah rolled into one" -- was appointed.

Concerning the forthcoming US-OIC meeting, Judson Berger of FOX News notes: "Critics describe the get-together . . . as a Trojan horse for the long-running OIC push for restrictions on speech.

"A key worry is that the meeting could become a platform for Islamic governments to push for hate-speech laws which, in their most virulent and fundamentalist form, criminalize what they perceive as blasphemy.

"'It's just an astonishingly bad decision,' said Nina Shea, who sits on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and serves as director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom."

See: Free Speech Concerns Ahead of Meeting With Muslim Nations on Religious Tolerance
By Judson Berger for FoxNews, 11 Nov 2011

UPDATE:
D.C. Islamophobia Conference Was a Bad Idea
December 13, 2011 11:19 A.M.
By Nina Shea
QUOTE: Legal and security officials of a delegation which will remain unnamed gave a sweeping overview of American founding principles on religious freedom and how they have been breached time and again in American history by attacks against a broad variety of religious minority groups — including now against Muslims. A raft of current cases were mentioned; America’s relative exemplary and distinctive achievement in upholding religious freedom in an emphatically pluralistic society was not. That same speaker reassured the audience, which was packed with diplomats from around the world, that the Obama administration is working diligently to prosecute American Islamophobes and is transforming the U.S. Justice Department into the conscience of the nation . . .

Across the room, smirking delegates from some of the world’s most repressive and intolerant regimes could be spotted, furiously taking notes.

----------------------------------

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) prepares for closure.

The US International Freedom from Religious Persecution (IFRP) Act 1998 tied international religious freedom to US foreign policy by mandating that sanctions be leveled against regimes deemed to be severe violators of religious liberty. As such, the US IFRP Act caste a veil of protection over many of the world's vulnerable religious minorities by ensuring that dictators had a reason to reign in their most intolerant and belligerent elements.

There is little doubt that the financial crisis of August 2008 robbed the US of her economic leverage, which in turn robbed the US Freedom from International Persecution (US IFRP) Act 1998 of its power. This is why persecution has increased so dramatically since Aug 2008. With the veil of protection stripped away, vulnerable religious minorities are now finding that impunity is the order of the day. And impunity is like fuel to the fires of persecution.

Despite this new reality, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) -- a Commission created by the US IFRP Act -- is still desperately needed. As violent persecution escalates globally, the USCIRF's role in monitoring religious liberty and advising the President, the Secretary of State, the US Congress and indeed the world, is more important than ever.

When impunity is the order of the day, the last thing the persecuted want or need is silence. Indeed, with violent persecution increasing, it is imperative that truth-revealing, hope-inspiring, silence-shattering speech be enabled and magnified, lest the persecuted simple slip from our consciousness into deadly darkness.

Consequently, it is profoundly disturbing that the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) will cease to exist from Friday 16 December 2011 unless funding is reauthorised before then.

See:
USCIRF Announcement
6 December 2011

Dick Durbin May Block Religious Freedom Commission's Renewal to Force Feds to Buy Prison He Wanted for Gitmo Detainees.
Faith McDonnell, 5 Dec 2011

See also (recommended)
Myths about religious freedom abroad
By Felice D. Gaer and Nina Shea, Commissioners on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom - 12 Dec 2011

--------------------------------------------------------

New foreign policy priority: LGBT (Gay) Rights.

On Tuesday 6 December, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, in recognition of International Human Rights Day.

The principle focus of her speech was LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender) Rights.

As this report from Associated Press reveals: "The Obama administration is making gay rights a foreign policy priority as the U.S. government agency monitoring international religious rights [the USCIRF] prepares to close.

Secretary of State Clinton's speech, which has been received with great excitement in the Gay community, has some serious worrying elements. (Transcript)

Excerpts and comments:

"In the 63 years since the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. . . In many places . . . the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured.
[Is this a "Mission Accomplished" statement?]

"Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm. I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] people . . .

"Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs.
[Note: undefined "religious beliefs" are, in and of themselves, deemed to be an obstacle to the human rights of LGBT people.]

"Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights."
[This implies that any religious teaching that conflicts with "human rights" as defined by the UN and "international community" will be rejected as erroneous interpretations, unrepresentative of the faith: i.e. the Islamic fundamentalist teaching that homosexuals should be killed; and the traditional mainline Christian teaching that homosexuals couples are not eligible for marriage which is defined as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.]

"Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings."
[Considering the fact that Mrs Clinton is speaking to a highly diverse audience, what does she mean by "our religion" and "our culture"? Clearly Mrs Clinton is asserting here that all religions and cultures are not only inherently the same, but inherently compassionate and inspirational as well. Of course the dhimmis and dalits of this world -- human beings who want their human rights protected FROM abusive religion and culture -- might disagree.]

"It was not only those who've justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source."
[NOTE: "dignity" is not defined. To one it may mean right to live in peace and security according to the traditional understanding of human rights, while to another, dignity might include the "right" not to be offended, or the "right" not to have your religious or lifestyle choices challenged.]

The following paragraph is especially concerning.

"But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate." (emphasis mine)
[This is a clear, unambiguous warning that laws will soon be enacted to teach us not to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. How long will it be before anti-defamation or anti-incitement laws are enacted that will essentially criminalise all criticism of the LGBT lifestyle? Just as the OIC is seeking to protect and advance Islam, so too is the Gay lobby seeking to protect and advance the homosexual lifestyle -- all in the name of "human rights". But this has nothing to do with human rights. This is authoritarian repression and radical social engineering in the name / under the cover of human rights.]

"This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.

"I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it." (emphasis mine)
[So if the Obama administration fails to reauthorize funding for the USCIRF, then at least we will know where the money is going!]


See also:
Obama, Clinton to World: Stop Gay Discrimination
By Anne Geran, AP National Security Writer
GENEVA, 6 December 2011 (AP)
Quote: The Obama administration bluntly warned the world against gay and lesbian discrimination Tuesday, declaring the U.S. will use foreign assistance as well as diplomacy to back its insistence that gay rights are fully equal to other basic human rights.

Obama Elevates Gay Rights as a Foreign Policy Priority
Dan Robinson, at the White House for Voice of America, 6 Dec 2011

Clinton Says Obama Wants Gay Rights Over Religious Freedom in Key Speech
By Paul Stanley, Christian Post, 7 Dec 2011

COMMENTARY: Obama, Clinton put world on notice over LGBT rights
Ken Williams - Editor in Chief, SDGLN (San Diego Gay & Lesbian News)
7 December 2011

USA: Three more precedent-setting cases of discrimination

It appears we are entering days when Western Christians, like their brothers and sisters in the non-West, will increasingly find their education and employment options greatly limited purely on account of their faith. Only faith that conforms to prescribed government standards will be considered legitimate.

CASE I

On 9 July, the University of Illinois sacked Professor Kenneth Howell -- a respected teacher and Christian who holds 2 masters degrees and 2 Ph.D.s -- after he was accused of "hate speech". Professor Howell, who had been teaching at the University for nine years, offended a student from his class, "Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought".

In an e-mail to students during the spring semester, Professor Howell explained that according to Catholic doctrine, "A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong."
A student complained and the professor was sacked.

See:
Ill. prof. fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in class on Catholicism
ADF urges restoration of Kenneth Howell’s First Amendment rights, teaching position
Alliance Defence Fund, Monday 12 July 2010

Kenneth Howell Firing Reviewed By Univerity of Illinois Faculty: Lecturer Fired for Saying Homosexual Acts are 'Morally Wrong'.
Huffington Post 15 July 2010

ADF issues deadline to reinstate Dr. Kenneth Howell
Examiner, 21 July 2010

US University bars prof for teaching RC beliefs
Christian Institute, 22 July 2010

CASE II

Meanwhile, Jennifer Keeton (24), a graduate student pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University, was being officially warned that she will be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct".

Miss Keeton, a Christian, has been ordered into a "remediation" program. She must undergo "diversity training" and "sensitization". Part of what is required of her is that she attends a Gay Pride parade and write a report on it (presumably it has to be a favourable report).

See:
Augusta State Univ. to counseling student: change your beliefs or get out
ADF attorneys file suit after university officials require counseling student to abandon her beliefs to get a degree
Alliance Defence League, 22 July 2010

Jennifer Keeton in her own words. 22 July 2010

Can a Christian Who Believes Homosexuality Is Wrong Become a Qualified Counselor?
Queerty, 24 July 2010

ASU student says gays have 'identity confusion'
By Stephanie Toone, Staff Writer Augusta Chronicle, 24 Aug 2010

Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed
By Joshua Rhett Miller, FoxNews, 27 July 2010

Keeton is not the first Christian student to be threatened with expulsion purely on the basis of her religious beliefs concerning homosexuality.

UPDATE:
Jennifer Keeton, Anti-Gay Counseling Student Who Refused Remedial Training, Lawsuit Dismissed
Huffington Post: Gay Voices, 27 June 2012


CASE III

On Monday 26 July 2010, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division upheld the expulsion of Christian student Julea Ward, who had been expelled from Eastern Michigan University's counselling program in March 2009 after she respectfully denied instruction to counsel a homosexual man on his homosexual relationship because she could not affirm his homosexual activity.

See:
Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality
By Todd Starnes, FoxNews, 28 July 2010

EMU officials: Change your beliefs or leave the Counseling Program
YouTube interview 3 Aug 2009

EMU sued for booting student over views on gays
By Justin Miller, the Michigan Messenger, 7 April 2009

ADF to appeal ruling that allows Eastern Michigan U. to expel Christian students for holding to beliefs
University banished graduate counseling student for not affirming homosexual behavior
27 July 2010 (article contains a link to the court's decision.)

The court ruled against the plaintiff (Ward) on the grounds that the Amercian Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics requires counselors respect diversity and refrain from discrimination. Referrals cannot be made on the basis of a counsellor's values, although there is an exemption for counsellors not wishing to assist clients seeking euthanasia.

According to the ruling, the "plaintiff had violated the ACA Code of Ethics by imposing her own values on a client, which is 'inconsistent with the counseling goal of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation'." Therefore: "Dismissal from a training program is appropriate 'when those supervisees are unable to provide competent professional services'." (pages 6-8 of court decision)

The Alliance Defence Fund is appealing the ruling.

USA: not immune from Western religious liberty trends

updated 1 July 2010

The principal religious liberty trend of the multicultural West is that religious liberty is disappearing as the traditionally Judeo-Christian culture's Biblical foundations are being excavated. The excavation is integral to the social engineering/renovation project underway aimed at producing a 'post-Christian' culture. Unfortunately, most Christians do not comprehend the implications of this phenomenal strategic shift, and likely will not until the new social order has been consolidated and direct persecution starts to impact them personally.

Christians in the West are losing the right to criticise non-Christian (minority) religions (particularly Islam) and witness to non-Christians (particularly Muslims). They are also losing the right to conscientiously object to new social norms being imposed upon them essentially at the behest of radical feminist and Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender (GLBT) lobby groups.

Just as in non-free states, Western law-makers and law-enforcers claim their interventions are necessary to maintain "peace/harmony" and/or defend "equality" against "intolerant extremist fundamentalisms" (i.e. any ideas contrary to the democratic consensus).

Rattled by the chaos and confusion of cultural collapse (inevitable when culture is robbed of its foundations), Western governments are increasingly resorting to external restraints (authoritarian repression). They are opting for "peace" through appeasement, rather than justice and defence of the constitution through education and rule of law.

To remove contradictions, laws are being amended and reinterpreted, and fundamental concepts are being redefined. Driven by fear of unrest, Western governments are increasingly proving themselves willing to secure "peace" and "harmony" at any cost -- even if the price is loss of liberty. As soon as it appears that intolerant forces might protest, riot or divert their collective vote elsewhere, weak and rudderless Western democracies yield and appease, repressing "divisive" or "provocative" elements at the behest of the most belligerent.

And in a "post-Christian" (as distinct from Judeo-Christian) culture, there is nothing as divisive and provocative as the gospel message and righteousness of Christianity.

USA: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM UNDER THREAT
(2 cases to watch)

NOT ALLOWED: WITNESSING TO MUSLIMS IN DEARBORN

For some 15 years now, the city of Dearborn, in Michigan, USA, has hosted an annual Arab International Festival. (Dearborn is around 30 percent Arab.) Christians (mostly Arab Christians) have been witnessing at the Arabfest for years without any troubles, although it has stirred tensions.

In 2009, on account of complaints, a group called 'Arabic Christian Perspective' (ACP) -- led by Californian Pastor George Saieg, an Arab from the Sudan -- agreed to be confined to a booth. The organisers however, greatly limited ACP's ministry by assigning it a booth at the furthest end of the festival.

Arabic Christian Perspective filed a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in Detroit alleging its rights were violated when Dearborn police told the group its members would not be able to walk freely through the festival's four- to five-block area passing out Christian literature.

ACP's general counsel and Rob Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, believe the case "will shine a light on the grave injustice Christians have experienced in Dearborn. It asks whether Dearborn is a city of tolerant people and fair-minded public officials, or Dearbornistan, a center of dhimmitude where Christians are unwelcome."

Meanwhile, other groups that continued to witness freely at the Arabfest 2009 were harassed and expelled, despite going out of their way to avoid trouble.

See: Arab Festival 2009: Sharia in the US (Youtube)
Acts 17 Apologetics, 30 June 2010

Michigan Police Crack Down on Arab Christians
Opinion by FrontPage Magazine 5 July 2009


This year, on Thursday 17 June 2010, an appeals court overturned the lower court and ruled that George Saieg and the ACP does have the right to distribute Christian literature, but not inside the Arab Festival, only on the perimeter.

On the evening of 18 June, a team from Acts 17 Apologetics Ministries visited the Arabfest. Taking in no Christian literature, Dr. Nabeel Qureshi (the principal apologist) simply wore a t-shirt with the words "Jesus Always Loves You" and waited for curious Muslims to approach him.

Over a period of around 15 minutes, Nabeel had a couple of wonderful conversations before he and his companions -- Paul Rezkalla, David Wood and 18-yr old Afghan convert Miss Negeen Mayel, were arrested by and led away in handcuffs by Dearborn police to cheers and shouts of 'Allahu Akbar'! The four Christians were charged with breaching the peace and held overnight in Dearborn City Jail.

The Acts 17 Apologetics website contains reports, donated photographs, comments and video footage of: 1) the Friday 18 June incident (also on youtube); 2) an interview recorded after the Christians had been bailed from prison; and 3) a subsequent incident/arrest on Sunday 20 June, recorded outside the Arab Festival when police prohibited the distribution of English-Arabic gospels anywhere within a five block radius of the perimeter of the festival.

NOT ALLOWED: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION FROM IMPOSED SOCIAL NORMS.

In 2004, the University of California's Hastings College of Law in San Francisco deregistered the campus group Christian Legal Society (CLS) after it was deemed to have violated the College's non-discrimination policy with regard to religion and sexual orientation.

For in 2004, CLS amended its bylaws to mandate that members (i.e. those with voting rights and leadership eligibility) must be able to sign a statement of faith and conduct. According to Hastings College, this provision violated the equality rights of practicing homosexuals and non-Christians.

CLS sued Hastings College on the grounds that their non-discrimination policy violated CLS' right to freedom speech and freedom of association, that is, the constitutionally guaranteed freedom to form around shared beliefs.

In April 2006, a federal district court ruled against CLS in favour of Hasting College.

In March 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

When the Supreme Court heard CLS' petition on 19 April 2010, the bench was split down the middle.

On the steps of the Supreme Court on Monday 19 April, CLS chapter President Ryan Elder said anyone is welcome to attend the group's meetings, but gays and lesbians, and those who practice or advocate sex outside of marriage, may not be voting members. "If our Christian group is led by people who don't believe in Christianity, then we cease to have a defining voice to express our core religious beliefs," Elder explained.

CLS was represented by Michael W. McConnell, who told the court: "If Hastings is correct, a student who does not even believe in the Bible is entitled to demand to lead a Christian Bible study." McConnell argued that CLS meetings are open to all, including gays. "What it objects to ... is being run by non-Christians," he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor worried whether allowing CLS to set its own rules would mean more discrimination against women and minorities.

Conservative justices noted the Hastings policy could lead to turmoil among student groups if people hostile to their purpose join with the predatory intent of disrupting or destroying them. Justice Antonin Scalia expressed concern that, "Under the school's rules, Republicans could join the campus Democratic club and vote themselves control, or otherwise undermine its mission. To require this Christian society to allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes...that's crazy."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented that Hastings, by its policy, is merely seeking more diversity within groups.

But as the Wall Street Journal noted, such a policy does not create more diversity, just more groups that that are essentially more the same. "The larger fact is the way that Hastings-style 'tolerance' and 'diversity' are actually making our campuses less tolerant and less diverse. If every college group must admit even those who are hostile to its mission and beliefs, the result is nonsense and conformity." Furthermore, "When a public university makes a decision, it's not simply a policy dispute. It's a public institution using your tax dollars to put a state imprimatur about who is and who is not fit for the public square."

A judgment is expected before the end of June. At stake is the freedom of all US student groups to choose leaders who share their beliefs.

See:
Christian Student Group Takes Case to U.S. Supreme Court
Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service, 15 April 2010

Law school attack on Christian group before Supreme Court today
By J.P Feire, Associate Commentary Editor, Washington Examiner, 19 April 2010

Court Weighs Rights of Campus Religious Groups
By Nina Totenberg, NPR news, 19 April 2010

Justices Joust Over Christian Group's Rights
Dispute Centers on Whether Student Club Can Receive State Funding After Excluding Members Due to Their Beliefs
By Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal, 20 April 2010

Supreme Court sharply divided on Christian student group case
The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in the case of a Christian student group that required members to denounce homosexuality. The court appeared split.
By Warren Richey, Staff writer, Christian Science Monitor, April 19, 2010

Supreme Court Hears Religious Students Case
By Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service, Huffington Post, 19 April 2010

Sameness and 'Diversity' on Campus
Wall Street Journal, 20 April 2010
Why a California dean would force a black group to admit white supremacists.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (UC Hastings) (CLS official site)

UPDATE:

US SUPREME COURT RULING SERIOUSLY WEAKENS FIRST AMENDMENT

On Monday 28 June, the US Supreme Court (SC) ruled 5-4 against the Christian Legal Society (CLS), upholding the right of Hastings College to withhold registration from groups that discriminate, saying this does not violate the First Amendment. The SC ruling means that public colleges may dictate anti-discrimination policies. Thus the colleges are permitted to deny Christian groups registration and access to funding on the grounds that they are discriminatory if they insist that their voting members and leaders be Christians who practise biblical morality. The SC ruling has seriously weakened the First Amendment.

A CLS claim will now be tested in a lower court that Hastings College has not enforced its policy in a non-discriminatory way, but has targeted CLS because of its politically incorrect views on homosexuality.

See:
Campus Christian groups loses appeal at Supreme Court
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer, 28 June 2010

Court: Christian group can't bar gays, get funding
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, Monday, June 28, 2010

Christian Legal Society Loses in Supreme Court Case
Group must allow leaders who disagree with its statement of faith.
Ted Olsen and Trevor Persaud 28 June 2010

Supreme Court's CLS decision Sucker-Punches First Amendment
Huffington Post 28 June 2010

Family Research Council Opposes Supreme Court Decision in CLS v. Martinez
Statement from Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, 28 June 2010

'It is God's manner to make men . . . to see their miserable condition as they are in themselves, and to despair of help from themselves, or from an arm of flesh, before he appears for them. . .' (Great Awakening preacher, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). From a sermon on Hosea 5:15)
From Religious Liberty Prayer Bulletin 061, USA: Religious Freedom Under Threat.