"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
C.S. Lewis
"The fingers of your thoughts are molding your face ceaselessly."
Charles Reznikoff
"Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere."
G.K. Chesterton
"Humility enforces where neither virtue nor strength can prevail, nor reason."
Francis Quarles
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."
C.S. Lewis
Resistance Thinking Society
'Society' is a term used to describe a grouping of individuals and outlines the structures employed to ensure that the individuals within a society relate to each other in an appropriate fashion. Different societies may have distinctive cultural behaviours and different institutions. In this society section you will find news, articles and reviews that relate to Australian society, or more specifically, individuals who live in Australia.
Topics in this section will cover: science and technology - stem cell research, IVF, cloning, intelligent design, evolution etc.; politics - ideologies (communism, anarchism, totalitarianism, capitalism etc.), state and federal politics, the free market, the United Nations etc.; sociology - globalisation, prisons, welfare, government; environment - global warming, alternative energy etc.; and moral issues - poverty, homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion etc.
The role of the Christian within society is to stand for truth, for justice and most importantly, to represent God's agenda on the earth. As the Resistance Thinking journey continues, our aim is to stimulate engaging dialogue exploring the complexities of how followers of Jesus should engage with society in our day and age.
"The mainstream media has long ago become the lame-stream media. It does not any longer even pretend to be covering the news in any sort of objective and impartial fashion. Now it is all about creating the news and pushing PC agendas, nothing more.
Examples of this are easy to come by, and I have documented case after case of this over the years. Today’s papers bring us yet another prime example of this. Consider an article entitled “My Two Mums” found in the Sunday magazine in the Murdoch press. It is a large three-page spread on homosexual parenting, complete with four big colourful pics of such “happy” households.
We are assured in this article that children raised in same-sex households do just terrifically, and that this activity is very normal indeed. ‘Everyone is doing it’ is the message being given here, and time and again we are made to believe that kids raised in such households are getting along just fine.
Indeed, the entire article is one long propaganda piece. It is nothing other than a clear case of agenda pushing and indoctrination. Consider why this is so. In any controversial issue, a legitimate media outfit would strive to achieve some sort of balance, and offer contrary points of view.
But when that is completely absent, then you know you do not have news reporting but ideological warfare. The activist MSM is pushing the homosexual agenda pure and simple. It has not the slightest interest in presenting both sides of the story, and is happy to run roughshod over facts and evidence to push its bent message.
And simply reverse the situation here: if the MSM ever even dared to give a traditional pro-family point of view on such issues, it would be only the briefest of mentions, followed by one homosexual activist after another tearing into that viewpoint.
A brief comment opposing the radical homosexual agenda (if it in fact ever made it into the press) would be followed by a relentless hammering by the activists. That is how the MSM operates today on issues like homosexuality. You simply will not hear the other side of the story. And if you do, it will be featured only so it can be mercilessly attacked.
The pro-marriage and pro-family point of view has been effectively censored out of public debate in the MSM. The activists in the MSM have declared war on our values and beliefs, and they do not even worry anymore about the blatant one-sided propaganda campaign they are conducting.
The truth is, there would have been plenty of contrary voices to be heard in an article such as this, but the author and the newspaper refused to give them a run. And for good measure, they do throw in some paragraphs on Christianity, but only to attack it for being “strict” and “judgemental”. This is so darn typical of the MSM.
Thus we get the usual lies, such as the following: “Research consistently concludes that children with same-sex parents suffer no disadvantages.” This point is made throughout the article. It is blatantly false however. Indeed, such is the censorship that now fully reigns in the MSM that I have had to write a book to try to get the truth out into the public arena.
In my new volume Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality, I have several large chapters on this very issue. The reality is in fact light-years away from the message presented in this article. Let me here just offer a few snippets from my book: “Most of these studies purporting to show that children raised in same-sex households do as well as other children have been roundly criticised for methodological shortcomings.
“One meta-analysis of 49 such studies found a number of methodological flaws. These include the lack of any proper hypothesis statement, the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, the lack of proper comparison groups, the problem of measurement error and probability, neglect of extraneous variables, and so on. On a less technical level, these studies suffer from small sample sizes, lack of a proper control group, inadequacy of self-reporting, and lack of proper timeframe (longitudinal analysis).
“Two US researchers, after examining the available data, said that ‘studies on same-sex parenting are plagued with persistent limitation[s]’. They conclude their study with these words: ‘we cannot be confident concerning the generalizability of many of the findings’.
“Another expert, sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who claims to be agnostic on the question of same-sex marriage and the like, has also analysed the literature on homosexual parenting. He came up with these conclusions: ‘1) all of the studies I reviewed contained at least one flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.’
“Consider self-reporting. Most of these studies simply ask the children how they enjoy their same-sex parents. Not surprisingly, they don’t find any problems. But what child is going to bag his or her own parents? Indeed, if that is all they have known, it is even more difficult to criticise it. Thus scientific objectivity is sorely lacking in these types of studies. And since homosexual parenting is relatively recent, most children in same-sex households are relatively young. So asking 10-year-olds about their social, mental and psychological well-being may not result in very reliable data.
“But many of the children in same-sex households originally came from heterosexual families, making measurement more difficult. How much of their well-being or lack of it is attributable to heterosexual upbringing, and how much is attributable to homosexual upbringing?
“As but one example, pro-homosexual researchers have admitted that their study used ‘volunteers obtained though gay and single-parent magazines and associations. Obviously these do not constitute random samples, and it is not possible to know what biases are involved in the method of sample selection.’ Obviously indeed.”
I offer far more research and data in my book on all this. I encourage all of you to get it so that you can counter this MSM propaganda machine. We are in a war of ideas, and the MSM is only giving us its version of events. It is imperative that we all know the truth about such things, and that we get this truth out into the public arena as widely and as rapidly as possible.
If we lose this battle, we will largely have only ourselves to blame, for failing to be well read on this, for failing to make our case in the public arena, and for failing to have the courage and decency to act on the welfare of our children."
The same-sex marriage battle may look fruitlessly lost yet there are signs that perception on this issue may be turning around. Melbourne federal MP Adam Bandt forced other members to put the question to their constituents and this week the responses came back. While Bandt reported that his electorate gave same-sex marriage the overwhelming tick (and I'm talking like those in favour of same-sex marriage reportedly outnumbered 475 to 1) this did not reflect the rest of the electorates. Let's have a look at some of the responses (as provided by Crikey):
Hinkler MP Paul Neville called it a "vexed issue", stating there is no overwhelming concern in the community and that Australia has far more pressing issues that warrant the parliament's attention. In Hinkler, only 14 people were supportive of marriage equality, with 595 opposed. Neville expressed his own surprise at how little support there was in his electorate. He also quoted the now notorious Miranda Devine column on the perils of a fatherless society, stating that the notion of "downplay[ing] traditional marriage" was an issue that resonated with him strongly.
Fowler MP Chris Hayes reported that feedback in his electorate was overwhelmingly in opposition: of the 395 votes cast, over 90% said no to same-sex marriage. Hayes said he "does not apologise for the view of his electorate".
George Christensen from the seat of Dawson called Bandt's marriage proposal "pointless", saying voters had "more important concerns than this". Of those he surveyed, only 78 out of 456 were for same-sex marriage. Christensen also accused GetUp of attempting to skew public opinion and "subvert the democratic process" by using fake emails in marriage equality petitions. He also raised concerns any change would "weaken the foundations of our society", with the definition of marriage being the only argument we have against polygamy or multiple other types of unions.
Denison independent Andrew Wilkie noted both sides agree on the "enduring importance of marriage" and both camps claim a majority of support, making it difficult to determine numbers.
Liberal MP Kelly O'Dwyer reported that same-s-x marriage was not in the top four issues of concern nominated by the people of Higgins.
Graham Perrett from Moreton stated that of the 1373 responses he received, 44% were supportive of gay marriage, 53% were against and 3% were unsure. Perrett noted these results did not include Carl Katter, as he had already "come out yesterday".
Alex Hawke, member for Mitchell, the electorate with the highest rate of couples with dependent children, stated there was broad support in his electorate to legally recognise same-sex unions but this did not extend to changing the definition of marriage itself.
Fraser MP Andrew Leigh said most people who contacted him would like to see a change to the current laws.
Gippsland member Darren Chester does not support "changes to the Marriage Act" himself, and of the 700 responses he received, 64% were opposed to change.
Member for Blair Shayne Neuman received 580 responses supporting marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and 150 responses supportive of change.
Cowan MP Luke Simpkins stated those who have made their views known "strongly and utterly support the current definition of marriage", with 903 supporting the current definition and 103 supporting change.
Deakin member Mike Symon said he was astounded by the volume of response to the motion. With the exclusion of lobbyists and unverified emails, only 6.02% of Deakin constituents were for same-sex marriage and 93.98% against, but a large number of these supported civil unions.
Member for Hume Alby Schultz said the motion did nothing more than "indulge the fantasies of the inner-city elites" and he was "deeply offended ... for being told how to do [his] job". Forty-six verifiable constituents contacted Shultz in support of equal marriage rights, and 635 constituents contacted him supporting the "Howard government's definition" of marriage as between a man and a woman.
Sharon Grierson from the inner-city electorate of Newcastle was the first member of parliament to sign the charter supporting same-sex marriage. She said 800 people who contacted her office were supportive of change and 470 against.
Fadden MP Stuart Robert reported an overwhelming response in favour of the current definition of marriage, with 30 to one against change.
Catherine King from Ballarat was contacted over 1800 times and states that views are divided and passionately held on both sides.
Scott Morrison, the Cook MP, conducted an electorate-wide survey last year on several issues of importance, and said the issue of the day "frankly did not feature". A specific survey conducted by Morrison on the issue of marriage equality saw more than 850 against change and 50 in favour.
Labor minister Anthony Albanese spoke of his pride in the Labor Party for having changed 84 pieces of legislation to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples. He also stated the issue will be discussed at the Labor Party's national conference.
Malcolm Turnbull, the Liberal minister from Wentworth, a seat with a high proportion of gay constituents, received a response from 2333 voters. Of these, 72.7% were in favour of same-sex marriage; 16.8% were not supportive but favoured civil unions; 7.2% were against both gay marriage and civil unions and 3.2% were against gay marriage but did not express a view on civil unions.
In a yes/no survey with 505 responses, Shortland MP Jill Hall had 86% of her constituents answer "yes" to gay marriage and 13% answer "no".
Kooyong member Josh Frydenberg said simply he had received passionate responses from both sides of the debate.
Deb O'Neill from Robertson reported that 70% of her constituents wanted to retain the current definition of marriage.
Tony Crook, the member for O'Connor, stated the results from his electorate "were indicative of the rest of the nation". Of the 612 responses received, the majority do not support same-sex marriage.
Lyne MP Rob Oakeshott has "chosen to follow the community on the issue of same-s-x marriage". After wide consultation, Oakeshott concluded there is a deep conviction that the state's definition of marriage does matter. In Oakeshott's electorate, results out of five were two strongly opposed, two indifferent and one in favour.
Bruce Billson, member for Dunkley, acknowledged the power of the word "marriage" and that the expansion of this term could be detrimental. A significant portion of the community represented by Billson would like their relationships to continue to be acknowledged under the traditional definition of "marriage."
Member for Reid John Murphy received feedback from a diverse range of people and groups, and states there is no unanimous view amongst these groups, "even in the gay community." However, most feedback "supported the retention of the current definition of marriage".
Menzies MP Kevin Andrews said the purpose of the motion was merely "to provide a voice to the Greens." The vast majority of Andrews constituents are against a change in the definition of marriage.
Mark Coulton, member for Parkes, stated that the overwhelming response from his electorate was that there were other matters of far greater importance, and that he himself finds it "deeply confronting" that the Parliament could be "hijacked" by one member, Adam Bandt.
Bradfield MP Paul Fletcher said he has carried out significant consultation on this matter, and the majority of his constituents support the retention of the current legal definition of marriage.
Here is MP Josh Frydenberg's statement:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
(clause: relationship registers are a dangerous compromise and should not be accepted)
Another great article in The Australian speaking on the right to have a voice in this debate:
"None of these difficulties are insurmountable, but each demands careful consideration. Australia needs to "have the conversation" that the proponents of social change are urging upon us, but such proponents should not dictate who speaks and what they should or should not be allowed to say. Counter-cultural revolutionaries of the 1960s and 70s were prepared to go to prison to fight censorship."
Yes, friends. The tide may well be turning. If nothing else Bandt's attempt to force his radical agenda on Parliament have backfired.
By Bertrand de Jouvenel, (Indianapolis: Liberty press, 1990) 118 pages
Reviewed by Richard M. Ebeling
"In the 20th century, governments increasingly have become great engines for the redistribution of wealth. Indeed, most of the activity of modern governments centers around taking from some and giving to others, regardless of whether or not those from whom the wealth is being taken wish it to occur. This has caused numerous economic side effects, not the least of which are tax evasion and avoidance. But it has also long been a key argument against such policies that higher and higher rates of taxation for wealth redistribution create significant disincentives to work, save and invest on the part of the productive members of the society. Why should I produce, or produce as much as I could, the argument goes, if I am not allowed to keep the fruits of my own labor?
The debate has, therefore, often been couched in terms of "equality vs. efficiency" and the optimal trade-off between these two goals. Almost forty years ago, the French political philosopher, Bertrand de Jouvenel, decided to ask some important questions. Suppose that income redistribution had no disincentive effects on people's productive activities. Under those circumstances, would income equality through income redistribution be a desirable goal? Would there be an argument against it? His answers are offered in his book, The Ethics Of Redistribution, originally published in 1951, and, after being unavailable for many Years, recently reprinted by Liberty Fund of Indianapolis. In principle, redistribution should be a simple matter. A decision is made concerning what is "an essential minimum" of income; then another decision is made concerning what is a "reasonable maximum" of income; and then the redistribution is put into effect. As de Jouvenel points out, however, the ideas of a "minimum" and a "maximum," far from being objective concepts, are instead quite slippery notions..."
It's good to see that there are those in Mississippi who are fighting for personhood rights with Initiative #26. Despite yesterday's loss it is encouraging that there are those standing against the deplorable Roe vs. Wade 1973 decision. Indeed, this can be seen as a precursor to the American Presidential debate. And I hope people are paying attention this time round.
Barack Obama is not pro-life. Not even remotely. If you have a spare twenty minutes you can see his address back in 2008 to Planned Parenthood:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Obama's chief question that night was "what kind of America will our daughters grow up in?" He stresses that courts should not take away the choices of women in regards to abortion. Yet, Roe vs. Wade (a court case) created such a right. So, it seems that Obama will stand by the courts when they uphold his "pro-choice" stance yet condemn them when they don't. Obama goes on to say:
"It's an approach to the law that favours the powerful over the powerless. That holds up a flawed ideology over the rights of the individual." (7:04)
"We fought together in the Illinios state Senate against restrictive-choice legislation." (8:07)
"There will always be people, many of good will, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield." (9:18)
"It's time to turn the page on a policy that provides over $1.5 billion to teach abstinence in our schools but refuses to teach basic science and basic contraception." (11:42)
These comments display Obama's strong "pro-choice" leaning. Interestingly, the first comment (7:04) would appear to lend itself more to the "pro-life" side but contextually it is revealed to be something else. Bear in mind, also, that he is addressing Planned Parenthood who are responsible for approximately 290,000 abortions each year. It is clear that Obama's ideology and Planned Parenthood's "women's rights" strategy align. This should be the first warning sign for Christians.
Since his speech at Planned Parenthood Obama has stood with this organisation through thick and thin. In February 2011 the United States House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to defund Planned Parenthood. However, this was defeated in the Senate by Obama's Democrat's. In June this year Indiana passed a new law stripping Planned Parenthood of some of its funding. Then the Obama administration decided to play the bully and threatened to cut Indiana's Medicaid funding if they proceeded. In the future Obama has promised to veto any Federal Bills that would defund Planned Parenthood. At least Obama was being honest when he stated that he would not yield.
Until Obama is voted out of Office, Planned Parenthood will remain funded. Thankfully election time is coming around next year and several of the Republican's best chances for candidacy are pro-life. Barack Obama states that he goes to Trinity United Church of Christ yet his relationship with Planned Parenthood could not spawn from a Christian ideology. Anyone can claim that they are a Christian, and it is not up to us to determine their salvation. However, we can look at a person's fruits. And Obama's fruits are bad. So bad, in fact, that they are poisoning the tree. And it is not just on this issue that Obama acts against biblical mandates, though that is for another time.
Planned Parenthood's time is running out. To be honest, this organisation should have been defunded a long time ago. However, Obama formed an alliance that has allowed Planned Parenthood's miserable existence to continue. Such a relationship is beneficial for both parties yet it undermines the moral framework of America. Obama doesn't care about this, of course. He is too busy plotting his next social agenda that will spell destruction for the United States. And us Aussies want him to come and visit?
The dust has settled upon a nation now destitute. Britain has been rocked by excessive riots that has left experts scrambling for reasons. The UK Centre For Social Justice claims that it is the break down of marriage that has caused the rioting. Usually I am disinclined to agree with any group promoting social justice as ultimate importance however this report may be on to something. As Bill Muehlenberg says:
“When we play fast and loose with fathers and marriage we simply invite the sort of barbarism witnessed in London to become mainstream. We had better wise up before it is too late.”
“When fathers have little ongoing connection to or oversight over their children, the protective structures of family are diminished. When nihilism replaces a common morality broadly based on religious values, responsibility to the wider community is lost. When people at the margins of society are relieved of personal responsibility to work and contribute to the community, and are left to live aimless, dependent lives, the type of anarchy we have witnessed in Britain is never far away.”
Britain has divorced itself from God and laid waste to His commandments. It has created its own morals and lives in an age of self obsession. There are many who legitimately believe that it is better to keep God out of a countries affairs (as if that was what the concept of Church and state was designed for). One only has to turn to Isaiah 1 to see God's message to a nation that had turned its back on Him:
“Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged.
Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil.
Your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.”
Isaiah 1:4-7
It it time for us to stop standing dumbly while Satan uses our fellow men as pawns. To Satan man is expendable but to God man is worth dying for. As the saved we need to be interceding for the lost. We need to be prayer warriors for a hurting nation and a broken world.
Alvin Schmidt. Zondervan, 2004. (Formerly entitled, Under the Influence, 2001).
Reviewed by Bill Muehlenberg. September 2005.
It is common today for the church to be on the receiving end of much criticism. The church is blamed for many of the ills in the world, but is seldom given credit for any good it has done. Indeed, many argue that it is the church that is blocking progress to a more enlightened and peaceable world.
One gets the impression from these secular critics that Christianity has been a negative force in the world, while non-Christian and non-religious alternatives are somehow superior. However, those conversant with the historical record know better. While Christendom has had its dark moments in history, over all, it can be credibly argued that it has been a force for good in the world.
"In the 20th century, governments increasingly have become great engines for the redistribution of wealth. Indeed, most of the activity of modern governments centers around taking from some and giving to others, regardless of whether or not those from whom the wealth is being taken wish it to occur. This has caused numerous economic side effects, not the least of which are tax evasion and avoidance. But it has also long been a key argument against such policies that higher and higher rates of taxation for wealth redistribution create significant disincentives to work, save and invest on the part of the productive members of the society. Why should I produce, or produce as much as I could, the argument goes, if I am not allowed to keep the fruits of my own labor? 
Since his speech at Planned Parenthood Obama has stood with this organisation through thick and thin. In February 2011 the 
It is common today for the church to be on the receiving end of much criticism. The church is blamed for many of the ills in the world, but is seldom given credit for any good it has done. Indeed, many argue that it is the church that is blocking progress to a more enlightened and peaceable world.