Of Immorality and Back Doors!

The sad reality of the current political landscape is that it is dotted with liars and deceivers. Of greater concern is the fact that the populace expect politicians to lie.[1]

The foolishness of this is seen in our current Prime Minister. Julia Gillard has been exposed as a liar on at least three occasions. Now, please settle down and stop waving your Blue and Red flags. There is no cause for joy here. It is rather a call for introspection and reflective thought. My point is not that of being “pro” one team or other. It is the fact that our leaders lie – yes, on both sides and everywhere in between – and that they are not held accountable.

Regardless of what political party you back, ask yourself this question: “Forty years ago, would the leader of the party, especially if Prime Minister, held on to that position if they had been caught lying?” Now, we might all agree that politicians have always been skunk–esque, but if we are honest, we know that someone who blatantly lied to the Australian people of yesteryear would have been removed from office.

The absolute tragedy of all this is not seen in the political circus that governs us. Rather, it is seen in the hearts of the average Joe. The reason we expect politicians to lie and to deceive has to do with the fact that the average Joe has not been taught morals – real Biblical morals. Through State education, he has been taught a supposed set of morals that are little more than a subjective recipe for feeling good about himself.

This is replicated in society. Over the last couple of decades, I have noted how television promotes the virtues of lying. It is now prominent to extol lying as an indispensable part of the human psyche.

Again, contrast this with the societal situation of forty years ago. People, Christian or not, despised lies and liars. They understood that without truth, life fails. If there is no truth, then everything is truly flux. How do I defend my wife’s virtue, if I cannot believe her word? How do I defend my child against accusations of cheating, if I cannot believe my child’s claim of innocence? Maybe I should drive the wrong way down this one-way street because I cannot believe the person who erected the sign. When the police investigate the ensuing accident, how can they make a decision regarding fault apart from the concept of truth, fact, and reality?

What, then, are the ramifications of this? Well, it can be summarised in the old words, “Be afraid; Be very afraid!”

When society begins to accept lies and deceit as part of its normal operation, it will encounter problems. Look out your window, read or watch the news, and you will begin to see these problems. However, all this pales into insignificance by comparison when the breach of faith through lies is manifest in our politicians.

Dwell on this for but a moment and you will see the ramifications before your mind’s eye. Politicians must be honest and trust worthy. They hold our money in the form of taxes. They govern our lives by the implementation of law. They have the ability to incarcerate or expunge. Your lawful life today may be decreed villainous tomorrow.

Decidedly, I know that you do not want a thief as a bank manager; I know you do not want “Jack-the-Ripper” or “Al Capone” as the local Sergeant in Charge of Police. So why would we accept such characters as politicians when they have the ability to destroy not only our lives, but the lives of our children and grandchildren; not to mention the destruction of our culture.

Their deceit in matters is a heinous crime of the greatest degree. Let me try and illustrate this deceit.

Not so long ago, Australia was embroiled in a debate over the definition of marriage. The question was whether or not the definition of marriage would be changed from “one man and one woman” to something less defined. The motive for this was driven by a demand for equality on the part of the homosexual community.

After much debate, the Parliament voted, overwhelmingly, to maintain the current definition (98-42). There was much jubilation in Christian circles and many prayers of thanks to “Our Father in heaven”. Some, whilst pleased with the outcome, were nonetheless wary. What had we really achieved? On what had the politicians actually voted?

At that time, I wrote several pieces, which warned that whilst we had, in the providence of God, won a skirmish, we needed to understand that the battle still raged.[2] These articles were necessary precisely because the Government lies.  Agendas are hidden. True motives disguised. Neutrality feigned. All the while, the Government deals in deceit.

Before us now, as a people, comes the Sex Discrimination Amendment. This little monster is a direct result of the Government’s agenda being realised through the acceptance of the Exposure Draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012. Whilst many spoke against this Bill, it was adopted with few modifications. Now come the ramifications!

The Sex Discrimination Amendment is now proposed and open to comment. Lies and deceit!

First, if the parent that spawned this demonic offspring has been accepted, it is only a matter of process that is before us now. The Government is not interested in what we think or believe. This is deceit.

Second, the Government’s own information on this proposal states: “The Bill also seeks to extend the existing ground of ‘marital status’ to ‘marital or relationship status’ to provide discrimination protection for same-sex de facto couples.”[3]

Here, we have a huge pile of lies covered in the “special sauce” of deceit and you are expected to swallow it!

Did we not just have a vote to maintain the current definition of “marriage”? Well, yes we did! Okay. Next question. What does “marital” mean? A quick look through the dictionary says that marital means, “of marriage”.[4] Whoa up! This must be a mistake?

No, not at all. Welcome to Governmental lie, deceit, and collusion. Before us in this proposed amendment are the subtleties of evil. Let me attempt to unpack this for you.

One: The first step is to bring marriage down to the level of a mere relationship. It is devalued. There is nothing special about it in any manner. It is simply a matter of label. Is it a car or an automobile? I would do the “potato” thing, but it is lost in the written word. Consequently, marriage is just one type of meaningful relationship that has absolutely no magnificence to it. It is plain and ordinary.

So marriage is now just one kind of relationship.

Two: We must see that the marriage of man and woman is no different to the relationship of the homosexual. They are so similar that our Government believes that they can be placed side by side in this legislation. To discriminate on the basis of a homosexual relationship is, in the eyes of this proposal, no different from discrimination on the basis of marriage. Therefore, doing what God commands is no better than doing that which God condemns. Contrary to Romans 13, the righteous have no cause to look to the Magistrate for praise because the Magistrate sees all as equally acceptable unto god – the false god of State!

Three: Looking at the punctuation in the excerpt from the Government’s information, we need to also highlight the use of de facto. This term does not apply to heterosexuals in this instance. It clearly applies to homosexuals[5] who live together in a domestic relationship. In other words, homosexuals are given the status of de facto along with heterosexuals.

Once more we witness deception. The definition of de facto means “in fact” or “in reality”. It is the opposite of de jure, which means by law. The Family Law Act 1975 gives its own definition in terms of establishing whether or not a relationship is a de facto. For us the importance of this term is simple. De facto is used as a term to mimic marriage. This is where the term originated and it is the way in which it is still used today. Freethinkers who wanted to throw off convention found themselves strangely drawn to this crazy Christian notion of sharing lives. Hence, they needed some type of security from this life-sharing mimic. Consequently, rather than a Biblical covenant, they fell back upon a social contract. This contract was recognised at law as a de facto. They were de jure unmarried; yet they were de facto married.

Jump forward thirty-five years and the homosexuals are trying to gain acceptance using the same device. They have already been recognised at the back-end of the relationship – when the lawyers are called in to divvy up the chattels. Now, they are using the de facto status to claim equality at the entry point. Thus, the homosexual is claiming equality with the heterosexual mimic of marriage.

Thinking cap time! Can you see how at each step there is an implied equality? Marriage is equated with relationship. Heterosexual union is equated with homosexual union. Heterosexual mimicry is equated with homosexual mimicry.

For us, as Christians, we need to be awake to these subtleties of argument and definition. We are, to a large degree, in this predicament because the original status of de facto was accepted all too easily. In particular, there seemed to be a failure on the part of the Christians to understand the impact and implications of the new term. I sincerely pray that history will not repeat itself.

When scrutinised, we see that our Governments simply have no respect for their people. They have taken a vote on the definition of marriage. Yet, since that vote, they have implemented policy and legislation that tears at the heart of marriage. They have continued to elevate the status of the homosexual whilst doing their utmost to destroy marriage.

Lies and deceit in Governmental hands are terrible weapons of destruction. We are forced to trust Government every day. They know our most intimate details. We therefore have every right to expect that these people would be those who reject evil and cling to the truth. However, what we have seen in the past twelve months, with regard to marriage, is hypocrisy, lie, and deception.

When we are asked to put our trust in a politicians’ word, we must of necessity also ask whether the politician is “trustworthy”. What use is the oath or promise of a liar? There is an old joke, which asks, “How do you know when a politician is lying?” Answer: Their lips move!  Sadly, this is no longer cynicism. It is reality.

Both the major Parties are committed in principle to homosexuality and homosexual equality. Therefore, you cannot trust one word from either camp in regard to upholding marriage, respecting families, or instituting ‘good old fashioned’ values. Promises, oaths, undertakings, and definitions mean nothing to these people precisely because truth means nothing to them.

If there be no love of truth, there can be no love of morality, integrity, honesty, and the Biblical principle of “swearing to your own hurt” – in other words, abiding by your word, even if it hurts you.

The modern politicians are not interested in humble service, they are interested in office. They are interested in being elected, not in being instruments of righteousness.

As we roll on to a Federal Election, I urge you to, “Beware the Lies!” Over the coming months you are going to be wooed, courted, and cajoled. You are going to hear grand claims left, right, and centre. Please, do not believe them. If you have opportunity, please, expose them.

If you have the opportunity to question a candidate, please ask them these questions: Do you lie? and Do you believe in absolute truth? Pointed? Yes! However, the answer will reveal a lot. If you experience hesitation or foot shuffling, do not vote for that person. If you get wrong answers, not only do not vote for them, but spread the word concerning them.

The issue of Marriage, its definition, its importance to society, its importance for the future of our country has been defiled by the lies and deceit of our Government.[6] This is now clearly apparent. The question then is, ‘What else has suffered through lies and deceit?’

Change will only come when we refuse to vote for deceivers; seek to expose deceivers; and make a lot of noise about lying politicians being totally unacceptable.

As far as it is possible with us, let us make this election about ending the false pretence of so many of our politicians; let us make it an election of truth.