A patient lies on a leather studded chesterfield. Confessions fall from his lips. His therapist listens intensely as the patient speaks of “multiple voices” and the fact that these voices are destroying his life. “How so?” asks the therapist. The man, obviously uneasy and completely unsure of himself, musters enough strength for voice and says, “Well doc, these voices communicate different messages concerning the same object. I speak a simple and plain sentence as one voice. Then, all of a sudden, another voice arises, my words are twisted, and the obvious meaning is denied. A third voice joins the fray. It is vociferous in its denunciation. It knows me innocent, yet it freely condemns. Worse still, it accuses me of dreadful motives.” Saddened and exasperated, he exclaims, “Doc, I do not understand! The simplest and most innocent sentence which falls from my lips is thrust back at me as a blade heated by the fire. Torture ensues. I no longer know what to say or how something should be said. These voices, Doc, it is as though they are out to destroy by deliberately misconstruing my every word. It is as though they mean me harm. Even when others understand and respond as I would expect, yet these clamorous voices condemn and threaten!”

The session finished, the patient leaves the comfort of the ‘couch’ and heads to reception. Upon paying for the consultation, a receipt is issued. As the receipt is folded, we glimpse the patient’s name. He is called, Australia.

This may be a tad melodramatic, but methinks it accurate.

In the last couple of days we have seen the Lodge’s “live-in-lover”, Tim Mathieson, in trouble for supposedly inappropriate comments. I dislike the man, his flaunting of marriage and manhood. However, a part of Christian prudence and charity means that we attack the issue at hand and defend people wrongly accused. So, I find it hard to write in defence of this man, but as that is what is required, so shall it be done.

Tim Mathieson gave a speech. It was a speech concerning ‘men’s health’. It was addressed to the cricketing fraternity. His topic was prostate cancer. In his summation, he made the point that the only good way to check this disease was by “digital examination”. In 2013 this needs some explanation. Digital examination does not use electronics, such as a digital camera. The term refers to the wiggly things attached to your palm – your digits or fingers. Thus a “digital examination” is the insertion of a finger / digit into the anus in order to manually check the size of the prostate. As you can guess, it is not a procedure that is welcomed or viewed as overtly comfortable. Consequently, humour is often associated with the concept – it is made light of in order to ease apprehension.

Thus, in typical Australian comedic fashion, Tim ended with a few words of advice: Find yourself “a small, Asian, female doctor.” Here come the voices of derision and the false accusers. The vociferous voices gathered, encircled; and they devoured!

For anyone who saw the clip of this speech, three things were patently obvious:

First, Tim was more uncomfortable than the proverbial cat. He was sweating. He was stumbling over his words. In short, this was a man twice removed from his comfort zone.

Second, when he uttered his so called “offensive” line, what was the crowd’s response? Silence? Derision? Dumbfounded? Aghast? No, they laughed. Tim was being funny and the people laughed. Tim uttered a simple sentence as one voice. It was understood by his audience. Only after its utterance did the other voices come forward to condemn and to misconstrue what was plain and obvious to everyone else.

Third, Tim was not speaking derogatorily against, Asians, Females, or Doctors. His point was simple; if you are going to have someone place digits into your rectum, find someone with small digits! To me, this story resonates. I had a friend, Mr Currie, who spoke of someone he knew, whose job it was to inspect one’s caboose. I remember him looking at me, his eyes bulging as he said, “He had such big hands!”

Here, we arrive at Cultural Insanity. One is no longer judged by the words which fall from your lips or the intent that produced those words. Charity is not shown for difficult situations in which one’s ‘vocabulary draw’ becomes derailed and word choice and grammar flee. If you have spoken in public, you will know this experience.

However, today we live with a culture of hatred. A mate of mine is apt to preface his sentences with, “If this can be taken two ways, I mean it in the best sense.” He finds this necessary precisely because we, as a culture, have been taught to look upon all utterances with suspicion. Culturally, we have been taught to take words in the worst sense and then multiply it several times. Hate crimes really do exist and there is none worse than deliberately misconstruing someone’s words so as to make them the subject of scorn and derision.

Another example of this thinking came across my computer screen today. VW have made an advertisement in which a white man (Can I say that?) arrives at work speaking with a Jamaican accent. He is basically telling everyone to “chill out” and be happy. In the end, after some bad business news, his boss and co-worker go for a spin in his shinny, red, VW and they too catch the bug – of happiness that is, not as in VW beetle! (Darn, PC, now I am on edge.)

As a consequence the “hate speakers” are out in force, decrying this advertisement as “racist!” Really, what do you think of when you think Jamaica? Like me, I presume your first image is of ‘laid back’ and ‘carefree’. Anyway, in the interest of truth and science, I decided to use a ‘control group’. I set the computer screen up to show only the ad and called in my daughters, 11 and 20. I played the advertisement. After the first line, you could see the smiles arrive on their faces. By the end, we had giggles. Then the question, ‘Is this racist?’ The response? Frowns and quizzical looks – and they are from the “hip, PC” generation!

Again, Cultural Insanity! When did happiness become racism?

We have arrived at the point of Cultural Insanity precisely because we have jettisoned the Christian Worldview in favour of rank paganism. As such, we have no basis for happiness, truth, sincerity, honesty, and integrity, to name but a few. Therefore, the government imposes upon us the pernicious evil known as “equality and antidiscrimination” legislation. It is a pernicious evil precisely because it robs and steals. It purports to grant something through the realisation of the utopian dream, which pagan philosophers hold so dear. However, when the dream proves allusive, as it always will, the pagans resort to force. In the use of this force, there are many casualties.

Many things could be said at this point, but for brevity, let us use the examples before us. Humour must go. Humour is based on nuances in language. However, these same nuances can lead to misunderstanding, if they are wilfully exploited. Therefore, a harmless reference to “small hands” using different words becomes a huge problem. Tim should be thankful that the woman with whom he lives has not had her new legislation passed. Under that standard, his offence of “offending” would have made him liable. Oh dear, no more public outings for Tim! Yet, this is just the tip of the proverbial “iceberg”. We would have to abandon humour completely, for the reason mentioned. We would have to abandon the justice system. What right does the court have to make judgements and to cast aspersions? If we are all equal and all actions are also equal, how dare they pass judgement! We would have to change our language. Adjectives and descriptors of all types would have to be removed so that people could not be offended. Hang on! Would that not then discriminate against those who seek to use descriptors? Oh dear! Who will decide for us? Thankfully we have an unbiased government that will see us through!!! Yeah, right!! (Spoken with an accent of derision)

Above all, we will not be entitled to speak the truth! You see, truth uncovers, it lays bare. The truth does discriminate. For example, true justice is based in truth. Therefore, we can understand and apply the concept of right and wrong. When truth evaporates as a mist in the noon-day sun, what standard is left? When the Christian worldview, based in the concrete and absolute, is abandoned, what remains? Mist, shadow, vapour, in a word, the “intangible”!

We have reached Cultural Insanity by imbibing a God-less worldview. Without such a righteous standard all is flux, fleeting, ephemeral, and transient. The god of the new worldview is self – mostly. The new interpretive principle is based in self. In such a system, the words spoken by one person become meaningless. The context in which those words are spoken becomes pointless. The content of the speech is as unfathomable as the depths of space. The reason the words were put forth in the first place, inconsequential. That is until the autonomous-self decides upon meaning, context, content, intent, and the consequence of your speech. That is right, governance of your motive, meaning, and words, is taken from you and placed in the hands of the autonomous-self listening to your words. If they laugh, great! Whew! What a relief. If they frown, call the lawyer and plead lunacy!

What a very dangerous combination. A soul who is bent on twisting and perverting speech. A government who aids them by enshrining nonsense as law. A generation raised on pagan belief. A generation raised to believe that truth does not exist. A generation raised to believe that autonomous-self is the measure of all things. It is akin to a child playing with matches and petrol on a blustery, forty degree day that has been given a “catastrophic” fire rating. Nothing good can come of it.

Cultural Insanity = The place where encouraging men’s health could see you fined and imprisoned. Cultural Insanity = The place where trying to spread happiness and cheer sees you derogatorily branded as a racist. Cultural Insanity = Australia, our home, the place where Julia plans to unleash more madness. Paul Keating called us the Banana Republic. Julia Gillard wants us to become an Insane Asylum!

To abandon God is to: Abandon hope; Abandon purpose; Abandon future; Abandon law; Abandon justice; Abandon truth. To abandon God, therefore,  is to embrace insanity, individually and Culturally.

Postscript: For more insanity see Dove; KFC; For ignorance at work, see a commentary on the KFC ad.

Today is the Public Holiday associated with Australia Day. Of recent, I have had cause to ponder and question what it means to be Australian. This question takes on greater relevance in light of the propensity with which the phrase, “That’s just un-Australian!” is being cast about.

I am reminded of an incident from my younger days. Growing up, my parents subjected me to the torture of British humour. From “Some Mothers do ‘ave ‘em”; to “Open All Hours”, to “The Two Ronnies”, and last, but not least, “Porridge”, my young mind was pounded with the comical. Being of a family that tended somewhat to enjoy the jocular; phrases from these shows became a staple. Thus, courtesy of Norman Stanley Fletcher, we were frequently apt to reference peoples as “anarchist nerks.”  

To a child, the meaning of an expression is irrelevant. The basis for usage is weighed and calculated upon its “coolness” factor. Maybe, it is all about being a mimic. What we can say is that understanding and brain power are absent from the calculation. So, off I go to a Christian youth camp at the invitation of some friends; Out into the wild beyond as one of my first forays into public. All seemed well until I was back in the classroom setting; in detention writing out the lines – ‘I must not use words that I do not understand!’

My crime? Someone had annoyed me, so using the eloquence of Norman Stanley Fletcher, I responded with a well directed, “Naph off, you anarchist nerk!” Upon the hearing thereof, the semi-adolescent (or so I perceived him) in charge of my group asked me if I knew what I had said. “Like dude, totally irrelevant or what? I sounded ‘Cool’ with a capital ‘K’!” Once the rapturous applause had died down inside my head, I mustered a firm, strong, mouse like, No! Then came the repercussions – ‘You must write out …!’ My first thought, of course, was along the lines of confirming that Christians really did not have a sense of humour and therefore simply could not enjoy themselves. The second thought was, “Great, might as well be at school!” The third thought, totally in keeping with fallen human nature, was to blame someone else. This whole situation was, of course, my parent’s fault. If they had not watched these shows, I would not be in this predicament. If they had only taught me of these words – dear papa and mama, why didst thou not impart unto thy son the derivation and meaning of this terminology? If I could have but answered with a hearty “yea” to the adolescent’s question, thy son would have been spared much pain and anguish of soul!

Ah, a misspent youth!

Okay, to the point. Is it un-Australian to call someone and anarchist nerk? No, no, that is not it. I mean, can you see the parallel between the “anarchist nerk” and the “it’s un-Australian” comment? As a child I used a nonsensical phrase and was reprimanded for its use. Today, politicians, activists, ad makers, newspaper columnists, and the like, all speak of certain things as un-Australian, but are they making any more sense than the child at the youth camp? Are these people any more aware of the meaning of this phrase than was the child at the youth camp? It seems to me that the aforementioned should all be in detention writing out, “I must not uses phrases that I do not understand!”

As I have listened to this phrase and its usage, one thing has become apparent. In its context, though often trivialised, the usage is exclusively moral. Take a moment to get back on your chair! Now, we in Australia today are a secular nation. We pride ourselves in having ditched religion and any notion of God. We have had, in the past decades, several open and proud atheists as Prime Minister. So, how is it that I come to such a weird and outlandish conclusion? Very simply, I listen to what people say.

At the heart of this matter is the simple truth that the Australian people realise that we are not what we once were. We have witnessed a hardness in our people. We have witnessed distance in our communities. Sure, when the ‘chips are down’ we can still pull together, but on a daily basis much of the “mateship” we once new, well, it has waned.

Therefore, when we hear the statement that such and such is “un-Australian”, what we are really hearing is a statement to the effect that we miss the morals that once undergirded our society. What was the source of those ethics? It was the Bible. Consequently, when we hear the comment that something is “un-Australian”, what we are really hearing is a plea to return to Biblical ethics.

Is my perspective screwy, as, no doubt, the Humanists would assert? Not at all. Consider the following statement: “The definition of the word [un-Australian] has changed from simply defining something, particularly art or literature, as not Australian in character to a broader, more negative connotation suggesting an activity, behaviour, belief or policy that is seen to be violating Australian cultural norms.” Now, pray tell, what are these beliefs? What are these “Australian cultural norms”?

To the best of my knowledge, one cannot go to the national archives and pull out an ancient, leather-bound addition of, ‘The Cultural Constructs, Mores, and Ethics of Australian Society.” What one can do is look to our history and constitution to see that there was another ancient declaration that informed the founders of our nation. That declaration came from God. We know it by the common term, the Bible. The simple reality is that the laws of Australia were founded on the ethical code of the Bible. People were taught to fear God and to respect man. They did this by obeying God’s Law. Thus, we did not murder, steal, commit adultery, and so forth. We did honour parents, respect property, and look out for our mates.

Today, being so enlightened, we have jettisoned our belief in God. We have declared the Bible to be passé. We have moved on as a culture. The problem is though, that ideas have consequences and those consequences have repercussions. This concept, as a society, we have failed to grasp. Thus, in throwing out God’s law, we have removed the basis for right and wrong and we have destroyed the foundation of “mateship.” So it is that, as our society degenerates, many are left to ask, ‘what is happening?’ When they hear of old ladies being bashed, pensioners being fleeced, marriage being worthless, higher taxes, multiculturalism, the erosion of law and order, and a many things besides, they are heard to say, ‘It’s simply un-Australian’. This expression is a longing to return to a better time. A time of safety. A time when things made sense. A time when people and governments could be trusted. A time when your home was your castle. A time of Christian motoring and not road rage. A time when a young man’s life was not senselessly snuffed out for a thrill. A time when life was not cheap. A time when there was a distinct difference between good and evil. A time when God’s Law ruled our nation.

Here is the crux. Ditching God and throwing out His Law will have consequences and repercussions for our society and culture. That which was formed by our belief in God and His Law will not stand for long once we have removed the foundation. Practice will not continue once the idea behind that practice has been destroyed.

Similarly, the adoption of a new religion and worldview will have consequences for our society and culture. Let me touch on just one new worldview, in order to illustrate. Evolution has become the new religion of many. People believe it because they have been told that it is true and that the adoption of evolution will help remove the concept of God. Let me ask you, “What are the consequences of this idea?” The major tenet of evolution is, “survival of the fittest”, is it not? So let me ask, “How does survival of the fittest mesh with mateship?” Answer! It does not. If your mate falls, you do not help him, you gloat. Why? There is now less competition! “How do you think of others, when the basis of evolution is exploitation?” If there is no absolute by which actions are to be measured and to which one is accountable, then theft and murder mean nothing. Survival of the fittest! If I can wrestle an old lady to the ground and take her possessions, so be it! She is weak. She does not deserve to keep them.

If you spend just a little time thinking of these things, you will see that our culture is changing because we are beginning to manifest the practice of the new religion. Do you like what you see? Really. Be honest.

Our modern society is truly un-Australian because it has destroyed the tenets upon which Australia was built. It is un-Australian because the tenets of the new religion have no way to guide us into the future. It is un-Australian because it seeks only the welfare of self and not selflessly the welfare of our mate. It is un-Australian because the “sauce” is mine and you cannot have a “suck of the sauce bottle” or of the “sav”!

Biblical man thinks of others first. The Australia founded upon God’s word knew that and lived out that ethic. Consequently, we looked after our mates. We had a reason to do so. Now we have no reason to act in a selfless, compassionate, generous, and loving way to our neighbours. Now that is truly Un-Australian!