Last December the Victorian government in Australia launched a Racial and Religious Tolerance Discussion Paper and Model Bill.
This Bill, if enacted, would implement laws not only outlawing racial and religious hatred and intolerance but also make it an offence to insult or seriously offend another person. Worse still, intent is not a defense!
The church of the New Testament is founded on evangelism. This proposed Bill strikes at the very heart of that foundation.
It states that "People are entitled to have their own religious belief, or have no belief at all." This could mean that anyone who witnesses to others could be accused of being discriminatory against, or imposing on, that person's belief or non belief. To suggest that "Jesus is the only way to God" could easily insult or offend many people.
The government asked for public comment and submissions had to submitted by February 28 2001.
Our campaign was to totally oppose the total on the grounds that any curtailment of free speech in Australia was totally unwarranted. We also knew that the homosexual lobby was campaigning for such a bill to include sexuality so as to stop Christians speaking against legislation to normalize their lifestyle.
It is now evident that some submissions from Christians may have actually brought the restriction of freedom to evangelize in Australia closer than when the government introduced the paper last December.
Why? Because although many lay people have been strongly opposing the total bill, some church groups and denominational leaders have taken the "soft option" by giving a compromise response - an acceptance of the main thrust of the Paper, even though many had "serious reservations" about various parts of it - and asked for an exemption for genuine religious activity. The government and the media have seized on these responses and used them to suggest there is general support for the legislation. The Government now believes that a little "tinkering around the edges" is all that is necessary to bring this proposal into law.
To a large degree these ill-conceived responses were due to two main factors:
The first was a lack of political awareness, otherwise known as political naivety.
The second, and probably the main reason, was "political correctness". The desire to be seen as opposed to "vilification"* and in support of "human rights"** especially toward politically "sensitive" groups. This led them to completely overlook the fact that the Paper, even in a revised form, would be an invasion of free speech and could restrict a wide range of evangelism opportunities.
To truly understand the issues involved we need to understand what constitutes vilification.
*The true meaning of the word "vilification" today is connected very closely with "tolerance." To be "tolerant" is to see nothing as intrinsically "wrong" - to vilify is to SAY something is wrong, which is therefore intolerant and must be controlled.
The philosophy behind this type of legislation is that if we cannot control free speech with "political correctness" - which was largely working during the Hawke and Keating years but later blasted out of the water by Mr. Howard (the present Prime Minister) - we then have to resort to legal controls, backed up by criminal sanctions. Except of course for the intelligentsia, the media and the arts, who get an exemption.
Human Rights
** Human Rights are similar to the above. We all have a "right" based on our own "understanding" and cannot impose our "judgment" on another's "faith perspective" or "lifestyle" - This is very humanistic and comes directly from the United Nations.
Once we understand the above we can see that what we are dealing with here are human "rights" v God's law.
The theory is that because God is not real there is no such thing as truth. Therefore our "faith perspective" or "moral" standard is just one among many - how then, can Christians say there is only one way to God or that a particular lifestyle is wrong?
The trap was set, the right language was used, and many Churches and denominational leaders walked straight into it. Some did this knowingly because they already put "human rights" before Biblical truth. Others simply acted on advice without doing any homework or background research. Where to from here?
Christians must now try to retrieve the ground lost. Lay people and true evangelical Pastors must start educating those who should know better. It's time for those who put God before man, those Christians who still believe that every word of Scripture is literally true, to challenge those of the traditional church/denominational leadership who are compromising with this truth.
It's time to take back the church from the politically correct, liberal intelligencia and be prepared, if necessary, go to jail for our faith. We in Australia need your prayers, as do many western countries where such laws are being proposed.