Pro-Voice indigenous leaders must reveal their religious beliefs: The Voice is all about stories.

Note the emphasis on dialog in this tweet from Professor Megan Davis, co-architect of The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Dialogue is a way of bringing the differing stories, or narratives, of different groups and individuals together. The result can be synthesis of, learning about, and better mutual understanding of those narratives.

Marketing psychologists know all too well that narratives that guide people's beliefs and values are essential to influencing their behaviour. It's not for no reason that narrative therapy is a popular kind of psychological therapeutic technique, and nor is it an accident that it's a psychotherapeutic technique that is psychoanalytic in nature: one that involves dialogue or talking.

Narratives and storytelling are most of what both Dreamtime, and the Christian megacult, are all about.

It is thus very important that people like Professor Davis, Pat Anderson, and Michael Rose are forthright about which narratives and beliefs guide their views and decisions. They must be publicly transparent about it in order for people to make a truly informed decision in any Voice referendum.

It is not politically, ethically, nor socially acceptable that the personal dearly-held religious beliefs of the members of the Referendum Council and the architects of the Uluru Statement are not brought into the light and subject to public scrutiny. In some cases (Noel Pearson and Patrick Dodson) Australian indigenous leaders have made their Christian megacult affiliations known. All indigenous leaders supporting the Voice and the Uluru Statement must do this. More importantly, all non-indigenous supporters of The Uluru Statement must do so.

That includes those waiting in the political and cultural wings and working behind the scenes with indigenous leaders supporting and architecting the Uluru Statement. The members of the University of New South Wales' Indigenous Law Centre, for example. Are they Christian megacultists? Are they deistic Freemasons? What narratives rule their cognition, beliefs, and behaviour most? It's a critically important question that must be answered for there to be enough information available for a fair and proper referendum.

The domineering Christian megacult cannot be allowed to continue to perpetrate its structural genocide of indigenous peoples by continuing to colonise their narratives with the delusional, dominionist, and clearly defective (epistemically and psychologically) Christian megacult narrative.

Whether they're of the Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic sects of the Christian megacult, or of some other sect thereof; or else perhaps Jewish, Freemasons or some other form of deist: the indigenous and other MPs supporting the Uluru Statement must make it clear what, if any, theistic or deistic megacult they belong to. Then it will be clear what their most significant behaviour-guiding and belief-governing narratives are in relation to the Voice and Prime Minister Albanese's Voice referendum.

Otherwise there is definitely not enough honest, frank, and highly relevant information for any person to make an informed decision in any referendum about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament or about The Uluru Statement.

This is not least because of the history of colonisation, structural genocide, and abuse of Australian first nations peoples by Christian megacultists (of the Anglican, Catholic, and other various sects of that megacult) on the basis of the global dominionist narratives of the Christian megacult. It is a well known aim of the Christian megacult and its sects to make its memetic narrative the pre-eminent narrative in all societies: one that prevails over all others.

In a secular democracy, we cannot allow public funds to be wasted on the specious, dominionist, delusional, religious objectives of such megacults.

To do so is clearly an unmitigated offence to all non-religious, non-deistic, and non-theist citizens, and a total subversion of democracy and its institutions to the delusional imperatives of the Christian megacult. Moreover it is a continuance of structural genocide of indigenous Australians by way of sneaking subsumption of indigenous narratives under the grand narrative of the Christian megacult.

There is no doubt that throughout the course of history, religious megacults and their narratives have come and gone, and have evolved, merged, and split almost continuously. From a secular and worldly standpoint it is not unexpected that the archaic and often arcane cultural technology of religious megacults and their narratives will see them continue to merge, evolve, morph, and split.

Yet what is at issue in relation to the Voice to Parliament is this: What is the Voice really for, who is it really for, and what is it really intended to do and why? The message in relation to this is both willfully unclear and dishonest, and this is unacceptable. It is very unclear that a Voice to Parliament is really for indigenous Australians. What would seem to serve them better is an elevated voice in all state parliaments as well as in Federal Parliament, not some buffered, controlled voice to Parliament. One that requires indigenous peoples to extend their upturned palms in humble supplication to Parliament and the domineering, delusional, and epistemically ridiculous Christian megacult metanarrative that infects it.

---