@ GREENUP "electing a pro-abortion PM, with pro-abortion Greens with the balance of power in the senate" should have nothing to do with , "thinking about ways to reduce the abortion rate".

They should be independent of each other. In fact, a campaign to reduce the abortion rate would be a very good one for anyone to run - promote sensible sexual behaviour, judicious use of contraception, etc, etc

Perhaps Tony Abbott should do more than suggest the abortion rate is too high, too.
Seeing some positive policies would do him some good

Fixation on "pro-abortion to birth" - the very, very rare late-term abortions for foetuses that will be non-viable outside the womb is unnecessary. Those mother suffer loss, badly.

Jereth;

You seem to concede the idea that within the Christian community this is support for the idea "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." (ie: implemented in the context of the Christian community)

But you oppose this principle in broad society because of co-ercion.

Co-ercion, however, already exists. The State implements taxation; without which we wouldn't have transport, health, schools, parks etc. Indeed, we could go down the Amercian path and have hundreds of thousands sleeping it rough on the street.

So co-ercion is a given anyway. Why wouldn't you use it to help to poor, and provide social and economic justice?

Arguments about liberty in opposition to social wage and welfare state redistirbutive policies involve a double standard anyway.

The State rules that workers cannot withdraw their labour - which you'd think would be an inalienable right. But while most accept this state of affairs; progressive tax to provide for social goods and social rights is opposed on the basis - again - of 'co-ercion'.

It just doesn't make sense.

Tristan

The bible has little to say on the state’s role in redistribution, which just means it’s a product of its time and does not anticipate the welfare states of developed economies like ours.

It is clear on the individual and clan/family responsibility of mutual care and particular concern for the poor and vulnerable (widow/orphans/refugees), and also on responsibilities of those in power not to oppress the vulnerable or abuse privilege. It is reasonable to interpret that in a modern context as endorsing protections of the welfare state, but is not an inevitable conclusion.

Those of us concerned about too large a role of the State in redistribution have many concerns. One is its coercion, which is quite different from the free sharing model of the early Jerusalem church (and that was not a successful model - the early church quickly took other forms). Statism also encourages abnegation of individual responsibility that social provision entails (“it’s not my role but the government’s to look after the poor/sick/unemployed/refugees...), which may account for the comparatively high charitable giving in countries like the USA with a smaller welfare state. It also encourages an excessive and narrow materialism, making current living conditions the main focus of religious activism. Christianity certainly emphasises the material more than many other faiths, but it has other imported facets too.

Like most Australians I support a mixed economy balancing economic freedom and redustribtuion, with elections mainly about where that balance lies.

As you know, “from each according to his ability...” is from the Communist Manifesto, not the bible

Even after all this time, Boaz, you still cannot get it right.

>>THAT is the Swedish hate crime law which saw Pastor Ake Green convicted of 'hate crimes' and initially sentenced to 3 months jail, which was overturned on appeal to the EU Human Rights group.<<

He was sentenced to one month in prison, not three, by the District Court.

The sentence was overturned on appeal by the Jönköping Appeals Court.

The public prosecutor appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court, in order to clarify the legal position. The Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court decision. The case did not go to the European Court of Human Rights.

You never actually do any fact-checking, do you Boaz?

Ever.

You just write the stuff that suits your prejudices, and shrug your shoulders when you are caught out.

Did you actually bother to read the sermon, by the way?

I especially liked the part where he links homosexuality to bestiality.

"The Lord knows that sexually twisted people will rape the animals. Not even animals can avoid the fiery passion of man's sexual lust."

And I wonder whether he had any inside information into the habits of his fellow priests, when he said:

"We have gotten to learn words like 'incest, pedophile, and child molestation.' Words that make us shudder, that belong to the abnormalities."

He didn't pull any punches.

"Homosexuality is something sick. A healthy and clean thought has been exchanged for a contaminated [or defiled] one. A healthy heart has been exchanged for a sick one. A healthy body has been devastated because of an exchange."

A man most definitely after your own heart, Boaz, you employ many of the same arguments.

Nevertheless, it is good that Sweden had the sense to overturn the District Court decision. However bilious his prose, he should be permitted to display his bigotry without being banged up for it.

But please, Boaz, do try occasionally to get your facts straight.

Tristan,

Voluntary redistribution of wealth is workable in a Christian community because it arises from love and concern for brothers and sisters. The greater the love, the more is given.

Involuntary acquisition of goods and their redistribution by the Government is very different. It does not spring from sincere love of one person towards another. To the contrary, it creates resentment in the richer person, whose goods are taken away, towards the poorer person, who gets something for nothing. The higher the tax rate, the greater this resentment.

Compulsory Marxist redistribution is therefore diametrically opposite to voluntary Christian communitarianism.

You are right that taxes are in some sense "coercive" but people will vote out a Government which imposes too high a tax. Therefore, there fundamentally is still a choice. The tax rate is set at a value which is considered acceptable by the majority; any higher, and the resentment starts to build.

Jereth

A conscientious Christian could not vote for the Greens. The Greens as a party support abortion, even of healthy babies, right upt until birth. Yes, it is true that some LIberals support abortion but it not part of their party platform, like abortion is for Labor and The Greens. In Victoria ALL members of the The Greens voted for the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008, but not all members of the LAbor or LIberal Party voted for it.

Conscientious christians should vote for the Democratic Labor Party www.dlp.org.au or the Christian DEmocratic Party as these parties oppose :abortion and volutary euthanasia, cloning etc.

The Greens are not upfront about their policies and the website www.greenswatch.com shows the true nature of the greens.
Bob Brown ( some people's new messiah!) went after the Exclusive Brethren, misusing his position in the Senate, because the Brethren had had the temerity to produce campign material critical of the Green's whacky, economically damaging policies. Bob Brown was arguing that the Exclusive Brethren should not get money for their schools ( as their children do not do teriary education). Bob Brown was saying, I believe that the Exclusive Brethren should not be able to run political campaigns because they do not vote. There are other Christian sects which do not vote such as the Christadelphians but Bob BRown was not pursuing them in Parliament as he was having a vendetta against the Brethren for daring to criticise the Greens.
This certainly is not christian behaviour.

Bob Brown has taken action against the Herald Sun for running an article on Greens policies. The Herald Sun quoted the Greens website word for word but Bob didn't like their policies being up for public scrutiny.e.g. The Greens do not want the public to know they are in favour of decriminalising ( read legalising drugs). The Greens are not honest about what they believe. The Greens refused to answer many of the Questions put to them by the Australian Christian Lobby. LIberal, Labor, The Democratic Labor party, Family First and the Christian Democratic Party could all answer the questions.