The Forum > Article Comments > Criminals, Easter and Australian values > Comments
Criminals, Easter and Australian values : Comments
By Warwick Marsh, published 13/4/2017Believe it or not, Easter celebrates a man who died a criminal's death and became the foundation for what are commonly called 'Australian Values'.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 13 April 2017 9:16:27 AM
| |
Cobber,
Try Islam. Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 13 April 2017 12:00:08 PM
| |
Why are you so desperate to show the link between Christianity and Australian values? Values are values no matter where they come from. Are you saying that Australian values are only valuable if they come from Christianity? If there is no link with Christianity then they are not valuable at all?
In that case you are not talking about values but moral directives. A value is something we subscribe to because we see the inherit good in it and not because someone tells us that it is valuable or good. The whole point of ascribing value is to make a judgement based on our own attitudes and not someone else’s. When Christians ascribe a value to something we are never sure if it is their value or their religion’s value. We cannot trust them when they say something is good because they may well be just parroting the dictates of their religion. A non-religious person is not subject to such doubt. When they say something is good then you are much more likely to believe them because they are not beholden to the dictates of religion. All other things being equal it would be better to place your faith in non-religious people if you want something done for the right reasons. Christians are always open to this distrust as is anyone who follows moral dictates. That is why religion is such a pox on society. It brings out the worst in people and not the best. Posted by phanto, Thursday, 13 April 2017 12:20:31 PM
| |
Gawd, here we go again.
Claims that the Western World has Christianity to thank for everything good that it has are dubious at best. The role that Christianity played is unclear, and will be debated forevermore. Were Western values guided by Christian principles, or did the Church adopt Western values (founded on secular principles, such as the preference for reason over faith) because it had to in order to survive? The constant lag in the Church’s values, and the extent to which they have fought every change tooth and nail, along with the fact that the Bible contains enough contradictions to justify damn near any behaviour, suggests the latter is more correct. But let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that Christianity is to be thanked for everything good that we enjoy. So what? What are we supposed to do with this information? Some Christians mistakenly believe that this is somehow indicative of the truth of Christianity, but the more atheistic among those promoting this view simply push it to inspire a sense of nationalism and even they seem to fear the decline of Christianity. So what are we to do with this information then? Do we just thank those promoting this viewpoint for the interesting trivia and move on? The levels of insistence and fear in those who promote this view suggests that’s not what they have in mind. So, again, what do we do? Do we all just believe in something, for which there is absolutely no reliable evidence, out of a sense of duty to our heritage or an irrational fear of what might happen if (God forbid!) reason trumps faith? And what about those of us who cannot believe? Do we just live a lie and try to convince ourselves that we do in fact believe? I don’t think so. No civilisation has ever floundered because they valued evidence too much. So, thanks for the trivia, but it’s not evidence for any god claims. And the demise of religious dogma is not going to see society crumble, as the evidence suggests: http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 13 April 2017 12:37:44 PM
| |
Australia is a western civilisation. Since Christianity is a mainstay of western civilisation it is clear that it is a mainstay of Australian culture.
On the other hand, Western civilisation is a mainstay of Christianity - its a symbiotic relationship. Christianity's traits and underlying philosophy is based on western thought. 'The West' was, in its early phase, a Hellenistic invention, founded on the Plains of Marathon and the wonders of ancient Athens. The Israel of Jesus and his successors had been part of the Hellenistic sphere for over 300 years, and if not thoroughly Hellenised, it had absorbed or been influenced by this western culture. This is particularly so for those like Saul/Paul who carried the message to the gentiles and integrated that message into Rome's culture, a culture that had been and was, at that time, still being heavily influenced by Hellenistic western thoughts (the old adage that Rome conquered Athens and then Athens conquered Rome). As the author notes, one of the reasons for the success of the West has been the fact that Christianity was both a bedrock and an enabler of the culture. Its unclear at this time whether the West can sustain its culture and its success in the face of the decline of Christianity. Perhaps its true that West has outgrown this bedrock and can sustain itself independent of its religion. We'll know more in a generation or three. But I have my doubts. Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 13 April 2017 1:51:22 PM
| |
mhaze:
You can only have one bedrock. Either it is western thought which Christianity latched onto, as you say, or it is Christianity itself. Christianity is not based on thought but on faith. They are two opposing things. Christianity survived because it purported to provide answers which reason and science could not. It replaced superstition and the need for people to feel like they have some control over what they could not understand. It is based on the fear of being out of control. It has declined in influence because we have much better understanding of those things that were once beyond understanding. We have a lot less fear. Western thought is based on reason which is a universal attribute even for Christians. Reason is the bedrock of our civilisation and not fear. Posted by phanto, Thursday, 13 April 2017 2:26:30 PM
| |
Warwick Marsh wrote: “The preamble to the Australian Constitution contains the words, "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God."
Yes, and pointing that out to a lecture theatre full of law students is always guaranteed to get a good chuckle nowadays, along with quite a bit of visible head shaking around the room. The lecturers love it. Until the existence of any gods can be demonstrated, the reference needs to be removed. All this part of our constitution proves is that people were, understandably, more superstitious in those relatively-ignorant times. “WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty Poseidon, have agreed to unite …” Now you know how it looks to an atheist. Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 13 April 2017 3:39:40 PM
| |
Equating Christianity and western values / civilisation is interesting. One thing often forgotten in this discussion is that Christianity started as an 'Eastern' religion. The middle east, precisely. Started in exactly the same region as Islam, 500 years later.
So does the writer mean 'eastern' christianity, as JC taught it in the beginning? Does he mean the christianity that Emperor Constantine tried to force upon Rome (the west) some 300 years later. That christianity was a very different beast to what we know of what JC taught. It gave rise to a long line of popes, many power hungry and greedy accumulators of other people's wealth, not to mention protectors of child abusers. Don't forget that the first christianity that moved into the west (still somewhat of an eastern religion) was attacked and persecuted by the west (Rome) for a long time. So called western values of the modern variety came to the fore most strongly during the rennaisance, when Greek philosophy and learning was being rediscovered—not christian at all. And how was Greek learning being rediscovered? Through the sources that Middle eastern arabs (Islamic people) had preserved through the time of the west's dark ages. So, it is all very mixed and complicated. There is no single body we can call 'western values' and it is not particularly equated with the eastern religion of christianity Posted by Thinkaboutit, Thursday, 13 April 2017 4:30:46 PM
| |
So could someone explain to me - was Jesus a Jew
or a Christian? And how does that work in Christianity? Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 13 April 2017 4:47:35 PM
| |
Died a criminal's death? What rubbish! Just because Jesus was crucified between two criminals does not make him a criminal.
And, your grandmother was as silly old, ignorant woman. Few Australians are descended from convicts simply because the convicts didn't breed very much. Convicts were far outnumbered by free settlers. Stupid Australians have bull s....ed about such things in the past, and silly foreigners, from the arrogant old Pom, Winston Church down, have seized on the myths to vent their nasty sense of humour. A pox on the lot of them. My own state, SA, was populated by free settlers only. Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 13 April 2017 5:03:38 PM
| |
ttbn,
" Few Australians are descended from convicts simply because the convicts didn't breed very much......" "Based on the records, demographics, birth rates, census data and migration and emigration patterns, the sites estimated 22 per cent of living Australians had a convict ancestor while there was a one in 30 chance for Britons." 22% is getting close to a quarter so that's hardly a 'few'. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-07-25/online-records-highlight-australias-convict-past/2512534 Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 13 April 2017 5:22:16 PM
| |
Dear Foxy,
Divine or not, Jesus would have been a Jew - by both blood and faith (though one couldn’t really call it ‘faith’ in the case of the divine Jesus, as he would have had knowledge of his own divinity). According to Christian theology, this simply means that, in effect, Christians are Jews (by faith alone, in most cases) who accept their Messiah for who he was/is, and that those who still refer to their faith as “Jewish” are the Jews who reject their Messiah and are foolishly still awaiting his arrival. They’re so silly! Seriously, though, this had helped to feed the antisemitism that was so pervasive throughout Christianity before WWII, which (with the help of photography) showed us just how ugly antisemitism can get. It's funny. Photography managed, in a few years, what Christianity couldn’t manage in a few hundred. But, hey, at least it somehow managed to still provide us with all the good that we enjoy. -- ttbn, Settle down there, ol’ boy. Any innocent person who is executed dies a “criminal’s death”. That mean doesn’t they were a criminal, though. The author is a Christian, I hardly think he’s going to try to paint Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ, as a criminal. No need to get so defensive. Say, your former nom de plume wasn’t ‘Leigh’ by any chance, was it? He was from South Australia too, and used to get all defensive when someone exaggerated the extent to which we descended from convicts. He’d proudly point out that South Australia had no convict past. Or perhaps that’s just a South Australian thing? Nah, he may not have been a believer either, but he never had such a hard-on for Christianity. Never mind. I’ll get it one day… Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 13 April 2017 6:13:06 PM
| |
Dear AJ,
Thank You for the explanation. My son asked me that question and I just didn't know what to tell him. Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 13 April 2017 6:22:45 PM
| |
The truth about applied christian "values" and its blood soaked his-story.
http://www.skeptic.ca/Wetiko.htm Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 13 April 2017 6:47:07 PM
| |
Is Mise,
So, 78% did not descend from convicts; that's a very convincing majority and proves that the general assumptions about Australia's 'convict' past are pure BS. Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 13 April 2017 9:13:43 PM
| |
Alas, if you try to trace Australian values to their source, you would not arrive at Jesus Christ, this lion among men, nor to Ned Kelly, this wolf among men, but rather at the sheep and the cows from the English countryside who loath thinking for themselves and are content to obey directions so long as they have barley to graze (and the beer made thereof).
One could only choke with laughter and/or tears on hearing the jackals that lead these sheep being described as "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God". Could you imagine Jesus Christ telling the money-changers in the temple: "Sorry Sir, would you mind moving your table a few yards out?" Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 13 April 2017 10:53:01 PM
| |
ttbn,
22% is not a few, so you were wrong. Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 15 April 2017 12:19:14 PM
| |
Is Mise,
You are being childish. 22% is a small minority, and it is perfectly clear that the vast majority of Australians have no connection whatever with convicts Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 15 April 2017 2:16:12 PM
| |
ttbn,
"----, You really get stupid when when you are put on the spot, don't you" Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 15 April 2017 5:43:54 PM The cap fits. Wear it. Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 15 April 2017 5:57:49 PM
| |
I have seen the Easter as a real celebration and not just some fake trash.
Posted by rollyczar, Saturday, 15 April 2017 7:20:17 PM
| |
To believe that someone can return from the dead is superstition. Even the early Egyptians believed in the afterlife, at the same time they gutted the dead to preserve the body. So how sure we're they about afterlife or was it wishful thinking or superstition.
Theirs is still a lot of superstition around the world, the dead comeback to claim what is theirs, right down to removing pieces of furniture that was theirs. The belief is so strong that shared accomodation becomes abandoned no matter where the person died. That is what religion is based upon, an ancient tradition that has no foundation other than superstition. And pushed by those that do not believe in what they preach. It all comes from the educated and the naive. Power over mind. Posted by doog, Saturday, 15 April 2017 8:06:04 PM
| |
//it is perfectly clear that the vast majority of Australians have no connection whatever with convicts//
Unlike your mum. Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 15 April 2017 10:01:47 PM
| |
Is Mise,
You really are cracking up, aren't you? Repeating a comment I made to another person, on another thread, which has nothing to do with this one! If you cannot see, from the information YOU gave me that the vast majority of Australians have no convict antecedents and, therefore, the the popular misconception about modern Australians is total codswallop – bit of a laugh – then I don't know what will become of you. I think, perhaps, that you might have had a bit of a mishap with one of the fast draws you have bragged about, and blown out you own brains. Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 15 April 2017 10:10:49 PM
| |
ttbn,
Are you so stupid that you don't realize that 22% is more than a 'few'? "few determiner, pronoun, & adjective 1. a small number of. "may I ask a few questions?" synonyms: not many, hardly any, scarcely any; 2. used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is. "he had few friends" synonyms: not many, hardly any, scarcely any; noun 1. the minority of people; the elect. "art is not just for the few" synonyms: a small number, a handful, a sprinkling, one or two, a couple, two or three;" Where and when did I brag about fast draws? More of your imaginings? Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 15 April 2017 11:03:57 PM
| |
I'll just pop this observation in here as well, seems an appropriate place.
Having just returned from the Easter Vigil at my local Christian church and having listened to some very uplifting words, I am convinced, more than ever, that those of us who believe in life after death will never be disappointed. Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 15 April 2017 11:07:54 PM
| |
Dear Doog,
«To believe that someone can return from the dead is superstition.» Well, we have already done so once around the time when our body was born, so isn't it more superstitious to believe that something can be done only once but not twice? Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 15 April 2017 11:18:31 PM
| |
Is Mise,
You have often carried on about your prowess with firearms, but I understand that at your time of life your probably forget what you said 10 minutes ago. Thanks for sharing your views on the afterlife. It makes sense. It beggars belief that we have had to struggle through this life if there is nothing better at the end of it. It should be great without the whining non-believers and cranky Left. Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 15 April 2017 11:39:14 PM
| |
Hi Ttbn,
Bearing in mind that nearly half of all Australians were either born overseas or have one parent born overseas, 22 % of all Australians with a convict ancestor probably translates to roughly 40-45 % of all Australians born in Australia. Migration massively cuts that back, and helps your 'argument'. I'm sure you're appropriately grateful to them. On the other hand ...... According to that accursed Ancestry.com, I've got at least eight convict ancestors. As a Sydney-sider, and still a newcomer to Adelaide after fifty years, that's understandable. But do I count as eight, or just one ? Wouldn't that push the proportion up ? Isn't it amazing how slightly off-the-topic discussion can get :) Cheers, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 16 April 2017 1:04:46 PM
| |
ttbn,
I have never 'carried on' about my prowess with firearms, in fact, I downplay that which I can do. For instance, in the month before lasts club shoot, 50 metres, aperture sights, I scored 99.6/100 but I came fourth as the first three placegetters all shot 100+ ? in the X ring. Thus the highest possible is 100 + 10 X. To see someone who can really shoot see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjsMSToXO60 A Ruger Mk IV is on my wish list when they become available at 'slightly' lower prices than at present, till then I'll stick to my Mk II. As for my mental capacity see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7732&page=17 Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 16 April 2017 1:18:20 PM
| |
Britain's horrific penal laws that raged for over two centuries after the tragedy of the commons - in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland - had become so overheated that virtually anyone who wasn't part of the comfortable gentry (the new owners of the commons) faced criminal prosecution just in order to survive. The British aristocracy and gentry were no longer willing to support the overcrowded jail system. Transportation was their way out.
In the case of the Irish, most were transported for political crimes against the state - i.e. fighting for independence - or for crimes related to poverty. (Although disputed) at the time of Federation, Irish Gaelic was the Australia's second language. The question is not whether Australia was settled by convicts, but whether the convicts that settled Australia were bad people. At the time of settlement, there were over 100 crimes punishable by death, including stealing a horse or poaching. With such certainty of capital punishment, those who escaped that fate could hardly have been public enemy number one. As for Christ and Easter and all that jazz, Spring had always been the pagan ritual of rebirth and renewal. Christianity routinely drew from pagan spiritual customs to reinvent and enforce its religious credentials. Easter morphed pagan rebirth/renewal rituals into a torture-porn snuff flick about a naked man nailed to a cross, obsessed with a fantasy of saving the sins of the world because his dad ordered him to do it. Bunnies and eggs symbolise the old pagan rituals of rebirth and renewal. Give me that over torture-crucifixion any day. Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 5:48:29 AM
| |
" (Although disputed) at the time of Federation, Irish Gaelic was the Australia's second language."
I'll dispute that, although I'd agree that Irish was the second language in the time of Macquarrie and for some years after. Few second generation Irish from 1850 onwards learnt the language as their parents saw no point in teaching them. Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 8:59:49 AM
| |
Hi Killarney,
Sir Robert Peel brought about a substantial reform of those execution laws in the 1820s, so that execution was only to be used in cases of murder, rape and treason. Apart from those who were transported for stealing a handkerchief or a slice of bread for their starving families, there were some more accomplished thieves: one of my gr-gr-grandfathers was nicked for pinching a hundred sheep, up in the Scottish borderlands. Another pinched bolt of expensive cloth but was arrested trying to sell it up the street. Ah, that explains the feeble-mindedness. She was given the option of execution or transportation: she complained that she got sea-sick, so didn't want to be transported. The judge ordered that anyway, for which I am grateful. As for "enduring the lash", etc., I suspect that few of my ancestors were ever actually lashed: the sheep-thief above went to work straight away employing his expertise for Mrs McArthur, and another was soon pardoned after helping to build one of the early roads around Warragamba (they named a bay there after him; now flooded). Yes, the enclosure acts, etc.: I worked back on Ancestry.com a few generations, and noticed that my ancestors came from smaller and more remote areas the further back I went - then it struck me (I really am a slow learner) that, in real time, going forwards, they came from VERY remote hamlets (not even villages) in border country, then on to larger settlements, then larger still, and so on: in other words, they were sucked out of remote farming areas into the Industrial Revolution but, given their innate criminality, turned to crime instead. Hence their transportation. Hence me. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. But I always wanted to find an ancestor who came from beautiful Kerry, from Killarney: no such luck :( Cheers, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 9:29:30 AM
| |
Dear Killarney,
I think that your last comment is a bit selective: Those who repeatedly make the life of others miserable should be sent away on a one-way trip to Mars and beyond. In 18th century England, being left without your horse could mean that you needed to make your way back home on foot in the snow. If you ever had to walk several kilometres in deep snow that comes inside your boots, then you would appreciate the removal of such perpetrators from society. The same applies today for the heartless spammers and producers of computer viruses, malware and ransomware, or are those poverty-crimes? The people who invented Easter were men, not women, and men generally do not consider a nearly-naked man on a cross as a sexual object. Easter symbolises the willing to sacrifice oneself, life and comforts, out of love for others, whereas the pagan customs which you consider to be spiritual and represent rebirth and renewal, encouraged care-free but irresponsible carnal pleasure, resulting in babies. Everything felt wonderful in spring, but winter-come, those babies had to be fed and when there was not enough to go around, they resorted to poverty-crimes, then the gentry had to introduce laws that restrict and regiment our lives, laws from which we suffer till today. Genuine paganism can be great and spiritual, at times even austere, but it should not be misused to create cycles of wantonness followed by suppression, broken by renewed wantonness, crushed by further suppression, etc. Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 10:29:09 AM
| |
Joe, Is Mise, Yuyutsu
I thought I had put up an earlier comment in reply, but on checking back here, it's missing. Perhaps I pressed the wrong button. I had said in that comment that there were several interesting points raised that I'd like to address but I have major work deadlines this week and don't have time to get into an exchange. Just one point to clear up, Yuyutsu. I wasn’t using ‘-porn’ in the sense of sexual pornography. I meant it as it’s sometimes used nowadays to describe repetitively over-gratuitous or sensationalised imagery or metaphors Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 20 April 2017 1:29:07 AM
|
Can you indicate which values are Australian values that are not attributes of just about ever other country in the world "Values" that are rooted in the historically interpretation of Christianity?
Easter is a Pagan celebration that was adopted by Christians, this is widely understood by historians so why miss-represent facts that are so easily checked?
The first full moon in April marks the turning of the seasons and the coming of Spring.