What a breath of fresh air! How refreshing it is to be able to imagine Christians who don't believe they're entitled to insert themselves into other adults' sex lives, or to interfere in other people's families (and family size) and who don't try to twist biblical fundamentalisms to sanctify craven wealth accumulation, war mongering, poverty creation and environmental vandalism. Who among us can imagine the Jesus as he's described by all levels of the Christian church, dining at the same moral table as George Bush or John Howard?

I agree with Fiona. It seems that often the politician's game is to get us all pitted against one another, the christian against the muslim, the gay vs the straight, the employed against those on the dole. It seems to me (in my simplistic and naive view) that the basis for nearly every religion is "be nice to people and your God will be happy".

Well, morally conservitive + Biblical, means such a Christian would never, repeat never, support homsexual behavior, nor associated lifestyles. That issue is as clear as the resurrection of Christ, and Romans 1 is the headline.

This is not 'putting our noses into peoples bedrooms or families any more than to advocate that such things are 'acceptable' is messing with the christian bedroom or family, its about social conditions and democracy, and ultimate morality.

Laws have a habit of effecting freedoms, it goes with the territory. No matter who makes them, they WILL effect some people, either positively or negatively relative to their own life choices to that point in time.
Its unfair to suggest Christians are alone to blame for anything legislation wise which people dont like. We Christians also don't like a lot of other things. Whining is not the solution, political and social action is. But most of all, prayer and a relfection on God, and allowing His grace to impact our minds, wills and thoughts. It might be unpalatable to imagine a God who does not enjoy the sight of a man copulating with a man, but it happens to 'be' the God of the Bible. Don't try to change 'Him' because he is unchanging. Instead of the tail wagging the dog, might be a better idea for we tails to connect better with the dog and allow ourselves to be wagged in the right direction and frequency.

As much as fiona finds John Wallis 'refreshing' I find any compromise with Gods revealed standards, 'sad, tragic and regrettable'.

Friends,
These left wing campaigners claim there are 'macro' and 'minor' issues in Christian Politicts. That the Church and Christians should only be involved in macro issues, like: Poverty, war, racism etc. They ignore, or support, what they regard as 'minor issues' such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual same sex marriage, pornography, prostitution, TV/film standards, marijuana, legalising drugs. They claim Christians are not 'moral policemen' and should ignore the 'minor' issues or even support them as does Wallace. The macro issues are not controversial and are popular with the non-Christian world. Christians should be totally involved in the support of the macro isues and not ignore the minor issues!

Philo J

BOAZ_David, I think you've may have missed the point of the article. It's not about blaming Christians, but is pointing out that many are ignoring the big picture (and thereby betraying their own cause) by voting based on a few wedge issues.

If as you said a morally conservative Christian would never support homosexual behaviour, then what happens in a two party system where one supports gay rights and the other party supports an unjustified war, would cut assistance for the poor and protections for the disadvantaged? OK, that's a bit too realistic, what if the other party supported enslavement, forced abortion and genocide? Would conservative Christians still not vote for the pro-gay party?

Choices and concessions have to be made in politics, and so by never supporting gay rights you effectively elevate it to the #1 Christian moral issue above all other considerations. (And yet Jesus doesn't seem to concern himself with it in the Gospels.) That was the point of the article and I think you have demonstrated it very well.

On the side issue, people's ethics are necessarily going to determine what parties and laws they support, and that is fine. But I do think that restrictions which cannot be supported objectively or by common norms are of a different and more vulnerable/inferior nature; if the restriction regulates consenting parties then it should not be imposed or continued unless there is widespread support.

Well boazdavid, your confidence in God's "revealed truth" is fantastic for those of you who are satisfied to rely on a collection of articles and essays written by story tellers, journalists, historians and 'scholars' - (in most cases many many years, decades, even centuries long after the supposed events and certainly after all firsthand witnesses [if there were any] were long gone).

Yes, I'm talking about the bible.

Revealed truth? I could come up with a few 'truths' of a few hundred years ago too, if I felt it would serve my interests to foment a movement of followers, and if there weren't so many others in my society with the means to write.

Real believers have faith, boazdavid. They don't need books written by a privileged few, to promulgate ideas that cause harm to people who do them no harm. People who really do have faith and who understand that grace is not issued from the printing press - don't obsess about how other people have sex. Only very ordinary, very base people, have such preoccupations.

Of all the big, important, humanitarian issues around the world - poverty, clean air, food, exploitation, war - the things that excite the antennae of the smallest minds in our midst - never ceases to amaze me.