Alan
what it's about is...wait for it.... sit down.... take a Bex.... aah..ok... here it is:

DEMOCRACY in action!

It might come as a surprise, but MOST (in my view) Australians are sooooo peeed off with small numbers of fringe elements telling us all what we should think and do.

If the_left are not trying to destroy the concept of 'mum and dad' as legitimate words in our primary schools they are siding with enemies of Australia such as Hezbollah. Then they are telling us that
"We have no culture".

But ask them about the culture of 'migrants' and woooo yep.. they DEFinitely have one, and we need to RESPECT it... but hey... somehow, I think (and personal interviews have vefified this) many many MANY Aussies are begining to make a stand for 'AUSTRALIAN IDENTITY' where ones ethnicity is fading and ones love for this country AS AUSTRALIANs is growing.

Dorthea McKellar an ethnic Scott wrote:

The love of field and coppice,
Of green and shaded lanes,
Of ordered woods and gardens
Is running in your veins.
Strong love of grey-blue distance,
Brown streams and soft, dim skies -
I know but cannot share it,
My love is otherwise.

She KNEW where she came from, it was part of her being...BUT..... she then went on to say:

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror –
The wide brown land for me!

and there you have it... in a nutshell.. the emergence of a 'de-ethnicized' Australian Identity.

WE NEED ETHNIC CLEANSING in Australia.. how so you say ? Simple. We need to DE-emphasize cultural and ethnic difference, and RE-emphasize "Australian" identity.

I'm supposed to be from the 'Religious Right' if you believe some posters.. should I be calling for the compulsory acquisition of homes along waterways such as Gardners Creek Box Hill and Merri Creek and Darabin Creek and giving them to Aboriginal families who have verifiable traditional ties to the area ? I DO

Alan I'm surprised that your surprise that the Christian right only wants to line their pockets. They only wish to control rather then help.

How dare Christians have a say in Politics. I mean in a democracy it should only be those who are anti Christian who should influence policy isn't it? The un Christian left should be allowed to sprout and create policy but those who hold to the moral convictions should shut up and let those of no moral convictions to run amuck

Runner, I have no problem with Christians (or anyone else) expressing their views on public policy. What I do have a problem with is when they do so, and then claim immunity from critical scrutiny because their views are their own personal religious beliefs.

Runner,

to suggest that aetheists or agnostics (like myself) have no moral convictions is insulting and a demonstration of your ignorance. It is possible for us to care for our fellow human beings without having the fear of God struck into us.

No relgious group has a monopoly on morality, there are plenty of good Christian groups out there who help people. But I believe their is a shocking contradiction in the Christian fundamentalist lobby groups who concentrate on side issues like abortion and gays, instead of focusing on true moral dilemmas (refer to authors first paragraph).

David,

Your assumption that all the left hate Australia is a gross exaggeration. I embrace much Australian culture and reject some, the same goes for probably every other culture in the world.

Wheres the Alchemist? I can't wait to here his take on this. lol

Tonstant reader thwowed up ! When we discuss our Christian heritage, of course we won't forget early manifestations of this legacy, such as the Rev Samuel Marsden molesting female orphans, firmly entrenching Christian sexual harrassment of minors from the get-go; a tradition proudly followed with single-minded devotion right up to the present day. If only they could be weaned away from their major obsession with controlling peoples' genitals and reproductive systems, would they perchance focus on stopping war and violence ? or perhaps they might focus rather more on Aboriginal reconciliation and their history of past bullying and destruction of Aboriginal societies (though I admit there were a few exceptions to the general rule of appalling conduct in the missions). But I don't think the conference was about real history, just the usual attempt to further their patriarchal power.

Alan, you ought not be surprised at the lack of transparency and the hypocrisy of the Christian right in dogged pursuit of their conservative political agenda. Watch the responses to your article on this site. They will bleat here that they are the only true Christians and will dismiss anyone who opposes their extreme position by the use of mindless labels like 'lefties', 'the un Christian left' and 'fringe elements'. They will bleat here about national and ethnic traitors to the sunburnt country. They will drag all sorts of red herrings across the path - Aboriginal issues, free speech, national identity, education, terrorism. What they won't do is debate the guts of what you have written.

In the main agreed, even if expressed with drama, perhaps matching theirs but not quite so self righteous.
Why?
Why do people believe in this sort of cant whose expression is often the destruction of others, first named evil of course.

Do people need an aim in life which can be satisfied by this , an apocalypse at Jerusalem’s site now Jewish owned leading to the second coming. For the believers. The true members leading the battle sword on high self promotion excelling.

Sanctity or the entry coin to Heaven?

So to the Nazis and Communists and all those whose creed brooks no doubt.

What do they believe , the ten commandments, love others as yourself do unto others and similar not forgetting smiting ones enmities, I.e. anyone disagreeing.

Name something evil and your writs is stamped with an exemption for your acts, even those of arousing others for the kill of the heathens.

Cognitive dissonance!

David

I apologise for suggesting that non Christians have no moral convictions. I have met non Christians who have such convictions. I also have no problem of the views of the Christians and non Christians being scrutinized. The recent Christian forum was well publicised. I suspect some of the pollies were there because they thought there might be a few votes while others really believe that we need to look for God's help in our land. One of my strong convictions is that Christians whether in politics or not should have nothing to hide. I personally appreciate someone on the left or right that calls a spade a spade. I totally disagree with you that abortion is a side issue. When up to 80-100 thousand unborn babies are murdered each year I call it a national tradegy and disgrace. I consider it a major issue when we don't value the life of our most vulernable.

You may consider issues such as low paid workers and the destructuring of the trade union movement as being of utmost importance but I don't especially comparing it to killing unborn children or brainwashing our youth that homosexuality is normal. Our worldviews are obviously a lot different.

Christians and non Christians alike are involved in helping people with disabilities and giving to the poor. I along with most people in this nation am involved in those issues to varying degrees. That should not silence us from speaking out on other issues that are of concern to us.

As a non-believer, my only interest in religion is the threat of Islam. But it always amazes me that many Australians are concerned with the so-called religious right among those of their own kind, while pandering to and accepting Islam – the only real threat to freedom and democracy needing to be dealt with today.

Religion has no place in politics, in my view, but people with views based on their religious beliefs have always been in politics, and there is no law against it. So, while we can, as individuals, avoid voting for a religionist candidate, that’s about the limit of our say, as long as we remain complacent between elections, as we have always done.

Mathesons’ contribution is tainted with the usual churchy-left hostility towards anything conservative: factual history instead of moralising historians, more men than woman, elite private schools, values which do not tie in with his own and, of course, business which provides the wealth for him to carry out his own activities without having to take any of the responsibility the people and institutions he criticises have to.

What Mr. Matheson does not mention is that one of his fundamentalist Christians, Senator Fielding of the Family First Party, advised of his intention to vote against the bill which would have had all illegals processed off shore, after being gulled by Papuan deserters in Australia. Thought he would have approved of that one.

The trouble with these left-lurching church types is that their experiments in meddling with politics have failed. Their institutions have failed. The pendulum has swung, and a new group holds sway. Atheist though I am, I know whose side I’m on in the defence and well being of my country

Wow. A communist/sympathiser getting upset at Christian groups for being politically active. That's original.

Then complaining that a Christian group doesn't support the same agenda as you. It's not like the democrats haven't used the same line in the last month.

Oh wait, then you get upset that these Christian's exercising their democratic and constitutional rights and freedom of association don't choose the speakers that you would like. Get over it.

How about something new Alan.

I am a left wing Christian, however I cannot find disagreement with David Boaz.

This is a mountain and mole hill thing. Of course people that share similar beliefs will come together and discuss their respective agendas. As pointed out by others this is democracy in action.

The question comes down to whether the individual reader likes or dislikes the idea of religion entering into the political arena, and where the individual stands with their personal beliefs.

The Constitution (S116) makes it perfectly clear that there is no place in the Chambers of either Federal House for religion. Even daily Prayers in the Chambers really push the issue and are considered by many as unlawful.

I for one believe that those that are pushing the views of "the fairies at the end of the garden" have just as a legitimate view as the christians, the muslims, the marxists or fascists. Delusions are still delusions even if lots of people share them.

What is frightening is Runner's comment that the pollies required the assistance of their delusion/god in running the country.

'On the other hand they could provide a platform for a CEO on $3,000-an-hour(100 per cent increase in one year): who runs Australia’s biggest liquor retailer; who’s company is the biggest operator of poker machines in Australia; who cuts jobs in Australia and off shores them to Asia; who’s company was “found to have misled consumers”; which took “$500 million out of the pockets of milk processors and farmers, passed some of it on to consumers and pocketed the rest for its shareholders”; which had just been fined some $9 million for price fixing; and continues to be a major distributor of tobacco, much of it produced by child labour.'

Sounds as if the businessmen who Jesus reportedly kicked out of the temple may have been examples of moral correctness compared with this guy!

And what examples of moral behaviour did he have to contribute to the conference and, by extension, to the rest of Australia?

Leigh really must live in a vacuum. Scared about the threat of Islam eh? Well, my dear, you need to read more and meet more people. My friends who just happen to be Muslim are like the rest of th human race; they are interested in their children's schooling, morgage on the house, reading books, playing musical instruments, playing sport...surely you must understand that these are human beings?

Interestingly, Christian countries have just committed mass murder and war crimes in Iraq. A Jewsih nation has just done the same in Lebanon. Now, an Islamic country would be hard-pressed to top these atrocities. Nevertheless, I do not hold all the people in the atttacking nations' responsible for what their government have done. Heck, I am not repsonsible- though I now live in Australia- for the horror Howard has inolved us in in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither am I responsible for the government and the flopposition's refusal to condmen Israel's war crimes.

You would have been rightt home in the Nazi propaganda era...though you are not alone in enjoying having millions of people that you don't know, and never will, to hate. This parliament has given you it on a platter.

Here's a thought- when you prick a Muslim they bleed. Racism by any name does not smell sweet.

Leigh, I agree with you. I love it when Christians and atheists can agree on something political. (Another example that springs to mind is the religious vilification laws in victoria).

Rex, the interesting thing about Jesus was that He showed grace and compassion to, amongst others, prostitutes and tax collectors.

The prostitutes were the "sexually immoral", who would probably be hated by the religious right today.

The tax collectors were the "financially immoral", who would probably be hated by the religious and non-religious left today.

Both types of people found acceptence (of themselves, not necessarily of their behaviour) in Jesus.

Alan, I hate it when Christians stand up and criticise other Christians. "They're not really Christians- they prefer the 10 Commandments to the Sermon on the Mount". Actually, God gave us both, and we're expected to live by both of them. There are much more important ways of approaching an "erring brother or sister" than spewing everything on a secular web site. If you have a problem, meet with the convenors and talk to them, I'm sure you'll get a lot more reasonable debate out of them than on this site.

Unless you care more about the politics of the situation than any possible reformation.

P.S. Leigh mentioned the threat of "Islam" not of Muslims. Islam is a religion, like Christianity, Bhuddism, Hinduism, etc. It's not a race. It is a system of philosophical and religious beliefs that is not a part of the human genome. You can't be racist by fearing the threat of a religion or philosophy.

Sunisle and others,
Leigh does make an important point about the relative threats from certain religiously based ideologies. There are no Christian countries or countries with majority Christian populations than ban the practice or propagation of other religions. Not so for Islamic countries. Right though Alan Matheson is to scrutinise the political activities of Christian religious groups, I know where the greater danger and need for vigilence lies.

Runner,

I appreciate the civilness of you reply. Please don't take it personally when I say that I am very bothered that are so many people like you in this country.

I can understand that you feel the nations abortion rate is a disgrace, but I diagree. There are thousands of born babies in the developing world suffereing, in part because of our govts. foreign policy choices. Closer to home, my suggestion is to go for a tour through some of the poorer suburbs in our cities. Have a look at the amount of pregant teenagers, parents on drugs and welfare who can barely look after themselves. Then come back and tell me abortion isn't a good option to have. Harsh I know, but true.

Your attitude to Homosexuals really distresses me, and I beleive its probably your faith that will prevent me from being able to reason with you, so I will just say that just because its not normal to you, dosn't mean it isn't to them.

Like I said, nothing personal, but in my view, you are what is wrong with this country.

In my first post today I gave a few examples of the mindless labels which are offered as a substitute for reasoned discussion on this forum. I suppose I should have anticipated these others: ‘the usual churchy-left hostility’, ‘moralising historians’, ‘illegals’, ‘Papuan deserters’, ‘left-lurching church types’ and the good old ‘communist/sympathiser’? What would contributors do if we banned cliches and labels for week and insited on clear, reasoned argument?

And I should have anticipated a much larger range of pet red herrings. So far today we've had abortion, homosexuality, the threat of Islam, the history debate, refugees, national security, religious vilification laws and the latest doozy – a secular web site is not the place for ‘spewing everything’ that Christians disagree upon. Apparently, Christians should keep their squabbles in-house. Naughty man, Alan Matheson; see what you've done!.

there is no place for religion in a truly equal playing field.

If we where all christian, or all muslim, it would be different.

We are 21st Century Australia, how do we expect to embrace the world if we are running on old values.

Forget religion, we need a non bias, greatest good for the greatest number mentality that protects the culture of Australia without disadvantaging any.

Religion is the mark of the first 2 milleniums of an emerging civilization, not the third.

Thanks for the article Alan Matheson.

As a high school student in an expensive private church school we grew to despise those pious hypocrites who gouged money out of their workers, customers and competitors from Monday to Saturday then thought that praying at church on Sunday and paying for a stained glass window would absolve them of their sins.

I feel so sad for Australia that the pious hypocrites of the religious right have ascended to the positions of leadership they planned to take back about 15 to 20 years ago.

So those who believe in allowing everyone 'a place in the sun' and 'a fair deal for everyone' need to mobilise to regain the centre ground from the religious right.

"Alan Matheson is a retired churches of Christ minister. who worked in a migration centre in Melbourne, then the human rights program of the World Council of Churches, before returning to take responsibility for the international program of the ACTU"

I for one, find it refreshing to find someone who has been on the inside of both religion and politics speaking out against the marriage of the two.

Nice posts by Carl and YngnLvnit - I too find it somewhat unusual that the religious right have departed so far from the actions of jesus - I for one think he would be disgusted by the church as a political institution, but that's just an agnostic's view.

There are no easy answers when it comes to religion - a lot of people have them, and those who are most vociferous in spreading their view tend to be deaf to the alternatives. The problem we have here, is that their moral code requires them to try and force their views on others, be it any issue, such as abortion or homosexuality.

What really scares me is the subversive nature of these groups - if they are truly a church organisation, should they not be open about their actions and funding? Why are those who are contributing to these organisations hiding their involvement?

The only reason I can come up with is that they are determined to persuade by stealth.

But come on - is that not a departure from the core values of Christianity? do you really think Jesus would have promoted conversion by subversion? or would he have taken the moderate, less aggressive stance?

What is this entity that is the religious right, and from whence has it spawned?

YngNL

You are right about the ‘racist’ bit, of course. I gave up long ago taking any notice of the intellectually challenged posters who regularly pop up calling those of us with whom they disagree names, particularly as they can’t even get their terms of abuse correct. Wrong name, right name. It’s all the same to me – not worth the bother. People who would rather attack someone else’s opinion and make assumptions about strangers rather than giving their own opinions are not worthy of any response.

I hope the Mullahs don’t get to hear that some of their flock are befriending an infidel. On the other hand, perhaps our new smarty pants poster only thinks they are his or her friends.

Sunilse sounds like a bit of loser to me. Bit of a busybody, too, having the need to rush to the defence of someone else when they have ample opportunity to defend themselves.

I just loved the one about the Islamist’s difficulty in matching Israel ‘horrors’.

Dear FrankGol

I'll take the challenge....

You claim that the author rightly noted 'Lack of Transparency' in Christian organizations. Then that we responded with many irrelevant side issues.

I note with interest that Alan was able to discover without too much difficulty apparently that CCC and Perichoresis sponsored the ACHNF.
What might I ask is 'not transparent' about this ?

Alan goes one level deeper.. "faceless men" and turns it into a GENDER issue ? *curous weird look...why?*

And why...does CCC sponsoring an event HAVE to mean the event itself is something to do with the 'religious right' ? Perhaps... just perhaps it is a gathering of like minded people who feel a common blessing in Christ and look to Him for guidance in terms of the pre-amble of our constitution ? Bear in mind, these people were most likely ELECTED if they are parlimentarians, so...what's the beef ?

Alan cites a veritble shopping list of left wing issues, some of which would be viewed as outright immoral by many of us. For example, 'destruction of trade unions' would never be needed if they did NOT use bully and strong arm tactics to force their power on others. When I see a sign on a building site which says 'No ticket, no job'.. a deeeep anger rises up inside me.

The other things Alan mentions are all TWO sided coins.

But the CEO of the largest liquor retailer who he mentioned, does seem a bit off and odd to me. I do take issue with that, but not for the reaons he does. He just substitutes a 'left wing political' alternative, whereas I would suggest scrutinizing the speaker purely in terms of his activities in the light of Scripture.

Most of the rest of Alans piece is 'yawn, blah blah sour political grapes from what I can see' and irrespective of any deficiency in the suitability of particular speakers, he totally misses the point of our definitely 'Christian' cultural social heritage, which if I'm not mistaken is what the seminar was about ?

The funny part is many of the GB post's don't get that the Author is a Christian. But then again he can't be a real Christian cause he isn't rich, what is it they say at hillsong "God wants you to be rich". Bottom line is the Christian left try to live as JC instructed via SOTM. While right wingers try to tell others how to live using the "TC" many of which they ignore themselves. I tell you there is little daylight between some right wing Christian groups and the taliban.

YngNLuvnlt, strictly speaking Buddhism isn't a religion. It's a "way of life" and does not worship the Buddha or any other god for that matter. You'll find people of many different religions studying Buddhism along side atheists. All are welcome to study the wisdom and lifestyle of the Buddha and many find the experience extremely rewarding, unlike worshiping some god invented by primative tribes with which to use as a weapon to hold their tribe members in check through superstition and fear. You'll find no such fear or superstition at a Buddhist meeting which may be one reason why Buddhism is growing at a huge rate in tolerant countries such as Australia.

I don't care how many meetings these people have. What I care about, is their need to tell everyone else how to live to their set of morals.

I have my own morals and I actually live by them.

Alan
In another post I suggested that wealth and tax records be in the public domain.
If such were the case you would not be speculating on who bankrolls Perichoresis.
The road to a society free from biased and self-serving opinions is disclosure.

Parish meetings are always held to devise the best christian outcomes in government and business, directed from above. Many meetings in Kew, consisted of monotheistic factions (except islam) deciding who they'd support during state and federal elections. Always including powerful religious businessmen and bureaucrats.

Until now, they've had no illusions they could present to the populace, instilling enough fear to force their agenda. Controlling freedoms, suppression of minorities and free speech. Now the 3rd faction stepping up to bat, using tampered with bats, balls and rules, not one hair of truth on all their heads.

No matter what evidence's presented showing monotheistic and political collusion destined to usurp our lives and instil the chaotic control of Yahweh, monotheists will dismiss it. Monotheists are pathological liars, displayed in psychopathic outbursts of righteous indignity and delusion. The reality of monotheism's, in the incomprehensible illusionary babble, they constantly spew out insanely, in desperation to create some semblance of truth, in their floundering self-destructive illusions. Reading through posts of rabid god followers, you'll find little sustainable truth, just repeats of their psychopathic babbling drivel.

Constant lies about supposed terrorist attacks, from religious politicians, allows introducing more suppressions, infantile religious indoctrinations, driving wedges between sections of the community. Whilst putting the resources and assets into the hands of religious institutions and controlled monopolies. Add the verifiable reality of god, its mission and how its followers express, shows we're already under religious control.

Our media's in the hands of the religious right, food supplies, fuel, governments. The only solution we have is to get rid of the party system, putting in a system making every candidate fully transparent and accountable for what they say and do. More importantly, we need a vaccine/cure for the terminal psychopathic illness, called god. After all, we must show compassion, towards the afflicted and not treat them as they'd treat us.

God works through fear, nothing else. To instil fear, you have to create circumstances, by lying about reality,. i.e. Gods a good bloke.

Now thats not to harsh is it Bushie, thanks cobber.

ahhh the alchemist, never fails to dissapoint. did anyone see foreign correspondent last night? they had this group of religous wackos trying to 'convert' homosexuals, seriously disturbing stuff.

Carl

I work with a group of people who are the poorest and most disadvantaged in the country. This does not change my view on abortion as their is unlimited people waiting to adopt these unwanted pregnacies.

You have no idea what my attitude is towards homosexuals. I am having lunch with one on the weekend. That does not change the fact it is an unhealthy lifestyle that should not be taught as optional at schools.

You have a right to believe that myself and other bible believing Christians are all that is wrong with this country. Maybe you should encourage the likes of Mr Bracks to legisalte further against free speech. This would surely add to a balanced debate.

A simple correction Runner…

“That does not change the fact it is an unhealthy lifestyle…”

No, it should be “That does not change “my opinion and that of my faith that” it is an unhealthy lifestyle..”

Yes, you can believe what you wish – as can every person on this Earth (God-given or otherwise).

Wouldn’t it be better if people simply acted out as a result of their faith, rather than cry it far and loud to all, as if to justify their actions?

Wouldn’t God be happier if people acted out as a result of good conscience and compassion for all, rather than condemn those who don’t believe the same – letting God make the judgement and taking the steps to bring the lost back to its fold (if in fact that is what happens).

The louder the religious cry/scream/bleat the more I fail to hear and doubt the conviction of the religious. I think about it and I have never had cause to doubt a Buddhist. I wonder why…

"Runner" is so predictably representative of the "Christian" right - advocating that women should be forced to undergo unwanted pregnancies and the pain of childbirth in order to supply adoption agencies. No probs ! women are just breeding machines. No matter if they have been raped by their father or the local priest. And of course homosexuality is unacceptable. No doubt you are only lunching with one of the Unclean in order to save him.

As usual, Runner demonstrates the sad truth that the prurient focus of these "Christians" is on peoples' genitalia and reproductive systems. Concern with current mass killing, especially of innocent civilians, caused by war does not register on the radar of the armies of sexually obsessed, who typically use Christianity as a front to disguise their little problems. Please get your nose out of other peoples' groins, Runner.

runner, "myself and other bible believing Christians"

That bible believing thing is a real concern to those of us who have read it. There are some bits in the old testament which some of us really don't want in our society. There also seems to be some confusion as to what it means anyway. When I was younger there were groups of bible believing christains which insisted women were head coverings to church, there are very few who still believe that bit now. Sells as a bible believing christian has an interesting thread running where he appears to be saying that the bible does not support the idea of a literal heaven or eternal life. That list can be added to fairly easily but I'm guessing that you will get the point if you try.

So what is bible believing really mean other than a catch phrase to legitimise the picking and choosing that all christains do regarding the bible.

R0bert

Spot on Alchemist!

Your post perfectly illustrated what an oxymoron the term "Christian Right" is.

So much for Christian morals and values.

It almost seems that, to the Christian Right, if you're not rich, you're not a Christian.

Hmmm...the terms "camel" and "eye of a needle" come to mind...

Kang

You fail to acknowledge that 98% of abortions are simply for convenience. No about of rantings can deny that fact. For those who are upset that we Christians shove our morals down your throat I could just as easy argue that much of the secular societies morals or lack of is shoved down our throat. To even suggest that those practicing homosexuality do not have far greater health problems than hetrosexuals is totally unreasonable. I suggest you visit any infectious disease wards in any major hospital and talk to any medical person and you might change your mind on what is healthy and what is not.
The person I am having lunch with is lost as any other human being is without Christ. I have been in that position myself. I also have friends who commit adultery, lie, cheat etc. All fall short of God's standard and it is for this very reason all need the mercy, forgiveness and grace of our Precious Saviour.

Robert does not need to concern himself about bible believing Christians. Yes I along with millions of others believe the entire bible is God's Word. Just so happens that most hospitals, schools and universities were started by these dangerous bible believing Christians. It just so happens that those dangerous bible believing Christians do huge amounts of free community work here and abroad. You can rest easy Robert, the worst thing we will be doing is praying for you.

I watched the ABC Foreign Correspondent, homosexual conversion piece. Now if I had only known that my school tennis raquet had more uses than hitting a tennis ball, I may now be heterosexual!

There again, I may get Runner knocking on my door, to take me out to lunch. More likely I'm doing the cooking and he/she is after a free feed, for christianities sake of course!

What is it with these people, who go on about the bible and we should all live by it. I thought control of peoples lives ended with the second world war, and the cold war.

I do believe that there is something lacking in their lives, that turns them to the unknown. Instead of getting rid of the baggage, they have allowed to attach to themselves.

We are born innocent and parents are the guardians of that innocences. The child is of the parents being, not of their ownership.

runner

quote "To even suggest that those practicing homosexuality do not have far greater health problems than hetrosexuals is totally unreasonable."

It's also a fact that bible-believing christians have a far greater rate of mental health problems than any other segment of society.

Could the two be related do you think? Obviously they are just like homosexuals & physical health. Buyt there is one major difference. A human being has the right to endanger their own health if they wish - that's why smoking isn't illegal even though it causes cancer. But they don't have the right to endanger others. The bigotry & extreme prejudice of "bible-beliving christians" does exactly that. It endangers the harmony, & psychological health of society far more than other cause that's been named on this thread.

Conclusion: If it's justified in your mind to discriminate against homosexuals because they are a physical health risk [though they only endanger themselves even if they are] then it's also justified to discriminate against fundie christians because they are a danger to emotional health & well being.

Sauce for the goose...runner.

Thanks mister Man, Carl, wish it weren't so though.

Runner, 98% of all things humans do is for convenience, including religion, which is convenient for passing responsibility in life to nothing. There's a vast difference between “health problems” and “infectious disease.”, though I doubt you understand that reality.

This thread's about religion taking over our political system. Not about how far your mental state may've deteriorated. Praying for someone is psychological assault, the results of praying seen around the world, statistically 99.9999%, didn't work. A politically correct court, would charge you with inciting calamity, bad luck and death for someone.

I'd do some real research before saying,
“Just so happens that most hospitals, schools and universities were started by these dangerous bible believing Christians.”

To which god are you referring, the OT war god Yahweh, NT novel by unknown scribes, or the closer to Yahweh's expression, Koran, by the beserk Muhammad.

Clear thinking and seeing, determines where religion fits into the political scene. Just like seeing where unions, lawyers, accountants academics, bureaucrats, the economic elite, mostly all religious, fits into the political direction we're being pushed towards.

What's sad is monotheists of all persuasions, are so enslaved, they prefer to cheer as society disintegrates under the influence of their controlling juntas. Rather than step back and take some responsibility for stopping this heinous direction religion's taking us.

How many want a return to the 18-19th century, where free thought and action's banned. What depth will the followers of god go to in stopping people having freedoms, against their insane moralities.

Considering monotheists go to war to suppress opposition, so what chance do people here have of keeping their freedom to be themselves responsibly. From monotheisms current and past history, their only weapon to remove individualism and freedom of choice, is death.

I personally do not think it fair to judge all Christians as being Right Wing Bible Bashers. The bible is open to interpretation and any and all honest christians of different denominations will tell you that.

Runner, I am amazed at how often Right Wingers or just plain homophobic folks use the comment that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy. What is unhealthy to homosexuals is how Aussie society treats them as second class citizens.

I put a challenge out to all of you who have never been in a homosexual relationship. Go forth and give it a go and then you might have some facts and thoughts on the subject rather than your own imagined thoughts based on the bible or on your own lack of experience and what your mind conjures up.

Oh I hear you say that you are not attracted to the same sex and that you are heterosexual. I'm a tolerant person, I will accept your CHOICE of sexual orientation.

If some of you lot truly believe in God, you will know that God has the only right to judge us when the time comes. Not you, and not the bible or your interpretation of it nor what you consider as normal.

I have watched with great fear this current Govt pandering to the far right. This Govt is far from fair and it appears to me that they too are basing most of their legislations on their own interpretation of the bible and the Judeo-Christian way, whatever that is....or should I say, whatever that interpretation happens to be.

runner, as a check does your "bible believing" include Exodus 2:18-27, Exodus 21:2-25, 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 etc? If so literal or something else?

Yes christians have done some really good works but sharing a label with those who did so does not make your views and attitudes the same. I suspect that many of those who started charities, hospitals etc would be utterly repulsed by much of what passes as "bible believing" christainity.

R0bert

Here is a nice leftie comment for those who take an aggressive view of the world "Do to others as you would have them do to you." I have not seen much of that view being expressed by those pushing a strong Christian view. I'm probably pretty dumb, but I thought the above quote is an important concept of Christianity.

This quote is inexplicible in relation to what some have been suggesting in relation to Islam "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you" — Muhammad.

Jehovah Witnesses will say that Catholics are evil and vice versa. Is it any surprise then that so many Christians are deriding Moslems and the flow goes the other way as well.

Runner -

I take issue with your quote - 98 per cen of abortions are simply for convenience.

When I hear someone come up with a statistic, I always stop and think: how could that be accurately gathered?

With convenience being such a subjective term, I can only feel your statistic has been plucked out of thin air. If a daughter has an abortion because her family mired in domestic violence, is that 'convenience?'

If the family is poor - is that simply for 'convenience?'

These issues should always be debated, but don't go throwing exceedingly dodgy pseudo statistics at me. Nothing about this issue is simple, so don't go trying to simplify it.

I completely agree that the Christians who started charities and hospitals would be utterly repulsed with what passes as Bible beieving Christainity. Particularly from the Christian Right.

The Christian Right have become corporate lap dogs aligning themselves with political parties who want to tear-down any form of public heath and destroy any sense of social contentment by financially squeezing the poorer people in society. But heck, if they're poor then they must be atheists then, hey?

In the case of manipulation of democracy by the religious right, I present as my first witness, Tony Abbot.

For the following reasons:

Attempted to withhold medical treatment for women - RU486
Distortion of facts about embryonic stem cell - hysterical claims of human/animal hybrids.
Hypocrisy - how he wants us to behave and how he actually behaves.

For an interesting listen, tune into Media Report on Radio National, Abbott has a go at the media, claiming they deliberately misunderstand that he is acting 'simply' from 'christian' morality and not from any gospel (as if no one else has any morality). If he is indeed sincere in his beliefs, then he really doesn't understand the secular POV and is an intellectual eunich - if he is merely trying to gain sympathy, then he is nothing more than a cold blooded manipulator.

Media Report 24th August, presented at 8.30 AM repeated at 8.00 PM tonight, or download audio link (Abbott if the final speaker in the half hour program):

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/mediareport/default.htm

Listen in, make up your own mind - is he simply misguided or a manipulator?

I love it when "Christians" like Runner assert things like "the entire Bible is God's word" as then I can ask him if he is upholding the biblical injunction to put to death all those who work on Sunday, or the biblical permission to sell children into slavery? Won't hold my breath for an answer though.

Kang

I suggest you read the bible instead of taking a few texts out of context. Having read the bible through many times their is no mention of putting people to death for working on Sundays. It is true that under the old covenant people were stoned for working on the Sabboath (if that is what you are referring to). Just in case you did not know Jesus instituted a new covenant where Christians are called to love their enemies. If it wasn't for God's mercy we would be all dead because we have all broken His perfect laws many times over. Thankfully because of His great love He sent Christ to pay the price for our lawlessness. By the way wasn't it William Willerforce a devout Christian who led the fight against slavery?

Joy you might mean well but you don't need to try everything in order to determine if it is right or wrong. People who do acts that I would hope you find repugnant (such as incest, molestation of children etc)could argue the same case as what you have tried to.

It amazes me that so many on this post seem to imply that Christians or 'right wing Christians' are the cause of every evil on this planet. Simply by believeing that homosexuality along with adultery and lying and stealing is wrong and voicing that view is a terrible crime to many. By defending the most vulnerable (unborn babies) makes us on par with Hitler by the tone of many on this post.

I have not got time to answer every bible text quoted by those who don't believe. Theologians have been debating these for centuries. I take it you have heard most the arguements before. You choose to believe the bible is not true and I choose to believe it is inspired by God and reveals His Son Jesus Christ

runner, "I have not got time to answer every bible text quoted by those who don't believe. Theologians have been debating these for centuries. I take it you have heard most the arguements before.", looks like you've done a runner on that one.

I suspect that almost all "bible believing christains" choose which bits to believe (take literally) and which bits they don't. Those that do take it all literally would probably be ones you would regard as seriously unhinged. The only difference between bible belieing christains and Sells bible belief (see his article on heaven) is the proportion of the bible that you don't take to be literal.

Claims to be a bible believing christain are at best self deception and designed to help you avoid the pain of taking responsibility for what you choose to believe and to give your interpretation more credibility and at worst deliberate dishonesty.

R0bert

Oh right! so Runner has not been out stoning people who work on Sunday because Jesus came with the new Covenant ! so that rules out most of God's word doesn't it, i.e. the Old Testament. Perhaps Runner could say where this leaves homosexuality, what did Jesus say about it exactly ? or does Runner continue to uphold his select parts of the OT where it suits him ? or what ? As an aside, I've always wondered what it meant when Jonathan and David were lying in the field together ? just good friends ? also, Runner fails (as they always do) to answer my query as to why he is obsessed with the death of foetuses while the mass murder of innocent children and adults via bombing of residential suburbs does not arouse the slightest murmur of concern in him and his sex-obsessed coterie. Please explain.

As I said before, we should obey the 10C and the Sermon on the Mount. In modern terms that means no war and no abortion. (Exceptions: War, in cases where injustice is likely to occur if that war does not happen, e.g. fighting Nazi Germany. Fighting Iraq for oil does not count in this category. Abortion: If the mother’s life is actually in danger, but not just because her bank balance might be.)

According to the Bible we are all under the death sentence. God says that even though very rarely people will dare to die for good people, Jesus chose to die for us even though we're very bad (Ro. 5:7-8). That's justice meets mercy in a nutshell.

Is all of the Bible from God? Yes, I believe so. What is the Bible? Quite simply, it is the recording of historical events and poetic prose, through which God teaches His commands and principles to humanity. Does this mean every piece of it is literally true, and literally applicable in the 21C? Not necessarily. Poetic pieces were not literally true. Also, there were some recordings of history we can safely assume God never wanted repeated. Then there are other passages (e.g. Paul telling women not to uncover their heads) that were only culturally relevant but the meaning conveyed through them is equally relevant today (e.g. that passage would mean today, please dress modestly).

Homosexuality... there's probably three passages on it in the Bible yet its mentioned far more than hatred, jealousy, (unrighteous) anger, strife, offence, etc. (mentioned quite a lot in the Bible).

Personally I do not believe God made people to be gay. It would be pretty unjust to make somebody gay and then say "by the way, if u sleep with another man, u must be cut off from your people".

Looking at the Torah, we see it was written 4000 years ago by nomadic freed slaves on a long trip out of Egypt. They didn't have jails. They didn't have hospitals. Let's face it, they didn't have a lot of our 21C medicinal knowledge either. All they knew was God, and He told them to obey Him.

So when God said "don't sleep with an animal, this is an abomination" they said "yes Lord" without learning about microbiology. When God said "don't sleep with a close family member, this is dishonouring" they said "yes Lord" without learning about genetics. When He said "don't sleep with the same sex" they said, "yes Lord."

In the 21C some gays use condoms and live in long term relationships. 4000 years ago, this didn't happen. Think more gay orgies in pagan worship rather than Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Obviously this would spread disease, stop procreation (no IVF back then for lesbians) and dishonour God (by worshiping pagan religions). He didn't need to go into a lecture about microbiology or sociology. He just said "don't do it, I'm God, listen to Me" and expected them to listen.

I think its quite evident that homosexuality was completely unacceptable in the OT. Does this continue in the NT? Some Christians would argue no, but I think this is more from a misguided sense of compassion than actual Biblical study. The NT makes it quite clear that homosexuality is still a sin, but, as with all other sins, the “death” penalty we were once set to experience has been annulled through the Blood of Christ.

I heard an interesting story today from a person who is a Christian.

The person talked about petitioning a parish to provide some time for an orphan who simply needed time to be spent with him. The Church indicated that they could not do anything for the young fellow. The person stated that at the meeting appropriate prayers were said, and a warm communal feeling was created; but there was incongruence with the final result.

The particular person petitioning the parish does do things that you might expect from a Christian. For example, the person is involved in helping refugees settle into their new community. None of this what can Christianity do for me attitude, but they roll their sleeves up and try to make a difference without having a need to have their exploits made public. The story came from wanting to make a point, the point being that help does not always come from where it could reasonably be expected from.

Currently, I’m an agnostic; however, the Christ that I learnt about as a youngster I seem to recall, served less fortunate people.

To YngNLuvnit, I would genuinely like you to tell me which verses in the New Testament make it clear that homosexuality is a sin. I have searched in vain but maybe have missed something.

I'm so glad you admit that unjust wars which target civilians are a sin, but Runner apparently cannot say why the "Chrisitan" right makes so much noise about foetuses and remain silent about war, arms dealers, militarism, and the rotten military adventures our young men are being dropped into.

The Christian Right is simply a healthy counter weight for a permissive self regulatory society who's morals standards change over time. I fear this change is mostly to the detriment of people.

Dear Kang

read Romans 1 please. (homosexual behavior)

Dear Ant... maybe its time to re-read the gospels :) fill in the gaps about our Lord. Childhood impressions were derived through the filter of the teacher.. now its time to see the full story yourself mate.

Regarding your story, please read the book of James.. it is MOST relevant. Something about 'warmed and filled, but not fed or clothed etc' You will identify with it I'm sure.
Cheers

Alan Matheson,
It is obvious you draw energies from the Adorno et al theories of the fifties, but I do with some disappointment have to inform you; your political compass is way out of synchronization. Authoritarianism is a true Leftist sickness, and yes it does exist in Christianity, but you did not mention where it lay in abundance anywhere else; so I can only gauge by your inference that you are of the old bent men mentality.
There is a history before Adorno et al decided to try reorganizing psychology to stack against conservatism. Even ever trying so hard to agree with your hypothesis draws nothing other contemptuous assumptions without any scientific theory other than a philosophical theory you hold dear.
Caves are cold in winter, something to remember.

Boaz_David, my Christian friend as I tried to indicate in my previous post physically, mentally and spiritually does live the life as suggested in James as best they can. When they told the story they did not talk about the things he has done in the past; I added that part through having known him for some years. That is, spiritually and physically they do give.

I get pretty cranky B_D with those who try to flaunt their religious beliefs in the political arena, but then their actions are abusive towards others who cannot defend themselves. In James I do believe there are passages about landlords ripping off their labourers; which I think would generalise to anybody in authority in the world as it is today.

I am a card-carrying follower of Jesus Christ. However, I totally agree with those of you who abhor being told by others what you can or can't believe, whether the religious right or any other group. The God I follow doesn't force anyone to believe or to adopt a particular form of morality, nor should those who serve him. I should say though that I recently heard Christian philosopher Os Guiness suggest that any society that ignores its roots is in danger of losing its way. From where I sit the west is in danger of doing just this. The west, including Australia, was shaped by to a large degree by the Christian faith. Why the push to deny and ignore this? Surely a mature society recognises where it has come from in the process of discovering who it is and what it wants to become.

Arnie

Thanks for getting the thread back on track.

Now, the problem is, not everyone sees christianity as the great positive force in everything.

Democracy, philosophy and humanitarian ways of thinking preceded christ - for example as espoused by the early Greeks.

Where secular people have issues with christianity (apart from self-righteousness) is that christianity wants to take the credit for all the good and avoid responsibility for any bad.

As a society, it is important that we learn from the past - both the good and the bad. The issue raised on this thread is that the fundamentalist extreme right wing of the christian church is attempting to govern us all and impose their rigid belief systems such limiting sex-education, contraception, autonomy of fertility, teaching of a christianised version of science and other subjects in our schools and so on.

Arnie, sure, take pride in your beliefs but don't try to claim any moral superiority by stating our western culture owes all to christianity, it doesn't. It is a growing, evolving culture of many diverse philosophies and owes as much to the early romans, greeks, chinese, arabs as it does to christianity - a religion which is only 2000 years old, which is a blink of the eye given the milleniums of human existence.

Scout, I'm very happy to accept that Christianity has contributed both positively and negatively to the kind of society we have become. My point is that we should be honest enough to admit that the contribution happened and that some of it was positive. I think it's curious that there are those who want to deny the role Christianity played or to suggest that its role was entirely negative.

Hey Arnie

Appreciate the response.

I find the philosophy of JC most enlightening and am concerned that many who claim to be christians do not follow his teachings at all and these tend to be the most vocal and controlling of the christian religion at present.

On an earlier post I presented Tony Abbott (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4812#52823) as an example of this behaviour and I will present George W. Bush as another who uses christianity for his own gain.

No point in christians resting on their laurels and expecting gratitude while their religion is being hijacked by a bunch of greedy control freaks. So excuse me, if I don't praise christianity right now.

Agree whole heartedly Scout, BUT, now apply the same knowledge and philosophy against other religions, both Post Modern and Marxoid orientated Idealism also, and dare I say it; Apply it to Islam, I’m sure the shock and ORR of home truths will probably paralyze you temporarily. Let’s see the critical analysis across the board without anti establishment orientation , or run the risk of being dismissed as an Inept trendy.
I am sure that is not what you are. So be fair about it.

"The Christian Right is simply a healthy counter weight for a permissive self regulatory society who's morals standards change over time"

Is this to say the morals of the Christian Right don't change over time? That its adherents never divorce or even use contraception?; That they don't resort to lies (a la Tony Abbott) to influence others?; Or, taken to the logical extreme, belive in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and the stoning of adulterers?

Who determines what is and isn't permissive?
The Christian Right is just the collective name for those who wish to impose their narrow world view onto others.

A parting thought - "Be not righteous overmuch".

Thanks Boaz, have just read Romans 1 re homosexuality, but I was actually asking people exactly what Jesus said about it, I don't think he mentions it in any of the gospels. I never warmed to Paul, knowing he never even met Jesus, and was sexist, very unlike JC. As is so typical in our ghastly human history, someone starts a really good and inspiring movement but then the bastards, seeing an opportunity to get power, horn in and take over and become the experts. In Paul's case, pronouncing on morality and sex as if he were JC himself, not some jumped up ex-clerk big-noting himself. All this chapter proves is that homosexuality has been part and parcel of society forever, so surely better for us to learn to accept it as I'm certain JC would have. I just wish he'd made it clear then we wouldn't have to have silly arguments like this.

Yeah, Kang, it would have been nice if JC could have been clearer on some of the core morality issues...

Problem is, people are always going to interpret it how they want. That is the nature of religion.

I went to a number of schools, and one of them was a fairly affluent, Christian private school. I remember one incident in a religious instruction class.

I brought up the "harder for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven" saying, and said, most of the families at this school are rich? what gives? (or something along those lines.)

The pastor informed me that riches were 'this' particular mans problem.

Well I don't buy that. The saying wasn't "than -this- rich man to enter heaven"

But hey. These people wanna stay rich.

Interpretation.

Yes, turnRight, that seems par for the course. I guess we can't go on and on posting stuff here but I would like to point out that, in a discussion which has included posts from a number of "Christians" who believe the Bible is the word of God, I have asked three questions and have had no answers to them:

1) Is the Old Testament regarded as the word of God as well as the New ?

2) Did Jesus himself make any pronouncement on homosexuality ?

3) Why does the "Christian" right focus on desperate women killing unformed foetuses while failing to campaign on mass killing of innocents in current war zones ?

I am disappointed that the "Christians" have not given answers to these genuine questions.

Hey TRTL,

2000 years ago, people believed that richness was a blessing from God for being God-fearing. Thus they reasoned that those who were the richest were some of the most God-fearing, and thus most likely to see heaven.

(Matt 19) 23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

What He was saying is, nobody can get to heaven based on their own rights, even the ones you think are the most likely to get there. However, with God, all people can get to heaven. C.F. John 3:16 .

Kang, thanks for your response. I mentioned that the NT upholds the belief that homosexuality is a sin, I didn't particularly mention Jesus, so that doesn't exclude Paul's teachings. Jesus often said things about upholding the Law of Moses (except for those things He had fulfilled), obeying the commandments, etc. As He was walking and talking with Jewish people they would have understood what He meant in terms of sexuality. Some people say "Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexuality, that means He wasn't against it." I think that's a silly statement. For one thing, he didn't mention beastiality either, but we assume He didn't support that. Also, one could argue conversely "Jesus never explicitly nullified the OT law against homosexuality, so we assume He supported that law".

I don't know how much credence you give to the book of Acts, but after praying about how to interpret Jesus' life and the OT in regards to keeping Jewish law, they decided that keeping one's self sexually moral [as understood in the OT] and abstaining from idols were the key Jewish laws to uphold. Everything else was summarised in "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your body and all your soul" and "Love one another as you love yourself".

I'm really interested as to your interpretation of Paul being a sexist, and of not considering his writings as authoritative Christian sources. I read a really good book last year, "Why not women" by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton. One is the head of the largest mission organisation in the world, (and has women in leadership), and the other did his thesis for his Ph.D on women leadership according to the Bible (including Paul's writings). Both came to the conclusion that the Bible was not anti female leadership.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576581837/103-1745587-2231841?v=glance&n=283155

But I'd be interested to talk about this with you further one on one.

Kang,

the Greeks, Romans & Bible have little to say on specific issues such as Industrial relations, so the absence of JC talking about homosexuality is not so much an oversight, but, in the bigger picture, not immediately relevant to his mission of love.

So, this concept - God is Love - is the basis of Christianity and provides the context of reading & understanding the Bible. Love, as an expression of care & concern is best reflected in proper parenting. Children often fail to see the curtailing of their freedom / independence as fair or 'loving.' Sexual restraint for the protection of individuals and society is such a restriction.

What the 'political right' are doing is responding to circumstances like the European Parliament being unable to acknowledge the place of Christianity in its Constitution, society undervaluing & commodifying life as research material or disposable on the basis of lifestyle choices, devaluing sexuality and family life etc.

That they, like most everyone else, have been unable to unpack their camel and share their resources with the less fortunate, ameliorate war and famine etc, is unfortunate, however, compare Church agencies responses to those of the UN and you will see that 'modern' 3rd millenium methods have nothing over (or better) than 2000 years of sometimes imperfect,but, overwhelmingly beneficial, Church activity.

The article author's criticism is both skewed and fair. Right or Left, both perspectives are needed to reflect compassion & tough love.

YngNLuvnIt, you could also say that Jesus never explicitly nullified the OT law commanding that disrespectful children be put to death and that he did not explicitly nullify a variety of other OT laws. There is some nasty stuff there which he seems happy enough to have left in place.

R0bert

You have to remember, that OT law about stoning youths wasn't just a flippant "if they don't eat their vegies". 1 parent was to discipline them. If they didn't listen, another parent would discipline them. If they didn't listen, the religious leader would be called. If they didn't listen to the religious leader, the whole community would be called.

If they didn't listen to their parents, their religious leader (who held a judicial role in those times) and their community (i.e. democracy), they would put them to death.

You have to understand, it would be a pretty serious crime for a youth to not obey his mum, dad, priest and community and repent.

As I said before, the early Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit felt that abstaining from sexual immorality and not eating food offered to idols were the two explicit laws to keep from OT apart from what Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind body and soul and Love your neighbour as yourself- all the prophets and law are summarised in these commands".