Peter, what a crying shame it is that you can’t recognise a monumental change in Australian politics that has arisen with the ousting of Rudd and installing of Gillard.

This is, for the first in this nation’s history, the expression by a PM that a sustainable society should be a primary objective and that a big Australia is really not a good idea.

For the first time ever, a PM has moved away, if only a little bit, from the utterly entrenched, sacred and unquestionable continuous-growth-forever paradigm.

She has made this quite momentous move because she has sensed a strong level of support for it. But….. it is now not getting very much support at all! It is pretty much neutral. The electorate seems to have just taken it for granted!

What a crying shame it is that the general view of the Australian people is that this election is boring and unconstructive.

As much as I hate the close alignment of the Libs and Labs and the ‘me-too-but-just-in-a-very-slightly-different-way’ mentality, there is something very interesting about it. The parties are aligned in their push to be seen to be reducing immigration and hence population growth and are competing to be seen to be reducing it further than each other.

OK, so just about everything else leading up the election is drab, ad-hoc or non-committal. But hey, one of the really important political changes of our era is happening. And this surely should be overriding the drabness and disillusionment and making for a very interesting campaign and election.

Ludwig,

I wish I had your optimism. I think "sustainability" is just another catchword used to spin the real situation. Governments all over the world are committed to economic growth and at the same time to sustainability. The two are obviously incompatible. No one knows what sustainability means. Most things we do are unsustainable. The idea is a blank cheque that does not discriminate between essential unsustainable actions and unessential. This is just aspect of green idealism.

Peter Sellick

Rarely have I read such complete rubbish.

Sells, Ludwig, on the same wavelength – with variations of course; but banging-on at a welcome tune with elements of reality and the rational.
Sells: “Governments all over the world are committed to economic growth and at the same time to sustainability. The two are obviously incompatible” .
Ludwig: “This is, for the first in this nation’s history, the expression by a PM that a sustainable society should be a primary objective and that a big Australia is really not a good idea.”

Now if only Twiggy Forrest and his mates, and the Business Council of Australia and their kin, all could gather round and listen to such Bible stories – the likes of which they have never heard before (or closed their ears to).

So "the church knows the truth".
Peter, which truth is that?
Is it the truth that if you appoint a man to forgive another person's sins the granted power will go to the head of some of those so appointed so that not only will they accept that indoctrination of a young child is a noble aim but also that a child does not need absolutely the best possible protection form the depraved some of whom have been granted the authority mentioned?
Or is it that truth that sex should not be fun between consenting partners capable of reasoned assent?
Or the truth that even in a world running out of resources every sexual act ought to have the aim of producing another child even in those countries where starvation and destitution is almost endemic?
We need thinking politicians willing to tackle many of the problems created by the indoctrination of populations by religious heirarchies.

Ludwig, what monumental change? Seriously I cannot see it. Rudd and Gillard are cardboard cut outs, clones, just like Abbott. There has not been a monumental change is Australian politics in over 50 years by my reckoning.

Peter Sellick is spot on the money when he says that politicians care more about winning the election at all costs than they do about actually doing the job of leading the country. The current catch cry for this election and most of the ones before is a snappy catch phrase loyalists, a sweetener for the swingers, a dig at the opposition - but no substance, no accountability.

Gillard presided over the Building the Education Revolution. Yet many were the reports of rorting, shoddy workmanship, schools receiving what they did not need. If even one school received a raw deal it would have been too much. How many students would have been disadvantaged if even one school was ripped off? Yet we saw reports of many schools forced into a situation of accepting something that they did not need nor want. But, and I do admit that I don't watch the news very often, I have yet to hear Gillard say that they have screwed up and apologise.

Both sides of politics at the moment are the same, just look at work choices for an example from the other side. Politics these days is all about winning, it’s all about keeping the voter on side. But politics should be about leading the country sensibly, giving the country what it needs even if it is unpopular. It should be about steering the country through bad times and care taking during good times, not making a name for yourself or trying to get into the history books.

So please can anyone tell me what change there has been in Australian politics that should even get me out of bed on election day?

Peter, I do feel that a major change in baseline thinking and political expression has occurred, but I’m not optimistic that it will go anywhere under Gillard.

It seems that even if she does desire a sustainable society and policies that will take us towards it, she’ll be overwhelmed by the overwhelming number of old-school growthists in her government and by the hugely powerful continuous-growth-vested-interest Twiggy Forrests of our world.

Yes, that word sustainability is open to abuse, and it is nonsensical for governments to talk about it while upholding rapid never-ending continuous growth, but I don’t think that its meaning is really all that vague.

It is a pretty easy concept for the average person to grasp – that we should be living within our means and not constantly adding stress to our environment, resource base and essential infrastructure.

Given that Gillard has mentioned it, I think it is a crying shame that Abbott, political commentators and the general public aren’t strongly bearing down on her to elaborate and turn it into a meaningful platform.

Colinsett, I think that if there was this high level of discussion about sustainability in this election campaign, the Andrew Forrests and Clive Palmers would have to listen and either come out swinging or adapt their philosophies to the new paradigm of sustainability. But currently, there is just no pressure on them. They are free to go for broke in terms of advancing their own vested interests.

Foyle asks

'So "the church knows the truth".
Peter, which truth is that? '

The fact that sleeping with someone else's husband and stabbing pm's in the back is wrong. Any other standards of basic decency you need to know about Foyle?

Peter
Your first paragraph expresses well what is a disappointing state of political affairs.

The state did not marginalise the Church. The Church proposed secular society to remove government interference. Churches still have a place with parishioners - Church is not The Government.

The State has not interfered in that relationship at all. The Church on the other hand continues to seek influence in policy and indeed strong lobby groups like the ACL still wield influence to the detriment of those who might seek compassion and equality for same sex couples.

“I am not overly concerned about Julia Gillard’s atheism, I am sure we share disbelief in the same god. What does concern me is that her atheism signals that she is closed to the alternative society that the church represents. This is one reason that she does not have an inspiring vision for the country.”

This statement appears contradictory. For one the religious politicians are not inspiring any grand vision.

Atheism does not share disbelief in the 'same' God. An atheist merely questions for lack of evidence. This can be any God, yours or the many number contrived to understand the world.

Then you further contradict by arguing you would expect more from Tony Abbott due to his beliefs. This is the arrogance of the Church that inspires heated debate from atheists like Dawkins which many Christians like to malign. When Dawkins behaves in kind, he is deemed an 'enemy'. The Catholic Church can hardly be held up to the light as the paragon of virtue.

Christian beliefs may help many to understand the world but I hope it does not make them prejudice, arrogant and unwilling to accept that some people believe the foundation for human beings is their own natural inbuilt sense of love,sense of justice and community spirit in amongst the sometimes selfish nature of humankind.

I refuse to believe humans were created in sin and are inherently evil and would never preach this to a child I wish to raise as a well rounded, well adjusted and good person.

One of the best written and more thoughtful articles that I have seen on this Site. I totally agree with the observations about this and all such elections.

However , it is such a shame , that the author believes that , only Religion , is the answer.

Sorry , civilation over the past 500 years has passed well beyond Mythology and a Belief in there being something greater than themselves.. as directed my our religious Leaders.

This Election truely is rubbish , the choices are miserable, the " meto..ism ' is bloody annoying as are the slogans and the lies. One is almost tempted to protest by not voting at all.

But then the political Buggers win.. don't they?

At last, and inevitably, the ancient exoteric rulerships have failed, and "official" Christianity, along with all the other "great-world-religions" of merely exoteric worldly power, is now reduced to all the impenetrable illusions and decadent exercises that everywhere characterize previously privileged aristocracies in their decline from worldly power. Exoteric Christianity has been reduced to a chaos of power seeking corporate cults (all competing for market share), and Barnumesque propagandists that "rule" nothing more than chaotic herds of grossly bound consumerist religionists.

Therefore, the myth of the "cultural superiority" of "official" Christianity has now come full circle. The now archaic "world-religions" are not only now waging global wars with one another (like so many psychotic inmates of asylums for the mad, each confronting the other with exclusive claims of personal absoluteness), but the public masses pf religion bound people--who, all over the world, for even thousands of years, have been CONTROLLED in body and mind by ancient institutions of "religiously" propagandized worldly-power--are now in a globalized state pf grossly bound "religious" delusion and SOCIAL PSYCHOSIS.

There is certainly a 'nothingness' about Australian politics and politicians; but I'm no sure that the cure lies in Peter Sellick's faith-based solution.

Tony Abbott is staunch Christian, and look a the flack he cops for that!

Only a certain type of person - not the ideal person by any means - wants to be a politician. The current problems can be fixed only by voters, who are simply are not taking enough interest in politics or our badly damaged politicians.

Just look at the rubbish and promises coming to your letter box daily in pre-election pamphleting. How much of the party-generated 'must haves' are of interest to you personally? Write or email the candidates about things YOU want dealt with, not the hum drum garbage that they are going to have to attend to anyway.

Sells, you continue to reassure me in my atheism. Thank you.

"It was always predictable that when the state wrested all power for itself and marginalised the church, that liberalism would lead eventually to a nihilism that has nothing to say"

This sentence is equally valid if you simply scrub out the words "and marginalised the church". The church is irrelevant in this context.

"All we have now is meaningless talk about choice and rights and progress. This is why politics has become so uninteresting to the point that it could be said to have ended."

There is, Sells, heaps of evidence that people are actually vitally interested in "choice and rights and progress", and that they use the election system to express that interest. The talk may be "meaningless" to you. But that is only because you have deliberately chosen not to listen.

"We have aspirations to be excellent, efficient, creative, adventurous, brave, etc, but we have no narrative that would tell us how these would produce a society"

Your fondness for casting red herrings is most blatantly obvious here, Sells.

Nobody but you, I suspect, believes that our personal aspirations are the building blocks with which we "produce a society". Most, in fact, would consider that it is entirely the opposite set of characteristics, where we suppress those instincts of individuality that militate against the formation of a society, and instead formulate a base of community behaviour and practice, through both laws and common decency, by which to live.

None of which needs the involvement of a religion to bring about.

"By contrast, the view of the church encompasses the whole felt experience of the individual."

"The" church, Sells? Which one is "the" church?

The sheer mass of conflicting ethics, obfuscation and blind personal interest that has created the multiplicity of "churches" totally invalidates any claim you may have to there being "the" church.

And if you were to use the indefinite article, the entire edifice of your professed political ennui would come tumbling down, would it not?

Runner,
Read my comment. I did say partners to cover both marriage and other long term relationships yet you chose to interpret my comment as supporting adultery.
I recall your misinterpretations on other issues.
As for backstabbing, any prime minister holds his position only while he has the confidence of his or her party members. That Kevin Rudd had lost that support was evidenced by the fact that he was not prepared to face a vote.
Julia Gillard and her supporters did no more than I would expect and count potential votes for a change. How is that evil?
How does it compare with concealing paedophilia or sentencing many unsupportable newborn to die of starvation?
Those are the truths some church heirarchies support.

What is so bizarre to me is the author's assumption that the church is the only way to achieve "a deep understanding of the human."

This implies that anyone who does not embrace the church (presumably the Christian church) will never achieve this level of understanding. This is such a plainly ridiculous claim that it's hard to believe people like Peter Sellick continue to make it.

It's no different from proclaiming that everyone who isn't Christian will go to hell, given that not having any understanding of the human could well be interpreted as a form of hell.

We should turn to an institution such as the Catholic church, with its ghastly on-going global revelations of the sexual abuse of children in the care of its priests and the vile failure of its authorities to do anything to stop this?

Or the Anglican church, where truly repulsive brawls take place daily about human sexual preferences, and whether or not women are good enough in god's eyes to be priests and bishops?

These are the institutions we should turn to for vision and deep understanding of the human?

There's no doubt politics are up the spout in this country. But I'd really give up if I thought the church offered us the only options.

Peter Sellick, the churches urgently need to clean up their own backyards before any of their representatives have earned the right to preach to any of us about anything.

If I was a member of any church these days I'd be keeping a pretty low profile and focusing my energies on addressing where the churches have so catastrophically failed to deliver the visions they promised, before I started offering advice on anything or anybody else.

.

I wish I never wasted my time reading your garbage (as usual) article Sells.
I'm only thankful to Pericles for going to the time typing a message bebunking you, so I will just make this simple point:
"What does concern me is that her atheism signals that she is closed to the alternative society that the church represents"
It's just well enough that "the church" is as much an 'alternate society' towards the majority of Australians, who are secular.
In short, your hordes of brainwashed politicians who govern based on Church doctrine (which IS what a Theocracy actually is, Sells, something you most likely already know, despite trying to place a positive spin on an unpopular concept), would have no relevance to the Australian people.

I'm sure somebody has asked you a long time ago if it were a sin to lie to people Mr Sells, obviously you have long since ignored them.

Peter, Peter, Peter ... what will we do with you? You paint a picture of an epic divide - between those with the grace of godliness on the one side and the atheistic rabble on the other. All in pursuit of the Great Society (whatever that is), where only the godly can provide the answers we apparently so desperately need. What can I say. To suggest that those without religious faith are somehow inferior to those with places you in the same basket (pun intended) as the great haters of secularism and choice.

You really need to get out more, do some volunteer work, stop pontificating and move on.

What is usually promoted and defended as religion in our age is only the most superficial and factional and dim-minded and perverse expression of ancient power-seeking national and tribal cultism, which by their very nature is intolerant of all other faith traditions and their various cultural expressions.

This is completely obvious in the kind of religion promoted by those on the "right" side of the culture wars divide (wherever they are culturally and geographically). Their blogs and various publications are full on expressions of this power-seeking psychosis.

ALL of the "God" and "Gods" of humankind, whether male or female in their prescriptive gender, are merely the personal and collective tribal myths created by the grossly bound human ego-mind--the self-possessed and therefore infinitely godless dreadfully sane normal human being.

Both exoteric religion and scientific materialism have, for many centuries been actively via coercive propaganda instructing humankind to disbelieve and therefore to dissociate from all modes of association with magical, metaphysical, Spiritual, and, in general, ECSTASY-producing ideas and activities.

This process of negative indoctrination has actually been a magic-paranoid political, social, economic, and cultural effort to enforce a gross "realist", or thoroughly materialist--and, altogether, anti-ecstatic, anti-magical, anti-metaphysical, and anti-Spiritual--model of human life upon ALL individuals and collectives.

This entire 3 millennia long effort has required the universal suppression of the INNATE natural magical, metaphysical, and, ultimately, Spiritual, and, altogether, ECSTATIC potential of the human psycho-physical ego.

But,also,and profoundly MORE IMPORTANTLY, this anti-ecstatic, anti-magical,anti-metaphysical, anti-Spiritual, and altogether, "gross-materialist-realism" enterprise has deprived humankind altogether of its necessary access to Inherently egoless Truth Itself.

As an example everything that Sells has ever written on this forum has been completely within this dismal anti-ecstatic, anti-magical, anti-metaphysical and anti-Spiritual gross "realism" cultural paradigm.

The last thing Oz, or any of us needless is a PM with
"vision". I hope Runners god will protect us from that, the worst thing to befall any country.

The best examples of Pollies with vision in living memory would be Hitler, & Churchill, & between them they cost the lives of millions of ordinary folk.

No, we can do without vision. I have no desire to be led, I merely want someone to manage the country, & strike a reasonable balance between the competing desires of the population.

You know, I have never seen someone, with a dream, or vision, who was not a ratbag. Think on it.

Some assorted one liners and paragraphs too, re our inherent urge to self-transcending ecstasy.
All of which are totally anathema, and even incomprehensible, to both the usual dreadfully sane exoteric religionist, and the scientific materialist.

Eternal and total freedom, Wisdom, and boundless happiness are the primary needs and ideas of Man--male and female.

ALWAYS remember that your inherent heart-disposition wants and needs Infinite, Absolute, True, Eternal Happiness.

Therefore, true religion must retire to Light!
The heart must be permitted to achieve a universal feeling-ecstasy!

Happiness IS the Conscious Light of the world!

Happiness is the now-and-forever Mystery that IS the Real Heart and the Only Real God of every one.

What would Happen if all of humankind were--now, and forever hereafter-- allowed complete, unobstructed, and Perfectly ecstatic access to Inherently egoless Truth Itself?

What would Happen if--instead of access merely to gross-"realist",or scientific materialist, or exclusively exoteric, and traditionally "official: and anti-ecstatic, and anti-magical, and anti-metaphysical, and anti-Spiritual ego-"truth" and pseudo-"ultimacy"-- all of humankind were, from now on, allowed complete and unobstructed and Perfectly ecstatic access to Inherently egoless Truth Itself?

What would Happen if--from now on--the political, social, economic, and cultural totality of humankind were allowed to establish and perpetuate itself entirely and only on the Perfectly ecstatic basis of the Inherently egoless Truth That IS Reality Itself?

The white-men's brand of Christianity, especially the Anglo-Saxon, was based on racism, colonialism, drug trafficking of opimium to the countries they colonised, or tried to colonised but failed. The current generation of white Europeans have abandoned Christianity (we're not sure whether they've understood what Christianity is, in the first place) for atheistic secularism and Islam.

With the collaspe of the capitalist system of economy and the current negative birth-rate in all European countries, especially among the white population, the white race would soon be an endangered species.

This pattern is replicated in the East-Asian countries that adopt Western atheistic secularism (and capitalist-style economy) e.g. Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, China. Singapore and Hong Kong. All these countries (or city states) have negative birth-rates).

In the final analysis, the meek and poor shall inherit the earth.

Of course one of the most controversial bits of recent Christian propaganda, and hence the Christian world-view altogether, was the snuff-splatter film The Passion by Mel Gibson.

At the time it was widely admired, and promoted as an excellent missionary tool by right wing religionists both "catholic" and protestant.

These references provide a much more realistic assessment of the world wide cultural implications of this horribly vile film.

http://primal-page.com/gibson.htm

http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner.htm

http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage7

The shallowness of this article is indeed very deep.

Mr. Sellick seems to be in need of direction for which he turns to one of the innumerable gods or one of the similarly countless kings or some of their substitutes; the politicians.

Mr. Sellick, what do you think is a political party if not a temporary alliance of scheming vagabond crooks and what is a church if not an equal alliance of likeminded obscurely intentioned, self appointed priests?

If you were to open your eyes, you would find that the parlous situation of man on this planet has been brought about precisely by the two categories of individuals from whom nothing can be obtained but the chaotic disorder in which they thrive.

No priests, no politicians, but only magicians can probably raise our hopes of survival.

Agree Hasbeen and Ho-Hum, I feel nothing else needs to be said in this thread anymore, although I felt this deserves to be said again
"You know, I have never seen someone, with a dream, or vision, who was not a ratbag. Think on it."
In conclusion, the days of needing to be "led" by someone (if such days were ever necessary) are long dead, and what we actually need are managers of infrastructure and assets, and servants to follow democratic principals and public needs.
To say otherwise just shows how archaically backward, out of touch and all-round ignorant Peter Sellick truly is.

The only thing left in this thread I would like to see is someone try to answer your posts (besides Runner, there is a greater chance a giant red man will magically materialize in his room than he himself coming up with a thoughtful rebuke)

I thought that today I was witnessing a miracle. I read the first two paragraphs of a Sellick article and agreed with him.

But the amazement was not to last. It descended into the same old Sellick dribble. We get the politicians we deserve. But to blame it on the same old arguments about God is ridiculous.

‘It is not the role of the church to govern but to generate people who can govern.’ So it is not the church that should be the government, but people trained by the church.

This would be a return to the days of the burning when ‘the church’ found a person guilty of heresy but passed the ‘heretic’ to the secular authorities for sentencing. The last thing Australia needs is a ‘Christian, shadow government lurking in the dark manipulating a supposedly religiously independent government.

Do we not have sufficient examples with some (I said some) Islamic states where the government is a religious government? The West managed to escape that trap some years ago and any attempt to return to such a situation needs to be resisted if democracy is to have any meaning.

If you must have a religion that is your choice. Provided it is practiced behind closed doors between consenting adults I won’t try to stop you. But to try to impose your religion on government, by the front door or the back door, is not acceptable.

If the state of Australian political awareness is to improve we need a populations that can think, not just follow the Sellick way of blind dogma.

"...but it is about public leaders acting out of the wisdom that the church engenders..."

Let me repeat the question I always ask when I hear that religion teaches 'other ways of knowing': knowing WHAT? What is this mysterious wisdom, Peter? Can it be written down and conveyed to us miserable atheists or do we just have to take it on trust? And if it can, then why do we need religion any more? After all, we have the wisdom.

Seriously, I defy you to list even one generally-accepted proposition which has been obtained from over five thousand years of religion. Again, just what the hell is this 'wisdom' supposed to be?

Two things concern me about this article and discussion.

The first is the assertion that "[Gillard's] atheism signals that she is closed to the alternative society that the church represents". I'm not sure that I have interpreted this correctly, so help me out here if I'm wrong, Sells. It seems that you're saying that, by being an atheist, Gillard has closed her mind to the opportunities and possibilities of Christianity. I'm not sure that this follows logically: I make no secret of the fact that I am a practising Catholic, but my mind is not closed to the wisdom, opportunities presented by other religions and non-religious beliefs. Next to my Bible and Catechism on my bookcase stand copies of the Koran, the Dhammapadda and The Origin of the Species, as well as numerous science texts. I think I am an open-minded and rational Catholic, and there is such a thing as an open-minded and rational atheist as well. The respect with which Gillard talks of Christians certainly indicates to me that her mind is not closed to the alternative society of the church. Rather, she stands outside that society and can observe it more objectively than insiders. She can take what is good from it and criticise the bad without fear of reprisal or, worse still, eternal damnation.

The second is the recurrence (in the discussion) of accusations of "backstabbing". I find these frustrating. Gillard didn't steal Rudd's job. She presented herself as an alternative leader and a challenge was launched. Knowing that he was unsupported, Rudd declined to contest. Without this challenge, we would have been left with a Labor leader whose party had no faith in him and a Liberal leader who barely garnered the support of 50% of his party when he, too, challenged his predecessor. If their own parties don't support them, what hope do they have in the electorate? At least Labor is now coming to the election with a leader they support, and one who may well be better at the job than her predecessor.

Otokonoko

'She presented herself as an alternative leader and a challenge was launched. Knowing that he was unsupported,'

After repeatedly saying she was not going to contend (even up to 24 hours before) I think you are twisting the truth.

Both the major parties have moved toward the centre because that’s where the votes are. Consequently we thus embrace middle class Australia. This essentially highlights our problem. The consumer driven class that renders upon the altars of materialism. And who are the kings which placate and drink of the middle class offering? Our politicians. Until us as a nation can place our value for life beyond gold, then we are destined to stumble. It’s quite simple; if the church struggles for impact then a toll must be paid by community. Unfortunately Peter got it right.

"am not overly concerned about Julia Gillard’s atheism, I am sure we share disbelief in the same god".

Very wry!

Thanks Peter

I'd hardly say I am twisting the truth, runner. Unless you were present during the discussions that preceded the leadership challenge, you have no way of knowing what Gillard's intentions were at that time. Perhaps she (along with the party) was threatened. Perhaps she was bribed. Perhaps they donned purple robes, sacrificed a goat to the moon goddess and chanted "the time has come" until the moon set. The reality is, you don't know and neither do I. All sources seem to confirm that she was reluctant to challenge and, in a party as leaky as the ALP, it is quite a surprise that an apparently conniving and deceitful backstabber could hide her plans while garnering such support.

At the end of the day, though, all of this is irrelevant. As I said, she proposed a leadership ballot, Rudd consented then pulled out of the running. Rudd's colleagues had no confidence in him. They had confidence in Julia Gillard. Had a ballot taken place, it is very likely that Rudd would have been ousted and Gillard voted into his place.

If we, the voters of Australia, have no confidence in Gillard but have confidence in Tony Abbott, does that make him a backstabber for taking the job of PM in her place?

My what a hopeless, helpless lot we are today. Doom and gloom seems to be the order of the day. Cheer up the sun is still in the sky even if it is above the clouds. Give thanks for what we have and stop looking back for you may turn into a pillow of feathers, get a vision and set sail for the future awaits and it shall be what we make it. encourage one another and stop being losers whinging about what might have been for life is what you make it and we can make it. Joy is our strength, murmuring only destroys our soul and saps our strength. This is the land intrusted to us, to look after. We have all gone to sleep on the job because life has been good for the last 60 years and we have gone soft.
God is Spirit and we are flesh so the garden is in our hands. When I need a lift I take a stroll in my sisters garden and smell the roses and again I find peace and joy and the courage to conquer new territory, the future. Keep up your end and we will make it. love, joy, and, peace, is the way. United we stand. Love never fails, joy is our strength, peace brings health. Have a good day for our future is in our hands and we get what we need for today is all we have.

Oh dear, Richie 10

>>Cheer up the sun is still in the sky even if it is above the clouds. Give thanks for what we have...<< etc. etc. ad naus

A dog's breakfast of clichés.

Just the way to start a Saturday.

Otokonoko

You are the most reasonable voice here. Apologies for being a bit harsh on you in Runner's nasty little thread on "sleeping to the top".

Your interpretation of the events of the change in leadership by the Labor party fits with my understanding. Had not Gillard accepted, the party would've been leaderless prior to a federal election, Lindsay Tanner having already made his mind up to leave. Julia Gillard was next in line, had the support and took up the position offered to her.

What this has to do with "doom and gloom" (thanks Richie), "end of politics" Sellick rant, is beyond my understanding. Are the very gates of hell about to burst open with heinous red-eyed demons because an atheist (first to admit it) is our political leader? No wait, Sells claims that the god Julia doesn't believe in is the same as the one he doesn't believe in. Clever piece of sophistry. Or is Sellick hinting that he is a Buddhist - religion without supreme deity?

Many politicians claim to be religious, few actually behave as if they are. Julia has offered one of the most honest expressions of her personal ideology of any political figure in recent history. This does give, as Otokonoko noted, Julia the opportunity to be an impartial observer.

BTW why is Runner so threatened? The pure of heart have nothing to fear.

stop looking back,
Richie 19,
that's precisely what the ALP supporters are doing. Hence they seem unperturbed at the future prospects under a Government which traditionally fails the country.

The pure of heart have nothing to fear.
Severin,
Am I to understand that those who tolerate & support proven mis-managers are pure of heart ?

Some chose the left some chose the right but narrow is the way that leads to life and very few find the way. The world has changed and we see the political dogs fighting over the crumbs. The Lord is my shepherd: I shall not want. He makes me to lie down in green pastures:
He leads me beside the still waters. He restores my soul: He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: your rod and your stalf, they comfort me. You prepare a table in the presence of my enemies: You anoint my head with oil; My cup runs over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and
I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.
More cliches for your dogs Saturday break fast.

“In the final analysis, the meek and poor shall inherit the earth.”

No, Philip. It will be vicious Islam that will take over the earth while we fight among ourselves, sell out our culture, and refuse to take control of our politicians.

I am no religionist myself, but all of this hatred of Christianity displayed by posters here overlooks the fact the Muslims do believe in a god, and that god, Allah, is infallible to them. Allah exhorts them to kill the infidel and spread his word. Muslims don’t immigrate to the West because they like it. They hate the West and Westerners; the world caliphate is their aim.

Unlike enlightened Christianity, Islam never changes; the Koran is not open to interpretation. Unlike enlightened Christianity, Islam is also a political organisation: no man-made law is above Islam.

So, while everybody is busily attacking the traditions of the West, including its religion, Islam is using your self-hate and your scorn of your own culture to help you white ant it further. Islam is using the weakness of your politicians – politicians whom you are disinterested in and make to attempt to have them do your bidding – to immigrate to the West, legally and illegally to take over what you will not defend, even though it is all you have.

Those of you are who still living when Western culture has gone will not be able to whinge and bitch under 14th Century Islam

"AN Islamist website based in Australia is co-hosting an international forum this weekend.

It is described by a London research centre as an "online conference of global terrorists".

The forum, to be streamed live on the Australian-registered website Authentic Tawheed, will feature a line-up of speakers known for their militant teachings and links with al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

They include British-based cleric Abdullah el-Faisal, who was previously a translator for British al-Qa'ida leader Abu Qatada, and who was deported from Britain in 2007 after being convicted of inciting racial hatred and urging his followers to kill non-Muslims.

The forum will "examine the current war against Islam and Muslims, and ask for how much longer can the kuffar (non-believers) fight against the deen (religion) of Islam, and the necessary steps needed for victory". A starting time of midnight tonight in Sydney is advertised." ('The Australian', 31/7/10)

How gutless are our politicians, allowing this? Conroy wants to censor the internet, but this is OK?

But Leigh, the intellectual foundations of Islam are exactly the same as the intellectual foundations of Islam. You can't attack one without attacking the other. This is why the churches of the West have been so slow to criticise Islam -- even offering alliances against the wicked atheists --because they know that in trying to do so they will expose their own weaknesses. As I have said here before: Richard Dawkins can show Osama bin Laden where he is wrong: the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury can't, because they are wrong in exactly the same way for exactly the same reasons.

As long as the secular West has to be tolerant of daft Christian beliefs it will have to be tolerant of daft Islamic (and Hindu, and Buddhist, etc) beliefs as well. Only a state that fully acknowledges the primacy of reason and logic can turn its full attention to repudiating all religions and the misery and despair that they cause.

Oops -- that should be 'the intellectual foundations of Christianity', of course.

Leigh, just because most of us are content to attack Islam only in Islam-themed threads (or simply can't be arsed), doesn't mean there is some gigantic blindsight towards it that Christianity lacks (and that is ignoring the fact that one religion clearly exerts a considerable amount of control on the nation (World Youth Day), while the other doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of doing so and is thus less of a concern as a factor of domestic social politics).

inspiring vision.
Isn't the bloody obvious threat of going under the thumb of middle ages logic & fanaticism inspiration enough ?

Peter and others:

I tend to agree with your view that this election is dispiriting and that it reflects a malaise in Australian politics. I think I also, like you, reject the modern triumphalist view of human being.

I too see Gillard’s atheism as no cause for concern. But I disagree with what you then write about her:

<What does concern me is that her atheism signals that she is closed to the alternative society that the church represents. This is one reason that she does not have an inspiring vision for the country. She, in fact, represents the final stages of modern politics that has nothing interesting to say.>

While I am a practising Christian I have friends and family-members who are avowed atheists and abhor “the Church”, and yet they can describe very simply and passionately what should be radically changed in our society to make it more just, more peaceful, more beautiful.

We may repeat endlessly that we are one body because we all share in the one bread, but “The Church” is obviously not one. The various churches do not share the same vision for the world of tomorrow. Being “churched” does not in itself make a politician inspiring, wise and moral.

In fact some churches offer a deplorable vision for society based on such evils as condemnation of homosexuals, refusing to allow women to be priests or bishops, and making the Bible an idol.

Coincidentally today we read in The Australian (page 9) that Anglican Archbishop Roger Herft in WA has stated: “Any statement which portrays the Christian faith as having some type of exclusivity to be the sole arbiter on matters of moral integrity and just policy-making are unhelpful and untrue…Christians need to remind themselves that those who do not profess the Christian faith are still capable of adopting an ethical and moral framework which assists in public policy decision-making for the common good.” He also reportedly says that “believers and non-believers alike should be embraced by the church.”

To me this is much more in accord with the attitude of Jesus.

John J. and King Hazza

There is simply no comparison between Islam, which has not changed since the 14th Century, and modern Christianity. Christianity changed during the Enlightenment. Islam has not changed at all, and Muslims are forbidden to veer one iota from the Koran even today.

I've said many times that I am not a religionist of any kind. I am not a Christian. But I cannot name another religion that is the same threat - to freedom, to democracy and to a decent and prosperous life - as Islam clealy is. I don't think you can either, no matter how much you are opposed to all religions, as you are perfectly entitled to be.

I have read fairly widely on the excesses and hideously cruel practices of Christianity in past centuries. There is no denying that they existed in the past. But with Islam, the horrors are still occurring, and Islam has no place in modern society. You believe that Western religions have no place in modern society, either, and I respect and understand that. But, there are no terrorists, suicide bombers and mad muftis intent on wiping out everybody not like themselves as there are with Islam.

The crazy relativism of white liberals who say that all cultures and religions are equal and must be respected is playing right into the hands of the Muslims. All religions and cultures are not equal when some are carrying on the way they did 600 years ago.

Islam could mean the death of the West if we don't stop apologising for our own ways, and have the guts to criticise Islam for what it is: out of date religion, with strong does of facist politics.

One of the worst 'relativists' when it comes to Islam is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is either naive or mad.

Leigh, you're missing the point.

The point is that there are simply too few Shariah-endeared fruitcakes in any Western Country- and zero in government (except the UK) to ever enable their medieval viewpoint to become policy. I repeat, they have bugger all chance to do anything on that scale. Extreme Christian viewpoints, however, are held by many senior members of government and the judiciary, not to mention lobby groups- and as a result many areas of policy are skewed by their interests (not to mention World Youth Day being shoved down Sydney's throat).
Hence, based on THIS difference, people are more concerned about Christianity in Politics than Islam.
It doesn't matter that they're worse, they can't actually DO anything about it, as far as politics is concerned.

Peter,
Thanks for some welcome words of common sense amid so much bilateral spin.
I don't think you go far enough in your search for a way out. We need a social proposal that starts with the human person, its dignity, its needs, its desires, its unquenchable thirst for engagement with reality, its capacity for sacrifice, its need to take responsibility for its destiny. Is there a politician who will speak to me not as a taxpayer not as a voter but as a person with thoughts, ideals, desires?
Keep writing
JJK

And just in passing, I agree that Gillard's atheism is not a problem. So why is Abbott's faith such a big deal in our press?
Why can't he just be a Catholic?
He's never a Catholic in the press, always a 'devout Catholic', a 'committed Catholic', a 'strong Catholic', a 'former seminarian', etc etc ad nauseam? Is anti-Catholicism the last acceptable prejudice here too?

John Cleary's discussion on Sunday Nights mixed with some Late Night Live special guests, with Phillip Adams is about as much as I could bare on the topic of religion, especially in reference to politics. We need critical thinkers today, not more sheep.

Be it Tony Abbott's take on 'do by example' on a religious political or personal refrain and the noted stance on principals. No Thanks.

Be it the wider issues at stake on child abuse, pedophilia in the church period. Perhaps for now it is about giving this rave about religion or ethics... from the Church both the flick and spank.

Any Church that does not accept women, as leaders and priests fails me as a woman. Any Church that does to a "Father" as occurred at St Mary's in Brisbane last year, stoops too low. [Note how the other clergy throughout Australia stood-by and watched what occurred at St Mary's.... like cronie quiet mice.] The call for reform at St Mary's was "about community". Instead we are stuck with a pecking order out of date still in before time. It is less then what is truly required to cope, if real religious thought means anything in modern time.

While I respect individuals who may be involved in diverse religions, I find their Church's generally full with as much 'spin' as any leaders in politics. Worse is the hands of goodwill that are absent while so many heads sprout up - and up above the puff of clouds.

No.

Australians are "spiritual" beings in general and a wake up to the trouble when religion comes anywhere near politics.

If God were alive I am sure the work would be through "our hands" in "active compassion". Not on our knees, in comforts blessed with a preoocupation of consumerism, waiting in fear to be saved.

Equity starts at the bottom not at the top. It is an action.

http://www.miacat.com/

Dear JJK,
A politician who speaks to you? That takes relationship and trust which is the result of time and intimacy. Only Jesus has the ability to accept people warts and all. All religions treat others as beneath for they see the difference and not the person. Many people here condemn the homosexual or protect them. Jesus did neither he welcomed the person, forgave the sin, then told them to go and sin no more. Both left and right play the "Christian" card when they name drop to curry favor with the voters but they have no authority. Only in the narrow way are we saved. Jesus preached the kingdom of God as opposed to the worldly kingdom of division and strife. All other kingdoms "fail". The progressives in the west are seeking to impose socialism on us. A proven failure. In history at various times religion has tried to impose their system on others and it always fails. Jesus said "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me", only in Jesus can we put aside our self (differences) and work for the good of all. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. The opposite of blessing is the curse. If you don't know the curse read Deut 28:14 to 29. Then You may begin to see what ales this once great nation.

Interesting and odd slant for an article that makes no point JKK

And your question as to why Tony Abbot's strong Catholicism is a bigger deal than Gillard's atheism is simple (ignoring that it has largely been already answered).
Most people in Australia are secularists who abhor the doctrines (not to mention misconduct) of the Catholic church, and would most likely have more in common with a secular politician and very little in common with a staunch Catholic politician.

I look forward to a time when the superficial is no longer relevant and the public or media look more to what people actually do rather than focus on what is said, or which label they attach to themselves.

Labels, values or beliefs mean nothing if we don't live by them or act in good faith.

Kevin Rudd's religiosity has not stopped him from allegedley (if reports are true)leaking information to the detriment of his own party and beliefs. Revenge and bitterness are not part of any creed that I would understand. Hopefully people who support Rudd will see him for who he is rather than what he purports to be.

And that goes for any person in public life.

King Hazza,

"The point is that there are simply too few Shariah-endeared fruitcakes in any Western Country- and zero in government (except the UK) to ever enable their medieval viewpoint to become policy. I repeat, they have bugger all chance to do anything on that scale."

For now, KH. But what about the future?

I would be interested to have a list of the "extreme Christain viewpoints", and your take on just how they are as dangerous to the West as Islam is.

No chance of a Muslim takeover in the future Leigh, sorry to burst your bubble. As it is, there are too few fundamentalist Shariahites who would want to go anywhere near our country now that we've made it clear as day that they're not welcome (same as most of Europe). Even before the Pacific solution we recieved a trickle that simply did not shift the balance of population. Our politicians will never again risk lending an ear to Shariah-lobbyists knowing it is electoral suicide (unlike the Keating days of distorting Aussie laws to help Hilali, when nobody was paying attention).

So, now we've established that fundamentalist Muslims are, and will always be a non-entity in politics (the way it should be), is to point out that fundamentalist Christians are the opposite.
Nobody likes fundamentalist Muslims- much worse than fundy Christians- but when one is an active nuissance, and the other a non-entity that could only dream of being a nuissance, most people are focused on the nuissance.

Get it now?

Besides, why are you asking us here? Why not in the immigration threads? For that matter, why doesn't anyone bring up Shariah Islam in those threads, but only these ones?

K Hazza & Leigh

>> Besides, why are you asking us here? Why not in the immigration threads? For that matter, why doesn't anyone bring up Shariah Islam in those threads, but only these ones? <<

Good question, Peter Sellick was not discussing Sharia Law in his latest diatribe at all, only that the "role" of the (Christian) church is to not to "govern but to generate people who can govern."

crabsy,

There are a couple of things I would like to say about your post. The first is to recognise the background radiation of Christianity in the life of the West. While many may hate the church they unconsciously adopt the outlook of the church. I think this is the case with Julia Gillard. However, I think that the background radiation, while forming our society in uncountable ways, may not produce the fullness of insight that the church has to offer. Worship is important because it shapes the person. Even to admit that one is a sinner is transformative, and to confess that sin and be forgiven each Sunday produces an iterative change.

The issue of secular ethics misses the point of church. As I have said before, the church does not primarily present an ethical system, nor does it present a right form of government. Rather it nurtures individuals in “being” that is not beholden to ideology or to any systems of the world. Those who become “in Christ” will act out of who they have become. It is not the case that they will have a superior ethical insight. But they will see the fragility of the human position and may sacrifice themselves in order than a good for another may come. We all struggle with how to live our lives, that is true of proclaimed Christians and proclaimed atheists. To my mind the atheists are more prone to idolatry because they have not been trained to be free of it.

The reason for the end of politics is that there are few men and women of real faith who trust in their own formation in Christ to carry the day. It is a kind of idolatry to trust in the focus groups, the advertising agencies and the party machine to win the election. But once one has gone through that door, as a political party, there seems no way back. What we are left with is a cynical exercise that aims at winning on the terms of worldy power. That is why politics has withered.

Peter Sellick

King Hazza:>> The point is that there are simply too few Shariah-endeared fruitcakes in any Western Country- and zero in government (except the UK)<<

You have not got a clue KH, that is evident from the dismissive way you throw in "(except the UK)" as if it was pre ordained to happen or there was a history of Sharia advocates in the British Parliament. You watch the Labor party rail for "community self determination" in social ethnic issues when the lobby grows.

Peter, thanks for your considered explanation of your view. I think I’m in sympathy with the essence of it, but need to mull over some details. Perhaps I’ll respond again when I’ve done that. Anyway, thanks for the stimulating article.

Correct Severin, hopefully this will put the thread back on track (with the rather dubious topic of a government beholden to church doctrine is "secular" solely because the member isn't actually EMPLOYED by the Church.

SonofGloin- simple answer is Baron Nazir Ahmed among the House of Lords (otherwise a "Senate" in a more democratic country) managed to convince (with open threats) the government to block a politician from the Netherlands holding anti-Islamic views (although his media presentations focus solely on conservative practices, as opposed to a BNP-type statement). It would be reasonable to my "(except UK)" statement.

Sells, your argument is so dodgy it would be better to say that if the entire statement were reverted to its opposite, it would then be entirely true. Stating that atheists are more likely to idolize (a complete lie) because they aren't idolizing JESUS makes me wonder why you aren't a politician yourself- you've worked on the spin.

King Hazza

I think Sells is confusing atheists with non-Christians with his comments regarding idolatry. Atheists do not worship idols or anything, being non-religious and all. Duh!

And yes, the thought that political leaders must be indoctrinated into any religion before governing the country is a scary thought. And we may just end up with precisely that; a Prime Minister who is against fertility control, euthanasia, sex before marriage (if you are female), indefinite mandatory detention for men, women and children, diminished rights for workers, low taxes for wealthy, continuation of chaplains in secular schools, government subsidising of private schools and the list goes on.

End of politics? Beginning of theocracy no matter how Sells likes to dress it up.

The way I see it is that we've had Christianity for two thousand years & Islam for just as long. Look at the state we're in. Could it really be much worse if we gave Atheism a go ? After all, isn't atheism the most logical of all ? Being atheist would then give people the opportunity to have religion as a hobby instead of being the soul-destroying dictatorship that is religion.
I mean wouldn't reality be far more effective than superstition as a basis to make decisions on ?

King Hazza,

Don’t get too hooked up on Sharia law; it has no influence on the real and current dangers of Islam to the West. Nobody except the Archbishop of Canterbury has even suggested that Sharia law could ever have a part in a democratic society. Any discussion of Sharia law is a waste of time as it involves only Muslims in Muslim countries; it is their problem. Our problem is keeping Muslims out of the West

Muslims might always be ‘non-entities’ in politics, but you are overlooking the fact that Islam does not hold with democracy: the Koran is the guiding light; there is no place for democracy.

So, obviously, Muslims in the West are not going to involve themselves in politics unless they have adopted democratic principles and gone against the world of Allah. And even this could be a blind, as they use subterfuge to get their way. They hate democracy, so they will continue to attack it from outside and by stealth as they do now, with all of the violence encouraged by the Koran.

As for not bringing up the threat of Islam on ‘immigration threads’, I and others bring it up all the time. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve opposed ALL Muslim immigration. There is no such thing as moderate Islam, and Sharia law has nothing to do with the threat to the West.

They have to take us over before they impose Sharia law. Our concern should be to keep Islam out of the West ‘in toto’. Our moronic politicians have allowed Muslim immigrants in, and we now have about 300,000 of them loudly opposing our culture. They don’t even have to infiltrate quietly. They are brought here by people supposed to be representing us to abuse us and make use of the freedoms we allow, even though their intent is to wipe out those freedoms. They certainly believe that we are weak enough to allow them to do it, even if you don’t, KH.

Indeed Severin and individual. The only criteria politicians should be measuring their policies and morals to is logic. Not trying to correspond policy to the set menu of the Church they come from. How analyzing the issue logically- and notions of justice and rights based on such, would fail compared to Sells' alternative is something we won't likely find an answer (and definitely not in this thread).

Leigh:
Not wanting to expand into what is an immigration subject in a thread about religion IN government, you will find that:
1- the 300K is simply anyone in Australia that wrote "Muslim" on their ballot. This alone is a very loose definition that includes anyone who is actually an atheist or non-religious person of Muslim descent that felt "Muslim" is probably the most appropriate ethnic label for themselves, a person from a country whose people overall don't give a toss about religion and live exactly like Westerners (Albania, West-Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia).
2- 300K, is among the smallest denomination in the country and SHRINKING in proportion to population total. Check some pop stat differences of even the last few years.
3- immigration criteria that disqualifies any notion of overly-conservative Islamic leanings, and 'decadent' adverts of our country, mixed with our clear stance of who we don't welcome (just like in most European countries) has gone far to dissuade such characters from wanting to get in- compare the rates of boat arrivals POST-Rudd against those PRE-Howard's pacific solution.
4- Look at Europe, rates of Islamic Extremism now as opposed to last decade- know most of those countries are dictating standards of what they will NOT tolerate (with some far-right parties getting a strong base), the extremists aren't so brave (nor willing to go near there) anymore.

Anyway, I hope that this gives a better perspective of the situation, or we could start a new thread, and we can return to the topic at hand (not that I think anyone here could really mind us diverting Sells' vital topic of double-speak).

Dear Sells,

"Those who become “in Christ” will act out of who they have become. It is not the case that they will have a superior ethical insight. But they will see the fragility of the human position and may sacrifice themselves in order than a good for another may come. We all struggle with how to live our lives, that is true of proclaimed Christians and proclaimed atheists. To my mind the atheists are more prone to idolatry because they have not been trained to be free of it."

Would you say Isabella & Ferdinand and/or Ivan the Terrible belived themselves in Christ? I am yet to see an atheist kiss a copy of The Selfish Gene (Dawkins) but have seen Christians kissing icons all across Russia. A skeptic like me (and my counsin atheists) think more freely about what is served up to them. Most have not hardened themselves; rather, they have objectively weighed-up the facts presented to them. One the other hand, Nicaen mould Christians do gave adequate weight to the histographies leadng to the first century; and, the evolution of Chtistianity, after Christ's alleged death. Some Dead Scroll documents could point to a non-divine Jewish Messiah, rather a divine Christian Messiah. Conflicts like this give skeptics and atheists reason to pause, yet, Christians would remain entangled in their scheme of things regardless. Herein, in History, civilizations that maintain the status quo tend to decline. Politically in the long run, not the best approach.

Should you reply, please excuse my delay in also responding. Very busy

Dear Peter,

Excuse my typing. My fingers and mind are too often out-of-phase
:-).I meant to say above that Nicaean Christians do not give adequate attention to the first century situation.

Libertianism would have small, bland Government, not only small, separted churches. Community, equality and the pursuit of happiness require, institutions in small measure.

In Europe, there is currently a battle between Church and State, over Belgium police siezing Church documents, to catch Christian clergy paedophiles. The Pope is livid that Secular Law is being imposed over Canon Law. From my perspective, it is the State (politicians, police, police), protecting children from wayward clergy. Could you image the vile situation that would exist, if these clergy were held unaccountable to the leglisature of elected representatives?

Peter a.k.a. Sells?