The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why don't Christians care about this election? > Comments

Why don't Christians care about this election? : Comments

By Justin Denholm, published 12/8/2010

People who take their faith seriously are genuinely uncertain about how to vote.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Well I'd say it's becuase christains are like the rest of us. They have a wide range of views. Christians pick and choose what commandments they are going to follow and they don't let their faith traditions effect they political views much either, christians don't vote as a block, even if the christian lobby make out they do.
Posted by cornonacob, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:16:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We don't take it seriously? ? ?

Ur kidding right?

Oohhhhhh we DO take it seriously.

Wait for the Vic State election to know just how seriously we do take it.

Every Church last sunday was provided with a "24 QUESTIONS" pamphlet which showed the answers of all major parties to questions of interest to Christians.

We know how to vote.. "donchu worry about that"

At least Julia Gillard pledged to RETAIN the Lords Prayer at the opening of Parliament.. the Greens declined to answer.

The Greens are very quiet on the issue of 'standards in broadcasting' too.. hmmmmm *wonders*

On the Federal level..... the Broadband network is an issue of concern.

IF we get a national broadband scheme.. hopefully they can fix charges at attractive rates.. has anyone heard what such charges might be ? ? ?

Such a system could bring HUGE profits to the Government itself.. not a bad thing these days..

I might cost $41,000,000,000 but it might also EARN that is a couple of years.. who knows?

Gillard has positioned herself well.

-"Strong on Fiscal responsibility"
-"No attacking mainstream faith communities"
-"No Gay marriage"
-"National broadband scheme"

I see the focus groups are working :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:49:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cornonacob

I agree with your points.

Justin Denholm: >>> First, neither party is offering a compassionate or even reasonable engagement with refugees and asylum seekers. The constant mantras of “border protection” and “national security” are frankly offensive when applied to suffering human beings, some fleeing from countries where we have played a direct role in conflicts. <<<

The 11 years of the Howard Government never offered a compassionate or reasonable engagement with refugees. Apparently "Christian" didn't have any issues with re-electing the Howard government term after term.

This idea of a "christian vote" is as nebulous as a "female" vote or a "capitalist" vote or "socialist" vote.

There are as many points of view as there are people. Nor do Christians hold the monopoly on compassion, caring, wisdom, charity or any other of the more desirable virtues.

Because, Christians are just people and have the entire range of flaws and ethics as any one else.

Get over yourselves.
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:49:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't Christians care about the appalling contemporary record Christians have for compassion and justice?

Why aren't Christians speaking out in vast numbers against the sexual abuse of children in Christian care, and the attempts of their Christian leaders to deny and conceal this?

Why aren't Christians speaking out about the hostility expressed by other Christians against gays and lesbians, and women?

Don't demand from others, even politicians, what you so spectacularly fail to do yourselves.
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:11:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously a silly title.

The trouble is is that like everybody else, Christians are crippled by profound doubt. Doubt of both The Divine Reality, and of the intrinsic Fullness of Being too.

This essay describes the situation--it could very well be titled:

"How the Letter has systematically destroyed the Spirit" (after that chap in the Bible)

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/psychosisdoubt.html

Plus "The Purification of Doubt" which is chapter 1 in this reference

http://www.dabase.org/nirvana.htm

This site discusses the limitations of the usual "God"-ideas, and the creator-"god" religion.

http://www.realgod.org
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:27:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for bringing up a vital issue: equality.
Economic growth is not beneficial if it is funnelled to the few that are already comfortably well off. The "trickle down" theory is still alive and well amongst the elites, and they know damn well that this is not a "Christian" position to hold as it is essentially anti-charity.
Too many Christians like to bask in virtue whilst actually behaving like selfish children. The Liberals economic policy still reflects the mantra of "gimmie, gimmie, gimmie", whilst simultaneously pretending to have Christian values. Howard was blatant in his regressive policy, yet maintained he was a Christian! The hypocrisy was stunning. Abbott is clearly even more scary than Howard in his potential for sheer ignorant evil.
I'm not surprised Christians are confused given the discrepancy between the speaking and the acting of almost all "leadership".
Posted by Ozandy, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:40:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I really don't know why you single out "Christianity" in this post: the values and opinions that you express are surely those of any decent person and not within the remit of any particular sect or religion.
Posted by Gorufus, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:16:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why all the special pleading for Christians to have something to care about?

Where have they been while the environment they supposedly care about has gone troppo? If Christianity was so great, there wouldn't be any asylum seekers!

"made in the image of God" - yeah, 'right'.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:20:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Severin,

I am taken aback that you wrote: "Because, Christians are just people and have the entire range of flaws and ethics as any one else."

That reminds me of the saying: The rain does not fall on the just and unjust alike because the unjust have stolen the just's umbrellas.

Great word, umbrella, means little shadow in Italian.

The article implies that Christians somehow are more virtuous or caring than other people. In that Christians are like other religious groups. "We are better than those who sunscribe to a different mumbojumbo." It is a triumph of faith over evidence.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:21:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:21:40 AM

Severin wrote

""This idea of a "christian vote" is as nebulous as a "female" vote or a "capitalist" vote or "socialist" vote.

"There are as many points of view as there are people. Nor do Christians hold the monopoly on compassion, caring, wisdom, charity or any other of the more desirable virtues.

"Because, Christians are just people and have the entire range of flaws and ethics as any one else.

Get over yourselves.""

I thought those sequential sentneces implied Severin thought 'we are all equal and no-one is more equal'
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:28:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why not ask why people who like brussel sprouts aren't given something of substance to care about this election. The lack of real choice is not only a Christian dilemma and to suggest that only Christians are seeking substance is not only wrong but evidence of a narrow world view.

Human beings are a diverse bunch, religion being just one aspect of this great diversity.

A religious person may find no difficulty in voting for an atheist if that atheist shares their vision and principles. Atheists have been voting for religious leaders for some time.

I have faith that most Christians, like the rest of us, will not vote for people like who are incompetent and lacking in principles or who are blatantly prejudiced or discriminatory just because they are religious or claim to represent family values while ignoring other sorts of families that don't fit with their world view.

We need to give Christians and those of other faiths some credit.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:38:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican wrote: "I have faith that most Christians, like the rest of us, will not vote for people like who are incompetent and lacking in principles or who are blatantly prejudiced or discriminatory just because they are religious or claim to represent family values while ignoring other sorts of families that don't fit with their world view."

We must vote for people who are incompetent because election campaigns generally succeed in covering up the incompetence of the candidates. We only find out about their incompetence after they get elected and fail in covering it up
Posted by david f, Thursday, 12 August 2010 12:05:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Potentially true davidf, for theist and non-theist alike.

In that sense we are all truly and equally in the dark. :)
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 12 August 2010 12:09:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Justin you write

'Those asylum seekers who have managed to arrive in Australia are denied adequate access to essential services, all in the name of not making it too easy to come here. This is not how we should be treating other human beings, made in the image of God. That all major political groups should be advocating further aggressive approaches to limiting the arrival of asylum seekers is distressing and embarrassing, and certainly makes voting decisions difficult for many Christians.'

I suggest you open your eyes around the world and see their are millions who are living in poverty and war torn countries that would love to come to Australia but can't afford to pay people smugglers. I suggest you visit detention centres like Lenora in WA and see that they are actually treated far better than many of our pensioners who can't afford to heat their homes.

It seems to me your concerns are far more political and philosophical than based in faith. Why do you suggest we should be 'embarassed'. Should we we embarassed by racist countries like India or China? or by the corrupt incompetent UN or by Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Iraq?

You seem to ignore that many people have lost their lives due to the 'compassionate' invitation sent out by the Gillard/Rudd government to come here 3 years ago.

The many Christians I know are concerned about this election. They would prefer a pm they can look to as an example. Certainly someone living in one of sinful relations does not fit that bill,
Posted by runner, Thursday, 12 August 2010 12:09:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Sinful relations?"

You think a de facto relationship is sinful, runner, well, there's a Christian perspective for you.

How about giving us your opinion on the "sinful" actions of Christians all over the globe who've abused children, and done everything they could to deny and hide that abuse?

As has been said before, Christians should address the "sinful" within their own community before they start judging those outside it in those terms. As things are, Christians seem strangely silent on judging the actions of their own, and as willing as ever to judge the actions of those outside their "faith."

Christians have a huge amount to answer for and I don't see many of them protesting what their churches have done and allowed to be done. Yet there's no shortage of them prescribing morality for the rest of us.
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 12 August 2010 12:26:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Give us a reason to be excited about turning out to the polling booths later this month".

Do only Christians need a reason to be excited?

The great majority of Australians are wisely not religious. They are not excited about this election either, just one more group with little interest in the result. How about Muslims. Are they excited? Or Buddhist or Hindus?

What is there to be excited about? Perhaps from a secular viewpoint, one of the contenders is an atheist and that's a real plus. But she is untrustworthy, hollow and turning your back to her is a big risk. As well, she is controlled by the Melbourne Jewry and they definitely aren't Christian.

From a Roman Catholic viewpoint, the other contender, along with his front benchers, is hopelessly enmeshhed in the teachings of Rome, the home of the German Pope who refused today to accept the resignations of some of his clergy for their failure to action paedophilia in their jurisdictions in Ireland.

He exudes subservient Christianity from every pore.

So out of these two misfits. Which one makes Christians 'excited'?

What we really deserve to be able to consider as candidates after 222 years of settlement is a social drinking football fan, who once was gay, has a dash of aboriginal ancestry, who went to a Catholic Primary School but got out before the brain was saturated with heaven and hell, was once a unionist but now is a small business owner, wants to believe in something besides Soccer, AFL, ARL or the Bledisloe Cup, loves his children dearly, does unpaid work for secular charities but who gives donations to the Salvation Army in the shopping centres, was educated in a government high school, went on to University but dropped out after two years, lives in a small suburban house with his family, a dog and a cat, walks little old ladies across the road and finally, feeds native birds. He / she would be described as being "a good Australian" whose parents were migrants.

Now even Christians could get 'excited' over electing someone like that
Posted by rexw, Thursday, 12 August 2010 1:22:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar Rose

I would not expect an atheist to make any reasonable moral judgement. Generally they just want to justify their own behaviour and then demand others agree with them. Often just like yourself they are also very intolerant . This article is actually about the Christian vote in case you did not notice.

You seem fixed on child molestation. Yes along with doctors, artist, football players, politicians, teachers, judges their have also been priests, pastors, muftis, fundie athiests who have committed these horrendeous crimes. I am glad your moral compass reaches far enough to at least acknowledge some right and wrong. No doubt the secular support of the perverted porn industry is and will continue to add to the number of victims.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 12 August 2010 1:26:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner wrote: "I would not expect an atheist to make any reasonable moral judgement"
That's a ridiculous statement coming from a god botherer, and demonstrates perfectly the attitude of all you holier than thou zealots who believe you hold absolute moral authority as mandated by their respective imaginary friends.
What makes you so great? Next to nothing I'd wager.

"Generally they just want to justify their own behaviour and then demand others agree with them."
Another statement which would be funny, were it not so hypocritical. Isn't that exactly what Christians & Muslims do, just with a much larger superiority complex, often accompanied by extreme violence and utter intolerance toward any position but theirs? Crusades and the Spanish inquisition for example.

Religions (especially Christianity) have caused untold misery for millions over many generations, which in most people's eyes precludes them from any kind of monopoly on morals (think Islamic extremism, which is a direct result of repeated violent Christian incursions into their affairs).

In my view religion is for the weak, who are too scared of life, death and everything in between to go it alone, and just go along with what their parents taught them with little independent analysis or thought.
It's that, or they are people who just need a reason to think they are better than everyone else, such as yourself.

This is the reason kings with religious leaders standing behind them confirming their "mandate from heaven", have succeeded in sending young men to die at war for personal gratification and/or financial gain since time immemorial.

Sorry, but your claim of moral superiority is laughable, especially when one considers the disgusting historical reality of the Christian "faith".

Total hypocrisy, but nothing more than one would expect from a god botherer.
Posted by Rechts, Thursday, 12 August 2010 4:41:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rechts conveniently passes on his/her dogmas. he/she can't even see that killing the unborn by the truckload is outright evil. He/she also ignores the fruit of atheism as seen by Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. Again he/she demonstrated how flawed the moral relativists arguements are. Certainly you demonstrate no reasonable moral compass especially when blinded by self righteousness. Then again for someone who does not believe in absolutes even truth is a very loose word. Make as many excuses as you like Rechts but they look pathetic.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 12 August 2010 5:22:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

you fail to see that pol pot, mao, stalin etc didn't use their religion (in this case atheism) as a justification for their atrocities. Atrocities carried out in the name of various versions of "God" number in the millions.

And I don't see non-religious groups protecting the child molesters in their ranks, like we have seen from the Catholic Church and other religious outfits. (Sporting codes count as a religion, don't they?)

Briar Rose is quite correct in calling for you to worry about the sins of your own brethren before pointing the finger at the rest of us. Start by actually following the teachings of Jesus, which seem to play second fiddle to the dogma of the church when it comes to so many Christians I meet.

You could start by turning the other cheek.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 12 August 2010 6:32:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TrashcanMan

The article is actually about Christians and their vote. I make a comment that most Christians I know would like a role model for a PM. I point out that Ms Gillard is far from that. Secularist obviously make their judgements from a completely different moral or amoral base. (Many of them hate Abbot simply because of his faith (of which I don't share).

Worrying about the sins of my own brethren as you put it is a completely different matter as to my democratic right to assess who I will vote for. This forum is called online opinion in case you did not know. It is not just for secularist to promote their faith. The simple fact is that no one is righteous apart from Christ. That should not however silence people from calling evil evil and good good. I make the point that in my eyes and the eyes of many Christians we would prefer a pm who promotes and models the family unit rather than just shacking up with whoever. I am sure any reasonable person would like to have someone leading this country who acknowledges that adultery is wrong and that children need a committed loving mum and dad. Briar Rose along with Rechts just demonstrate how self righteous many secularist are. Unfortunately their morality base comes from worn out tired flawed secular dogma for people who can't think to well
Posted by runner, Thursday, 12 August 2010 6:52:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,

I've read many of your posts in this forum; they all share a common theme. That is, a consistent condemnation of secularism. What stands out, however, is that you don't actually understand what the word means, which makes it very difficult for you to understand the points made by others around you. Secularism is hardly a faith, as you put it, it is an ideology shared by religious and non-religious alike. Secularism does not address the existence or non-existence of a god, it addresses the right of all people to have their own beliefs in fact.

In my previous post, I was merely addressing the irrational attack you had made on others in the forum; you claim moral superiority to everyone here, in the same action acting in complete contradiction to the primary teaching of Jesus, that is: "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself".

To be honest, I don't believe your comments very often reflect the true ideology taught by Jesus at all. For example, think about the teaching of the "good Samaritan", then consider your opinion on boat people. Remember, the point of that story was that Samaritans were a race despised by Jews, so it's a story about racism, not just about helping others as so many modern Christians reduce it to.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 12 August 2010 8:28:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as secularism goes, I like the following discussion from http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/SecularismReligion

>>"Secularism has been variously defined as

* promoting neutrality/fairness in the public square,
* managing a society of diverse beliefs,
* separating governance from religion,
* opposition to religious or spiritual influences,
* a regime of religious regulation, and
* eliminating religion from politics and society.

"The first three are what could be described as 'pluralist' conceptions, the latter three 'eliminative'.

"Yet self-proclaimed proponents and opponents of secularity are often unclear about the distinction between these competing meanings, their relation to different claims about post/secularization (the shift from primarily associational faith-based societies to technical post- or a-religious ones), and the possibility of new horizons and approaches.

"... conscious attempts are needed to engage thinking people of both non-religious and varying religious persuasions in considering models of secular/religious life which may be received as an invitation rather than a threat, as plural rather than monolithic, as inclusive rather than exclusive, and which move from 'thin' to 'thick' descriptions of "the good" as part of a rigorous but respectful conversation between different traditions of reasoning.

" ... take the debate about the role of beliefs (religious and non-religious) within 'secular life' in a positive, practical and more nuanced direction. This should include a solid theological / philosophical / sociological input, and a re-examination of the place of distinctive 'communities of conviction' within the wider public sphere." <<

I would contend very few people in "western" countries in favour of *secularism* advocate the eliminative three(opposition to religious or spiritual influences; a regime of religious regulation; or eliminating religion from politics and society.)
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:17:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Justin for initiating an interesting discussion.

I think the dilemma faced by voters today is that under the present commonwealth constitution, elections are predicated on a system of representative democracy that has unfortunately given way (in practical terms) to a system of party politics. Instead of regular meaningful engagement with an elected representative from one's electorate I see voters struggling to identify a party that espouses and upholds their values. No one party has a monopoly on the best policies. Therefore being in a situation of having to choose one party over another will of course leave a voter feeling trapped because they're precluded from showing support for the preferred policies of the party they didn't vote for and stuck feeling they've shown support for the dud policies of the party they did vote for. I am confident we would see a greater level of engagement and democratic participation if local members were less bound to a party and more free to truly represent those in their electorate. Voters need to regularly and meaningfully engage with their local member to restore representational accountability into the relationship between the elected representative and those they are elected to represent. This is not done by once every 3 years trying to identify which party leader (who most likely is not your local member) stands for what you believe in. Every day between election days is just as important for democratic participation as an election day.
Posted by Rawle, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear McReal,

Thank you for your definitions of secularism.

* promoting neutrality/fairness in the public square,
* managing a society of diverse beliefs,
* separating governance from religion,
* opposition to religious or spiritual influences,
* a regime of religious regulation, and
* eliminating religion from politics and society.

I have defined secularism in my essays on the subject as religious belief or the lack of it being no business of the government. By that definition I do not consider governments which try to promote atheism or control religion as secular since religion is very much their business. Your last three definitions oppose the first three.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:04:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

You seem to mention the word "righteous" often...but I'm a bit confused as to who you imbue with this quality. You say, "The simple fact is that no one is righteous apart from Christ", yet in another thread you claimed: ""...Like many others they go to their graves full of self-righteousness instead of those who have been given righteousness from the One who rose from the dead."
So, the question is, is righteous something that can be bestowed or something that comes from a confidence in ones belief and conduct being right?
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:21:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I find frustrating about this article and some of the replies is the underlying assumption that Christians are detached from society by their faith. Some Christians are guided not only by faith, but by common sense and critical reasoning. I am able to look at the policies of the major parties, as well as the promises of my local candidates, and make judgements completely detached from my faith. I suspect I'm not alone in this capability. Severin hit the nail on the head with the statement that "Christians are just people". We are. We make good decisions and bad decisions. We do what we think is right, and we sometimes do what we know is wrong. We can take our faith seriously and still engage with the secular world around us. Well, most of us can.

I do object, however, to briar rose's assertion that Christians have no right to call for morality in society when there is immorality within the Church(es). Once again, that assumes detachment from society. I am a part of the Catholic Church, but I am also a part of Australian society. I can call for morality in both parties, and can actively work (as I do) to achieve that end. To say that my belief and participation in a flawed human institution precludes me from being able to comment on broader society is akin to saying that, because some men beat their wives (and others work to cover this up and defend those men), my gender precludes me from calling for humane treatment of women.

The whole idea of the "Christian vote" is flawed. Christians don't vote as a bloc, just as men, women, doctors, cat-lovers or any other group vote as a bloc. Put simply, there is no such thing.
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 13 August 2010 1:14:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christian citizens might well call for ethicality within society.

They might well call for it within their church.

The right of their "church" to call for extension of their faulty "morality" in the greater society is hypocritical when even the teachings of the church are no barrier to immorality within the priesthood, let alone the ranks. Beyond this, several "christian" denominations protect their debased priests rather than hold them to the higher standards they are (a) aware of, (b) publicly denounce, (c) expect others to be punished for and (d) present themselves as (somehow) above. The penalties for priestly malfeasance should be at least double, plus lifetime defrocking, with the church held liable to report it, to save society's valuable time and money.

It is the citizens call, not that of a failed church, and most certainly not that of a failed church to make upon their flock, or others.

Rusty.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 13 August 2010 1:27:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko, I know there are many men who speak out against male violence. I know there are many men's groups that address the issues of violence against women.

I have not heard or read of one single ordinary Christian (other than the victims and authorities) who has spoken out about child sexual abuse in their church.

I haven't heard of one single ordinary Christian group (not victims and authorities) that has formed with the purpose of addressing child sexual abuse in their church.

You all remain horrifically, bone-chillingly silent.

Therefore, I conclude you are detached both from the society in which you live, and from the dark side of your church.
Posted by briar rose, Friday, 13 August 2010 7:54:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And, I forgot to add "all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men (sic) to remain silent."

There isn't an institution on the planet that illustrates that maxim better than the Christian church.
Posted by briar rose, Friday, 13 August 2010 7:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You will see how much Christians care when you see the numbers come up on the board, next Saturday. The screaming atheists, who have been pushing materialism relentlessly will have to answer the question, “ Was it wise to replace Rudd with Gillard.” We will know next Saturday, whether the great silent majority is prepared to sell its core values, for thirty pieces of silver.

In a way it no longer really matters who the elected King for a while is. The wheel has turned, and within twelve months, we will know if the International Criminal Court really works, and the axis of evil, the great cartel made up of the legal profession, is sent back to its proper place in the netherworld.

Rudd did an enormous amount of good with his continuance of the thrust of reform started under Howard. This was supported by the opposition, and we have a huge amount of good legislation, that is there to be worked with. Labor has been so closely associated with organized crime, through its associations with lawyers, 30 of whom sit in the House of Representatives.

Cartel conduct now attracts a fine of ten million dollars. The cartel where God is replaced by a Judge, from Magistrates Court right up to the High Court, has now got a nemesis. The International Criminal Court singles out these wannabe Kings, and they will get special attention. The French Court, should become the Federal Supreme Court as required by S 71 Constitution, and should abolish its cartel behavior. It should stop being the oppressive extension of the Federal Government, and become a court again. It has not been treating people with equality since 1952.

Many people want a benevolent dictatorship. It is the norm in Europe, but we want only one dictator if we must have one, not nine. If we have to have a Caesar let him or her be a Christian. Abbott will probably win. The Christian vote, which used to be rusted onto the Liberals, will probably return to its usual place, after its experiment, with a Christian Labor Leader.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Friday, 13 August 2010 8:34:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PTB
Atheists pushing materialism? Please explain how atheists are pushing materialism and why you think those with faith are separate from this push.

Most of our leaders in the West are recognised for their Christianity particularly where it has a strong hold in the US and I don't see any reduction of materialism thus far.

Atheists, like Christians, are not a homogenous group and to paint atheism as responsible for materialism is a disingenuous and prejudicial assertion.

What concerns me is the people who make these ridiculous statements actually know them to be false and yet continue with this rhetoric for a sense of a 'greater purpose'. No greater purpose was ever served by dishonesty and I think if Jesus/God existed as he is written about, would not support the villification of any group for that purpose.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 13 August 2010 9:03:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I cannot fathom the inconsistencies of those Christians that will vote against Gillard because of her living arrangements being so scandalously sinful. Are they not aware that the opposition party, with strong support from their current leader, involved us in an unlawful invasion of a sovereign country (i.e. Iraq), killing thousands of innocent people, without adequate evidence to justify such action at all?

How can you focus on one very minor "sin" (in your opinion) of one group, while completely turning a blind eye to possibly one of the greatest sins perpetrated in the name of this country ever?

Or am I wrong; is living with someone outside of marriage worse in the eyes of your church than killing thousands of innocents? From my upbringing as a Catholic, going to church every Sunday and attending a Catholic school, I didn't get that impression. I did get the impression, though, that most Christians are completely hypocritical.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Friday, 13 August 2010 9:26:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>"Your last three definitions [of secularism] oppose the first three."<<
Posted by david f, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:04:02 PM

Yes, but they are not my definitions, they belong to the www.ekklesia.co.uk article.

I like the first three for a society like Australia:

* promoting neutrality/fairness in the public square,
* managing a society of diverse beliefs,
* separating governance from religion,

The last three may have some role for religious entities that abuse or terrorise
.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 13 August 2010 9:39:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear McReal,

Those are not your definitions, but they are good ones.

The last three apply not only to religious societies that terrorise but to nonreligious societies that also terrorise.

The enemy of reason is faith. Faith in a supernatural is only one subset of unreasoning faith. The faith in an ideology which rests on a belief in unprovable propositions also opposes reason.

One shouldn't even have faith in reason itself. The premisses which our reason is based on may be faulty. Our logic may be flawed. Our conclusions may not be applicable to the milieu we live in.

Doubt is a virtue. Faith is a vice.
Posted by david f, Friday, 13 August 2010 11:22:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with many of the posters here, both Christian and not, that the article’s presumption that only Christians make decisions guided by ethics is both arrogant and offensive.

As a Christian, I’m also troubled by Justin’s presumption that there is a single appropriate Christian perspective on controversial political issues, and that he’s able to discern it without any difficulty.

Justin falls into the trap of many ideologues of assuming other must see the world just as they do. So Justin thinks that Christians must oppose economic rationalism because it is bad for the poor. But while I share Justin’s aim that economic policy should benefit the poor, the key question is WHETHER economic rationalism has been bad for the poor. I believe the evidence demonstrates that the growth policies of recent governments have benefitted poor and rich alike. So I support them.

Likewise, I agree that we should manage the environment responsibly, but probably differ substantially from Justin on what that means. Justin says that “serious environmental efforts [are being] hampered by deference to business interests.” But this is merely to assert an ideological presupposition, and gives no direction on whether, for example, the Greens were right to oppose the CPRS.

This article is a weak and shallow effort, and compares poorly with Mark Stephens’ much more nuanced and thoughtful piece the previous day:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10802

Mark recognises that sincere and ethical Christians might take opposing positions on political topics – just like everyone else. Justin would do well to ponder this:

“...many debates are not over the theoretical issue of values but the practical issue of which policy will best reflect those values. Do right-wingers actually despise the poor, or do they just believe that the promotion of the free-market will bring about greater prosperity for all, including the poor? Do left-wingers really want to stifle business activity through regulation, or do they just believe that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s wage and generous protections for the worker?”
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 13 August 2010 3:07:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

So, the question is, is righteous something that can be bestowed or something that comes from a confidence in ones belief and conduct being right?

Righteousness (other than self righteousness) comes through faith in God who raised Christ from the dead. An exchange takes place. Christ took upon His body our sin in order that we can receive His righteousness. Self righteousness is simply measuring one human being against another. A self righteousness person will never receive God's grace and righteousness because they don't think they need it. They refuse to see the evil in their own life and are foolish enough to think somehow they are righteous enough to be accepted by God by their own merits or character. Without Christ one is left with nothing but self righteousness.

Someone who has received the righteousness of God will at very least call evil evil and good good. Someone who hasn't will always be content in their own self righteousness because they are only measuring themselves against others they consider worse than themselves not knowing that all fall hopelessly short of God's laws and standards.
Posted by runner, Friday, 13 August 2010 4:26:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TrashcanMan you ask or state

'Or am I wrong; is living with someone outside of marriage worse in the eyes of your church than killing thousands of innocents?'

I will be the first to admit that the topic of war is not one that any biblical based believers are united on. One major problem with your arguement is that Mr Obama & Mr Ruud/Gillard would more than likely done the exact same thing as Bush/Howard as far as Iraq. If you don't believe that you are naive or deceitful. The UK leader Blair was Labour through and through and proves that point. The horrors of wars always leads to innocent people dying. There is always a tension on whether you should kill people in order to ultimately save lives or not. Also the idea of a legal war is nothing short of a joke. All wars are horrible and whether a corrupt political organisation like the UN calls it legal or not should not matter to any fair minded person.

What Christians do know is that the murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies is as bad if not worse than the holocaust. There is no confusion over this. The vast majority of these murders are for convenience sake or in the name of 'women's right'. They also know that leaders who refuse to call adultery and fornication sin are far likely to be less trustworthy as leaders as those who might have failed but at least acknowledge their sinful nature. If people are likely to fornicate and commit adultery they show that they really give stuff all about the families they are ruining. They put their lusts ahead the of the common good of society. While nearly all are guilty of this, to pretend that their is nothing wrong with it is shameful. Putting the knife in a sitting pm a few weeks from election is not the sort of role model I want my children to follow
Posted by runner, Friday, 13 August 2010 4:33:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Someone who has received their self-righteousness because of belief in God will, at very least, not be measuring themselves against others they consider worse than themselves, yet not knowing they fall hopelessly short of philosophy's laws and standards.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 13 August 2010 7:16:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

Just because Rudd or whoever might have joined the invasion into Iraq anyway is beside the point.

Howard invaded the country with insufficient reason; hundreds of thousands died.

Howard was then voted back into office, therefore his actions involving Iraq were supported by those who re-elected him. So those Christians who voted for Howard (sorry, I'm assuming you did too) were therefore saying the invasion was ok. (of course, not only Christians voted for him).

This is the reason governments will do these things, because they can win people back over at election time with handouts etc. They are never properly held to account for what they actually do while in goverment, and often take credit (or cop blame) for what they had no control over.

It is these very same Christians, the ones who said the war was a-ok by re-electing Howard, who are now calling for Labor to be booted out of office for the following reasons:
1. Labor aren't tough enough on people fleeing persecution, war etc
2. Julia Gillard lives in a sin and is atheist.
3. We are "worse off under Labor" (because of the GFC? Remember Howard took us into debt to avoid the asian economic crisis in the 90s)
4. Abbott is going to cut the spending (by 0.02percent over 4 years, woopee doo)

So, it is clear to me many Christians pay more heed to the dogma of the church and to their own racial prejudices than they do to the actual teachings of Jesus, who they claim is the son of their god.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Saturday, 14 August 2010 6:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TrashcanMan,

You say Christians will vote for Abbott because. I will speak for myself.

1. Labor aren't tough enough on people fleeing persecution, war etc
(wrong. Labour has encouraged people smugglers and caused more deaths in doing so than Howard. I know of Tamils who have been persecuted and have been waiting years to come to Australia legally. Maybe I should suggest to their families they pay a smuggler).

2. Julia Gillard lives in a sin and is atheist. (True)
3. We are "worse off under Labor" (because of the GFC? Remember Howard took us into debt to avoid the asian economic crisis in the 90s) True but this issue would be a decisive issue for me.

4. Abbott is going to cut the spending (by 0.02percent over 4 years, woopee doo) Abbot could not possibly be a worse manager than the current Government, I think Greece would probably do as well as this mob. If it had not been for the previous Government we would be up the creek. This again is a minor issue compared with point 3.

At the end of the day it looks like Ms Gillard will win anyway. Personally I will be disappointed but won't have any trouble accepting the will of the people. Ultimately we will all answer to Someone in a far higher office.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 14 August 2010 7:36:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christians do care,unfortunately there are not enough of us to change the government. O' there are plenty of church goers and pew sitters and men who occupy our pulpits who have no idea of true christianity or salvation. we read about them in our papers almost daily.

But nevertheless God is still in control and he will judge this nation and them accordingly
Posted by Rufflun, Sunday, 15 August 2010 6:43:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But nevertheless God is still in control and he will judge this nation and them accordingly"

God would be in charge of all nations isn't he?

Not doing a bang-up job is he?
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 16 August 2010 5:38:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GIVE ME A BREAK!

I am fed up with all this rubbish about 'the Christian voter', from Wallace, Pell, Jensen, Abbott.... from Brennan, now from this galah.

"Respond to these profoundly important issues, and give Christians something to care about. Give us a reason to be excited about turning out to the polling booths later this month."

Why should 'the Christians' inherit the Earth?

I am fed up with the total, complete lack of policy announced during this election.. and I am not a Xtian at all.

Why not start demanding 'policy' worth voting for, and forget about the 'policy for Xtians' to vote for.

What next... will we have to tolerate 'Muslim policy', 'Jewish policy', Buddhist policy'... grow up for God's sake, and just start demanding 'policy', please
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 16 August 2010 11:50:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What are cop out. God is in control and is not doing a great job! The reality is He has given us the responsibility of doing the job. Whenever we fail to be commpassionate to assylum seekrs or rip apart the environment or don't cahallenge our gross materialism etc we can't blame God. It our responsibility as Christians. Lets stand up for these sorts of issues strongly and then surely we will care compassionately about the election outcome and how we vote. All the parties are secular but some reflect more than others the values of God.
Posted by Be serious, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 5:46:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/08/10/2978233.htm is a good response to this question from a Green candidate who is a Christian. Everyone posting here should take the time to absorb THAT.
Posted by Clair, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 8:31:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Be Serious wrote: "All the parties are secular but some reflect more than others the values of God."

Dear Be Serious,

I think the Greens and the Sex Party reflect the values of God more than the others. Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Sex is possibly the best of all the good things. Somehow there is the nonsense in one of the more primitive religions that we are born in sin. We are born as a result of one of God's gifts to us - sexual desire and the ability to satisfy that desire. For the senate I number all my choices. The Greens get first preference because of the concern for the environment which is all of creation. The Australian Sex Party gets next choice because of their attention to a very good part of creation.

You are right. Some parties reflect more than others the values of God.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 10:07:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"All the parties are secular but some reflect more than others the values of God." Be serious, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 5:46:17 PM

Which values? The wrath of? The notion a flood will cure our ills? The notion 3 wise men will appear? One wise person from the normal human variation would suffice: male, homosexual, intersex/hermaphrodite, female, whatever.

Not these syncophants who think a whole Govt is but one @$# person.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 7:23:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy