All we need now is a column by that lovely Tim Costello to tell us all that 'the Christian vote' is blah blah blah.

Another 'eminent' Christian blathering on as if there is 'a Christian vote', just like the former Sgt. from the ACL.

There is clearly no connection between 'being a Christian' and the activity that goes on in peoples heads when it comes to behaving in a dignified and 'proper' manner.

If there were, then the Coalition-ALP would not be such a dishonest mob of no-hopers, industry-banking would not be such a greed centred activity, and there would be far fewer untruths told around the world.

Not to mention a Pope who has refused the resignation of a couple of dodgy Irish Bishops, while all the Irish religion-sex scandal is airbrushed over, yet again, and as always with the Vatican.

That said, it is good to see the Father Brennan comments denouncing Pell as a short sighted bigot, well, that's how I read them anyway.

As for Wallace and the ACL, well, they are just another mob who have bought themselves a well paid job to spruik their ill-formed thoughts on the world, via a private company portrayed as a community lobby group.

That is hardly the most honest of pictures, I would have thought, and calls for some serious questioning by those who kid themselves that they are indeed 'Christian'.

The truth about the Greens is that they are a loose bunch of mainstream and weird ideas ranging from full-on Vaticanites down to crystal gazing and bong praising dopeheads too addled to think about a god, or a no-god, world about them.

In my experiences with the Greens, there is more chance of meeting a 'Christian' within the ranks than there is in either the ALP or Coalition.

A word of warning though... if you are going to vote Green, don't give them second preference as Brennan suggests here, that will give them nothing.

FIRST preferences MUST go to one of the Greens, Sex or Secular Party candidates above the bludgers in the two main mobs.

reading Frank Brennan's reasoning shows clearly why so many have deserted liberal thinking churches and leaders. Thankfully biblical based churches are growing strongly here in Australia and throughout the world. Only a believer who is completely naive or deceived would vote for such a people hating, promiscurious promoting, flawed faith based party as the Greens. No wonder the liberal church has to rely on Government grants and real estate to prop up its unbelief.

Runner.. you are joking?

"No wonder the liberal church has to rely on Government grants and real estate to prop up its unbelief".. your preferred ill-liberal churches all get ATO subsidy for all the damage they do too you know.

Now, if you support the end to all tax-lurks for all religions (and every other dodgy business too) that would be very welcome.

Is that what you mean?

I think Pell's call that the Greens are "sweet camouflaged poison" is correct. I think they do appeal, not to idealists, but to naive do-gooders who can only see the sweet coating.

Unfortunately, they recruit people such as the author,whose well meaning but ultimately uncritical ways makes them easy recruits.

The Left are primarily against individual freedoms while proclaiming they are actually for them (the sugar coating). They seek to control and not set people free at all. Their ideological ancestors are the great dictators of our time.

Wake up.

[Deleted as off topic].

[Deleted - off topic].

As an ordinary political punter, living a suburban life-style in Canberra (I admit to having a very high IQ and thus a greater depth of analysis and hence understanding than most other Australians), I think that the Greens are probably more Christian than the Coalition and the ALP in their social and environmental convictions. Bob Brown also appears to be the only honest person at the Federal level. Therefore, I and my wife shall vote for them, especially in the Senate.

Liaqqudin

Good to see a rational, well-thought out response by Frank Brennan; in the context where some powerful figures in the Catholic church, and other denominations - in their support for right-wing parties - effectively support policies which stigmatise and oppress the poor and vulnerable.

It has bothered me for a long time that in certain circles there is such emphasis on issues like gay marriage as a reason for voting for the Right; while the consequences of right-wing governments for the poor and vulnerable are ignored.

I wish you guys would get your story straight.

Sing from the same hymn-sheet, as it were.

Last week we had a lecturer in Biblical Studies at Wesley Institute saying:

“Another old chestnut which is regularly employed during campaigns is the notion of a 'Christian vote'”

This week we have a Jesuit priest telling us

“A thoughtful Christian could give their first or second party preference to a minor party like the Greens“

Is there a “Christian vote”, or isn't there?

Or perhaps there is an “Anglican vote”, a “Methodist vote, a “Baptist vote”, a “Jesuit vote”, an “Opus Dei vote”, a “Jensen Brothers vote” a “Holy Roman Empire vote” and so on?

But serial contradictions are such a permanent feature of organized religion, I guess it's not that surprising.

[Deleted - off topic].

Frank Brennan- the advocate thou shall not want.

There's always something disturbing about an extreme, authoritarian person who believes Australian Rights are only what a Christian would be allowed to do by their church, but are obligated to make space for refugees (in other words, an extreme neocon minus the redeeming public-security mantra most conservatives can boast) advocating one's party.

More disturbing still is that the things he doesn't like- which happen to be the Green's most prominent strong points, are things he insists they will not be able to implement.

What puzzles me is- is Brennan actually aware of his own perceptions when he advocates something? That is, does he actually think his endorsement of someone is a boost, or a detriment to their publicity?

[Deleted - off topic].

I quite like this piece. While I disagree with Brennan about issues like gay marriage and stem cell research, I can see that he is willing to discuss these issues openly without becoming judgmental. The fact that this piece analyzes the probability of legislation being passed as opposed to kneejerk responses (something you might benefit from considering, runner - the author also opposed abortion and stripping religious schools of their rights, he just does it without sanctimony).

This is the tone of discourse that politics should be about, instead of hatred and posturing.

Nice work Fr Brennan. You're a credit to thinking Christians everywhere.

TRTL

'Nice work Fr Brennan. You're a credit to thinking Christians everywhere.'

And of course Jim Wallace is an unthinking Christian because he has a different point of view to your TRTL.

A nicely argued article that exposes political involvement and agitation from the head of the Catholic Church in Australian politics, as well as from the so-called Christian Lobby--as if Christians need an advocate in Australian politics! Prime Minister Gillard's weak-as-water cow-towing to the Christian vote (an atheist extending funding for school chaplains) is ample evidence of a powerful social faction (albeit eclectic) she can't afford to put off-side. I imagine after the election she'll be announcing her wedding plans, with all the High-church ceremonial--though if she's shrewd she'll put it off till the lead-up to the next election, imagine the spread she'd get in the "Women's Weekly", not to mention "Bride".
But back to Cardinal Pell. One wonders how the Pope views his antipodean Cardinal's forays into national politics, and his outspoken press releases (always nonsensical), though the current Pope seems himself far more decisive, politically, than his predecessor was, who certainly would have blushed.
While Frank Brennan makes a powerful argument in favour of secular government, there's a certain smugness in his confidence in the status quo's being maintained in any event. The article nicely illustrates the state of conservative populist hegemony in this country. Which is why he and his recalcitrant brethren can afford to disdain vulgar politics and look to their dignity and public profile.
As for the Greens; voting for them will only bring the major parties even closer together, if that's possible.

Jim Wallace launched the initial salvo in The Australian describing the Greens as “a party whose philosophical father, Peter Singer, clearly places the rights of animals above the rights of children, but at the same time endorses sex with animals, which presumably are robbed of any right of consent”.
_________________________________________________________________________
If making such pronounments, there ought to be some accuracy; endorsing sex with animals indeed. Can Wallace realistically name any group where having sex with animals occurs. If that is the general thinking of Christians, then thank God for atheists.

The Greens began in the early 1970s when Lake Pedder was to be flooded in Tasmania. The group formed was the UTG or United Tasmania Group which later became the Green Party; was Peter Singer about at that time?

@ Runner,
I’m a conservative reformed evangelical Protestant Christian. I believe in the Sufficiency of the Bible, attend an enthusiastic and evangelical Sydney Anglican church, and hold *most* of the conservative biblical doctrines. (However, some American Christians would not like my accepting that God made the world through evolution, and that Genesis is actually talking about WHY, not HOW, God made the world. But that is a whole new argument!).

YET I’M VOTING GREEN!

Why? Because of Augustine’s “2 cities”. There is the heavenly kingdom (the universal church of all those who have trusted in Christ, whatever denomination) and the secular government.

The government is not really there to enforce Christian values but to maintain some semblance of law and order! That’s it! So the Greens want to ban prayers in parliament? Can you please tell me what the point of the Lord’s prayer actually is, in the bible? Isn’t it a diatribe against meaningless recitals and heartless hypocritical homilies? Why should we force non-Christians to open government with the Lord’s prayer, which was MEANT to be a sermon against exactly that kind of ritualised recital?

Try to get your head around the book of Romans, and how Paul views the law verses relationship with God by grace. Or try Corinthians which talks about discipline within the church, but then explains we’re not to excommunicate or judge those outside the church because they are not even pretending to live by our standards!

Try to define what it is you think the CHURCH does and what the government does, and try to do so from THE BIBLE! Then you’ll see that it’s more about voting or the least harm to the most people, and that, I have concluded, means having the Greens with the balance of power to make deals with the other climate-numb parties.

An interesting article that I thought was well thought out and well written by a modern thinking Christian.

Frank Brennan<" Though the Christian Lobby thought its influence significant when the major parties were both headed by professed Christians, there is a need for special sensitivity, judging politicians and parties by their fruits in this pluralistic democratic Australia where quite a number of its thinking voters as well as some of its leading politicians happen to be atheist."

How true Mr Brennan. We need to separate Church and state for the good of all Australian people, and not just for the Christian Australians.

I myself will be voting for the Greens because I too believe that they will provide balance in any decision the ruling party may want to consider.

Just because I am a lapsed Catholic now (skeptic), it should not automatically mean I should vote for labor just because Julia Gillard is an atheist.

In fact I do not agree with Labor's assertions that Gay marriage should not be allowed, which is decided by that party even though it's leader is an atheist.

We should consider their policies as a whole and then decide on which party, if any, we will vote for.
We need to leave religion well out of it.

Of course it has to be 'Father Frank Brennan' who is a party to so much questionable material about "human rights" that he fits right in with the watermelons.

Unforunately he is unable to recognize a communist atheist as being rather antithetical to his own presumed position.

But then again.. perhaps 'father' Frank is on the dangerous side of John 3.16 ?

Bob Brown wants 'global government'..not governance..but governMENT.
We don't need to think too far to know what 'kind' of goverment 'that' would be now do we?

Eclipse Now

You raise some very valid points. There is a heavenly kingdom and an earthly kingdom The Lord's prayer includes let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

I agree that the Government is not there to impose Christian values however it is also not their to impose secular values or lack of. I personally see little point to people living in sin and committing adultery praying the Lord's prayer. Unfortunately the Government does impose values whether you or I like it.

I also agree with the view that people outside the church can do what they like. They are unable to live up to biblical standards while blinded by the 'god of this age.' There is no doubt however that the more biblical based our laws the more blessed we are as a nation. Secularism has led to teenage pregnancy, suicide, abortion, perversion, corruption at a far higher rate than when people acknowledged God. Christians as citizens of this nation have as much right to promote and vote for godliness as secularist have to promote and vote for ungodliness.

By the way the fact that you deny the Genesis account in favour of the evolution fantasy will enviable cause you to doubt many other parts of Scripture.

The reality is that the Greens in my opinion will cause far more harm for future generations with their permissive and often perverted policies than other parties . You obviously disagree which is your democratic right.

“There is no doubt however that the more biblical based our laws the more blessed we are as a nation”
&#8232;Er - no. You’ve obviously been reading OT promises that pertained to Israel into the deal this side of the cross. You need to get serious about your Biblical Theology, the unfolding plan of God as revealed in the bible. Try Gospel and Kingdom, the Goldsworthy Trilogy.

http://www.amazon.com/Goldsworthy-Trilogy-Gospel-Kingdom-Revelation/dp/1842270362

It is one of the Top 5 Theology books of all time, and is pretty much ‘standard reading’ for most older teenagers and young adults in our church. It is foundational.

Basically, God’s 3 promises to Abraham of having God’s land, being God’s people, living God’s way with His blessing were all delivered for Israel: but ultimately point to and are *truly* fulfilled in Jesus. Now, just as God promised Abraham, ALL nations are blessed by Jesus saving work. There should be no such thing as a “Christian nation” in our thinking. All are one in Christ.

I’m not being pedantic: this is an extremely important doctrine! I wish George Bush had not seen himself in a ‘crusade’ on behalf of his ‘Christian nation’. The concept of 'nations' are largely irrelevant to God now that Jesus lived as ‘the perfect Israel’ and we are all one in Christ.

You seem to fear the Greens forming GOVERNMENT. But they’ll be lucky to form the balance of power. This means they won’t be able to just foist any of their ‘bad’ policies onto Christians, because neither of the main parties want to be seen as banning scripture teaching in schools, and neither support gay marriage. (As if banning Gay marriage somehow makes Oxford Street any less what it is? I don’t really care! That’s up to them!)

But if the Greens are a part of the *Senate conversation*, they can help make Australia far more compassionate about refugees and global warming.

In these very pragmatic issues they are far more compassionate.

The Greens are about forcing their fake moral virtuousness on others. They do not want freedom of choice, they want control of society's belief systems. They are essentially amoral hiding behind fake virtuousness. Pell's 'sugar coating'.

The numbers of people sucked in by their fake 'compassion' is amazing.

The Greens have no tolerance or compassion for views other than their own.

They voted down Labor's Carbon Trading scheme because it didn't suit them. So now we have no scheme at all.

Giving them power in the Senate is truly a frightening proposition.

I was ready to be annoyed by this article, expecting another prediction about how the "Christian vote" would be cast. But Fr. Brennan surprised me, and I'm glad. That someone from a strict and (usually) conservative order like the Society of Jesus could dare to suggest people think for themselves is pleasing. The reality is that there are thinking, reasoning, rational Christians (even Catholics!) out there, just as there are irrational and hysterical ones. And, at the end of the day, we can all decide how to cast our vote and we can all go to bed at night comfortable that we have done the right thing, however we choose to vote. That's the beauty of free will and free thought.

.

My dear compatriots,

.

Please allow me to suggest that the day we feel sufficiently mature to accede to full emancipation from the British Empire by shedding our current constitutional monarchy and making Australia a republic, we shall be able to freely elect a president to govern us.

I feel sure you would find that preferable to the present arrangement whereby some political party decides who should govern the country, without consulting any of us.

It would also have the advantage of offering us the possibility of establishing Australia constitutionally as a truly secular State.

It is unfortunate that this does not appear to be on the agendas of those offering their services at the upcoming federal elections.

No doubt, they consider we have not yet attained the degree of maturity necessary for such an important leap into political maturuty and I am sure you share my gratitutde for their benevolent protection in this regard.

In the meantime, we should continue to consider ourselves quite privileged at having the British Crown as our constitutional Head and State religious leader.

I imagine that most of you, my dear compatriots, find that, indeed, quite reassuring.

.

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.
They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.
Then the Lord said to Moses. "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."
So as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.
Numbers 15:32,34,35,36.

So if you vote on Saturday do you get stoned on Sunday?

@ Paul,
please give the bible the same courtesy you'd give reading Cinderella. The way you've just read the bible, you're the kind of guy that should be stamping your foot with frustration, and yelling "Cinderella can't marry the Prince! She'd never make it to the ball. She's stuck in the basement washing the ugly stepsister's clothes, it says so in Chapter 1!"

Do yourself a favour and *actually* get acquainted with one of the foundational texts of Western thought. Stop pretending to know the bible, and get to know it. Read the letters of the Apostle Paul, especially Galations and Romans. Read Hebrews. And then get back to us on how Christians actually view the Old Testament law. If we read the bible the way you do we wouldn't *be* Christians. We'd be Jews. Get it?

Separation of church and state is also a Christian idea, as found in Romans. The State is regarded as put there by God to maintain law and order. This is also assumed in passing in the book of Corinthians when Paul discusses church discipline, but does not presume to rule over non-Christians.

So do read those letters of Paul, have a think, and then get back to us.

@ Eclipse now....

Mate.. very nice to see someone with some big picture grasp of the Old Testament/New Testament and an understanding of the Covenant.

But you lost me a little on that last bit:

//But if the Greens are a part of the *Senate conversation*, they can help make Australia far more compassionate about refugees and global warming.In these very pragmatic issues they are far more compassionate.//

Given the real agenda of the Watermelons (Greens), I can't believe you don't see such expressions of 'compassion' for what they really are.. political opportunism extrordinaire.

Have a read of "Agenda 21" and think about "GLobal Government".... those things form part of the Watemelon Agenda mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

"Behind the Green Curtain" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7934453684194357754#

Vancouver Declaration 1975

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.
Secondary Source: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm

Primary Source (for verification)

http://habitat.igc.org/vancouver/vp-d.htm Just read the first paragraph of the preamble.

Green watermelons have wormed their way into the UN and exist in many levels of our own government beaurocracy.... be afraid.. very afraid.
*socialism* is knocking at your door..and it wears a U.N. hat.

Banjo today there is a ticker that Gillard wants a Republic when the Queen's reign ends. But I'd assume that will be the system of a President appointed in similar way to the GG.

I think most people want a President - that everyone gets to vote for.
And that is a major problem how would the constitutional change be arrived at. We would a forum and referendum that did not reach any agreement on a Republic. How much time and money do we want to spend on this. I'd also say if Gillard wins and moves to a GG style republic would you want someone who deposed the elected PM setting up the President. Let's forget it

Banjo and Rob- we should start a new separate Republic thread, because this is something I would like to talk about in more detail in its own right- if neither of you get around to it first I'll make one to start if off.

Relating that to the religion debate- well, it really comes down to constitutional reform and expansion of democratic input rights.

Eclipse Now

You write

'You seem to fear the Greens forming GOVERNMENT. But they’ll be lucky to form the balance of power. This means they won’t be able to just foist any of their ‘bad’ policies onto Christians, because neither of the main parties want to be seen as banning scripture teaching in schools, and neither support gay marriage. (As if banning Gay marriage somehow makes Oxford Street any less what it is? I don’t really care! That’s up to them!)'

I don't fear the Greens getting into power but I certainly don't wish it upon our children and future generations. Ultimately the worst they can do is lock someone up for telling the truth like the Victorian Government tried to do recently with the 2 Danny's. I would like to think that future generations had the freedoms that I have had growing up. Unfortunately those that don't hold biblical family values will continue to push their lack of values on the rest of society.

You also write

'But if the Greens are a part of the *Senate conversation*, they can help make Australia far more compassionate about refugees and global warming.'

This is really an insult to most of your own congregation. You seem to have swallowed the notion that the lefites are more generous and compassionate than others. They are certainly more generous with tax payers money but you could hardly say encouraging leaky boats is compassionate. You ignore the number of deaths caused by this 'compassionate policy'. Labour/Greens are always generous with others money. You should not have to think to much to see that even your own church members are far more likely to give money to poverty and other causes than the general population.

@ AlgoreisRICH
Aren’t all parties in it for their own beliefs? With an ‘Avatar’ like ALGOREisRICH, I’m guessing you’re a global warming sceptic? Well, sorry, but I respect the science and the scientists. Also, the previous head of the IPCC was a Christian, and this next bloke I'm linking to is a scientist blogger and a Christian. Check out his site, as you’ve probably had your head filled with the very anti-climate myths he debunks.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Good-The-Bad-and-The-Ugly-Effects-of-Climate-Change.html

I note Fred Nile has been doing the rounds about how evil Julia Gillard might become if influenced by a Greens balance of power in the Senate. In his “Salt and Light” email circular, number 7, August 2010 he writes:

“God's Word, the Holy Bible, states that the government is the "Minister of God" (Romans 13:4,6). If that is true, how can Christians elect atheists to rule our Australian nation? Politicians who reject God's authority, guidance and direction?”

Mr Nile, chill. Paul was writing to the Romans to respect and obey their *very Pagan* Caesar.

“4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.”

If Paul can describe *Caesar* this way, then I think today’s church will survive anything our government throws our way.

So relax. The greens won’t be IN GOVERNMENT, they’ll be in the balance of power, part of the conversation. It’s not a perfect solution. I don’t agree with all their ideology. But some of their policies and *practical concerns* will balance the *apathy* of the L’s.

Eclipse Now

Excellent that you are taking time to engage Boazy in some thought - he doesn't like to listen to atheists like me, prefers to proselytise which just results in people ignoring him completely - all of which is a bit sad for the old fellow.

Would like to point how, that the Greens has a number of Christian members - they are not all lezzo-tree-hugging-femonazis, to point out the bleeding obvious. I take issue with you saying "I don’t agree with all their ideology" - do you agree 100% with any political party's ideology? I don't.

That said, there are many people reading these pages who are not Christians - major shock for you maybe. But when Christians write these articles they write as if their entire audience is Christian - well it is not - far from it and from the 60% of Australians who put "Christian" on their census forms - how many are seriously devout? How many believe in virgin births, walking on water, even understand what the Trinity is about? I'll wager that many atheists understand more about religion than self-claimed religious themselves.

OK, the point I am trying to make is that we all have a conscience which we use to make important decisions and is why I am voting for the Greens because they are closer to a HUMANE approach of governance than any of the other parties. They are far more inclusive, than say, Family First - whose ideas of a family wouldn't fill a post-it note let alone encompass that range of families in our country.

"Why a conscientious human being would vote for the Greens?" is a better question.

I expect the Green vote to be around 12% in the Senate, giving us the balance of power. Hopefully get rid of Fielding and a few Liberals along the way. The Greens may be the only "winners" in this whole election.

Dear JR and Paul1405,
I too will be voting for the Greens, and am immensely gratified that their policies and success will get up the noses of the Pellamites :-)

Just to do a quick rundown- what do posters (especially Christians) here think of Frank Brennan's stances in general?
A quick summary:
-refugee advocate
-indigenous rights advocate
-somewhat neutral on bill of rights but chaired commission
-anti-abortion
-anti-euthanasia.

I'm interested because most people don't tend to hold all these views together, and am interested to see what others (who most likely value some but abhor the others) have to say.

Paul1405... "So if you vote on Saturday do you get stoned on Sunday?"

Err, probably better to get stoned on Friday night, in readiness to vote Saturday, then get stonkered on Saturday night with Antony Green, and get Berrocca-ed on Sunday, whoever wins the green-seats-of-power.

Squeers, as you vote Green don't forget that Bob Brown is not going to halt the school chaplains you don't support.

In fact, he is happy to allow them to keep going, and increase their annual pay cheque too.

Only the Secular Party and Sex Party are clear about ridding us of this damn spot, the NSCP.

As for this line from 'Ronnelong'... "I think most people want a President - that everyone gets to vote for"... count me out cobber.

I have no issue with ridding us of the GG, and all the state Gs, but no thanks to any more of this lowgrade election stuff for another layer of crass stupidity, polls, and media speculation thanks.

Are we not mature enough to run our democracy without a president?

Are you all so weak that you need a figure head to fawn over?

Can you not see the link between country, queen and gods?

Grow up, for God's sake if not your own, and craft a democratic system out of two houses of parliament and a spark of rare intelligence.

Can you imagine what drongo we might end up with as an elected president, driven to power by Murdoch and those drones MelnKochie, not to mention Alan Jones et al.?

No wonder Jesus wept, when he looked out and surveyed all those assembled below him!

'What a waste of effort' I am sure he must have thought.

Well, this election fiasco is but a taste of what we'd have to suffer if 'the average Australian' was let loose with a ballot paper to elect a president.

Surely, we could just as easily manage with the Pharlap carcass in charge of everything as having some political, business or sports boof elevated to god-ike status?

King Hazza

Frank Brennan is a fixture and fitting within the Vatican, and as such is required to support the Pope, who is infallible in all matters he turns his hand to.

Should Brennan voice a discordant note, one that does not fit the Vatican template, then he is speaking out of turn.

His views, as an individual, are non-existent.

He is part of, he is, the Vatican.

Either you agree with the Pope, or you don't.

There is no room for dissenting views.

Those who pretend to be Catholic, without backing every last utterance of the Pope, are kidding themselves.

Brennan is one of those.

I can never understand why Churches do not pay tax, after all they are money making businesses, just like the local pizza shop. They like to make out they are some sort of 'special case' in the community. I have no problem with those who want to pray to some sort of god and read old books, but pay your taxes!

Dear King Hazza,
this is actually a rather deep and revealing question. It seems to paint Frank Brennan as an old-world philosopher(theologian), an Aristotelian or Aquinasite rather than Humean or Humanist. I'm not going to bother to elaborate. Suffice it to say that how people answer your astute question will place them in one camp or the other. Of course the usual practice is to go with the flow. Hopefully a few will come forward and nail their colours to the mast. I shall lead by example.

I'm not a Christian, but what do I think of Frank Brennan's stances below:

-refugee advocate: tick
-indigenous rights advocate: tick
-somewhat neutral on bill of rights but chaired commission (more info)
-anti-abortion: tick
-anti-euthanasia: tick

These are qualified answers.

An elderly regular church-going Catholic friend of ours all of a sudden has become stridently vocal in her anti-Green stance. She is not usually given to commenting much on politics, but on the last three occasions in my company has brought up the subject of the "danger" of the Greens gaining more power in this election.
Seems like the Cardinal's message is having an impact on the likes of our friend, who wouldn't for a moment question the wisdom of those in positions of power within the Catholic church.

Quite so Poirot... gormless nitwits, sheep, mindless nongs, easily led, cannon fodder.

.

Dear Ron in Bennelong,

.

It's nice to hear that "Gillard wants a Republic when the Queen's reign ends".

Presumably, that will be when Gillard is no longer in office.

I guess, in a way, that's a relief if, as you suggest, what she has in mind is some sort of puppet president with no political power, all the rest remaining as is: a prime minister that some political party can put the skids under to protect its personal interests if and when it feels they are in danger.

As they say, Ron, democracy is like sand in an oyster: a little produces a pearl, too much kills the animal.

I am sure none of us oysters would want that, would we?

.

Dear King Hazza,

.

I just thought I should draw the attention of my fellow compatriots to the fact that Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, is both our constitutional Head of State and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

I guess that disqualifies "the lucky country" as a secular State.

As it does not seem right to me to request that Her Gracious Majesty should resign her religious functions, I thought I could, at least, suggest that we transform the national status of Australia from that of a Constitutional Monarchy to that of a Republic.

A federal election seems to me to be an excellent occasion for this important topic to be debated and put to the vote. Why shunt such a major topic off to a side track?

The country obviously needs a new constitution anyway.

The whole thing could be done in one foul swoop, rather than wait for a series of complicated referenda that nobody understands, that nobody wants and that costs time and money.

But, if that's what everyone wants, let's mutiply it all out, including threads on OLO.

.

Heyyyy Johnny..... whadaya mean I don't like to listen to Atheists ? grrrr

I don't care what a persons belief is.. I engage with what their ideas are mate.. Some atheists have great ideas.. Col Rouge is one.. we disagree on abortion but on most other things we click 100%

Eclipse now.... if you have serious Christian faith, I fail to see why you would not be supporting Family First?

The Greens are dodgy for a number of reasons, in fact for the same reasons we need to be wary about "big" Labor and "big" business..
Whenever they speak of the 'NATIONAL' interest they really mean the segment of it which benefits "them" most.

ECLIPSE.. please see just how perverted and power crazed and evil the Green movement has become in the USA.. look at the blatant deception, the use of brute force the corruption, the megalomania, the slashing and burning of individual rights and the constitution.... here it is in living color and black and white documentation:

BEHIND THE GREEN CURTAIN. (must see viewing for all of us)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7934453684194357754#

Dear Poirot

You say of your friend.....

She is not usually given to commenting much on politics, but on the last three occasions in my company has brought up the subject of the "danger" of the Greens gaining more power in this election.

Perhaps she is waking up to the type of rubbish the Greens are behind as in the vid ? (above) :)

PS.. just wait till you see the part in the Vid where the 'Environmental' group has shares in both Caterpillar and Cummins :)

It's a hoot.

Dear Al,

I think it's more a case of believing some of the things she reads are the "gospel" truth.

On the last occasion she came out the front door flapping a Catholic newspaper at her husband to show him an article - then she went on to share her concerns about the Greens taking funding away from Catholic schools.

Paul1405, "I can never understand why Churches do not pay tax.."

Taking your question at face value and not having an oar in the water in this discussion myself, you might find the quote given below useful and reassuring. Remember that donations given to the churches have already been taxed (the parishioner paid income tax on the money he donated) and there are other voluntary bodies delivering not for profit services of value to the community that are in a similar position:

"According to Myles McGregor-Lowndes, of Queensland University of Technology's Centre of Philanthropy and Non-Profit Studies, taxes that the churches don't pay are irrelevant.

"The argument is that the churches have never been part of Australia's tax system. So measuring income forgone from the churches is as silly as measuring the pocket money parents give children and calling that tax forgone," he said.

If churches had to pay income tax they would simply organise their affairs as business does so that they had no taxable profits. The result would be inordinate costs to the Tax Office and charities but no more tax at all.

He said the Productivity Commission denied that exemptions distorted markets."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/churches-reap-the-benefits-of-belief-500-million-in-taxexemptions/2006/04/28/1146198351877.html

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10815&page=5

@ ALGORE: Family First? He denies global warming.

Now, regarding your video.

70 years ago we dumped walkable Urbanism for car-dependent suburban blandness. Suburbia is growing exponentially and paving over and ploughing up ecosystems. It has been a disaster. It has made us dependent on cars and oil, fat, waste time in traffic, and alienated communities.

I watched 22 minutes of your 40 minute video (but when they compared National parks to Nazi Germany I switched off).

So will you please watch this 3 minute video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGJt_YXIoJI

See? Suburban growth is wiping out ecosystems 10 times faster than Urbanism would.

Ecosystem services are valued in the TRILLIONS!
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/ecosystem-services/

Ecosystems are important preserves of some of the last biodiversity and DNA on the planet. We HAVE to protect them.

When suburban growth bumps up against important ecosystems, someone is going to get hurt. Nature or people are going to lose, and I have no doubt sometimes governments and greenies will stuff up as badly as oil companies in the Mexican gulf! (We’ll, not that bad. We don’t have the same money or impact!)

But this movie is a rather pathetic paranoid infomercial, NOT a documentary. Some people really *are* too dumb to *really* study the zoning laws before buying a block of land. We didn’t hear the official point of view. And like any infomercial, it relied on the power of personal testimony. Sad people moan about evil greenies robbing their land. But the LAWS OF PHYSICS dictate that suburbia cannot grow forever on a finite planet. As I said, something’s got to give.

Lastly, EVERY accusation they unsuccesfully tried to throw at Greenies is actually 1000 times more powerful and truer of big oil and King Coal. These 2 energy sectors practically own our western governments. Greenies in a conspiracy against democracy? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ah Banjo you talk about becoming a republic instead of a monarchy.
Actually we are a Commonwealth.
This was the name used when England was a republic under Cromwell.
Only in UK is C of E the established church

I see nothing obvious for which we need a new constitution

So I regard us a Secular Republic that just happens to have a Queen as a legal head of state. Let's save money and leave it like that

The Greens are no more anti-Christian than they are anti-Buddhist. Sure, they have policies which run counter to Christian moral teaching... show me a party that doesn't (if you show me Family First, the Christian Democrats et. al., you lose). What's important come Saturday is that you vote with your heart - not with your Priest/Imam/Shaman/Vicar/Druid/Rabbi/Pastor's heart.

Hi Ravi, some might even vote with their heads! :-)

But yes, when preferences are taken into account, a vote for Family First is a vote for abortion. It's the same with Fred Nile etc. Because in the real world, what is the real difference between the Liberal Party and Labor Party on abortion?

Has abortion even been raised once this whole election?

I personally hate the concept of abortion. But what am I going to do... try and get it outlawed, and drive it underground so that both mother and baby die in backyard operations?

Here's a great article on abortion by Christians arguing that maybe outlawing it isn't the solution, and there might be other ways of reducing the demand for abortion in the first place.

http://blog.sojo.net/2008/11/03/outlawing-the-symptom-our-broken-abortion-strategy/

After reading the above I have some questions of Fred Nile. Is he *really* serious about abortion? Maybe if he was more serious about abortion than he was paranoid about 'commies under the bed', he might not make preference deals with the neocons. Maybe he'd consider increasing certain welfare funds to decrease the need for abortion in the first place!

But, with the way he rants about a quite small socialist wing in the Greens party, and tries to paint all greens as 'watermelons' (Green on the outside, RED on the inside! Beware the red terror!), I'm quite sure he's more concerned about the commie threat than lowering infant murder.

Elvis Christ, can't anybody around here get my name right?

.

Dear Ron in Bennelong,

.

Indeed, Australia is a "commonwealth" or, in other words, a "federation". It is a federation of States and Territories.

The commonwealth or federation has a constittution which sets out the fundamental laws of the country.

It defines the various governing bodies and the manner in which they are organised as well as the relationship between the political powers and the citizens, and, most importantly, guarantees our rights and freedoms.

The Commonwealth of Australia is, as I already indicated, a constitutional monarchy. It clearly indicates that the British Crown is our Constitutional Head of State.

As the British Crown is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, that means that Australia, like the United Kingdom, is not, strictly speaking, a secular State.

You also write: "I see nothing obvious for which we need a new constitution".

I couldn't agree more, if only I were certain the "happy go lucky" country we are today, living in peace and relative prosperity, could continue forever.

Realistically, however, there is no guarantee that it will.

We just need to look beyond our shores to see that things can go terribly wrong if we do not have the right legal and political safeguards in place, starting with our Constitution.

We do not have the equivalent of a "Bill of Rights" in our Constitution to protect each individual citizens rights and freedoms, for example.

As long as everybody is reasonable and easy-going, that's fine. But that could change. There are a number of holes and inadequacies in our Constitution that need to be fixed. We might end up with a Hitler, a Lenin a Pol Pot and have no legal or political means of enforcing our rights.

You write: "Let's save money and leave it like that".

No, Ron, I consider that attitude to be totally irresponsible. We should pull our heads out of the sand and take a more realistic look at the risks we are neglecting today which may impact negatively on our children and grand-children a few years down the line.

.

Dear Poirot... I can empathize with your report there. I can't speak for your neighbour's personal predicament, but re Beck? I've watched enough of his unfolding explanations..and checked/verified them myself from original sources to have a reasonable degree of confidence in the thrust of what he's saying.

ECLIPSE.... oooooh.. you tend to stir up my political passions ya know...

Here is why.

A) "I turned off when they compared the Greenies with Nazi's.

B) "Some people don't look at planning laws before buying"

aaaah THAT is where you got me going. You might not have tweaked to it but the *point* of the story was that people HAVE checked the planning or that EXISTING enterprises (Beef ranch) .. STILL become the victims of "GreeNazis" where the mere 'possibility' of something being 'habitat' is enough for them to deny planning permission.

Pozgais filled 'Wetland' ? (Below)

In the case of the Pozgais, have a look at this 'Government' side of the story but pay special attention to the paragraphs from about 25 onward.

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/999/719/309100/

The Government seems to read 'earth' for the word 'water'...... But while this is not the case on which the argument of the Vid hinges (it is but one) there are others where existing ranches have been destroyed (The cattle ranch example) by the activities of EnviroTerrorists in "Government".

Do you deny the corruption and scheming going on by powerful financial and political interests using the Green movement and clout for base selfish greed and gain ?

Of the examples cited, the Rockerfella's one stands out!

Of course we could review the case of "Mr UN Environment" Maurice Strong and his shares in the Chicago Climate Exchange or his directorship ! ! !
Or Gore's company Generation Investments and them being the 6th largest shareholder in the European 'Climate Exchange' carbon trading group.

GREENS..POWER...MONEY... CONTROL..TYRANNY...GLOBAL GOVERNMENT they all go together

" this is an extremely important doctrine!" @ Eclipse Now

Rubbish - it's fiction.

"Separation of church and state is also a Christian idea, as found in Romans."

Rubbish - the story of Jesus' arrest, trial and punishment is about sedition. Furthermore, the later emerging church was shoved into the State by Constantine; a move many attribute the fall of the Roman empire to!

Oh well Banjo thinks I am irresponsible for wanting to save money so pointless discussing the issue
I remain opposed to changing from a secular commonwealth (republic) with two heads of state to a so called republic with constitution unknown and a bill of rights which will undoubtedly remove rights we have now. And in which the head of state will most likely be appointed by the PM

Christians don't vote for the Green. BTW Bob Brown is on Press Club today at 1230pm

Bye

ALGORE,
Can we talk about Greens policy in Australia, not some paranoid conspiracy theory from America? In harping on about it you’re coming across at the level of the ‘aliens probed me and it hurt’ fanatics.

If you want to talk about REAL conspiracies at the global and national government levels, I have far, far more material about how fossil fuel companies have donated to anti-science campaigns to misinform us about climate change.
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/denial-machine/

If you want to talk about REAL threats to our way of life, google “Ecosystem Services” or read this link to my blog.
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/ecosystem-services/

Ecosystems services provide us with so many financially viable services that I cannot imagine the global economy, indeed civilisation itself, without them.

While you’re stuck in real-estate grabbing conspiracies, biologists tell us half the biodiversity on this planet is threatened with extinction, largely due to suburban growth! We NEED ecosystem services. Your mindset says *any* curbs on development must be a Nazi threat. That won’t do.

You act as if there are no government mechanisms for investigating such property confiscation issues in Australia, and assume that if it happens once that’s the end of our democracy! Yet people have sometimes had to leave homes due to rail and road expansions, and there are mechanisms for reviewing fair compensation in these situations. The rights of the individual does NOT always come before the good of a community, but we can at least compensate them.

ENDLESS DEVELOPMENT = MINDLESS EXPANSION = UGLY SUBURBIA FOREVER = OVERSIZED, ENERGY HUNGRY MCMANSIONS = FAT CITIZENS = COMMUNITY DESTRUCTION = HABITAT DESTRUCTION = ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE = BANKRUPT NATION!

And if you want to talk to me further, you’ll please watch my 3 minute “Built to last” video about New Urbanism, and actually engage with *some* of the material I put to you above, or I’ll realise this is not a conversation but a monologue. I wasted 20 minutes watching that video of yours… eeergh.

I’m not your “Padawan”, and you are not my “Master”.

Boazy

"Heyyyy Johnny..... whadaya mean I don't like to listen to Atheists ? grrrr

I don't care what a persons belief is.. I engage with what their ideas are mate.. Some atheists have great ideas.. Col Rouge is one.. we disagree on abortion but on most other things we click 100%"

HAR HAR HAR

I dunno which is funnier; claiming Col Rouge is an atheist or using him as a poster boy for "great ideas". Man, I feel violated just reading some of his authoritarian, born-to-rule, neo-con rhetoric.

I may have been away for some time, but that doesn't mean I have forgotten everything - not as ancient as you old fellow.

Here, this'll nudge your memory (but your first clue shoulda been when you claimed you agree with him 100% - man, I wouldn't want to admit knowing Maggie's dearest):

"Yes I do believe in God, I talk to him sometimes and seek his guidance (although he has never responds, in any physical sense and I dont expect him to).

I choose not to follow a religious creed but respect peoples right to choose their own. Only through exercising choices do we grow as individuals. Only by challenging authority do we prevent it from pretending to become "God" and the best way of challenging Authority is by consistently putting the individual at the top of the "social organisation chart" and not at the bottom of it.

Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 26 May 2007 11:34:55 AM"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5879&page=0#81615

And YOU claiming not to care about "what a persons belief is"? WTF have your innumerable posts vilifying Islam been about?

We don't need Christians, just people who give a damn.

Two words you need to look up, Boazy:

Atheist

Hypocrite

Here's a hint, one of these words applies to you and it ain't the first.

Dear John(ny).. I am not breaking up with you :) sorry..couldn't resist that..the name.

I don't delcine to engage in conversation with someone who believes different from myself. "that" is what I mean't.

You aren't a fan of Col ? :) then you wont' be joining he and I at our next Melbourne Central State Library coffee/happy hour in Spring eh ? awwwww *pout*

ECLIPSE (Dave)... "hi".. you have a most interesting background !

My main qualification is an Advanced Diploma in Social Sciences (First place) which is why I tend to approach sustainability in BROAD, sociological terms rather than zooming in on scientific minutiae.

Errr.. yet you pick on me for 'broad conspiracy' utterings ?
Dave..I've seen the connections, verified them... it's spooky.

But this blew me away:

-I’m a Reformed Sydney Anglican, Calvinist, ....(ok so far)
A-mil, (a bit dodgy)

-Theistic Evolutionist (hmmm *curious look*)

-and think “Signs and wonders” were mainly for the establishment of the church and the apostles.

(Probably partly true, but being the recipient of a few (but one of a more spectacular nature) 'signs' and wonders.. I tend to believe they are still with us through the Holy Spirit.. but in His timetable and scenario's not ours.

I think you will appreciate this bloke:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DrOakley1689

But this is good regular 'makanan rohani' (look up a translation)

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?catid=12

Just for the record, you have pigeon holed me incorrectly.

You said:

[[Your mindset says *any* curbs on development must be a Nazi threat.]]

No..it doesn't..I'm equally passionate against innappropriate mindless profit driven development.

I'd love to see well planned Urban development.. such as..spaced sattelite cities surrounded by green belts, between Melbourne and Albury.. with a fast train between them.
I need bankrupting amounts of therapy after driving on the Monash freeway ONCE....(God help those who do it twice a day all year)

Singapore's MRT public transport is great. (except the busses yuuuuurk)

Great to hear you're into good urban design and public transport.

However, if you're troubled by evolution then you're probably also a climate sceptic. This also tends to indicate some ambivalence about everything 'green', such as scepticism that so many extinctions are *really* occurring at such a fast rate.

So if you were as concerned as I am about saving functional ecosystem services, how would you do it?

I can believe some of the stuff on your video link may have occurred, but it was the overall scepticism about environmental concerns that drove me nuts. You'd hardly know that there was a biodiversity crisis from that video, and would go away thinking the whole green thing was a conspiracy to end the American way of life! Excuse me while I projectile vomit in 9 different directions at once.

Keep in mind we're discussing why a Christian might or might not vote Green. This is not a review of everyone's personal theological convictions.

King Hazza, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 4:00:26 PM

The common thread through your list is of course that Frank's main concern is for the most vulnerable and in some cases most blameless in society.

"I can never understand why Churches do not pay tax, after all they are money making businesses, just like the local pizza shop."

Paul1405, NO! Churches do not primarily exist with a profit making intention. They primarily exist for (what they perceive as) the benefit of their members and society at large. They have primarily social goals, not financial ones.

This is why they should be kept in the same boat as other organisations who also exist for the community rather than profit. It would be a fundamental category mistake to levy income tax on the churches.

The fact that the Greens want to tax churches is an indication of an anti-religious bias in their ranks. Bill Muehlenberg and his ilk may frequently make outlandish statements and focus on the wrong issues, but they are correct when they point out that the "ideological ancestors" of the Greens are the communists. The Greens fundamentally stand against religion and freedom of religious expression, and this should be a concern for all Christians and worthy of some considerable thought, regardless of your positive views on their humanitarian policies.

Trav; your view of communism is probably that it is indisputedly - and only - what came to be known as Stalinism.

But early church leaders adovacated a form of communal church organisation what was really very close to the communist spirit. Some people have even talked of 'Christian communism'.

Even the argument that the communism of Marx was essentially about a centralised state owning everything and doing away with our liberties - doesn't hold water if you go back to the original sources. In fact Marx wanted to do away with the state - which is why - ironically - that aspect of his vision was itself Utopian.

But 'Christian communism' is a different creature from Marxism - it is a 'communism of the Christian community'.

I really urge readers to do some research, starting by checking out the URL below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

sincerely,

Tristan

Hmmm, want to justify some of that with links to Federal policies on these matters? The CDP attack add against the Greens blended in all sorts of State issues which are not relevant at this FEDERAL election.

"Communist" is a tired old accusation. It just makes me yawn. Are you kidding me? Can't we do some *thinking* here?

Yes there's a socialist element in the GreenLeft magazine, but not all greenies are socialists. What policy of the Greens at THIS election do you find to be 'communist'? There's ultra-hard corps laissez-faire people in the Liberal party, but I wouldn't go as far as to claim they're trying to dismantle our Welfare States!

Communist! Phew...weee! There's one in every crowd. The average American Republican voter was calling Obama a "Communist" because of what he tried to do with their health system, and it's *still* a huge broken mess no where near as functional as ours! And that's saying something!

Before you go accusing me of Communism this is my position.

"Social Liberalism: Civil rights, Social Justice and State funded welfare in a Market Economy."

To clarify myself also:

I call myself a 'liberal social democrat', 'left social democrat', 'liberal democratic socialist'. I'm also a Christian - and have been almost all my life. I am not, however, a materialist. Philosophically I tend towards Cartesian dualism - conceiving mind (but not only mind) as spirit - and I don't think this is at odds with Christianity.

But Marxist and broader Left tradition is deep and varied. There's a lot there to draw from, and many radically varied positions - ranging from extremely liberal - to extremely authoritarian.

I see myself as drawing from Left and Christian tradition.

It's interesting to note - There was also a Catholic movement in Germany in the 1950s - the 'social market' model; and the 'liberation theology' movement that was popular in Central and South America. It shows there's a social justice stream in catholicism - and the conservatives don't hold a monopoly on faith. The same goes for other denominations.

Getting justice and a fair go for workers and the poor means building alliances, and being willing to work with people of different views.

Dear Tristan Ewins,
there is indeed a rich tradition of so-called Leftist Christian thought. One of my favourites, Terry Eagleton, acolyte of Herbert McCabe, came from the Catholic tradition.
My only problems with your stance as you outline it is A, that your externalisation/objectification of God/spirit is a form of alienation (impoverishment of your own essence), as formulated by Marx, and B, that "Getting justice and a fair go for workers and the poor means building alliances, and being willing to work with people of different views" does nothing to address the overweening problem of the capitalist dispensation that impoverishes (alienates) human life, regardless of anyone's securing a "fair go" within. In any case, the fatal contradictions within the capitalist political economy make those same aspirations a nonsense. The fact that the capitalist mode of production has managed to persist with a kind of welfare tax applied in rich developed nations for a few decades doesn't mean such "compensation" is sustainable. It's not. And to the extent that leftist-faith agitates for a "compassionate capitalism", rather than an end to capitalism, it is irredeemably implicated, both spiritually and practically, in a system that is the very antithesis of Christianity, no? Of course religion has worked hand-in-glove with capitalism forever.
No doubt you are well-intentioned.

Tristan, you’ve talked a lot about your own position on the political wing but not answered my questions about Greenie Communists.

Regarding attacking religious freedoms… I assume you are referring to this attack add by the CDP on the Greens?
http://onevote.com.au/

1. When were we a "Christian country"? What part of our Constitution says that?

2. Where does the New Testament ask us to make sure our State is "Christian"? Corinthians has rules about Church discipline, but where is the book for governing the State?

3. Allegations they’re against religious freedom come from this State article: ambiguous at best. Policy?
http://au.christiantoday.com/article/acl-questions-nsw-greens-commitment-to-freedom-of-religion/8414.htm

4. Against Christian groups employing only Christians is also a State issue in Victoria, what’s the Federal policy?
http://vic.greens.org.au/news/media-releases-2010/greens-will-stand-firm-against-religious-exemptions

5. Fund counsellors not Chaplains?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/greens-push-for-counsellors-not-chaplains-20100326-r37m.html

This one IS Federal, but has me wondering about what exactly has been going on when Education is part Federal, part State. I have been a Scripture teacher for a few years now and have not met Federally funded Chaplains... but plenty of High School "Chaplains" who are funded by local church coalitions.

Think about this: The NSW Scripture legislation was passed decades ago because it is so anti-discriminatory. It guarantees the right of Christian AND Buddhist AND Muslim faiths to have some input to their children on matters of culture and faith once a week. I, as a Christian scripture teacher, would gladly go into battle for the right of Buddhist teachers to do their thing while I do mine. It's only fair.

If the Federal government is paying $48 million a year for school Chaplains, should it also pay the same amount for every other faith?

What exactly is the State's responsibility again? Try Romans 13. What is the church's duties again? Try the whole New Testament.

The federal government has no responsibility for education. Read the constitution. It is not listed there, because it didn't exist in the late 1800s.

They grab responsibilities via tied grants to states, which can be done, but should not really provide any money at all.

NSW is riddled with NSCP funded 'chaplains' but maybe not in the schools you impose religion in.

It is interesting that you'd support a Buddhist's 'right' to impose their beliefs, but you are silent on the 'rights' of non-SRI/SRE students to do what they want during this wasteful period of time they have to endure while you are in their school.

The outcome of this 'wisdom' is that students who have no need for Mumbo are discriminated against, hardly a 'loving Xtian' outcome is it?

What's this?... "If the Federal government is paying $48 million a year for school Chaplains..." ...'if'? IF?... of course they are, where have you been hiding?

$500m of ATO monies wasted on maddog evangelists, instead of worthwhile staff, or even, Heavens above, some reorganisation of schools to create environments that are conducive to learning... that treats students as 'humans', and that provides some genuine PD for the teaching staff, to say nothing of producing some real managers within the ranks of the rather dodgy school principals we all suffer from.... or at least here in Qld.

The church has no 'responsibilities' in a secular society, only a few hand-me-down 'rights' granted to it. Those 'responsibilities' it does have, as we all do, to operate safely and intelligently, it squanders, or worse, ignores altogether.

Too right Blue Cross, agree completely.

""I have been a Scripture teacher for a few years now and have not met Federally funded Chaplains... but plenty of High School "Chaplains" who are funded by local church coalitions.""
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 19 August 2010 8:18:14 AM

Bet those local church coalitions chaplains are really fudned by the Govt.

Think about this: The NSW Scripture legislation was passed decades ago because ... the Govt of the time was so keen on standardising education as it expanded it beyond locales that had church schools, and the only way it could get agreement to do this was agree to the scripture slot i.e the govt was blackmailed by the churches.

Trav, Churches primarily exist as social businesses where the head-honchos and clergy get to beat their chests and stroke their egos.

McReal.... "Trav, Churches primarily exist as social businesses where the head-honchos and clergy get to beat their chests and stroke their egos"... I'd slightly adjust that to include the word 'anti' just prior to your word 'social', on the basis that religion particularly but also the institution of 'church', rely on division and fear to keep going, and generate their false 'credibility' amongst the fearful and forelock tugging masses.

Squeers; my feeling is that alienation can be partly overcome even within what we recognise as capitalism.

By this I refer to the decline of the most alienating: monotonous and back-breaking kinds of work.

I also think a reduction of the working week; and the opening up of possibilies for cultural expression: music, sport, literature - can assist in this regard also. With growing emphasis, here, people could feel greater connection and ownership with the products of their labours.

And importantly, I think societies recognised as Communist (though I would contest this) did not necessarily break from alienation either. For instance, the experience of work in China and the former Soviet Union; and the pressures of competing in the context of the arms race.

Of course capitalists have an interest in growth; and will fight attempts to create a more balanced economy; and ameleriorate alienation. But conceivably the battle here could be won: but we would still have markets and private economic ownership.

My own preference is for a democratic mixed economy.

Dear Tristan Ewins,
your response is disappointing.
According to Marx's theory, alienation is just as much a product of capitalism as any commodity is---a product just as compromised in itself. And of course the capitalist himself is just as alienated from himself as those doing "monotonous and back-breaking kinds of work". These latter are very few, in any case, "within" our culture, but are off-shore and beyond the palliative-care of shorter working weeks, or the "cultural expressions" you nominate (which are themselves necessarily impaired). Such "welfare-fixes" fix nothing and are elitist since they're a luxury only available to wealthy nations like ours. Despite this elitist "growing emphasis" you urge, how could people "feel greater connection and ownership with the products of their labours" when these products continue you to be coerced, as well as conflicted with the same "use" and "exchange" values?
The next is especially disappointing since you appear to know something of Marx's thought, yet you fall into the same cliched thinking as his antagonists, who cite these parodies of Marxism against Marx. Communism has only ever existed in name and never been realised.
Capitalists not only "have an interest in growth", growth is fundamental to capitalism and cannot be gainsaid; it will simply continue to grow, adapt and fracture (recurrent crises) until it precipitates a general collapse (economic, environmental, biological etc). If I thought there was any hope of making the present system sustainable, conscionable or salubrious, I'd jump aboard. As it is, my "unchristian" ethics forbid me from siding with a patently evil and irredeemable system.
My own preference (and Marx's, which few realise) is also for democracy---but economics is a "false idol".

“And of course the capitalist himself is just as alienated from himself”
Really? Why? We can do a hard day’s work, earn some money, and have our needs met.

If we’re entrepreneurial, we can even form a whole new product line that meets people’s needs.

My wife and I run a design business. We’re engaged with the work we do. It’s fun. It’s meaningful, and contributes to the value of our client’s products and image and adds beauty. The fact that we get to buy and own our computers and run it the way we want to is an added bonus. But it’s not just because I am the owner of the means of production that I’m engaged. I’ve been involved in public work as well, and even in small business. I would argue that it is the jobs themselves can be more interesting and engaging than others. You can’t just read Marx as an article of faith without comparing it to the real world and arguing the case!

Just as there are many types of work there are many types of alienation. Some face depression. Others face the consequences of our poor suburban design, where we don’t engage each other in the long gone public square any more but drive from the box where we work to the box where we sleep. Some had poor communication skills. Some hate their job because they never got the education they needed to work to their potential. This thing we call ‘capitalism’ is a multi-faceted thing that is far to complex to be squished into Marx’s prescriptive labels.

Marx also used Bulverism, which is a cheap logical fallacy. The “opiate of the masses” is one such example. Instead of proving *that* Christianity was wrong, he psychoanalysed *why* it was wrong. Cheap trick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Still, Marx produced some interesting arguments. I personally hope society goes down the “Kim Stanley Robinson” Mars path, where big corporations end up giving all employees equitable shares. CEO’s don’t get 400 times the cleaner!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy#Corporations

"contributes to the value of our client’s products and image and adds beauty".. that really depends what the products are, doesn't it?

Adding 'beauty' to a fag packet is not worth bragging about is it?

But fag makers certainly need a cleaner image, so some plonker makes a mottza out of 'em, dreaming up names that sound like beach resorts, and comparing a filthy fag to a mountain stream ... and so on.

Dear Eclipse Now,
the only item of Marx's thought that I, or anyone, is obliged to take as an "article of faith", is that individuals and humanity can be so much better than they are. This is a faith (non-empirical proposition) I'm proud of. The rest of Marx's theoretical framework is perfectly logical and born-out by historical events---apart from the fact that capitalism has lasted longer than he predicted. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Marx did not see communism as dialectically inevitable and wouldn't have discounted the idea of an economically-induced Armageddon as just as likely. Indeed, as I've said elsewhere, barely one in one hundred thousand people understands Marx's thought (Darwin's the same) and are too wrapped up in their ideology to care.
I really don't have the time to educate you about the concept of alienation, which is difficult to grasp since we've never known any other condition, and the whole superstructure of our civilisation naturally and unquestionably reflects this "reality". Suffice it to say that despite bravado your life, whether you know it or not, is a mean and dispiriting caricature of what it might have been under a more conducive dispensation (though at least you're not working underground in China). You defray the cost to your shrunken "being" by fetishising a commodified church---extraordinary, really, that lives rationally predicated on the dismal science can simultaneously cleave to the supernatural--your drug of choice.
Instead of ridiculing all this (as I expect you will), why don't you subject your life and your your lifeworld to a bit of scrutiny?
..Of course it can be a devastating realisation when it dawns.

The Blue Cross,

Spot on! Just ask Yul Brynner or the 'Marlboro Man' can't they died of lung cancer.

The Age religion reporter, Barney Zwartz,
has pointed out the difficulties that
the informed religion reporter faces.
"There are hardly any religion specialists
in the media in Australia, there is no
instructor, and it's a subject that often
inspires strong passions."

Also many in the media are fixated on
particular stories which are covered relentlessly.
1) One, the church is dying.
2) The troglodyte church gets in the
way of gays and women.
3) Priests and pedophilia.
Swartz tells us that, "All of these are important,
but if that's all you ever write about you're
missing the story."

More deeply entrenched than the stereotype is the
media's assumption that the church has nothing
significant to say on the issues that trouble
people today. Those who affect the course of debate
set their own agenda. No one mentions the churches...

I guess one of the reasons why the churches are often
left out of discussion especially as far as Catholic
representation is concerned is because Catholic
representatives still have difficulty with public
discourse. And then we come to people like the author
of this article. Jesuit priest, Father Frank Brennan,
who can handle the media.

I say, God Bless Father Brennan! He is widely respected,
(even if Paul Keating called him a "meddlesome priest").
Father Brennan has fearlessly articulated the church's
social teaching, represented the church in some of the
hardest questions that cross the political-religious
divide, defended Aborigines and refugees, and written
a book on conscience in public life, that is widely
read and respected.

People love to hear what others think about all types of
things from moral standards and social mores to good manners
and correct behaviour. That's why talk-back radio is so
pervasive. We debate our standards. They are not handed down
from above as absolutes. Off-the-shelf answers and
authoritative pronouncements are no longer believed.

This is very hard for the hierarchical mind-set to comprehend.
It's hard to do if you think you already have the truth.

Squeers; You're right that communism have never really been tried in the sense Marx envisaged it.

Perhaps the closest we've had were the kibbutzim in Israel.

But even these now link in with the networks of the global economy; are not self reliant; are dependent on a sprawling international division of labour.

My conclusion has been that communism as envisaged by Marx is probably just not possible - or not now at least!

@ Squeers:

There are some great strengths in Marx’s concept of alienation, and much I’d agree with. The idea of 'living intensely' is growing in greenie circles. The goal of life is ‘experience’ and relationships rather than collecting ‘things’. Sure. Many would agree.

But there are also some great weaknesses.

In an increasingly interdependent world there will be factory workers that will be bored by their work. Not everyone is born with the same talents, and not everyone can do the most prestigious and enjoyable work. So even if we lived in a communally owned, democratically controlled production system, someone still has to do the boring work! They might get to vote on what colour the walls are or which shift they work. Yet how much control can each individual really have when they have to fit in with the needs of the majority of workers in the factory? Factories and production lines are military machines with precision timing and everyone needing to pull their weight, in the same direction, at the same time.

What changed society so much was the FACTORY and mass production of cheaper goods. It’s not *just* who owns it that matters (and to me it does matters — I can still dream), but what IT IS that is important. It’s a factory. Deal with it.

As to alienation from the modern world at large? Nope. I like the modern world. I just don’t like the shape of it. We’re being sold a lie that is called suburbia, which truly splits communities and alienates us from each other. The physical forms of our cities prevent relationships naturally springing up as a routine part of our day.

Finally, given that the communism you believe in has never existed on earth, and given that you don’t know me, how can you prescribe a non-existent ‘cure’ for an ‘illness’ I dispute having in the first place! According to Marx, running one's own design studio and being creative means we are 'fully human' and doing fine. (2nd last paragraph at link below).
http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Marx.htm

Eclipse Now,

You say you like the modern world but don't like its shape.
The modern world and its shape are one and the same.
Concentration of factory production within larger urban conglomerations was part of the development of the industrial system - suburbia, in prosperous western nations, is an integral component of such a system.
It is not just about "boring" work, It's about the creative relevance of that work to the human that is undertaking it. If there is no intrinsic connection between a person and his labours then his experience as a contributory soul within his community and environment is impoverished.
If your daily toil affords you some creative relationship between yourself and the things you produce, then you are one of the lucky ones. The great majority of "workers" in the post-industrial world do not experience a sense of relatedness to the things they produce nor to the products they consume.

Dear Tristan Ewins,
I agree that a transition to communism is all-but impossible in the context of our global capitalism run to seed, but that doesn't alter the fact that the present system is indefensible and untenable. I can only see Frank Brennan's stance, and the compassion-industry's in general, as ingenuously shoring-up our dystopia, indeed revelling in it as their "mission", their "validation", and their "proof" of God's wrath. A perfect instance of alienated logic and rationalisation.

Dear Eclipse Now,
Paradoxically, one of the effects of alienation is atomisation, that is a delusion of individualism, devoid of anything "essential," merely an agglomeration of experience that reinforces the initially posited (interpellated) but false ego. If we think deeply about our "self", can we identify anything actually there? Even the narcissist is only obsessed with an illusion that he has manically reified.
I haven't "prescribed" a "cure", just a course of reality. Even the "talking cure" doesn't offer a cure, only the truth, disillusionment.

<running one's own design studio and being creative means we are 'fully human' and doing fine>
this delusion highlights what was missing in the link you provided: the "nature" of the commodity and commodity fetishism. Your product is derivative, predicated, and flawed, rather than "creative". You are a link in a chain, like any factory worker; you merely flatter yourself that you're being creative or "fully human" lol. And because it's lucrative, both materially and in terms of popular kudos, you would have a hard time not buying into the kind of self-aggrandising "success-story" our culture loves to celebrate.
Btw, having worked long hours in factories between the ages of 14 and 40, I can assure you I do "deal with it".

Dear Poirot,
glad I'm not alone here :-)

.

Dear Ron in Bennelong,

.

Re: Your comment on page 10 of this thread:

I am sorry I have not been able to get back to you earlier. I have been off line for a couple of days.

I do not think you are the slightest bit irresponsible for wanting to save money. Quite the contrary. I think it is a very reponsible attitutude for you to save whatever money you can, if you happen to have more than you need to live on.

What I was trying to say is that it would be irresponsible not to change our Constitution during this period of social calm and stability and relative economic prosperity that we are currently enjoying, rather than waiting for the problems to arise and then having to rush into it under the pressure of severe political conflict and social unrest.

There is no extra charge for a new Constitution, Ron. Government spending is the same. Taxes remain unaltered.

Constitutional experts and civil servants still get paid and we do not have to give them a raise just for working on a new Constitution.

If you do manage to put a few dollars and cents under the mattress every now and then, I admire you. That really is great.

There is no way a new Constitution is going to stop you doing that. You just carry on, Ron.

For goodness sake, let me know if anything else is bothering you and let's talk about it.

Have a great day, Ron,

.

Poirot,
Suburbia is absolutely NOT integral component of such a system. Indeed, we lived for 10 thousand years in walkable cities and suburbia is only 70 years old. Suburbia grew from a gut-instinct to live in the ‘country’ because the industrial cities were so hideous. But now with a sustainable, low-impact, green Industrialisation 2.0 rolling out (in either capitalist or communist incarnations, I’m talking about technology not ownership here), with a little Rezoning we can move suburbia back to about 10% of the space and restore local agriculture. These are the principals I’m talking about — only 3 minutes of video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGJt_YXIoJI

Here is James Howard Kunstler with the complete history of Industrialisation, Suburbia, and how to get to New Urbanism. (Language warning: he gets a little passionate. But he is also hilarious, and this is 20 minutes you will NOT regret!)

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/121

Here is E2 on Portland, America, which chose to reverse the American sprawl and yet not give up either the ‘free-market’, private property, or industrialisation.

http://www.pbs.org/e2/episodes/311_portland_a_sense_of_place_trailer.html

The documentary is well worth watching if you can buy it or find it online, but if not, just go to the Portland wiki which explains it is the 2nd greenest city on earth!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon

Right there in America, the home of the car! These things are possible.

And here’s Ellen Dunham Jones talking about how to bring Atlanta, surely one of the worst examples of suburban sprawl in the WORLD, back towards New Urbanist principles, with some details about the challenges along the way.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/898

So suburbia is most emphatically NOT a necessary component of industrialisation. It uses 10 times the land, destroys 10 times the ecosystems, uses triple the energy and creates fat people living in individualistic boxes with little community.

Much of today’s ‘alienation’ could be dealt with just by reverting back to our 10 thousand year old pattern of walkable cities.

No Squeers, that will not do.

The rest of your last post was, again, just so much Bulverism. I’ll return the favour by way of illustration.
&#8232;Eclipse: “This Communist fixation of yours comes back to the fact that you are in denial about your Oedipal complex”.

Squeers “That’s outrageous! I have no such complex!”

Eclipse: “Ahh, but that just confirms how deep your denial goes…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Your last 3 posts have basically been full of ivory-tower self-congratulatory judgements on me based on the *assumption* of your belief system without *proving* your belief system. It’s a lazy and cheap logical fallacy.

Indulging in further Bulverism at this point will only damage your credibility and confirm that this is a waste of time. I mean honestly, the way you became so personally insulting about our design firm! I guess if our computers were State owned, and we had a 1000 village idiots over to ‘vote’ on where to put stuff and what type-face to use, THEN we’d truly be ‘free’ to be creative? Wow, that would be GREAT graphic design. ;-)

Unless you can get off your high horse and define what a Marxist graphic designer would look like and how it would operate, I suggest that you’re cringing behind your keyboard, desperately looking for some way to attack our creative process, ducking and weaving away from logical argument into further assumptions, and hiding behind the cleverest Marx-o-babble you can create to hide the fact that YOU CAN’T escape our freedom. We have an independent creative process working within the demands of an interdependent society.

And if there’s something you hate about meeting the needs of others in a society and also relying on the provision of goods from others in that interdependent society, you’re not a Marxist but a deluded “subsistence-ist.” The only way to be ‘free’ in your world is peasant living. Good luck with selling that! Want to feel alienated? Be an African subsistence farmer when the next famine hits. If that’s freedom, you’re welcome to it!

Dear o dear, Eclipse Now,
I didn't mean to upset you. As you've said, I don't know you, and I've only been using your example, which you instanced, as my third person rhetorical illustration. According to Marx's philosophy you, and myself, are everything I've rhetorically said you are. I'm quite aware of the impossibility of realising utopian dreams, but I don't recoil from that to seeing our society as somehow negatively vindicated; and I find Marx's theory of the alienated capitalist self compelling. And I'm hardly in an ivory tower having spent most of my adult life working on factory floors!
But you're right, I don't see the point discussing Marx any longer.

I completely agree with you by the way about reinventing urbanisation and making cities pedestrian centres, with perhaps bicycles, electric vehicles for the disabled, and clean and efficient public transport etc etc. I shall look at the links you provide.

Very late in this discussion, for reasons beyond my control. However, I'd just like to register my appreciation for Frank Brennan's excellent article.

If more prominent Christians were like Fr Brennan, we'd all get along better. I don't suppose there's any chance of him replacing Pell as Catholicism's leading pontificator in Australia?

CJ 'Sinner' Morgan... welcome back, you've missed the discussion about the need for a moderator.... any thoughts?

Hi C J Morgan,

No chance. Not that long ago the loving Christians would be burning the good Friar at the stake for heresy. Father George would supply the matches.

Squeers,

I wrote strongly just to convey some exasperation with 3 posts full of Bulverism. What do you expect? I'm glad you're writing more honestly.

I'm not bored (I topped “Political Economy of the Welfare State” back when I completed my Social Science Advanced Diploma in 1994) but maybe this isn't on topc? Yet it's interesting to me.

Regarding Marx’s ‘alienation’. What about factory workers that recently immigrated to Australia from a country where they nearly starved? Imagine their gratitude for the factory job. Back home their family were nearly butchered, or nearly starved, but here? They just have to get up, go to work in a clean, fairly safe modern factory, make some friends at lunchtime, do something fairly easy compared to the work back in the homeland, and they get paid money for it! They get food and medical and maybe even public housing! If anything the job may even be *comfortingly* regular, predictable, and low stress job given their traumatic backgrounds.

I know a guy who has a Phd in micro-biology and genetics. He’s from Iran, and was being persecuted back there for being Christian. Now he’s a cleaner. He’s just SO HAPPY to be free to be a Christian here, and have a job that pays the rent, and see his kids going to good public schools. Alienation? Maybe for some, but they don’t appreciate that in terms of global population, to be on the dole in Australia is to be in the top 5% of the richest people in the world! Relative to CEO’s they are bankrupt, but with the basics and a public library, some are content.

I also note that you did not describe a Marxist design studio. Try to, or you’ll risk confirming everything I said about your previous posts.

However, this thread really is about Christians voting green. New Urbanism and public transport are just a few of the reasons I may just do so tomorrow morning!

PS: I think you’ll love Kunstler!
After TED
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html

...you’ll like this
http://kunstlercast.com/

Eclipse Now,

Perhaps I should have said that suburbia "has" been an integral component of such a system.

I will look at your links when I have a little more time.
I too like the idea of a walkable city.

C.J.
Welcome back.

Dear Eclipse Now,
I should know better than to be conciliatory. Now look, all the trouble I've taken to make you think beyond yourself is undone, indeed swamped by a wave of mock-triumphalism--though I'm sure you're sincere. I stand by everything I've said and refute utterly the charge of "bulverism"---which is rich coming from a Christian!
I don't understand why I need to <describe a Marxist design studio. Try to, or you’ll risk confirming everything I said about your previous posts>?
The fact that your "creativity is "derivative, predicated" etc. alludes to its innate contradiction, between use-value and exchange-value (more complicated than it sounds); the former is inevitably compromised by the latter.
The links to the new-urbanism seem frankly, well, utopian, and strike me more as yet another entrepreneurial pitch (didn't Kunstler use to sell vacuum cleaners?). Urban and suburban renewal is hardly a new concept; in fact its perennial. The big question for me is, who pays for it, especially in countries bordering on bankruptcy? Or are we talking about glass-walled communities for the upwardly mobile, like Dubai? Would the unemployed, single mums, blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Aborigines and Gypsies be able to move in and live in close proximity with the quality, using the same schools, hospitals, public transport etc? If so, wouldn't the quality retreat to the country again?
If all Christians are as idealistic as you, they should definitely vote green. But what will they do for a mission?

Thanks for the welcome back, TBC and Poirot :)

TBC - of course I have some thoughts about moderation, but it would be off-topic to express them in this discussion and that's against the rules ;)

Squeers,
Fail. If you cannot describe what is wrong with my design studio IN ENGLISH (and cut the condescending Marxist techno-babble), then don’t bother pretending you have a clue. If you don’t have any *real world* solutions, then you are just a carping old commie whining about your history of failed dreams.

Hard corps socialism has been shown to be a complete waste of time. How does the State dictating what I can or cannot buy for my design business make me more efficient? How does submitting our designs to some stupid committee help me satisfy the client’s needs any faster? You’re delusional, pure and simple.

Unless you have a concrete idea to contribute to the real world, stop whining. Put up or shut up.

You’re hiding the fact that you have no real alternative constitution or operational models behind a wall of Marx-o-babble. “The fact that your "creativity is "derivative, predicated" etc. alludes to its innate contradiction, between use-value and exchange-value (more complicated than it sounds);”

Hey, you just reminded me, it might actually be time to raise our prices a bit. Other than that, you’re wrong.

We have already pruned out all the bad clients that we can’t stand, and so tend to have great relationships with most of our customers & friends.

(That’s why I just sit around all day in tears from my alienation. Boo hoo, I’m so alienated!)

Squeers, you sound like a Scientologist selling Dianetics.
Diagnose a fake illness to sell a fake solution. Oh, except the Scientologists are better at selling their ‘solution‘ — you can’t even begin to describe yours.

You had an opportunity to discuss something real with an interested fellow Aussie, but you blew it. The superior tone and failure to actually answer questions have convinced me you’re not sincere about changing the world. You’re an internet troll. I suggest you take a deep breath, turn off your computer, and go outside for a walk and meet some *real people* in the flesh: your behaviour needs that kind of ‘instant feedback’.

You’re a waste of time. Goodbye.

@ all

Christians voting today might appreciate the following articles.

(I just found for ALGORE over in the “Behind the Green curtain” thread.)

Does Australia need a Christian Prime Minister?
Written by one of my best friends, Dr Greg Clarke.
http://publicchristianity.org/christian_pm.html

Christians and Partisanship.
Written by another acquaintance and fellow peak oil activist, Minister Byron Smith, currently studying his Phd on the role of the church in a world in crisis. (The Crisis being peak oil, global warming, and generally unsustainable and prone to collapse and dieoff events).
It contains the great line: “Consequently, voting is only ever possible while holding one's nose. I've rarely voted with much confidence and never without some degree of regret, often quite deep.”
http://publicchristianity.org/christians_and_partisanship.html

Christianity in society: is there a “Christian nation”?&#8232;Video of Protestant Pastor Mark Driscoll on Christians legislating morality. He says Christians can’t! Moral change comes from the ‘bottom up’ rather than legislating from the ‘top down’. They discuss the failure of John Calvin’s “Christian society”.

http://www.publicchristianity.com/Videos/driscoll3.html

Eclipse Now,

Fancy referring to Squeers as a "carping old commie" and "an internet troll".
The thing, Eclipsy, old chap, is that you completely missed his point (straight over your head) - and you also failed to answer the questions he put to you (works both ways you know).
If you had not rejoiced in your exultation to such an extent, the two of you might have got somewhere.

Happy pruning.

@ Poirot,
Then if you’re such a genius how about you climb down out of your own superior, ivory tower and get dirty in the real world? How about you lay out how I *should* be running my design studio, and how society *should* be functioning in socialist utopian harmony?

Seriously, you guys need some work on your PR department. Rudely slapping around someone because they don’t immediately understand your own very specific and obscure terms from your patronising cult of self-congratulation is not only bad communication, but it turns people off your ‘cause’. Forever. You think I'm a bit too exultant? Wow, the nerve. Grow up.

Dear Eclipse Now,

I don't have a cause - I merely enjoy a dabble in philosophy
As for "Rudely slapping around" - I believe my dialogue here has been civil. Youré quite handy in that regard yourself. Perhaps you might like to reread your last post to Squeers - plenty of slapping around in that one.

“plenty of slapping around in that one.”
He really worked *hard* to earn that one. On page 12 Squeers came in all condescending and disappointed towards Tristan. I asked some questions on the top of page 13, and felt I was *relatively* polite. I did have a go at Marx's Bulverism of Christianity, and I mentioned quoting Marx as an 'article of faith' because I wanted Squeers to talk about real world examples: which he has refused to do so all along.

Squeers repeatedly ignored requests for an alternative structure, and spoke down to us in so many ways.

Lofty ivory tower, meet dirt.

I'm not saying our system is perfect! There's much I admire about certain European countries that are further to the left than we are, and much I despise about America being even further to the right than we are!

But unless there is a concrete proposal, it’s easy to snipe from the sidelines. It’s cheap to criticise, but takes real effort to create.

If you are both so convinced socialism is the answer, then make a case. Tell me how I *should* be running my design studio. Tell us how we *should* be running society. Should the government buy everything up? How would that help with my 'alienation' exactly? (Especially when I dispute having it.)

What's this... the 4th or 5th time I've asked for Squeer's socialist alternative?

I don't think it's coming. Oh well, in that case this conversation is over.

Eclipse Now,
try to get it through your shrunken head that I didn't come in here to talk about YOU. I mentioned narcissism earlier rhetorically, but you seem to fit the mould perfectly. I am not going to waste my time further trying to talk sense to someone whose thought patterns can't escape their tiny little orbit around an empty space---er, that would be you!

I'll be even more 'narcissistic' and point out that it was ME who raised the subject of a design studio, as an example of an industry that might actually work without 'alienation'.

So go ahead and yell NARCISSIST as loudly as you can. You're just trying to avoid answering the question. Do you have an actual plan for an alternative society or not? If you can't describe your utopian socialist design studio then forget it, you're just full of hot air.

Please remember that it's got to be RADICALLY DIFFERENT to the way it functions today so that I'm RADICALLY ENGAGED with the society around me, instead of the poor alienated, lonely, NARCISSISTIC sod that I obviously am right now. ;-)