So where are all the murders committed by the dangerous Religious Right? I don’t see the point of this article except to promote antichristian intolerance. Let’s not talk about the 100 million-plus dead victims of anti-God communism though. Let’s talk about poor roads and how the Christians are to blame?

“Christian conservatives” according to the leftwing fundamentalist author Jennifer Wilson, “have profound issues with homosexuals, public representations of female sexuality, abortion” and so on, as opposed to Muslims? Are bra-burning feminists screaming moderates? In any case, I like black Christians.

By the way, the doctor doesn’t know what a “neo-con” is. American neo-cons (so-called) are not social conservatives. For example, Cheney is a “neo-con” and pro-gay marriage. Perhaps she was trying to demonise paleo-conservatives but it demonstrates her lack of knowledge and research skills.

Well, this is an article about the Christian conservatives and the NSW elections, BPT. Of course other fundamentalist movements exist but they aren’t having gatherings at Parliament House on the eve of the elections.

The term neo con did come to be used in terms of foreign policy, however it also refers to those opposed to liberalism. There are concrete connections between the Tea Party, the religious right and neo cons. Philosophically they all share a tendency to see the world in terms of good and evil, and they maintain an us versus them mentality.

Dick Cheney makes an exception for homosexuality because his daughter is gay – on other matters he is in sync with neo conservatism philosophy

Christophopbia is real Briar and denying and or/enabling intolerance is a form of bigotry. Btw, I like conservative Asian Christians too.

Also, Cheney doesn’t believe in "gay marriage" because his daughter is gay. He was being politically correct. There are parents of gay children and gays opposed to gay marriage remember. But again, the author doesn’t know what a neo-conservative is (often code for Jew or Jew lover in leftwing circles).

“My personal fury is provoked almost daily when I risk life and limb on a particularly horrendous stretch of the Pacific Highway that I have to negotiate to get to anywhere from the village in which I live,” sniffs the author. But NSW Labor and federal Labor are in power, not the Pope. Hillsong is not responsible for Labor mismanagement of funds either. It’s about time we stopped excusing leftwing politicians. Using Christians as boxing bags isn’t tolerant.

The wonderful world of globalisation, neoliberal style. People don't "get it". The state governments don't have the same power or control over things they had thirty years ago, nor does local government or federal government. Since they aren't actually allowed to change anything anymore, they have to make do a small pool of issues involving cultural policing and social surveillancing aimed at snuffing dissent and the memory of what a civil society can be at its best.
This, coupled with the stifling of information flows and the ability to understand news that does filter into this country, has stood testament to our disempowerment, even tho we have never, on the whole, been better off.
The deterioration into vaudeville of Australian politics over the last dozen years really culminated in that buffoonery in Canberra a day or two ago.
These are nutty times.

I basically agree with the contents of this essay.
Re the motivations of right-wing religionists.

Such "religious" propaganda promotes essentially naive infantile and childish world-views which typically are intended to support mostly narrow-minded and generally rather puritanical and moralistic programs for the cultural, social, and political enforcement of conventional ideals of "social morality".

Such "morality" is almost always exclusively to do with sexual and related behaviors, and seldom about cooperation, tolerance, unbounded generosity of Spirit, or good humor.

At their worst they often lead to intolerant and even potentially "fundamentalist" oppressive social and political intentions.

Such tribalistic religions have ALWAYS sought to achieve TOTAL cultural, social and political power to limit and control the minds and lives of ALL of humankind.

When such old-time religions freely exercised such power, in league with the powers that be of their time and place, they were always just as brutal in their actions as any avowedly secular state.

Against both their own citizens ("heretics", witches, deviants, "apostates"), and other cultural groups whether near and up close, in neighboring regions, and of course eventually world-wide.

Onwards christian soldiers forever marching into war, or praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

I would argue that right-wing religionists are very much intent on doing this again. Indeed their publications, both paper and electronic, are full of such self-righteous intentions. This is particularly true of right-wing "catholics".

Yes, Ho Hum, those rightwing Catholics are dangerous. They kill millions everywhere in Australia, and you have the proof in the shoebox under your bed, my guess.

By the way, the Ku Klux Klan was vehemently anti-Catholic too, so you have an ideological ally. The Nazis and Communists (Red Fascists) also hated Catholics. Thanks for unintentionally proving my points.

The godless corrupt Labour party has had nearly two decades in power and the best hate rant Jennidfer can come up with is against those with a few morals. She writes 'Now if the religious right would take a crack at fixing that they'd be doing something useful'We have seen the non religous left fail miserably at every turn and unable even to fix the roads and she has the audicity to make such snide remarks. Maybe if so many of the godless ministers had done the right thing the roads would be fixed. Oh that's right that does not fit Jennifers bigotted dogma.

BPT, I'm struggling to find any part of your posts that aren't a logical fallacy. Nowhere do you seem to actually deal with any of the issues raised, nor attempt to make any two logical connections. Allow me to demonstrate.

Your first comment says atheists have killed many. That's true. So have Christians. This article doesn't mention genocide. Why are you talking about genocide?

The article indicates that they would like someone to focus on the poor state of the roads instead of 'moral' issues. Where does it say Christians are to blame for that?

You then talk about muslims who also don't like homosexuals or female sexuality. Why does that mean the author is incorrect when they say many Christians are also intolerant?

You also say that 'neo-conservative' is code for jew-lover in left wing circles. Which left wing circles? Aren't there also jewish left wing people? Isn't this a massive generalisation?

Because the ku-klux-clan hated Catholics, you basically say Ho Hum is wrong. How is this a logical connection?

With all due respect, BPT, isn't this hyperbole a little bit much? Ironically, the author states:

"The use of Palin's hysterical hyperbole (reminiscent of Australian shock jocks on the topic of refugees) to whip up mass emotional reactions against the Democrats has been linked to the assassination attempt on US congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford."

Whilst saying it's been linked is a bit vague and doesn't constitute a valid argument, I would agree the use of gun crosshairs was unnecessarily violent and the hyperbole was indeed damaging. You provide a fine example of such hyperbole. Yours is much more extreme and violent than the comments again Christians in the article, despite your protestations of Christian victimhood.

So BPT, allow me to make two suggestions:

1) Cut the hyperbole. It's tiresome and childish. The Ku Klux Klan, generalisations about 'left-wing circles' communists, genocide and Nazis are all extreme arguments and don't do anyone any favours.

2) Learn some basic critical reasoning. Here's a good place to start. You've committed a lot of the fallacies on this page already:

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

Runner thank your god that your there dear! Now is there any chance you can ask her to do something about the roads?
Forget the fornigators and Oh! those terrible...terrible/// Oh!dear must I say the word ? Oh! I suppose I must!! Homosexuals....There again maybe they can fix the roads.....as many of them have!

Maybe the 'religious right' provides a good counter-balance to the left policies of proselytizing atheists, overbearing gay lobbyists, and bleeding-heart green moralists ("Save the whales, but feel free to slaughter the elderly, sick and unborn"). Let's thank God that we can argue our personal views within this glorious, free country. Welcome to a thriving democracy!

ok church and n.s.w , many vicy=tims were under care under church childrens homes , and also state goverment church run childrens homes and state institutional childrens homes,

when are they all going to be held accountable and charged for the crimes we victms suffered as children , such as rape abuse starvation depriaty, ,

all departments of the church and of the state goverment run church homes still cover up about thhese crimes till this day,

99% per cent of victims are from these organisations,
and many victims still suffer till this day because of the cover up and coruption of us victims who suffered rape abuse starvation, and slavery , and sodimisation, , and we still fight for our justice,
till this day.

at least

All politicians, or those in public office, come to that position with their particular world view and beliefs. Some move beyond these, or keep them in check, but I would argue these are in the minority. We are all very much shaped by what we believe, what we hold to be true and what we feel we should defend. Many go into politics so they can do this very thing.

My question is this - why single out one group, in this case Christians, at the expense of others? What about (in no particular order) the anti parking meter party (yes, they exist), the nudists, the Greens, anti nuclear, anti Israel, pro Israel, etc, etc, etc.

Christians have no more, and no less, right to have their views represented at the political level.

Yeah 'rational(?)-debate', those noisy uppity nudists have way too much influence in politics, big business, education, pollution, renewable energy.....

Those poor Christians - you just NEVER hear from them.

For those who maybe a bit slow - I am being ironic.

Ammonite, I think you have missed the point (and I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was accidentally).

If it is level of influence that dictates who we are worried about, then there are many groups that are of greater concern than Christians. As I said in my post, ALL politicians have a worldview that influences their decision making. What about the incredible influence of the unions? What about developers? What about Greenies? All large, cashed up, influential lobby groups.

I did not deny that Christians had influence, I just said that many others do too and they do not seem to get quite the same reaction. I would have written an identical response had the article been about any of the other groups I originally listed.

How are Christians even relevant to the roads debate? Do Christians have a "no good roads policy" I haven't heard about.

Secondly, whilst accepting some of Turnleftthenright points, BPT has a point about Rose's total inability to identify what a neo con is.

Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet LIBERALS and SOCIAL DEMOCRATS in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' .Neoconservatives, including many Jewish and Catholic intellectuals rooted in Cold War liberalism, clustered around publications such as Public Interest and Commentary and organizations such as the Committee on the Present Danger. They emphasized foreign policy, where they advocated aggressive anticommunism, U.S. global dominance, and international alliances. Although they attacked feminism, gay rights, and multiculturalism, "neocons" often placed less emphasis on social policy issues, and many of them opposed school prayer or a ban on abortion. In addition, many neocons supported limited social welfare programs and nonrestrictive immigration policies."

Briar Rose is talking about Paleoconservatives, when she refers to Palin and the born again religous lobbies of the US. They believe strongly in the importance of morality in society, and are generally anti-interventionst.

This division has become far easier to see recently in the events occuring in the Arabic World. Large numbers of sensible people from the left have grasped that democracy in the region is a worthy goal. And that the protection of that movement is a cause worth pursuing. This is where the Neocons were always coming from.

Old style republicans, however, can't see how Americas interest is advanced in this fight, and therefore have generally opposed it.