Kevin, your openly professed christianity has been a worry to many from the left of politics, with the fear that it might morph into a yankee-syle fundamentalism that would corrupt the politics of the left, as it has the right in the USA. The Bomber dismayed many with his moral vacuity at the 2001 election during the Tampa crisis, especially as he is also an openly professed christian.

And might I remind you and the Bomber, in parenthesis, that the "Lord's Prayer" has no place on the floor of our parliament, and neither should your god be mentioned in our constitution - see the Indian constitutional preamble and the new South African constitutional preamble for examples of how a truly secular state should characterise itself.

However, the horrors that are unfolding on the domestic political front in the USA under the crazed, god-bothering Bush administration, and the indications that similar distortions of public policy are unfolding here under the Howard hegemony, suggest that maybe we do need leading christians from the left to directly confront christian fundamentalism and its creeping perversion of secular democracy, with a muscular defence of left wing values based on the best of christian principles that we can all agree to, atheists and non-christians included.

Perhaps these times will suit you after all...

I am an atheist who is not the slightest bit concerned with the religious right. Labor's values are the values of others, primarily minority groups of every persuasion. Labor's values have become so vague and confusing, and avoids standing for anything. Think 'tolerance for diversity'. What the hell does that mean?

I agree with Kruddy that religion really has no place in politics in this country. Whilst not an athiest I'm not exactly what you'd call religious either, but it does worry me for some reason when pollies start publicly leaning on God. I don't know why it makes me uneasy and perhaps it shouldn't. Of course it also worries me when committed athiests spruik their beliefs as well. Athiesm is just as much a religious belief as anything else and a lack of God is probably just as scary as a surfeit of same.

The “progressivist” bile that permeates the post-Whitlam ALP has clearly distorts Kevin Rudd’s conception of “family values”. While clearly a vague term, “family values” to mainstream Australia (that is the antithesis of the self-absorbed bourgeois liberal-Left elite) connotes that basic tenet of social conservatism: the traditional family unit/community.

Given the ALP’s severe ideological dislocation with its historical electoral support base – i.e. “mainstream” Australia, it is not surprising many ordinary Australians have abandoned it at the ballot box and local branch meetings.

So long as the ALP hierarchy looks down upon ordinary socially conservative Australians as boors and imbecilic underlings, and the Coalition maintains a relative socially conservative policy platform, the ALP will continue its dismal electoral performance. While it might gain more fervent support from inner city liberal-Left elitists (as it did in the October 2004 election), it will continue to lose the support of mainstream Australia.

With the impending return of yet another progressive hack to the leadership post, the great leaders Curtain and Chiffley will no doubt turn in their graves.

Jimmy's post used the very tired cliche "elites" to describe the left-wing of the ALP and, I presume, leftists like myself outside the ALP.

I'll tell you who the elites are in this country: Kerry Packer, the Murdoch family and wealthy senior politicians like John Howard and Tony Abbott. And it is their values which are being shoved down my throat. Not the other way around. After all, as a working class gay man I have no power to alter family law or marriage legislation. But the Howard Government does.

I am sick of the cliche "family values" which hides a whole host of ugly anti-gay, anti-woman policies. And the term is also a smokescreen behind which Howard and co can hide disasterous economic outcomes such as a record level of homelessness and increasing casualisation of the workforce.

If the ALP seriously started attacking the hypocrisy of "family values" and Howard's anti-family policies they might have a chance of winning. As it is, they merely echo Howard and then predictably lose election after election.

I find Kevin Rudd's article amazing. It is similar to the bitter complaints coming from the Democrats in the US. The Democrats and ALP share an obsession with the Religious Right.

I didn't see any comment from Kevin Rudd about the Religious Left who support the left wing policies of the ALP. The Religious Left are much more politically active than the Religious Right. I suspect that the silence on this left wing group is because they support the ALP.

The Religious Right don't need a lecture from Kevin Rudd on morals. But if the ALP want the support of the Religious Right they need to make their policies attractive to them. I would suggest the ALP do not enjoy the support of the Religious Right because their policies are not attractive to them.

As for the Federal ALP's electoral problems, they need to decide whether they are going to continue being lead by the crazy Left of the Party or start to move into the mainstream. Over to you Kevin Rudd.

Lead by the "crazy left of the party"?! The ALP has been lead by some of the most right-wing leaders in its history. Who have we had recently? Mark Latham, Kim Beazley, Paul Keating and Bob Hawke - none of whom have left-wing credentials, all of whom support "free market" economics, none of whom have differed from the current government regarding foreign affairs or domestic policy apart from very minor issues.

How right-wing do people want the ALP to come? Until it is indistinguishable from the Liberals? Then who'd bother voting Labor?

If Labor wants a chance at the next election then it needs to stop being "Howard-lite" (and sometimes not that "lite" on some issues).

Correct, the right has no monopoly on family values. However if Labor insists on promoting anti-family policies they will find they will drive voters in ever increasing droves to the Liberal folds.

When will Labor wake up and realize that the majority of Australians actually do want to preserve time honoured family values?

I wonder what these whingeing conservatives want from the ALP? A pat on the head for being good little church goers? If they want "family values" they should practice them without worrying about government approval. And they have Howard's approval at any rate. Nobody's forcing them to have sex prior to marriage. Nobody is stopping them from marrying (unless they wish to marry children). Nobody is forcing them to divorce. If the school they send their children to is getting too expensive then try a cheaper one. "Family values" is not a term for a government program. It's a subjective set of values you have to practice (or not) yourself. No-one can do it for you.

DavidJS appears to have a distorted reality of what the “elites” actually are. Yes you are correct in locating Murdoch et al – they are what you call economic elites.

The cultural elites are a boisterous minority that hates everything about Australian society – the ones obsessed with the re-engineering society along the lines of progressive political correctness.

You have difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that a majority of Australians do not agree with your vision of “family values”. That is just one of the facets of living in a democratic society where the will of the majority prevails at the ballot box. The simplest advice is to experience life in a country where democratic ideals do not prevail - a country where we would not be able to have this discussion without fear of being incarcerated and “re-educated” –something the bourgeois-liberal mind set have never been able to comprehend.

Also, you should reconsider discarding the use of vague "Left" and "Right" distinctions. You state Paul Keating and Bob Hawke were some of the "most Right wing leaders in history". Well, on issues relating to economic policy they certainly were - on par with the most economically rationale Coalition government. However, they were always sympathetic to the bourgeois-liberal disdain for Australian society.

The current day ALP can thank the “progressive” actions of Hawke and Keating for the working class’/blue collar flight from its ranks.

Can any of you articulate what you mean by family values. Social engineering by left wing governments has brought some horrible things like the women voting, absolution of slavery, racial tolerance. I would suggest the same people who are going on about family values would have argued against things as well. In fact some of them do still now.

Let's get the history right. Abe Lincon and the Republicans went to war to stop slavery, not left wingers. It was the churches of the time opposed to slavery, saying all men were equal, not left wingers. Utah women voted in 1870, a church state certainly not full of left wingers. New Zealand took twenty years longer. So let's get your history right.

The left wing gave us communism, Stalin, Hitler (yes, he was a socialist), Vietnam, Cambodia, Tiananmen Square massacure. The left wing have been a blight on civilisation. Why in the world would anyone want to be associated with the likes of these.

But it is the Murdoch and Packer families that control much of the media in this country. Nobody remotely left-wing is in the Federal Cabinet (let alone the Prime Minister). Major corporations are either controlled by non-Australian, non-leftists or locals who are equally conservative. And the churches have the likes of George Pell and Peter Jensen in senior positions. That somehow left-wing "elites" that people like David Flint (David Flint!) go on about are in control of a cultural agenda is fanciful at best. Who is this "boisterous minority"? Most state and Commonwealth Governments have been in due to a majority vote so if left-wing policies come from them then the electorate has itself to blame. The only unelected groups with power in this country are, you guessed it, Packer and co (see above).

And Jimmy, when you refer to my vision of "family values" what are you talking about? I haven't even articulated my personal vision. All I've said is that the term can be used to cover some pretty nasty policies and some of the grossest hypocrisy on the political landscape.

"Socialist" and "left-wing" are obviously flexible terms. But it is interesting how big business supported Hitler in 1933 and Stalin crushed the left-wing of his party.

As for the American abolitionist movement, evangelicals were split into pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions. Effectively a right and a left.

Mike you seem to come from some weird universe where everything only happens in the US.
If you believe the US civil war was about slavery in the Commonwealth you have got things wrong. Apparently churches can’t be left wing as for all of them being against Southern Baptist were pro slavery in 1840 and some of them still are.
Hitler was not a left winger just read one of his speeches. Calling an apple a pear don’t make a pear.
The right wing gave us lots of wars to 100 years war, 30 years war, ww1, ww2, Vietnam (contrary to what you think it was a war of independence), Korean, untold millions to starvation and illness.
Yes women were given the vote in 1870 in Utah and it was taken away from them in 1887. The US were one of the last to allow women equal rights.
Communism is mans natural state ask a anthropologist it just don’t work very well when your commune gets so big you don’t know everyone about 150 people max.. Then again Mikey not every lefty is a marxist.
Lastly Mikey if you’re a Christian have a read of your bible, That Jesus fellow you guys are always on about lived in a commune when he was young he turned out all right didn't he.

Kenny, Let me guess. You're 80 years old and haven't realised the USSR is over. Do you still have your copy of Mao's little red book? Takes a while for you lefties to realise that social control doesn't work. Pack it in or take a job giving advice to the ALP.

David SJ, well you referred before to the “hypocrisy” of “family values” when referring to the Howard government’s view, thus I assumed you were questioning the general social conservative notion of family values. It is always difficult to discuss issues with such vague and unequivocal terms. You are totally right in saying it is a subjective set of values – its just the majority of Australians automatically link family values to social conservatism.

Kenny, smug sarcasm aside, your staunch leftist rhetoric makes you unable to see the inseparability of the totalitarianisms: Communism and Fascism. They both lead to the same thing: misery. Your sympathy for social engineering illustrates either a gross misconception of C20th history or an unyielding dedication to the vision of the “socialist man”. Do you go as far as to sympathise with Stalin’s social engineering in the Ukraine (via famine and mass violence) in the 1920s; Pol Pot’s “Year 0” vision or Ceausescu’s draconian program of human multiplicity?

Leftist social engineering, like Nazist Volksgemeinshaft, rendered truly disgusting effects. I suggest you go visit the societies and view the aftermath/tragedy wreaked by leftist social engineering before you go peddling its alleged successes.

You state “Communism is mans natural state” – well the collapse of Communism renders that lie exposed. If you hate the “tribulations, inequities and intolerance” etc etc of liberal democratic society so much, why not go take up residence with “Dear Leader” Kim Jong Il? Communistic philosophy always has - and inevitably will always – amount to human misery.

David JS – sorry meant to state “...vague and equivocal terms” – falling asleep here and making typo errors

Mike and Jimmy, can we assume that your version of "family values" is similar to that outstanding right wing commentator from the USA, Pat Robertson, who wrote the following in a 1992 fund-raising letter:

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians".

The quotation is from a book by David Brock, entitled "The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy", (Crown Publishers, 2004, available from Amazon).

To clarify my view of family values. Family values means mothers and fathers don't have to work ridiculously long hours for half decent pay. It means gay and lesbians families receive the same respect and benefits as other families. It means freedom from domestic violence and rape in marriage. It means flexible working hours and high quality cost effective day care for children. It means high enough wages so families can be provided for. It means permanent full-time jobs that mean parents and their dependents have economic security. It means expansion of Medicare to cover all health problems - both for children and adults.

Now, is John Howard, Fred Nile or Families First articulating these policies? If so, I'm a social conservative.

Jimmy I don't think you read what I said... "Communism is mans natural state ask a anthropologist it just don’t work very well when your commune gets so big you don’t know everyone about 150 people max." Now do you notice what I say here it's doesn't work when the size of the commune is greater then 150 people. So how is my statement a lie? Try rereading the rest of what I said and give a rational reply. Mike I see you didn't explain to us all how the US civil war ended slavery in the world. The extremes of both sides of politics causes great problems extreme left turns us all into worker bees and the right anarchy. But to believe nothing good comes for the left is mindless and visa vi. Trade unions gave power to the ordinary worker and with it they won a greater share of the wealth and a better standard of living for all. The problem people like mike and jimmy have is they forget that the notion of democracy was a lefty idea.

I scanned with little amazement or attention to content at the 22 or so odd postings initiated by Kevin Rudds comments of the Religious right and values. I cannot therefore pass comment therefore on what was said. I can however pass comment on the heat the topic seems to raise amongst the various news and comment watchers who read and contribute to these pages and indeed to the letters pages of or dailies.

Religion as a topic of discussion and debate is always nipping at the heels of mainstream debate on most social and political matters. The emergence of families first with its religious under pinning generated quite a bit of media ink and chat after the last election. And let's not forget the redoubtable Fred Nile who has been waving the religious flag in political circles for some time and I always felt Pauline Hansons party had a ring of religion about it as well.

The recent tsunami and its after math also generated heated exchanges in the newspapers with religios leaders urging waivering believers to stand firm in the face of catastrophe, while at the same time, in response another crop of letter writers where telling us all this religion was a waste of time and we should just get on with the job.

So which ever way you look at it the god question is out there big time; often it merely sits beneath the surface of debate and discussion but often it percolates to the surface and takes a lot of people by surprise.

Most Australian would prefer to divulge their masturbatory habits than reveal any tendency to a religious beliefs; there are some exceptions. But often , particularly in public life people admit to a "spiritual dimension" to their lives but no adherence to a religious tradition - sort of a bet each way.

Religion is part of the human condition. It may be a stupid part. it may be illogical and at times damaging. The same could be said of sex or football fanatacism. But is will always be in the public arena. It will always impact on legislation effecting some ones life and possibly liberty. It just has to be dealt with.

Inkeemagee

The posts on this page—as well as Kevin Rudd’s essay itself—overwhelmingly confirm the point I make in the overview to the Oz-Aware Project (http://www.oz-aware.com/overview.htm). People make comments and observations about matters of which they clearly have only the most rudimentary comprehension---if any at all.

For example DavidJS tells us that he is a homosexual who is ‘sick and tired’ of ‘family values’ being shoved down his throat. David, you need to wake up to the reality that, historically, the only social systems that have allowed homosexuals at least a reasonable right to live in safety with little fear of persecution has been those based on the Judeo-Christian values (aka 'Family Values’). Let me suggest that if Judeo-Christianity fails, you’ll be wetting your daks before very long. In all other social systems the society itself has either collapsed into violence and barbarism (think Greek and Roman empires) or homosexuals have been hated and hunted down.

Dave, go sprout your pearls of wisdom and strut your homosexual stuff in places like Iran and see how many rocks are immediately headed for your head.

It’s the (ahem) fundamental reason why more than twice as many homosexuals (about 2 million – are there than many in total in Australia?) voted for President George Bush this time as compared to the previous election. Which confirms what I’ve always suspected: notwithstanding the large number of highly visible and vocal moronic homosexuals around, there are many homosexuals who are intelligent and properly understand which side of the bread is best for their being able to live a buttered life.

Grow up Davie, educate yourself—get some independent thinking habits—and stop mouthing those tired old lying cliches that can so easily be blown away by historical truth and grounded reality.

Thanks to grace pettigrew (lower cases intended) for yet again proving what so many have perceived about SLwDBTtbCCL’s (Secular Leftists who Delusionally Believe Themselves to be ‘Compassionate, Caring’ Liberals’).

How ‘compassionate’ is the person who has an epithet for every one who has a belief contrary to hers—“The Bomber” and “crazed, god-bothering Bush” are classic examples—not to mention her gratituous insult directed at the decent by the lower-case ‘g’ in God.

Hers is the dangerous mindset driven by an ideology that, when powerless, relentlessly despises, demeans and denigrates its opposition.

When powerful, it imprisons or simply kills its opposition.

And grace, when you present the new South Africa as a secular paragon to be much admired and duplicated, does that indicate your delight that, statistically, one in every two women in that country will be raped in her lifetime. You must be overjoyed with their truly frightening rates of infant rape since the ‘good’ people obtained their freedom from the ‘bad’ people who made damn sure—sometimes at terribly politically incorrect cost—such things almost never happened on their watch.

Excuse me grace, but your idiocy is not just showing, it covers you from toe to cranium. Perhaps you should read http://www.oz-aware.com/askfor.htm, but I doubt you’d even remotely understand, so blinded by false ideology are you.

Other commentators may as well lighten up on Kevin Rudd. He is no Christian, even if he has genuinely convinced himself that he is. Not even close and a perfect example of either manifest delusion or stunning political cunning. True Christians do not encourage secularism—a 'sweet' word for ‘Godlessness’—much less belong to, support and seek to advance a group that aggressively promotes it. If he were a Christian, he’d sure be bringing new meaning to the expression ‘sleeping with the enemy’!

There are many other reasons why Mr. Rudd fails the Christian standard, but this post is long enough. Many of those who should read http://www.oz-aware.com/overview.htm will see themselves in its mirror!

Where to begin with Ozaware' errors and childish, barely articulate rhetoric?

The only systems that have allowed gays and lesbians any degree of freedom have been ones where religion has been marginalised. As pointed out Iran is one country where homosexuality is ruthlessly persecuted. That is because religion rules. The more secular a country, the better it is for gay men and lesbians. If Australia was a theocracy whether Islamic, Hebrew or Christian I would be out of here pretty quickly.

What the hell is this "Judeo-Christian" stuff? If I was Jewish I'd be outraged with such an equation. Jews have been persecuted by Christians for centuries. I think you'll find most Jewish people prefer "Jewish" to describe their religion or culture. What next "Islamo-Hebrew"?

And since when are family values "Judeo-Christian"? Atheists have family values as do Buddhists and other religious people. Family values are subjective as I said before (but you obviously didn't read that).

BTW, the Roman Empire, when it finally collapsed in the West was Christian. The Eastern Roman Empire was also Christian. Got get a history lesson or better yet stop throwing in irrelevant points.

Finally, gay men and lesbians owe most of their freedoms because of their own efforts. That is, inspite of George Bush and his godbothering cronies. If you knew anything about gay history you know gays in America, Australia and similar countries live life relatively freely precisely because we have defeated the "family values" crowd time after time on a range of issues. We owe nothing to George Bush or John Howard and their supporters Or even these "Judeo-Christians" you crap on about.

This society is broadly comprised of two groups. The decent and the indecent. What we write and how we address those who differ with and from us defines what we are.

Thank you for Kevin Rudd's clarification of the distinction between religion and politics. While religious groupings and individuals have often taken a stand on political issues, sometimes to the point of martyrdom, it has been unusual in Australian political life for Churches to establish a political wing, as in the case of the AOG and the Family First Party, where the booth workers were particularly recruited from the Assembies.

Moreover in Europe, the Christian Democratic Parties have long been a fact of life, and Islamic countries, where there are relatively free elections, rligious parties are also well represented.

However the separation of Church and State, has been a reality in constitutional monarchies, such as in great Britain, where the head of state has a religious role, but only reserved or little real political power. Similarly, western republican traditions maintain this separation.

What is of concern in the case of the movement of the religious fundamentalist movement into politics, is that they openly espouse the aim of establishing a Christian (or other) Nation in Australia, fired as they are by missionary zeal. This is opposed to multiculuralism and spiritual or religious tolerance, and would be a disaster if elected to government.

You are right Ozaware, I do not remotely understand you. Based on what you have said so far, I suspect you are probably a very sick man, deeply afraid of women, and obsessed by men who have sex with men. You seem to have a lot in common with many of the disturbed religious nutters who infest this website, and who probably need some professional help in uncovering their own repressed homosexuality. You have nothing sensible to say about Kevin Rudd's essay on the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, that underpins all western democracies including ours, and instead waste a lot of space spraying hatred and bigotry under the banner of your religion (just like Pat Robertson). You then inform us that that the former god-fearing apartheid regime in South Africa had it just about right, and that the new secular democracy is now responsible for "infant rapes". What planet do you live on? And please don't refer me to your odious website, I would not touch it with a barge-pole.

Well done Kevin, few could argue that it isn't an essential element of any Christian engagement with politics that the church actively promote the case of the disavantaged in society.

However while you perhaps justifiably question the Coaltion's commitment to this area of Christian concern, you don't explain why the ALP has similarly abandonded the "parrallel" moral element over the last few years. It has become very noticeable that those within the party who hold strong Christian values, are continually caused to sacrifice them to support policies inimical to those values that have been decided in cross faction deals.

Why doesn't the party permit a consicious vote on the range of moral issues that the Coalition does, if it has an equal concern for Christian values? Why did the Party have a leader who repeatedly avoided stating his position on moral issues and had a record of removing every remnant of Christian symbolism while a Mayor?

I personnally came from a strong Labor background, but neither I nor my father who brought me up Labor, will vote for it again until we know that it will not take our vote and then betray our Judeo - Christian values.

Two Bob

Well said, Bob. There is a simple answer to your questions.

The unpalatable reality is that Leftist ideology (as in The Labor Party)is fundamentally in contradiction to Christianity. Which is why Labour is generally very keen on secularism (a nice word for 'Godless').

For more understanding read the essay entitled "Be careful what you ask for when you vote" at http://www.oz-aware.com/askfor.htm

good on you Kevin , keep making your very valid points. Now let's hear and see the rest of the team in ACTION . perhaps they need a motivational weekend retreat away with Tommy Haffey to realise the urgency and size of their task to expose and then defeat the liberals and the nationals .

Well this little whinge defines the writer more readily than the Coalition.

Just a few points from the tail end of this excuse for labor failings

“Once again I fear that the Coalition's political strategy is to define moral values as narrowly ......”

It is not the “role” of government to “define” moral values but to reflect them. (Oh may God preserve me from people who take it upon themselves to define my "morals" for me)

“One of the great divides in Australian politics and Christianity is whether or not our responsibility to our fellow human beings is a matter of private, discretionary choice - or whether that is something which requires the collective intervention of society through the state.”

How we each define “our responsibility” is an individual decision which the state should not be imposing upon the individuals it is there to serve. The problem with this whory bit of humbug is - It presumes and requires the “collective social responsibility” to each private individual is equal and devoid of the flexibility (and inequality) which is an inherent component of compassion.

“There are many fine human beings in all our political parties who are great givers of their time and money to those who need help.“

True – and many of them support the coalition

“Labor has a view that if social justice were to rely entirely on individual acts of charity, there can be no guarantee whatsoever that all those in need are provided with humane levels of universal care.”

And when Labor had the chance to implement social justice programs what happened? the infamous Keating “Tax Cuts written into Law” and Hawkes “No Australian Child will live in Poverty in 1990” declaration
- There are never any guarantess of anything particularly when a labor government is "at the helm".

“Those of us who are Christians within the Labor tradition are not about to readily concede the ground to those who chant the mantra of family and moral values “

I think "the ground" in no longer able to be conceded - it is, clearly, already lost.

Have a nice day

Col Rouge

ozaware - re your post of Jan 21st 1132 - I couldn't agree more. Having read your previour post of Jan 20th 1115 it clearly confirms your assertion that, "This society is comprised of two groups. The decent and the indecent. What we write and how we address those who differ from us defines who we are." Your own diatribe slots you firmly into the indecent camp, (no pun intended), and define the well informed, coherent, tolerant, Grace and DavidJS as decent individuals.

Jo

Jo Jo, I have deliberately not previously participated in these "Tower of Babel" (mindless babble) blogs or posts or whatever one calls them.

Thank you (and DavidJS and grace) for reminding me why. Now that I remember, I'll return to my old ways (no doubt with some vigorous epithetting aimed at my departing back....)

Well Said Jimmy !!!

Grace.... I think you need some counselling. You say 'God has no place" in our parliment or our Constitution ???? but guess what.. God IS there.. and now that your political position is clear "Left" I find it a duty to take you to task on a number of powerful issues.
Before I do that, I have just as much problem with the extremes of 'right' wing politics.

God being in our parliment and constitution is a reflection of our history.. the phrase 'get over it' comes to mind. Now.. this being a democracy, ur welcome to try to change that. But here are the consequences.

1/ It presumes a post modern, atheistic, existential moral relativism as the foundation for our national fabric.
Do I really NEED to quote you the logical ramifications of that from Neitzche ???? read up on 'Nihilsm'. Am I right in assuming you have some kind of 'sentimental disney version of morality' ??? or.."make it up as u go along" ????
2/ CURRENT TRENDS in a moral relativist society.
a)The APA (American Psyhcological Association) is now WAVERING in regard to the harm inflicted on chidren when they are consentually sexually dealt with by adults. (but we put such away for 25 yrs)
b) NAMBLA "North American Man Boy Love Association" has JUMPED alll over this, as they continue their lobbying and campaign to ramp up the 'pedophobia' agenda they have. See... Gays.. agenda.. 'homophobia'.. is it all coming back to you now ????

I, without shame or hesitation or fear... invite ALL of us to adopt a view of life which is based on 2 rules. 1/ Love God with all ur heart, 2/ Love ur neighbour as urself.
There is nothing suggestive of social or political stupidity in this, and I might say... unless we have the first, there will be nothing other than a sentimental cultural socialization (which is decaying) to move us toward fulfilling the 2nd.

jdrmot@bigpond.net.au
keep it up
BOAZ

Cranky.. you got it in one ! Atheism IS a 'faith position' if not, it is at least a 'DOGMATIC' one. And u feel uneasy with them also ?
lets see if I can shed some light on 'why' u might feel that way.

Atheism===> Nihilism/Existentialism/moral relativism/"make it up as u go"ism

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history

=========================================================
Personally.... I prefer "Love God, Love ur neighbour" as a pretty sound basis for life.
Ok..'BIBLE BASH' time.. "Viewer/reader discretion is advised as the ensuing story may contain scenes and statements which might offend some viewers/readers"

The Lord Jesus Christ said "I have come, that they may have LIFE..and have it abundantly".. gee.... what a wowser eh :)

If u dont love/know God, why worry about 'loving' ur neighbour.. I mean heck..if he has more of this worlds goods than you..and flaunts it at ya.. why not TAKE it, after all.. its not 'morally' wrong only 'LEGALLY' wrong.... the only regret would be 'getting caught' by the Law.
jdrmot@bigpond.net.au
BOAZ

The main difference between Nazism/Fascism and Communism was the colour of their shirts.

Kim Beasley's father [Kim Snr] said "When I joined the Labor Party it consisted of the cream of the working class. "As I leave, it is composed of the dregs of the middle class." Men like the great John Curtin, Jim Scullin and Ben Chifley would turn in their graves if they could see what has become of their once great Party, run by secular humanists and extreme feminists. No wonder Howard was able to thrash it last October.

Even more so if they could see the repressive "Religious Vilification" legislation of the Bracks Labor Government, which would have become Federal Law had Labor won in October. So much for that quote from Votaire which they always loved to spout: "I disagee with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it." .

I hope young Kim can inject some sense into them, but he has a enormous task. Good luck Kim.

Thanks for the personal email address, BOAZ_David, very flattering, but I would really rather not. Having all you religious nutters out here in the open is much more entertaining.

Very true Grace, but it is pretty clear the "religious nutters" you speak of are balanced by a fair few athiest nutters as well.
Well, it is online OPINION, not online fact.

It is a good thing that Kevin Rudd has decided not to stand for leadership of the parliamentary Labor Party.

Not only does he appear to have learned nothing from the defeat at the polls on 9 October 2004, but he has chosen to insult the people whose vote Labor needs if they are to win next time.
· Why does Mr Rudd scoff at the fact that the coalition appealed to the people with Christian moral values?
· If your party has any moral values why do your leaders make public statements to the contrary, such as opposing the definition of marriage?
· Why did Nicola Roxon tell the Marriage Forum in Canberra on 4 August 2004 that they would support the governments Marriage Law Amendment and then if elected overturn it? Could this be an attempt to appease both the homosexuals and the Christians (mutually exclusive groups) in order to gain the votes of 68% (Christians) without losing the votes of 2% or less, (homosexuals)?
· Did any Labor members or senators actually vote for the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004? I think not I am surprised that David Tollner did not point this out to show Lalor’s insincerity during the election campaign.

Mr Rudd may not see it as such but people like me are insulted by being described, as the “religious right” if our votes are wanted the insults will stop. I am not sure if the Labor Party noticed, groups like the Australian Christian Lobby were calling on voters to scrutinize the candidates in their electorate and determine who best supported Christian values, then give their preferences to the best candidate, second best etc. I have refrained from giving my analysis on the seat of Solomon because most of the candidates would be offended by it.

The Australian Democrats would do well to learn from this if they do not want to be wiped out at the next half senate election.