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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The religious Right cannot hijack values > Comments

The religious Right cannot hijack values : Comments

By Kevin Rudd, published 18/1/2005

Kevin Rudd argues that the Coalition is not the only party with Christian and family values

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 21 January 2005 8:22:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ozaware, Friday, 21 January 2005 11:32:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by David Mason, Saturday, 22 January 2005 5:03:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Saturday, 22 January 2005 1:30:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Two Bob, Sunday, 23 January 2005 12:53:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by ozaware, Sunday, 23 January 2005 1:33:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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