The author mentions "choice" many times throughout the article, and I have become very sceptical of this. The word “choice” is repeated so often in current times, but it does seem that “choice” can often mean “my” choice or “I will do as I please” choice, without concern for others.

Abortion is mentioned a number of times in the article, and it is an issue where “choice” is repeated many times by pro-choice supporters. However abortions are being funded by the tax-payer, and there has been minimal research carried out into abortion, despite it being one of the most commonly carried out surgical procedures in Australia.

Abortion has been a “closed” issue because of “choice”, and because of this very few problems relateing to abortion have become known, and very few solutions have been found for those problems. Abortion could be regarded as a health problem, that exists largely because solutions have not been adequately found to the problem, all because of “choice”.

So “choice” can very readily shut down debate, stop solutions to problems from being found, and stagnate society.

I do agree with the author though, that so much in the press has just become fill between the advertisements

Whoa there. Shurely shome mishtake?

>>the 1920s and 1930s saw the vying for ideological influence by both the Left and the Right with the outcome, in Germany, of the stampede of the National Socialist Party from fringe to mainstream.<<

Who exactly did the stampeding here? Was it not the people of Germany who aligned themselves with the National Socialist cause, rather than the party itself moving into the mainstream? From the documents and footage I have seen, the Nazi party was a clever amalgam of socialist principals - massive centralisation, huge investment in community projects - and one-man leadership. The combination of socialist ideals with a charismatic leader with a propensity for sound-bite slogans turned out to be uniquely powerful. People throughout history, and across geographies, have been regularly seduced by the combination. Mussolini and Stalin had similar profiles, as did Caesar Augustus in the context of Rome two thousand years ago. Politicians state their position, and people either rally to the call or they don't.

This process cannot be categorized as "the squeezing of the social middle". Policies themselves do not exhibit a form of "bracket-creep", it is the people who move towards the policies. The very concept that "the attitudes and beliefs of the fringe have been propelled into the mainstream and, in doing so, have infiltrated and infected society's middle ground" is untenable. If the middle ground chooses to move towards one or another extreme, that is a totally different issue - after all, we are nominally a democracy, and allow - as did Germany in the 1930's - our people to vote as they wish.

Where this difference becomes critically important is in the perception of where the problem lies - if indeed there is a problem - and how to address it. The rather lame 'wouldn't it be a good idea if the press challenged a bit more' presupposes that their task is to shape, rather than observe. Surely the shaping part belongs to our political factions; it is their task to produce policies that resonate, and leaders that can be respected.

It sounds like the radical fringe for Russ Grayson are views that he doesn't agree with. The abortion debate was dismissed by 'fringe goups' as men making women's decisions, not recognising that many women and non-religious people are anti-abortion, too.

As for homosexuality, 'fringe groups' insist on normalising a particularly abnormal lifestyle, for most of us. Also, I cannot stand that word 'compassion' in his final paragraph. There is something about the word that is soooo irritating.

May I assume that Russ Grayson is of the view that the media should also accept some responsibility for the rise of a socialist agenda into the mainstream.

>> The media must accept some responsibility for the rise of the neo-conservative fringe agenda.

Many in society are deeply concerned at what appear to be very non rational choices supposedly about compassion but in the end often hurting one to help another.

He speaks about the issue of choice in regards to abortion. A womans control over her body for the 9 months of a pregnancy is seen as sacred. Those who support that view often appear to hold two other views with a relation to the topic.
- The father of the child is not entitled to a say in determining if the pregancy proceeds.
- If the pregancy proceeds then the father has an iron clad responsibility to financially support mother and child totally regardless of their involvement in the decision making about the birth of the child and the consequences on the fathers own life.

Is that an example of the kind of rational choice and compassion Russ refers to.

Yes I am concerned about growing voice of religion in public policy, but I am also very concerned about the role other belief systems hold on public policy (and many of those are not from the "conservative" side of things).

Why not strive for a society where people have the maximum freedom to make choices about their own life and minimum freedom to make choices for others?

ROBERT
speaking as a conservative evangelical, I assure you that the least of your worries are that 'we' might be influencing public policy.
You may disagree with some aspects of Biblical Principle, but I would love to know which ? The 2 principles are 1/ Love God, 2/ Love your neighbour. There can never be 'public policy' about enforcing the first, but legislation based on the 2nd would always be sound, and would not be based on 'Them/Us' because it would take everyones legitimate interests to heart. Needless to say, in areas of morality, we would not accomodate certain lifestyle choices which are regarded as 'abominable' by God, which would include 'Incest, Bestiality and homosexual behavior'. These are not negotiable as far as we are concerned.

I was heartened just today as I heard that evangelicals in the USA are becoming more outspoken on environmental issues, to the point where green groups are seeking to make alliances with them.

We will speak out also on such issues as aboriginal reconciliation and all social justice issues which are legitimate. And in spite of the occassional blip like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker and various others.. 'religion' is alive and well, because contrary to Mr Neitzche's tenet "God is dead".. He actually isn't.

The author asserts:
"Catholicism and Anglican, are in Sydney under a leadership with, shall we say, a more fundamentalist outlook. To some extent this has polarised church-goers yet, just as these theologians assert their views on what is properly Christian and what is not, attendance at their churches continues to decline. It seems the congregations are either dropping out or are defecting to the less-formal evangelical sects."

I don't think this is correct. Last time I checked, conservative Catholics and evangelical Anglicans were growing in number and the more liberal congregations and denominations are rapidly declining.
I think this may be wishful thinking on Russ's part.

He also says: "Pushing their social agenda onto the public, rather than keeping it within their congregations, pits Christianity against other social sectors as a combatant rather than as a conciliator. This is militant Christianity which, at its most conservative, appears to have little to distinguish it from analogous fundamentalist attitudes held by movements such as the Taliban."

Evangelicals are no different from the Taliban??? Yeah, right...

You're an idiot Russ.

AK