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

Do secular humanists attempt to push their morality on others? Yes - absolutely!

Do feminists attempt to push their morality on others? Yes - absolutely!

Do homosexuals attempt to push their morality on others? Yes - absolutely!

Do Muslims attempt to push their morality on others? Yes - absolutely!

So please tell me why evangelicals and conservatives should not attempt to push their morality on others?

AK

Aslan..
I would just replace the word 'push' with 'gently persuade and shape'
But I take your point. If one looks at democracy purely in secular terminology, push is a most appropriate word, especially for Robert Ray who once said on talkback radio "Politics is NOT about fairness, its about Power". I guess he is on the 'fringe' of that field at the moment.

And another thing...

Clearly Grayson thinks evangelicals are on the "fringe" of society. That maybe true, but it wasn't always like that. The morality held by evangelicals was once held by virtually everyone in society 50 years ago, until the free-loving, free-rocking, drug-infused pot-heads who still think they're at Woodstock started dominating public policy.

AK

>>The morality held by evangelicals was once held by virtually everyone in society 50 years ago until the free-loving, free-rocking, drug-infused pot-heads who still think they're at Woodstock started dominating public policy.<<

We're talking John Howard, Tony Blair and George Bush here, right?

Pericles,

No, I'm talking about the generation that followed them. ie. Mark Latham's and Bob Brown's

AK

Pericles and Aslan,
I think P mean't the like of Howard etc as being those who epitomize the christian values which Aslan referred do, as a question.
P, I think a democracy would be a very difficult place to manifest consistency in Christian values. Bearing in mind that the Coalition is not a 'Christian' party. (same for the republicans and English Labor). I don't envy them at all. But given the choice of Latham and the likes of Brown, or Howard and crew, the choice is abundantly clear I think. To me anyway. But looking more broadly, I would probably choose Peter Beattie as preferred prime minister :) I just would not have the current federal Labor party in power for quids

Peter Beattie - no way!

He knowingly had a pedophile in his government and did nothing.
See http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2003jun14_q.html

AK

Aslan
I was not aware of that.. thanx

Que?

"the free-loving, free-rocking, drug-infused pot-heads who still think they're at Woodstock started dominating public policy.... I'm talking about the generation that followed them. ie. Mark Latham's and Bob Brown's"

Mark Latham is far too young to have been at Woodstock. Bob Brown wouldn't be seen dead at Woodstock. And I don't believe either are dominating public policy. Do you?

Not at the moment ....Thank God !

BOAZ_DAVID - re your comments

>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.

If those are your views you probably speak for a very small minority of the church.

I suspect that many would take the list a lot further than 'Incest, Bestiality and homosexual behavior'. A reasonable look at history (and places where christians still hold significant power) would tend to support that view. Should prostitution and porn be legal?

Personally I don't like 'Incest, Bestiality and homosexual behavior' but except where there are participants who are not consenting adults I don't see that it is anybody else's business (except maybe as a mental health issue).

I do think the non-negotiable should be protection of the innocent (children, animals, anyone not consenting to the activity and the taxpayer). If God feels really strongly about the issue let him act on it, however I would suggest he start by cleaning up his house first.

By the way I tend to think the same kind of stuff applies to a lot of other groups outside the christian church.

Rob,
yes, u made some very important observations.

1/ Where Christians hold substantial power.
2/ A lot of that stuff happens outside the Church.

Power does corrupt, even in the church. Jesus never indicated that "The Church" should be a huge organization held together by a cumbersome beaurocracy. He began with 12, of which 3 were specially close, and he taught them His 'life'. He gave them principles in parables. He showed how life is when God is King (He washed his disciples feet) he rebuked Andrew and John for being pre-occupied with earthly glory when he had already explained to the thick headed pair that He was going to Jerusalem to DIE (and rise).. it just did not sink in. (They asked if they can sit at His right and left hand in his reign) When Constantine adopted 'Christianity' as the official religion, he may as well have immersed the church in a sea of carnality. On that day, to be 'big' in the Church, was to be 'big' in the Empire.
The Church is called to be prophetic (to call back to God and righteousness), salty (to preserve) and illuminating (light, to show the way)

To be Christian, is a matter of the heart, not law. Sadly, secular society and powerful Churches always don't mix very well. If they DO mix well, that is the time to worry. The best I hope for is that we may simply use our democratic position to be all those things I listed above.

The role of the Church in making prophetic calls to righteousness, is not one of pride or moral superiority, but of humble recognition of its own weakness and sin. Nevertheless, God has called us to be His ambassadors.

I rejoice that we are able to canvass such issues here in the forum.
Perhaps we can role back some of the accumulated myths and stereotypes trotted out by the Media over a few decades now.

BOAZ_DAVID, I risk heading off topic even more here. Sorry to innocent bystanders if I do so.

The christian church has a legitimate role in public debate (just as any other special interest group has). The concern is that that role in debate should not be allowed to turn into imposing their beliefs on others.

Talking about what the church should be does not alter the reality of what it is. Talking about the way christians should use power does not alter the legacy of abuse of power by those who claim the name of Christ.

The christian church clearly has a corporate governance issue. The boss knows everything (before it happens even!). He is all powerfull. No workload is to big, no problem to hard. Dispite all that the church has a long history of major systematic screw ups.

Probably the most topical in modern times is the large number of children abused by employees (many of them in management) of the christian church. Why did the head of the church not act when young kids were being sodomised?

How many churches have not had a significant scandle involving senior leadership in recent history? How many times have church groups called for restriction's on others beyond the list proposed in David's earlier posting?

Why should we trust the church to stick to reasonable limits, there is nothing in it's history or present which leaves me with the confidence to trust it.

David, sorry if that seems too harsh. I get the impression that you take your faith seriously and like a lot of others in the church try really hard to live as you are called. I see the biggest issue being with the boss, not the long suffering person in the call centre. If the church is not living up to what it should be it is because it's members are under resourced in the things they need to do their job

Rob, each time I engage with someone about this kind of area, I note recurring themes.
Firstly, about "The Church" .. what is it ? It certainly is NOT the 'large beaurocratic organizations' which are probably in your mind. That might be a current manifestation of 'social Christianity' but 'The' church is that body of believers 'within' any tradition, who know and love the Lord Jesus as Savior. You should re-read my previous comments (last post).
By the way, you were not being too harsh in your last post when referring to the abuse etc. I see no connection between that kind of behavior and the Jesus of the Bible, so you have to 'figure' what is going on. U may well even ask 'Are these people Christian' ? its a good question. When Churches begin well intentioned social programs, these programs often take on a life of their own. The founders may have had unblemished motives, but those 'appointed' to staff such things as ophanages may have different motives that they don't share with prospective employers.
The idea of 'imposing' now that is the other theme that I hear with very predictable monotony (no offense) but its no different from other groups with agenda's all of which are based on 'beliefs'. The gay lobby being a prominent one. Everytime some loony says "Lets make Melbourne the Gay capital of Australia" it makes us want to puke.
When pastors are selectively punished by supposedly impartial bodies as the EOC, we are victimized further. So, its a 2 way street.

David apparently operates from the within the secure moral coccoon afforded him by his 'faith'. Just like the evangelical missionaries and crusaders who preceded him, he convinces himself that it's his duty to shove his beliefs down the throats of everybody else. That this 'evangelical' project of his might be unwelcome - or even offensive - to those who don't happen to share his religious beliefs probably doesn't even occur to him.

I consciously and rationally rejected the Christian religion many years ago because of the damage it has wrought historically and continues to inflict, directly and indirectly, on humanity and on the natural world. Does anybody agree with me that proselytisation such as that in which David all too frequently engages in these forums is not consistent with debate and 'critical thought'?

Best wishes,
Morgan

Morgan
u chose the wrong guy to speak about 'historical damage' done by the Christian religion. Firstly that is a very overgeneralized statement which could at a glance be described as religious vilification (see other thread). But don't worry, we are used to being misrepresented by all and sundry, yet strangely, we are still around and growing, and I guess that is a testimony that truth ultimately prevails.
Morg, my wife is from a people were 'decided' out of existence by the government because of extreme drunkenness, disease and starvation they were to be 'allowed to die out naturally'. They practiced all manner of abominable stuff like slavery and head hunting, leaving babies to die slowly because 'spirits' warned them etc.. They THEMSELVES found some missionaries, and simply wanted to learn about Christ. Today they have among their people doctors, lawyers, members of parliament. Christ... saves, renews, transforms. If u wish to make comments about the Christian faith, please differentiate carefully between its various expressions, and the parcticular cultural/social/political conditions which influenced that particular expression (e.g. inquisition)
Your comment about 'rationally' rejecting the faith would have much more credibility if your rather broad generalization had not leapt out of your mind and onto your keyboard. As for 'pushing' down throats.. my goodness, don't u ever listen to the TV chanels telling you 'if u dont like it, just change the chanel'

Morgan, Davids input into these forums is from a Christian perspective. It's just as legitimate as anyone elses perspective. If you don't like Christians don't read David's posts. Simple really.

The good that Christianity does in the world far outweighs the bad. I'm agnostic by the way.

Thanx Bozzie, u have it exactly.

as an example of how Christians have helped the community, one supreme example is that of Sidney Myer, founder of Myers stores, a Jew by background, came to know Christ thru the humble testimony of a man who was in the company taken over/bought out by Sidney (and who continued working with them).
The example of Sidney Myer is the classic 'show and tell' of the Christian life.(a prophetic call to righteous living, spoken AND lived out)

Sidney Myer once gave a Christmas dinner for 10,000 of melbournes destitute, with him and the myer staff serving them. (At the Exhibition Buildings)
Here are 2 links worth checking out.
http://www.myerfoundation.org.au/main.asp?id=&PageId=656
By the way guys, when was the largest ever MCG attendance ?

The record Grand Final attendance was recorded on Saturday 26th September 1970, when 121 696 saw Carlton defeat Collingwood by 10 points.

But guess what, that figure was far exceeded in 1959 when evangelist Billy Graham came to Melb, when almost 150,000 people attended. During those few weeks, fully one quarter of Australia's population attended a Billy Graham crusade somewhere in Australia. Many people today trace their changed lives to that time. Check out the link below.

http://www.kingsley.vic.edu.au/glenobrien/historylecture14.htm

His son Franklin Graham is coming to Melbourne (Telstra Dome) on march 17,18,19th, for the Festival Victoria. why not drop in and see something of contemporary Christianity, its free

David, sorry I've been out of the thread for a few days.
I think you missed my central point.

The church claims to have a head who is all knowing and all powerfull etc. I understand that it is a lot of things other than just an big organisation but by it's own claims it is a body with a head not an anarchist state.

If the christian god exists then he by virtue of claiming the role of head of the church must bear responsibility for the actions of all of the parts of the church. The claim of being a christian carries a corresponding claim of the lordship of christ (take my life, take my all etc). Where is the excuse for the christian god to not clean up the church?

If you wish to consider the church as an anarcy who's head takes no responsibility for it's actions or is unable/unwilling to do anything substantial about it then please have another look at the original article from that viewpoint and ask if non believers might have reason to be concerned about a rise in church influence in domestic politics.

Robert

Your quote below:
"The christian church clearly has a corporate governance issue. The boss knows everything (before it happens even!). He is all powerfull. No workload is to big, no problem to hard. Dispite all that the church has a long history of major systematic screw ups."

Rob, "The" church, is that body of believers "within" the identifiable 'Church' (the organized expression of it) There are many traditions, Anglican, Methodist/Uniting, Catholic etc Jesus did not establish any one tradition, he established the 'rule' of God (Kingdom) in the hearts of people. It is not a cout de tat of our free will, this is where you are stumbling. You are projecting a 'corportate' view of the kingdom of God into the Church, and that is a square peg in a round hole, it just cannot be done.
Have a read of the gospels, Acts, Letters of Paul/Peter/James etc.. and see just 'how' the 'church/kingdom of God is represented.

We cannot hold God responsible for OUR actions of rebellion, which it appears you are trying to do. Pls see my post about the Prophets call in the other thread.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3053
The Old testament is a history of God calling His people back to obedience through the prophets. He warned them, 'such and such' will happen if u don't turn back. Sure enuf, it did. Usually invasion or exile. Perhaps today Isaiah would say "If u continue to abuse people, national humiliation and total ostracization will befall you, along with criminal punishment'. The point is, its always about choice and free will.
If we don't follow the user manual of life, dont blame the author.

David, so we are agreed that the christian god does not have a meaningful role in the christian church (OK I know that you don't believe that).

We may have to agree to disagree about what the behaviour of church's members says about the christian god. I've never liked the idea of giving glory to god for all good things and blaming people for all the bad stuff

We still get back to the point that "christians" as agroup in politics cannot be trusted to constrain themselves to behave in a manner which is consistent with the views you expressed very early in this thread. Their own agenda's will come into it. Church people will vote for christian parties (or those which appear to be christian) just because they are christian (or because their pastor uses the pulpit to advocate doing so), public figures will make a stand against so called godless practices because that draws more attention than rational tolerant stands or for a variety of other reasons.

None of this is to suggest that the christian church is worse than other similar groups, it is however a large group with a long history of leaders misusing their influence and power.

Rob
no we do not agree on that.
We could agree that human nature being what it is, there will always be corruption to a degree in some people no matter what they former life may have been. Are you personally 'sinless' ? I sure has heck know that I am not.
We can agree that mankind has free will, we are not 'robots' which only do as the Almighty dictates.
Grace does transform us, but free will sometimes drags us to places we later regret. U cannot blame the 'manager' if the employees willfully disobey his instructions. Is this sinking in ?

David, I think I will make this my last post on this topic - I'm not of the view we are adding anything new or meaningful to the thread anymore. My summing up.

First, I can blame the manager if significant numbers of employees wilfully disobey instructions in serious matters over a sustained period of time and the manger knows about it and does little or nothing to stop it. In fact I would lay most of the blame on the manager in that situation.

Second, the bit that is relevant to your comments about the original posting. Think about the comments in one of your early postings

>> 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.

Does that still fit with a view of a church that does not do as directed and taking into account the ability of church leaders to manipulate congregations? Christian political parties look like another great opportunity for the church to discredit itself and it's head.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Aslan, Thursday, February 17, 2005: 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.

RESPONSE: So thinking something that you disagree with makes me an idiot? Well, that's just the self-righteous attitude that brings some of the evalgelical groups the reputation they have.

Like the Taliban? Well, sometimes the intolerant attitudes expressed are akin to those of groups like the Taliban. Trouble is, such statements discredit the non-militant evangelicals.

R0bert, Tuesday, February 22, 2005: The christian church has a legitimate role in public debate (just as any other special interest group has). The concern is that that role in debate should not be allowed to turn into imposing their beliefs on others.

RESPONSE: Exactly my attitude. And that is how I distinguish them from what I variously call 'militant/ evangelical/ neo-conservative" forces.

Reasoned dialogue is probably the best way of running a democracy. Nobody should have the right to quash a Christians role in public debate - they represent a body of opinion. The same appplies to gays and similar subcultures, even though we might not like their culture.

Thanks for the dialogue.

...Russ Grayson

Russ Grayson here... apologies for not responding to postings... been away.

davo, Thursday, February 17, 2005: It sounds like the radical fringe for Russ Grayson are views that he doesn't agree with...

RESPONSE: In mentioning the 'radical fringe' I am not implying that they have views I disagree with.

Yes, gays are a fringe group and I have no liking for their lifetyles, however I believe their sexual choices are their own decision, not society's. What I prefer is tolerance providing their activity does not infringe the civil rights of others. Offending personal beliefs is not such an infringement.

R0bert, Thursday, February 17, 2005:
"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."

RESPONSE: No, I said that the media must accept some responsibility for the rise of the neo-conservative fringe agenda into the mainstream.

Although elements of the socialist Left could be considered to be fringe and as conservative as neo-cons, they are not the same thing.What sort of reding of the media sees it as a means of propagating the 'socialist agenda'?

BOAZ_David, Thursday, February 17, 2005:
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...

RESPONSE: I agree with both of these Biblical principles. And I have no problem with evangelical attitudes to those points you mention above - that's your business based on your philosophy of life. My concern is that some - not all - evangelicals try to make their beliefs public policy through political means. When this is done at the expense of other social groupings, then it is Liberal Democracy that suffers.

You say: "We will speak out also on such issues as aboriginal reconciliation and all social justice issues which are legitimate."

The social justice element of churches seems to be suffering at the hands of the politicised evangelical sectors and it is good that Christians speak out where justice can be done.