Bill you realy don't get this book review concept do you? When your on the exterme right anything not in line with your thinking is going to look left.

waiting for an OBJECTIVE assessment of the religious right?

I was hoping for an OBJECTIVE review of the book…

Bill Muehlenburg's bio says he is the National Vice President of the Australian Family Association. How can anyone with such a strong religious conservative agenda possibly give an objective review of this book?
What an insult to its readers.

Get Bob Brown to review the book as well, in the interests of fairness.

Since he obviously hasn't read it, somebody should tell Bill Muehlenburg that The Da Vinci Code is a fictional work that doesn't purport to be anything else - unlike the gospels of which he is so enamoured.

He should also learn that, while it is incumbent upon a reviewer to provide an objective and balanced review of a book for the benefit of those of us who haven't had the opportunity to read it, the same does not apply to the author of the work under review - who is at liberty to be as polemical as she or he likes.

Ho hum... yet another tirade from the Christian far right. Why is it that OLO has become such a platform for them?

Morgan

Well, you know what they say about the Christian right, don't you? They are neither very Christian, nor right.

Havent read the book 'god under howard' but have heard Marion Maddox interviewed on ABC radio. Good thing I did because Muehlenburg's review told me nothing about the book but all about his religious/political POV.

Bill you are supposed to review the book - instead you chose to let loose with your own little world view.

Now I'm definitely going to read the book. Oh yeah Bill I'll make up my own mind, you protested too loud for me to take you seriously.

The biggest false assumption made by many in our society is that we cannot have morality without belief in an after life or fear of a god who will burn us in hell for enernity for not behaving.Morality exists for the survival and common good of society.You can teach morality at school through logic and social interaction.No one in the public or private system has ever really tried.Philosophy ,human relationships,family, and morality should be the core of studies in primary and high school,since the family unit is the foundation stone of our society.We don't need a religious right or left to take us back to the dark ages.

I was hoping for an intelligent reply to this review as well. So it seems it's OK for an author to write a biased account of things according to their particular bent on life but if a reviewer looks at that account from their own perspective then that is wrong?

When did Australia get so dumb?

I guess the real mistake that Bill made was to mention the thing in the first place. Maybe if we learned to leave this kind of tripe alone they would die the short sharp death that they deserve.

Bill Muhlenberg's assesment of 'God Under Howard' is an accurate and vivid portrayal of what is clearly a political, radically left wing piece of fiction. Whilst the book contains many 'embellishments' half-truths and outright distortions, Bill's comments are accurate, his views valid and he is completely entitled to his view - as is Marion Maddox. Maddox's writing IS unquestionably biased and it is clear to anyone with even the smallest grain of discernment that she is pursuing a vigourous, intolerant agenda against Christianity and the associated morals and values.

John Howard is an elected Prime Minister and as such is entitled to pursue the agenda of the people who put him there. I am one of those - and will continue to be as long as he is defending the truth that I believe in. Well done Bill Muhlenberg! You have written an accurate and comprehensive review of a hugely biased and intolerant work of fiction.

Thank God for Bill Meuhlenburg and his accurate review of Ms Maddox's caustic commentary on life under the Howard Government. I find it fascinating that the very rights claimed by the left and their fellow travellers, they deny to those of a regilious or conservative persuasion. I was a feminist before it became fashionable, frenetic or fanatical and I feel so sad that the neo-feminist writers are so poorly researched and why, Oh why, do they look and sound so constipated?

Patti Smith

Good on ya Bill. What Australia needs is more critiques of the Left's rantings and doctrines. This will add a much needed balance to social/political debate.

Good on you Bill! That was an excellent review. You rightly exposed the author for who she is and what she represents. Quite obviously her book reflects her belief system which is biased and narrow minded. We need to see more balanced views from the silent majority - which you represented.

Well done Bill Muehlenberg.
You know the Bible speaks of differing world views. The Apostle Paul pleads with Christians regarding this with the question, "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?" Ms. Maddox's world view is that of Athens. She is very worldly in her views and if one were to adopt her views you would not be able to tell the difference between religion and secularism. She will no doubt be very surprised when she does meet her Creator face to face.

Wow. I wonder how many of Bill's godbothering fan club have actually read Marion Maddox's book, in order that they can so enthusiastically agree with his pathetic assessment of it. The irony is that I'm another who is now motivated by Muehlenburg's tripe to buy the book and read it, while one can be quite sure that Bill's sheeple haven't and won't.

Howard, Costello, Abbott, Anderson - each of them has played the Christian Right card to their electoral benefit. Meanwhile, they slavishly toady to the holy roller-dominated US oil imperialists, in the hope of a few crumbs from the royal table.

Bring on the anti-Christ. Please.

Morgan

Well its not too difficult to tell where many of the replies to Bill's book review are coming from, in fact you'd hardly have to read the book to tell where it lines up by those leaping to defend it.

Many of those in defence of Bill's right to comment seem to be arguing for the freedom of speech, even the freedom to write a book review at all and those critical of Bill seem to, like Maddok et al, seem to be arguing that anyone who disagrees with them has no right to participate in free speech, democracy or the Australian way of life.

So who then condemns themselves by their own bias, bigoted and isolationist views? Again the radical lefties think they have the right to rule the world and crush anyone who disagrees with them ... when will they learn?

Traditionally we consider Australia to have a Judeo-Christian heritage, in fact its laws and traditions are Christian by background so it is not unusual that the radical minority (or is that whineority?) will bemoan the ever harsh reality that the democratic decision of the people has been to choose certain values?

Maddok might not like democracy or its outcomes, but both she and her followers should remember that no one is forcing them to stay here, oh that's right, she's already left!

I whole heartedly agree with Peter Howard in regards to the point that a book review is written from the interpretation of the reviewer. The reviewer should have the freedom to comment on a book as they perceive it from their perspective. They are not only commenting on the substance of the material but also the manner in which it is presented and is totally subjective and reflects their view. The writer also writes a book which is freely written according to their own viewpoint and beliefs.
Rather than bagging either person why not become informed by actually reading the book as well as the review so that an informed comment on the bias or truth of both the writer and reviewer may be given. It's important to note that the way you perceive the writings doesn't equal absolute truth after all it is only your opinion and who are you?
It is an interesting nature of human behaviour that the natural bias of the individual almost consistently expresses itself in belittling or defaming the person with an opposing point of view. Why not be totally honest and just disagree without attempting to label or denegrade another individually view.

I haven't read the book so I can't make an informed comment on Maddox's views. I can make a reasonably informed comment about some of Muehlenburg's views expounded here.

I think he is right to say that:

"According to Maddox, the religious right is a nefarious, organised and monolithic threat that must be guarded against. But is it? Hardly, from where I sit. And do Christians of the right have some influence in the public arena and in public affairs? Of course. But so do religious lefties, secularists and atheists."

After all, the gay and lesbian movement, which Muehlenburg opposes, has made tremendous gains and the likes of the Australian Family Association have only won some battles against it.

But what is particularly hilarious is Muehlenburg's assertion of a "radical homosexual agenda". It's like people such as myself have a piece of paper on the fridge held up by a magnet which says "gay things to do today".

Anyway, thanks Bill for the review. You made it sound fascinating. I'll go off and buy the book as it may help me make my radical homosexual agenda for world domination become a reality. Then watch out!

Havent read the book 'god under howard' yet, but notice by the jaring criticisms, aimed as though from a gun sight toward Muehlenburgs review; that probably not many of the review critics have bothered to read the Bible (in context to its intended meaning, to its intended hearer.) Perhaps (Mr /Mrs Lefty trendy,) you will then have the right to criticise the majority of us who are found amoung the conservative or the Christian (the greatest allies to democracy in Australia; the foundations of the political arena that gives you the freedom to have your view), even though you yourselves are amoung the minority, loud though you be.
Its easy to see where your going with this. Remove God and cosequence from the social conscience and you are free to do as you please for youself, regardless of how you will affect anyone else; unencumbered by the sobering reality that one day you will be held to account and the consequences thereof.
Cant wait to read this book and confirm my suspicions that the left will always be the haters of free speech, especially when it encroachs on their "not so hidden" agendas!

Although Maddox obviously approaches things from a leftist, humanist worldview, with its paranoid rantings and delusions as well as its natural aversion to orthodox Christianity, I nevertheless found the book informative and interesting, even if some of its conspiratorial deductions were silly or far-fetched.

For me, I was more interested in Maddox's reporting of the facts, rather than her interpretations of these facts, or conclusions resulting from them, conclusions which, by stemming from the irrational foundation upon which her worldview ultimately rests, cannot be trusted to be logical or have any firm relationship with reality.

Since the last US and Australian elections, fevered attacks on those who have a religious dimension to their lives have become commonplace. These people are dangerous, it is claimed, and should play no part in public debate or the governance of a country.
This is, of course, absurd and in Australia alone would disqualify millions from having any say in the important matters which effect their lives.

There seems to be a contradiction in the arguments coming from the pro-Muehlenburg camp. On the one hand, he and some others claim conservative Christians are not this all powerful lobby group and certainly no more powerful than leftist humanists. On the other, there are those who say that conservative Christians do, infact, represent the views of most people (and state that George W Bush's re-election and John Howard's confirm this) and everyone else is a "loud minority".

I'd agree with the first point. The consistent failure of Christian Democrats to get members elected to Australian parliaments, apart from a handful in upper houses, plus the poor showing of other religious based parties over the decades, indicates that Conservative Christians are, infact, a "noisy minority" (or is that "nosey minority"?).

Both the ALP and Liberals have Christians in senior positions of power. But their success is because they, at different times, have been regarded as the best parties to manage the economy and deliver services. Politicians' religious affiliations are regarded as relatively unimportant in Australian politics.

Isn't it interesting that some people want to regard themselves as part of a powerful majority and then whinge that they are being victimised? This is why I find it hard to take the views of some self-styled Christians very seriously.

Mattt, makes a good point about people criticising the Christians without a good understanding of the Bible.
When I was younger, I was pretty critical of Christianity and would not think of touching a Bible with a ten foot pole.
But then I thought, how can you really criticise without reading the book - probably the most influential book if all time.
It certainly didn't convert me, I am still an atheist - just as reading Mein Kampf (second most influential book of all time) didin't make me a Nazi.
It does give you a sense of perspecitve though.

t.u.s.

I've waded through some of the book and detect a certain undercurrent of fear by the author...perhaps fear that the significant ground that was gained in de-christianising Australia (during the Whitlam and Hawke eras) is being lost.
I also detect the author's indignation...perhaps indignation that middle Australia is no longer agreeing with the leftist codswallop that they have agreed with in the past. Perhaps the 'new morality' pushed during the last 25 years or more has been tried and found wanting.
Thanks Bill Muehlenburg for a well thought out and valid review.

Mr Muehlenberg's review has little value except for entertaining purpose.One track minds whether from the right or left are oblivious to reality.
Religion is a man made invention undoubtedly fulfilling the spiritual needs of many.But there is only one God and a plethora of religions,some of them trying to highjack and manipulate the Gospel for their own purpose.The Christian religion is one example where the proliferation of Churches and denominations clouds the issue of spirituality.
Mr Muehlenberg chooses a few extracts from a 368 pages book to subjectively support his arguments.
It reminds me of some of the US Christian fundamentalists,often labelled Christian Right,interpreting selected sections of the Bible in a manipulative way.
I have rarely heard any Christian Ministry publically promote Matthew 7:15.
The Christian religion will only be taken seriously once it rids itself from all the false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing.
As for the right of Mr Howard and his scribes to impose their so called Christian values,it is perhaps time to remind the poor silent majority of frustrated souls that it was our forefathers who enshrined Section 116 into our Constitution.It conveys the notion of a secular Nation and only the Australian people can modify it,not any Prime Minister whether from the right or left.

Nobby

the problem is that many people are christians so no matter what the constitution says about being secular - christians will be elected. that is democracy. banning christians from becoming politicians or voting would not work so there will always be that christian undercurrent. that is what this country's laws are based on and that is fine.

t.u.s.

I don't have any problems with Christians (or Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Rosicrucians, Calithumpians, Whatever) being elected to our parliaments, so long as they don't subvert that democratic privilege in order to favour their own theocratic purposes. As Nobby correctly points out, ours is a secular State that is governed within the constraints of a Constitution that doesn't support any religious faith. Section 116 reads:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

I only begin to have a problem with godbotherers when they seek to invade my social space by arrogantly, ignorantly and persistently asserting that it is their right to attempt to force their views on all the rest of us. For example, the holy rollers who infest these forums openly assert that it is legitimate to subvert our democratic processes in order to promote their own particular religious positions. Call me hypersensitive if you like, but I find that logic very scary - particularly if it is one shared by members of our legislatures.

The separation of the Church and the State was achieved by our dominant culture centuries ago, at the cost of great bloodshed and social upheaval. I for one do not welcome any steps at all back in that direction.

Happy Easter ;)

Morgan

It is interesting to note the differing styles in the above comments. There are those who appear to have a genuine interest in the topic and who offer constructive comment on the review itself. These make worthwhile reading - whatever their stance.

There are those who appear outraged that Bill Muhlenbergs has dared to write a review that isn't 'objective'... and I find that Bizarre. With such a blatently non-objective book at the heart of this forum do they honestly expect people to 'sit on the fence' in their comment? The Author certainly didn't so why should Bill M? As I said before Bill Muhlenberg is completely entitled to his opinion - and I happen to agree with it.

Which brings me to the third category of comment... It is interesting to note the intensity of personal attacks, name calling, sarcasm and undisguised venom in many of the comments. It is also no surprise to see which side they are all coming from. Is this a forum to attack Bill Muhlenberg - or any other individual for that matter or is it a forum for intelligent people to air their views on a book in a mature and constructive manner?

I may be a Godbotherer - perhaps even a holy-roller... (As a result, I'm also a man with a guaranteed future and a magnificent inheritance.) I'm not, however, about to call anyone who disagrees with me Spritually Ignorant, Religeously Cold or any other childish name. Perhaps those who disagree with Bill M should focus on the topic as opposed to the person. Show a little maturity please.

While we may not like the way Howard runs the Country and his personal views,(the root of the argument here) we should respect the position that he fills and the others voicing their opinions(well done PH for pointing that out). If you don't like there stance vote against Howard/Costello at the next election.
Hebron

Team !
a foxtel poll showed that 73% of voters regard the religious aspect of Easter Important. I would have a pretty high confidence level that this would translate across the population, but admittedly, I could be wrong.

Morgan, the section of the Constitution you quoted is fine. But like the US consitution, historical CONTEXT is more than a little bit important in understanding its INTENTION. Given that in those days, the term 'religion' probably meant 'Catholic as opposed to Protestant' (and its various traditions) the intention may have been to avoid the establishment of one or the other as the state religion, bearing in mind that in the back of the memories of most of the English, Scottish,Irish settlers were images of some heavy duty problems and persecutions and wars between the said traditions/faiths.

The important point u seem to be MISSING :) capitals so it gets your attention, is that we are a "democracy". We have political parties where the 'left' ALWAYS tries to impose its view of industrial relations and so does the 'right'- note, the word is IMPOSE by law !
Do u think it gives me any joy to think I might have to go thru the process of 1/ warning, 2/counselling,3/ re-training, warning blah blah to some dill brain who is wrecking my business because the simply want to rort the system and milk my business of every bit of bludge they can get from it ? Now that is LABOR'S industrial relations. So, I will vote, to CHANGE THAT to a more realistic and just system. I will IMPOSE it thru the democratic process if I'm given the chance.
But what do 'we' godbotherers really WANT ? thats the issue. If we say we don't want abortion, u probably dont care UNTIL we say 'Because God values life'. Ah.. THEN u say we are 'imposing CHRISTIAN values on u. Well, like we have Labor, Lib, Dem and Green, we ALSO have 'Christians' among those groups, and we will use our democratic right :) So, please stop being to 'anti-christian' or Christian-a-phobic :)

Bill Muehlenburg has given us an excellent review of a very unpleasant book.

So the reviewer was upset by an author based in new zealand who has published a view of the 'achievements' of each of the us and australian administration, as writ by the leaders of the day, in terms of how the religous right both has and continues to influence policy? so what? imagine how the rest of the public feels about the liberties that the governments in the us and australia have taken with us and our daily lives? in many instances, our values have been shredded! I personally felt that her views were rather tame in comparison to the steaming pit of indignation simmering just barely beneath the surface in each of our respective societies which these ill conveived notions of meshing church and state have brought in the quest for political advantage. the fallout, which I fear hasnt yet reached anywhere near its potential, will continue for a long long time. god under howard....I get the feeling that thats about where he wants to keep him, too.

Bill, Thanks for pointing out that this book is a load of left-wing hogwash.

This is too funny. Muehlenburg criticises Maddox's book (which does seem wildly exaggerated) as a work of fiction and compares it to The Da Vinci Code. Meanwhile a spokesman for the Vatican, the archbishop of Genoa, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, has attacked the Da Vinci Code: "The book is everywhere. There is a very real risk that many people who read it will believe that the fables it contains are true."
Ahm, yes, but isn’t your entire faith built around a book of fables which people mistakenly believe to be true?

Muehlenburg: "Both (Maddox’s book and the The Da Vinci Code) can be viewed as works of fiction masquerading as non-fiction and, as with Brown, Maddox finds plenty of sinister conspiracies, shadowy networks of evil, and religious bogeymen".

They sound uncannily like the Good Book itself.

The last couple of posts on this subject yet again bear no relationship to the topic under discussion (which is a book by Maddox and the resultant review, in case you didn't realise Greg). We are not discussing the Bible.

By all means disagree with either - or both of the former, but please get your facts right regarding the Bible Greg. You pose the somewhat flippant question "isn’t your entire faith built around a book of fables which people mistakenly believe to be true" yet clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The Bible contains an absolute plethora of indisputed facts and proven history.

Even the most active opponents of Christianity are not so ill-informed to question the validity of The Good Book (as you youself choose to call the Bible) from a factual persepective.

Oh, by the way, the Bible does also contain some fables - they are in fact referred to as Parables. Jesus himself told them as analogies to help people understand many relevant and powerful principles. You may actually enjoy some of them. There's a particularly good one in Mark 4 about a farmer sewing seed on rocks as opposed to fertile soil - have a look. You might find it very interesting! :)

The article about howard (our lying PM) was spot on as far as I can assertain.He did and does lie - in a recent poll the majority of those polled said that they do not trust him. He did send his bag man (anderson) out to mostly coalition seats giving them money as did he, himself, not bribes of course!( Oh! the left wing pig that I am thinking impure thoughts of the people's hero, or is that a right wing trait - never mind someone will tell me, maybe it's the result of me reading the Bible) prior to the election. (Sorry Ringtail) - THOSE ARE FACTS! I worry about the forum members though. If any one goes against what these precious little petals think they are right wing, or left wing,or wingless perhaps brainless, or Bible bashers. I may have missed one or two but I do not recall having seen a Believer - as I am, castigate an unbeliever by sayiny something like "I would expect a first cousin of monkeys to say or believe that rubbish".Yet all or a lot of the agnostics (Means ignorant in latin I think),atheists, unbelievers and disbelievers and first cousins to monkeys rubbish believers for being believers.Of course the beliefs of forum members colour their views. Now go for me, let the abuse fly.
Regards, numbat

omygodnoitsitsitsyou, that must be why both Howard and Bush were re-elected with increased majorities? Thanks for sharing your exceptional social insight.

Just because alot of politically conservative values happen to coincide with alot of Christian values does not mean both are inextricably linked, although the dodering Maddox tries to prove otherwise.

Gee thanks Peter, I got chastised for straying from the topic “We are not discussing the Bible” and then you spent three paragraphs discussing the Bible. Still, contradictions are a part of your belief system so are perhaps to be expected.

I’ve read many parables of the bible, lately from the excellent online source that is the Skeptics Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html), which handily highlights all the contradictions, violence, absurdities and incorrect ‘facts’ of the text. So much for “the most active opponents of Christianity are not so ill-informed to question the validity of The Good Book from a factual perspective”.

Mark is a great source for studying parables:
Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Mark 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

So Jesus told stories in parables so outsiders would not understand his teachings and would duly burn in hell.
You can also see this unfold with Lego bricks: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_gospels/use_of_parables_explained/mk04_33-34.html

Sure, there is plenty of historical fact in the bible – and much work is still being done by archaeologists to substantiate a lot of it – but the important bits to Christians ‘God created the earth’ ‘man in his own image’ ‘a tree spoke to Moses’ ‘Christ rose from the dead’ are all way more far-fetched than anything in the Da Vinci Code, or Maddox’s (weak) argument

You are right Greg. I apologise for being drawn into the debate regarding the Bible itself. I was simply frustrated by your inaccurate statement about the Bible being a book of fables and am pleased to see that you accept it does indeed contain much more - including fact. ("Sure, there is plenty of historical fact in the bible...")

Unlike Maddox's book, I find the Bible to be a great source of inspiration, truth, wisdom and relevant teaching on how to do life well - and millions agree with me. Of course you clearly don't agree - but what makes you want to attack it so much? It an interesting thought isn't it?

Greg, one reason the mention of the Bible quickly leads to a discussion 'of' The Bible, I guess, is that so many millions in the world base their lives on it.

But then, there are some things which have been popularized "Its a book of fables" which also evoke at times outrage (from the insecure) and caring criticism from the more restful in the faith, and then there are those of us who happen to be in a more carnal mood when we read such things as yours and the old 'flesh' takes over and we just want to 'win an argument' :) (nudge nudge Peter, Numbat :)

I'd like to correct one matter with you, related to your quote. You took it at face value and decided it was 'harsh'. You could have picked a much 'beefier' verse, "You think I came to bring peace ? No, I came to turn son against father.....etc" ( u can look that one up)

But on the one u gave, it is a common misunderstanding to attempt to apply 'our' mindset to some of Scripture which is so richly connected to the Old Testament and the Prophets, to a point where we actually miss the point of what Jesus was saying.

Pls keep in mind, he was speaking to Jews, who had a particular heritage.
See this link for more information on the cultural/historical/religious background to Jesus statement in Mark 4.11-12
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Is%206:9;%2043:8;%20Jer%205:21;%20Ezek%2012:2;%20Matt%2013:14;%20Luke%208:10;%20John%2012:40;%20Rom%2011:8&version=49

U will quickly see how often this type of phrase was used by the prophets.

Keep up the challenging posts :)

I read the book. Brilliant. I am a secular humanist, formerly catholic. I'm libertarian, come from a rich and very conservative family. I, unlike stooges of the religious right, am forthright about my interests and background.

I'm also part of groups regularly under siege from the religiousright. Im not heterosexual in their eyes. I have been a welfare recipient for a long time. I have had episodic participations in prostitution. I use illicit substances. Every one of those groups is under constant siege of the fundy religious right.

Obviously a fundy religious type has to roll up in defense of his camp. Its because of a book written on the topic of the fundamentalist christian juggernaut's threat to our pluralistic free society. I speak also as a member of in fact several social groups currently under assault from the religious right. Perhaps Maddox has hit a raw nerve.

We talk about Jihad! I think conservative christianity is more of a threat to a supposedly democratic country than any other religion. {quote} Christianity and the associated morals and values......what are they other than lies, social and spiritual repression and recent finds such as touching up children while in the care of a christian god. History shows us over and over that power and greed has always been backed by religion and that war, murder and torture occured in the name of christianity. What's changed in your agenda? If you do not know it, current Australia is a potentially dangerous place for some individuals! My advice is move to Canada or Holland, you can live a more pro-active and respected life. I stopped believing in Advance Australia Fair long ago.