I'll really have to get around to reading this book. I wonder, however, how much in it is actually exaggerated. The 1980s and 1990s saw huge gains made by the gay and lesbian movement in both Australia and the US. There have been some setbacks such as the marriage issue. However, in Australia there have been many more wins around decriminalisation, immigration, adoption, relationship recognition and age of consent - just to name a few. In the US and Canada, same sex marriage is starting to make headway as are other forms of relationship recognition at state level. And homosexual acts are no longer criminal offences anywhere in the US.

One could argue that religious conservatives are getting their act together and can now mount a formidable challenge against the rights of gays and lesbians. But if the gay community overcome the challenge of HIV/AIDS and religious fundamentalists in the 1980s in America, it is highly unlikely we will stand by and watch our rights swept aside by those Maddox describes in 2005 and beyond.

I don't want to downplay Mooney and Maddox's concerns. I just want to get them in perspective.

Well said - written - Gavin. and thanks also to Leah Wedmore for her editing. The article was not strident it did not appear to try to drive or force Gavin's opinion down the reader's throat. The facts used are and have been out there in the public domain for all to see, that's if they want to see.I say this sadly but most only saw the fistsfull of dollars tossed at them at election time, unfortunately.The others ,though polls show that howard is not trustworthy in the eyes of the Australian voters, they believed all that he said, that also is sad.
Please bare with me and read the following quotes and honestly see if either pertain to howard and/or Australia.
1.Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and will find criticism subversive. Henry Steele Commager - historian
2. The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the church as well, well under its thumb.This enables it to organise and sway the emmotions of the masses, and make its tool of them. Albert Einstein - Scientist and writer
3. All evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland - Adolf Hitler :In 1933, Hitler used the burning of thr Reichstag as a pretext to push through emergency decrees suspending the basic civil liberties of German citizens. The "emergency" decrees remained in effect until the fall of the third reich in 1945
Regards, numbat

Gavin said

This strategy, leading to that “softer” tone, as Maddox reveals, leaves Howard seeming to be more moderate, less extreme. This is very clever - and very scary.

What is scary about being an astute politian who knows how important Image is ?

From what I can see of your article the only thing u people are 'scared' about is that the Christian segment of this democratic country have finally woken up to the fact that they represent the rather large majority of the population, and are voting accordingly.
73% said the religious side of Easter is important to them in a recent Poll.

It appears that the forces of darkness :) are afraid of the light (ooops, is that 'right' ?) getting 'organized'.

It seems also that the left is almost continuously salivating at the prospect of being able to draw connections however thin and tenuous between Australias Christians and the made up bogey man of the American 'so called' Christian right.

I found it extremely joyful to be at the Telstra Dome with 37,000 other 'bigoted, blinkered, blind, puplpit pounding, rabid, and rampaging Christians' as we are oft called, for Festival Victoria 2005 with Franklin Graham. Singing and sharing in the good news of Christs forgiveness.

Gavin, you decided to abandon your Christian upbringing, and embrace some kind of Socialist view of life... very questionable mate. Socialism was INVENTED by the early Christians .. see Acts chapter 2 the last few verses.

The teachings of Jesus to which you refer, are the only viable foundation FOR any kind of socialist state, but the problem for socialism is illustrated well in the next few chapters of Acts, where 'race' was a factor in the distribution of the pooled resources.

I find the list of groups you mentioned Gav to be rather insulting.

Mainly because it seems you regard the assistance of Aboriginals for example as the exclusive domain of the left. ! When the lefts main claim to fame on Aboriginal issues is the politicization of them for party political advantage, rather than social renewal of Aboriginal society.

Boaz,

Well said. It's about time the Lunar Left stopped naval gazeing & contemplating the evil choices made by the great unwashed at the last election.

The only 'frightening conclusion' about this article is the fact that the political challenged will embrace it.

So when is the article critising Islam due out Marion?

Regarding "evil choices" (as Sayeret puts it): the last Federal election had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with who was perceived as the best economic managers. The Federal ALP and Coalition both have practising Christians in senior positions of power. The electorate didn't choose, in the main, the candidates who were the most devout. Instead, they wanted good economic outcomes.

At state level, the electorate has chosen the ALP because they are the preferred deliverers of government services - not because they are good Catholics or anything like that. In fact, the WA election is the most recent illustration of how an anti-gay line (assuming one believes anti-gay equals Christian - and I don't) is not the major issue of concern to the average voter. The Liberals were clouted despite, or even because of, their gay-bashing party line.

I certainly view with concern the agenda of the Families First party. However, they are no more of a worry than the self-styled Christian Democrats who have been around for ages and who couldn't even get one lousy Senate seat for veteran campaigner Fred Nile. Again, let's put this issue in perspective.

"Numbat" makes a valid point that "Boaz" indavertently reinforces in his discursive and fanciful post: Hitler's early political success was achieved by disguising his real agenda, that is by being "an astute politian who knows how important Image is".

The emergency powers gained by the Nazis in the 1930s paved the way for the totalitarian regime against which our fathers fought, in order to secure the kind of freedoms that Howard and his cronies are busy taking away.

Very scary indeed.

Because, Sayeret, as far as I am aware, it is illegal to criticise Islam at this point in time- at least in Victoria.

No, I don't think that's the reason that Maddox hasn't criticised Islam. This is because:

1. There is no way that Islamic theology has an equivalent influence over the way that the Howard government shapes its policies, as does the insidious and covert evangelising of our Federal Government.

2. The main reason that Howard and Co (directly following their "Neo-Con" organ grinders) are so desperate to court the activist Christian vote is that it ensures their electoral survival. The proportion of swinging voters (on whom success in elections depends, both here & in the USA) who are 'Christian' vastly overwhelms that of Muslims.

3. The statement that criticism of Islam in Victoria is illegal is emotive and false. Religious vilification is illegal, and quite rightly so.

In my opinion, Maddox provides those of us who don't want to see our society revert to a Christian theocracy with a timely wake-up call.

I have said this before but comparing Howard and Hitler is pointless and does more damage to the argument than harm.

On Australia's love affair with the "Christian right" - Philip Adams wrote a column last year about how he "invented" Family First by suggesting to a christian mate they should band together.

From my non-christian perspective i think that the rise of Christians in political circles is a direct response to the more radical social agenda which has occurred in the past 30 years.

The silent majority is no longer content to be drowned out by the vocal minority.

Its democracy people.

t.u.s

oops, meant more damage than good. sorry

t.u.s

T.U.S. yes, u got it straight there mate :) exactly. We are NOT going to sit around doing nothing while evil triumphs. But we SURE don't want a Christian Theocracy ! my goodness, 'revert' ? when were we ever that ?

On the other comment by Garra about 'political survival' is the reason the conservatives are courting the Christian vote is a hearty YES ! We Christians didn't win the last election, we did help though.
Econmic issues are very important, and I tend to agree that that is what swung it more than the Christian card, but as time goes by, that 'card' might become more of an Ace than a Jack :)

Umm Garra, I see your into Conspiracy Theories also ? :) why didn't you mention the "Melbourne Club" the Fabians, or the Illuminati also ?
I think there is a glimmer of truth in what you say but nowhere to the extent you claimed 'Hitler style agenda' ? hmmm @@ "Sounds a bit dodgy" look.

Well, the so-called "silent majority" was hopeless in the last Federal election. The never silent Fred Nile failed in his bid for a Senate seat and the Christian Democrats in NSW had to keep his Legislative Council seat warm because they had nobody else to take his place. The Greens did better than Families First at national level and in the WA election this year, the anti-gay Coalition was thumped by the ALP. In fact, using the logic of the usual suspect, one must assume the WA electorate is solidly pro-gay given their endorsement of Geoff Gallop's government. Do you think so?

As I said before, Federal and state elections in this country have been decided on the basis of economic management and service delivery. Having a belief in people rising from the dead is all very interesting but voters care more about interest rates, health care and transport services.

John Howard didn't exclude all the minority groups,he just put them on level pegging with the rest of society,and guess what,the likes of Gavin Mooney don't enjoy their soap boxes be snatched from their bosoms.It is so easy in the rarified environs of academia,where theory and hypothisis fit so well into your untested sacred vision of your ideal world.If only that reality beast would stop poking his ugly head up,they too might aspire to being Prime Minister one day.

John Howard is far from perfect,but he is light years ahead of the lamentable alternatives.He has just echoed what most sensible hardworking Australians have been feeling for a long time,and the minorities are feeling a little left out.As "the Usual Suspect" said,
"that's democracy."

<<"Religious vilification is illegal, and quite rightly so.">>

Quite "rightly so", huh? I'm interested, based on what standard of right and wrong do you conclude that?

To get back to the topic of the book.... it was not about vilifying Christians, but raises the issues, that Howard is 'using' the Religous right for political purposes, and that there is a real danger in this if it allows the 'Religous right' to have political power.

I have not read the book but I heard an interview with the author and a telling point she made was that Howards website now tells us that he was once a Sunday School teacher. This item has only recently been added to his list of accomplishments.

Cynical and opportunistic? Well that's how I see our Prime Minister and although I think he will do anything for a vote or two, I suspect that his flirtation with the 'religous right' is not a deep and meaningful relationship.

Howard has pandered to plenty of minority groups. The voters of the likes of One Nation and Families First come to mind. Other minority groups could include the Business Council of Australia and the Aged Care Industry. The Business Council of Australia says "jump" and John Howard asks "how high?"

In regard to supporting the full agenda of Christian fundamentalists (that is if they have a single agenda), it is unlikely that the current government will do anything of the sort. As we've seen with the "abortion debate", the likes of Tony Abbott risked the opposition of conservative women inside and outside the parliament. Howard himself seems unlikely to actually do much regarding abortion, homosexuality and other "hot button" issues that are important to the Christian far right. After all, votes are more important than moral principles for the Coalition.

More likely, Howard will do what Ronald Reagan did (probably even more muted - this is Australia after all). That is, mouth Christian rhetoric from time to time but deliver virtually nothing.

In reply to 'Brazuca':

I think that it is quite right that vilification of any kind is proscribed under our laws. That opinion is derived from my thorough enculturation in Australian society, which incorporates my general accordance with its values and social mores, including notions derived from the plethora of historical and cultural traditions from which our society arose.

From this perspective, I applaud the elected Victorian parliament's legislation against vilification, and approve of the Victorian judiciary's apparent willingness to apply the legislation.

As some have commented above, "that's democracy". :)

In reply to "garra", are your views based on an objective standard of right and wrong or on a subjective standard of right and wrong?

Mollydukes,John Howard's appeal went far beyond any religious minority groups.For the first time in many years the responsible ,hard working majority said that they had had enough of the soft option antics of the left.The left had monopolised the lectern for far too long.Welcome to the era of common sense,hopefully discipline,morality,facing realities of survival,common decency ,manners and respect for others.There is a whole orchresta of qualities that make our society function,and not just monotones of individual rights,handouts,capitalist exploitation that some lawyers premote to line their pockets.

As is the way, I agree with you TUS... those who indulge in (in fact descend to) comparisons with Hitler are engaging in pure hyperbole and damage their own credibility by floating such notions as part of serious debate.

For numbat’s benefit – Hitler made abortion illegal for any female Aryan – on penalty of death.

By your standard, I would be justified in making serious comparisons of Pro-Life advocates with Hitler (I however chose not to).

Now, maybe numbat can give us an example of any national leader who does not take matters of national boarders and sovereign security with a sense of gravitas.

Ultimately the issue of religion matters only in so much as the politicians we elect to lead this nation are likely to have had some exposure a to religion of some sort. That it “colours their thinking” – just as any other experience from their formative years - is a certainty – but any responsible politician also understands he is a representative of his party manifesto and electorate first and any allegiance to his church comes along way after that.

Garra, I support in principle the idea of legislating against real hatred and vilification, but sadly, if you knew the WAY that this (flawed) legislation has been deliberately manipulated and used as a tool of supression, with political backing, you would probably re-think your naive support for it.

1/ A lot of the lobbying for this came from the Jewish lobby, who is trying to silence (among others) the Citizens Electoral Council which is very active and often perceived as being 'anti semitic'.
2/ The Muslims were not far behind, because they want to infiltrate our legal system with as much 'Islam friendly' law as they can manage.
(Changes to financial insitutions law, and burial laws are examples.) The burial law exemption is in contravention to the anti discrimination act by the way.

The case of the 2 Christian pastors, came about as a DIRECT RESULT of a person employed by the EOC (May Helou) AND the Islamic Council of Victoria and the SPECIFIC targeting of a seminar by these pastors, and the sending of spies to it who had pre-decided their opinions.

The transcript of the court case is available with reference in the thread on that matter. The not only were the findings flawed, they were based on ACTUAL misrepresentation of the transcript by the Judge, hence an appeal will go ahead. ( I understand)

I have a case with the EOC over a matter of the vilification of Christianity, and the manner it has been viewed further supports this contention.

Having now seen how the 'left' trys to supress and stifle and repress, I welcome little Johny and gang :)

Yes, Col, it certainly does not help by bring comparisons with Nazism into this debate. Neither Christian fundamentalists here nor in America are fascists. Authoritarian maybe but nothing like Jorge Haider in Austria or Jean Marie Le Pen in France. Let alone Hitler or Mussolini.

Maddox's book, from what I can tell, paints a dark picture of rising Christian fundamentalism in Australia modelled on the American line. And while it is of serious concern that many of them maintain a vicious hatred of gays, lesbians or anyone else not fitting into their narrow plans for the world (see www.godhatesfags.com), it is also true that during Howard's period in office and in the period when NSW and other states were governed by the Coalition, the gay and lesbian movement made the biggest gains since its inception around the early 1970s. And in America, the Reagan Administration saw the rise of the Christian right AND huge gains for the gay and lesbian movement.

Why is this? Homosexuality is often more of a "hot button" issue than abortion. Why has the Christian right failed to stem the tide?
Firstly, they have had some wins. The marriage issue comes to mind (but the 2004 legislation didn't actually change anything fundamental - same-sex marriage has always been legally invalid). Secondly, popular support for our Federal system and voting patterns indicate people want a balance. The more gay-friendly ALP dominates state governments coast to coast. And thirdly, voters are wary of extremists. This explains the Citizens Electoral Council and Christian Democrats poor showing election after election.

Col and others you never mentioned the first two quotes. As regards the hitler one I just asked if you could see if it pertained to howard - apparently you did! I could mention goebels, the nazi propaganda boss. The quote as I recall it - "repeat lies over and over again and the people (dumb ones anyhow -addition mine)will believe them" How were you affected by howard's and sneering costello's election lie/s? This one (one of many actually) concerned interest rates and saying that the bank board agreed with them, the libs? The bank board didn't of course. Did they, howard/costello, after endlessly repeating this miserable lie fool you?

You fly to the defence of "honest?" john, the 'good' germans flew to the defence of their "honest?" leader also. They were totally hoodwinked as well. Col and others you are up against a master manipulator in howard. Of course when asked if he knew about this lie- like Manuel in fawlty towers - howard answered, as usual, "I know nossing!" I can see you nodding your heads in agreement with your honest, decent, dependable leader. regards, numbat

John Howard does not exhibit the values of a true Christian in speech, and political decision making. A political leader that lies so much is certainly not practicing the values and vision of Christ. His support of the 'religious right', as you say, as well as his decision making, is cunning and hypocritical. The worst part of all, is the support given by the majority of [protestant] christians in this country to Howard, of which I am one...however I'm not blind and do not support Howard.

Teresa van Lieshout
Author - Faith and Politics: A Framework for Australian Social and Political Life

While I agree with Gavin's post in the main, I don't believe that the fundamentalist Christian vote is very significant in this country. I used to be part of one of these evangelical churches in my youth, and abandoned it when I was 17 when it started to turn into something of a cult, and many people I went to church with were instrumental in creating a number of churches in the Perth, Adelaide and Gold Coast regions, as well as helping the CDP and Family First movements. I recall when WA's gay law reform was before the parliament, Margaret Court managed to organise, like, 200 people or something to protest the laws. They looked like the fanatics they were. In retrospect, I can't believe I used to think like that myself.

As for the Australian electorate, I think some of you are right. It is increasingly polarised - both the left and right are stronger than ever before, and there doesn't seem to be much room left in the middle for the centre of politics. Howard is a cynical manipulator of this reality to try and score as much of the centre vote as possible, while trying to win over the far right. The Christian vote has not substantially increased in years, and they have always preferenced the Liberals since even the Keating days, so this is hardly a factor. The real cause of the 2004 election win was the collapse of One Nation and the Democrats.

OrderinChaos, I am surprised by your belief that the left is well-organised and influential in Australian politics. Can you expand on that idea. What do you mean by the 'left'

I don't think that the number of fundamentalist Christian voters is the problem. Rather, like in the United States, in Australia they are over-represented in the 10% or so of swinging voters (between centre-right and right) who increasingly determine election results.

This only becomes a problem when a government panders to the extreme beliefs of these people, as I believe we have been witnessing with respect to the manufactured abortion 'debate' in recent times, amongst other issues. Peter Costello's attendance at the Hillsong church during the last election campaign was a master stroke in propaganda, but I'm concerned at the undue influence these minority pentecostal types might try and exert over the greater majority of the population.

This of course is related to (contra "OrderInChaos") what I think is the more basic political problem: the fragmentation of the 'Left' (if such a term is still valid) following the apparent demise of its organising socialist ideology. From this perspective, all that's coherently on offer is the 'Tweedledum' and 'Tweedledee' neo-conservative politics that we call democracy. This creates a sufficient structural condition for a relatively small but strategic interest group to exert disproportional influence.

What scare me about this is that, instead of the balance of political power being held by political parties who share a secular humanist orientation, this is shifting towards a more 'theocratic' exercise of political power that is inconsistent with a cosmopolitan 21st century society like Australia. I shudder to think what will happen when the Coalition has complete control of the Senate from July 1.

I'm glad about one thing, some of you seem to be latching on the the fact that SMALL MINORITIES can determine LARGE POLITICAL OUTCOMES if they are strategically placed.

This has been one of my main arguments for a very controlled and even 'selective' immigration policy because of this very thing.
I would not want to see any one race or religion 'over represented' in our immig stats, for reasons of political stability in Australia.
I am all for 'non discriminatory' policy as long as its balanced and guided. Meaning, at times it may favor certain groups over others, if the population balance is creeping in an unhealthy direction.

It is quite conceivable that ONE seat in which a high concentration of former assylum seekers may be now residing, to swing a close election one way or the other. This is a lot of power to be wielding.

So, the Howard governments tough line is most welcome to me. The recurring theme has always been 'WE control our immigration NOT outsiders'.

Can anyone tell me what these evil and dangerous policies of the Christian right actually are? What agenda do they have that is so horrible that it cannot be debated in this country? What beliefs do they have that are so far outside the norm of society that they must be stopped at any cost?

I don't think I believe in God but I'm not particularly intimidated by Christians or their beliefs. I don't believe in the creation myth being taught as fact in schools but I'd rather have the matter debated openly than have my child come home from school telling me that Darwin was the devil himself.

I also wonder where all the concerned citizens were when the damaging doctrine of multiculturalism was forced upon us? Where were they all when our mentally ill citizens were tossed onto the streets to fend for themselves, all in the name of rights of the individual? Isn't anyone concerned at the paradox in this country of individual rights being of the absolute paramount importance, yet everyone else is responsible if I get drunk and walk in front of a car? We don't want Christians forcing their views onto us but it's OK to have judges do it every time they hand down a gutless sentence not in the best interests of the community.

My point is, what do these people propose to do to our society that’s any worse than some of things we tolerate now? I certainly wouldn’t deny that the progressive agenda has added to and benefited our society in a lot of ways. Maybe the religious right has something to offer as well?

Tony

David_BOAZ I would suggest small minorities connecting with other small minorities to form a majority determine “outcomes”. If the outcome is significant and the minority influence is not “too radical” or departed from mainstream values maybe the minority perspective can be accommodated without impedement.

Again bozzie – I would agree – when we see the evils and excesses of the religious right (of which, whilst I may be “right”, I would not suggest I am in any way “religious”) then is the time to jump up and down.

Presently I am more annoyed with the change to Victorian employment legislation thrown through by Bracks and co in an attempt to bolster up last the vestiges of defunct and decrepit socialist policies which impose shopping curfews on us all.

Bozzie I guess some of us are being a bit parnoid, but the abortion issue got me going. The thought of having this made illegal because some people believe that a fertilized egg is a human life, is scary when you realise how bad the backyard abortions were prior to this procedure becoming legal.

Going back to divorce that requires 'fault' to be allocated is another potential 'evil' (I don't think Marion ever suggested that they were evil? surely evil is the provence of the religious). This caused a lot of anguish and pain for people, including children.

What about banning the teaching of evolution in state schools? That is something that some of the Religous right would like to see happen. There are lots more freedoms that these people would like to take away.

I think you just need to look to the US to see the problems that some of us worry about if the Religous right get political power.

Molly, its interesting to note that the pain and suffering NOW from 'quickie divorce' is far more rampant as I see, that it was before. I don't think you have surveyed many young people who would choose MUCH more to be in a fiery family than to see his/her parents split up and destroy the family unit.

The 'religious right' would prefer that Evolution is taught as THEORY and that Creation/Intelligent design is taught as ANOTHER theory. Got it ? good. Don't go on about 'banning evolution' again please, -too sweeping and general.

You persist in imposing your view that a conceived child is 'nothing more than' a fertilized egg ! See ? not nice is it when ur accused of 'imposing'.... But the fact is, we have different views on the matter and the only way to decide it is by legislation. We happen to be of the view that there are many better options in most cases than to murder a newly conceived infant, and carrying a responsiblity to term and giving joy to childless couples remains a very good option.

CAN we please get away from the idea that all religous people are memebers of some monolithic 'religious right' !

Its not like that. Not everyone is a 'Fred Phelps-"godhatesfags.com" type.

Col, small groups can change the destiny of a country. If a close election hangs on the outcome of ONE seat, it will determine who is PM, etc etc.... and Yes, your point about 'if its not too radical' is noted.

Garra.. there u go, 'if its not secular humanist its 'evil' ' seems to be the mantra you are currently chanting before the mirror each morning. Well, secular humanism went bankrupt decades ago, they just havent caught up with it yet :) So, I'll do a Neitche, and declare "Secular Humanism is dead".... It never had, has not now and never will have a valid foundation, and I have the impression that most SH's live somehwere between fantasyland and Disneyworld. If you wish to persue that in a debate kinda way, I'll accomodate.

No, "BOAZ-David", not "evil". Rather it has no place in government. Read the Australian constitution.

Firstly, to David Boaz - interesting point re divorce, my experience with friends etc has been the reverse. The ones who've grown up in families which became a farce a long time ago are a lot less stable and self-confident than the ones whose parents acknowledged they couldn't get along and divorced. In many cases where this decision is made early enough, there isn't much hostility and the parents, living apart, can rediscover the friendship they had before marriage. Also, let's distinguish here between Christians and the Christian Right. The latter do not behave in line with their own scripture, they run around judging people and trying to ban things. Just look what they have achieved and are achieving in the US if you don't believe me.

Secondly, to those who asked me about the left, you only need to look at the continuing increase of the Green vote and the influence of the Labor Left in internal Labor politics both state and federal. It's interesting that in almost every state election, the Greens have become the only minor party. The Left forced the Labor party to abandon its earlier decision to support the Iraq war, and even Beazley has had to change his rhetoric. Although people are still voting for Liberal on economic issues, you'll find the same people share a surprising amount of room on social issues with the Left - especially (basic) gay rights, abortion, refugees, the war in Iraq, separation of church and state, etc. This means that the Liberal party can proceed with its economic plans but not their social ones as they would lose votes with the latter.

Regardless of the assertion that secular humanism is dead, I think you'll find it operates in most levels of government, industry, education, science and so on in Australia quite well. There are some countries where secular humanism has been crushed (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Mauritania come to mind) but these are usually considered places to avoid. Actually, even in Iran the younger generation are growing tired of prescriptive religious dogma forced on them at every turn.

If, as is happening in the US, Christian fundamentalists want to teach creationism alongside evolution as a theory, I would be extremely concerned. Evolution is generally accepted by reputable scientists as the process of how life began and progressed on this planet. Creationism is a religious belief at odds with scientific learning.

Also, if you going to teach creationism in science classrooms why not witchcraft? Or levitation? Science teaching in Australia would become a joke.

Creationism is a mockery of clear thinking and logical thought, as Davidjs says, may as well teach witchcraft. Creationism is not a theory it is a faith no evidence for it.

Anyway, I am definitely going to read 'God under howard' - he HAS lied and reneged on so much and to have it all put into printed form is a step towards accountable democracy.

Wot alot of religious folk don't understand is that Howard is using Christianity just like he has used racism and economic insecurity to gain votes - he is demonstrably amoral - any consideration of his track record will reveal this. Howard is ultimately a professional politician - he is only concerned about being elected and re elected and he is very good at that. If he really cared about the infrastructure of this nation he would be using the huge surplus he has garnered to put back into Australia, instead he is offering further tax cuts to high income earners.

Go Marion Maddox - U Rock!

David, perhaps the young people you refer to cannot make a free choice without having experienced both types of family.

I know that I was so relieved when my parents divorced and the tension level in the house dropped and the awful angry whisperings during the night stopped, even though we had to move to a smaller house. We were happy to see dad at his place.

I can also testify to the pain it caused people who had to falsely admit to adultery so they could obtain that divorce.

As you say David the 'religious right' is not a monotheistic? group and you do not speak for them all. Some would be keen to see evolution even as a theory not be taught in schools. One can only be sweeping and general in a discussion like this.

How am I imposing my view about eggs and babies on you? I am happy for you to have your view and any egg you fertilise is certainly a conceived child, but my fertilized egg is just that. Okay?

The way legislation stands you can have your view and so can I. You do not have to have an abortion. Changing it would lead to you imposing your view on me, wouldn't it? Cos I couldn't have one.

HOWARD IS USING the Christians.... duh :)
funny, I could never have worked that out myself... of course he is, but on the other hand, he is also much closer in critical areas to what 'we' would prefer to see in control, that the whacko left-of-marx Maddox'es and company. So, perhaps we are also using him ?

I have a nagging feeling this is actually democracy.

MOLLY. U have a point there, as things stand, ur right, to change the law and make abortion illegal, would be imposing my view on you. I'll give that some further thought. I guess it boils down to what is the message we want our government to sent to the community as socially and morally important. I guess to allow murder for some would not be acceptable. (Im not being sarcastic there, I'm thinking it through on the run) Yep, I think thats what it comes down to, the morality of the issue. We either believe a conceived child is that, or we believe in some lesser view based on values more of the 'make-it-up-as-u-go'. Again, not being facecious. Your post was quite warm hearted :) appreciated.

Without doubt its a difficult problem this. I mean, we all have views on various matters, and I think its most difficult to avoid some of us imposing or having others imposing on us in some things.

THE LEFT ... having impact ? yes, a worry, if only they had an actual value system which was enduring and valid and did not fall apart when scrutinized.

XENA Christians are not as stupid as u think :) Howard 'amoral' ? hardly. 'Flexible' yes :) and cunning, and astute, and possibly occasionaly dishonest or close to it on some things. Kim is gold, Labor is bankrupt. Howard and the Libs are also on the wrong track, Greens- dangerous, Democrats- plain stupid, Families First, yet to be tested, Hmm I guess that just leaves the Kingdom of God in our hearts, working for the good of all as we see it.

Neither the Big Bang, nor 6 day Creation, should be taught as fact or the "most legitimate" form of science in state schools. You can't prove either without faith.

David Surely the message can be sent to the community that abortion is not a good thing to do without making it illegal and bringing back dodgy backyard abortions. Illegality never stopped women in the past, why do you think it will now?

There will always be circumstances in which the living (children and other adults) are more important than a fertilized egg which may become a life. I speak from experience here and that I guess is why I am so sure that women need to be able to 'murder' their babies sometimes.

If you insist on using 'murder' to describe the abortion of a fertilied egg or a collection of cells that could not live without being attached to a women's body, then I can face that.

But I got to say c'mon, it is a bit weak on your part. Surely there is a difference between a life that is extant and would cause suffering to others if it ceased to exist and a life that nobody but the mother and God would know about if it was murdered.

You know it is the living who suffer when a real child (one who was alive for a number of years) dies - not the child - again I speak from experience. There is a big difference between the two types of lives - one inside the womb, the other in the world.

I do not agree with your black and white view. Life is more complex than that. If you want to see that my view is 'lesser' then I can only assure you that I try not to see your view as 'lesser'.

I simply cannot accept such an easy view of something so complex and mysterious.

OrderInChaos (April 9th)

You are spot on. The collaspse of One Nation and the Democrats enabled Howard to get his 2004 result and gain a majority in the Senate. I guess that's the result of coniving to place a woman in prison for political reasons, and manipulation of the media. Howard is a lying, over-taxing, anti-Australian (free trade, and with $422 billion of foreign debt), war-mongering, manipulative leader, who Australian voters have allowed to now comprehensively dictate to us after July 1st. I can say this as a christian woman, someone who critices my own 'christian right' (of which I am a part)for their unjustified and overwhelming support of Howard at this time. The christian vote will get stronger in this country as 68% (according to 2002 census) of Australians still indentify with the christian faith in some manner. However their overwhelming support of Howard is not right (I believe)in the eyes of Christ.

Oh yes, and federal labor's inability to be an effective opposition is allowing Howard to do whatever he wants. Pathetic.

Wow, go Teresa!
A christian finally speaks out against howard. Cool.

Teresa, I sympathize with your obvious passion about the Howard leardership, but some of the things you say are not just bordering on but actually are libelous and slanderous. The main reason being you are saying he IS these things, rather than you 'think' he is.

I guess if we were a fly on the wall of every place Mr Howard goes and where he meets and discusses things we would discover that he is flesh and blood, not the Messiah.

The main problem I have with your comments are that you drag Mr Howard down, but who do u offer as more worthy alternative ? would they be less cunning and political ? Kim would probably be the closest in the Labor party, possibly followed by Rudd, the only 2 who I could even think about.

Teresa are u aware of what goes on in the Labor side ? among the factions etc.. the ego the greed, the glory and the guts etc , preselection madness.. I mean.. who's left ? the Greens ? don't give me a heart attack by suggesting you would support them,

Some of the points u made about John, "warmonger" I think are naive and ill informed. Can you show me ANY country which has not survived by making alliances ? Sure, we have switzerland but its neutrality was as convenient to one side as the other and had the Nazi's won in Europe that neutrality would have quickly been absorbed by the Reich.

Teresa, if your Christian, I'd like to see more about Christ in your posts. Lets face it, HE is the only remedy for all the ills you have described.

I think we all stand rebuked by Him in our attempts to solve problems in our own strength. As His mind indwells us, we will see the way ahead and while it might be a struggle to get it right, we would all be better off for it.
blessings

Boaz, just coz U disagree doesn't mean my remarks are any less valid than yours. Howard is either ignorant ie 'I wasn't informed' as he frequently claims, or, he is a liar. I now which is most likely true. A man of his cunning, ambition and intelligence is unlikely to be so ill informed. May even U can work that out.

I note from your posts that you are a most ungenerous sort of christian and that jesus would have heaps more compassion than U ever express and I doubt he would quote the bible, ad nauseum, like U do.

Teresa has a right to her far more benevolent view than U. Now U can contribute to debate about the review and leave others to their beliefs.

U are very predictable.

David do you think it is your political and social ideology that underpins your attitudes rather than your Christianity? It seems to me that when there is as contest between what would Jesus do and the sort of conservative society you would like, you opt to vote conservative every time and yet I think that you claim to put God above all things worldly?

Molly, voting is something I struggle with, to find someone who seems to really have the national interest at heart, rather than either 'us' or 'them' as Labor and Liberal seem to have. Then there are the single issue parties, or the whackos like Greens and Democrats (yes, I consider them whacko's I'm afraid)

For information on 'what would Jesus do', refer the New Testament :)
I'm happy to discuss what he actually did, as opposed to some sentimental 'urban myth' approach.

Xena, did you even READ the last sentence in my last post ? ummm.. I doubt it. If I disagree with Teresa, why the problem ? I dont recall actually condemning your view on this thread since your last post did I ? But I can clearly see your rather mocking condemnation of those who believe in Creation, in fact you hold us up to public ridicule here. Have a close look at your post about it, and check out that last line of my previous one.

I'll catch your reply to my other post on the detention centres thread.
take care all

David you say that Howard 'seems' to be offering what you think is the Christian way but it seems to me and others including a great many Christians, that he does not emplemplify Christian values at all. How can you be sure that your Christianity is better than theirs?

Your comment that to be a Christian one needs to talk more about Christ is your version of what it means to be a Christian. A Christian person that I do admire suggested that he keeps his religion and politics separate because that is what Jesus did.

It surely is a useful exercise to think about what Jesus would do rather than just to read about what he did - as set down by a few of his disciples.

Hi Molly
well, if it was down to personalities, I'd probably choose Kim, than John, they are both quite decisive actually, apart from his occasional drifts into 'pragmatic politics' John Howard seems to have much more than just his own political career at heart. Kim also does. I don't find much to separate the leaders themselves. Mark Latham .. enuf said, and people like Lindsay Tanner -He used absolute gutter politics by raising a sexual abuse matter in the public forum with timing that a boxer would be jealous of, to cause the maximum damage to the GG and by proxy to Mr Howard, his friend. That particular case had been around for a LONG time, but he suddenly latched onto it and you could read behind the smoke and mirrors A)Let me get my name in lights B) let me damage the Libs and HOward C) Let me look more like a crusading potential leader.

So, Mr Howard AND Mr Beasly strike me as men of principle and integrity as far as politicians go.

I don't think Howard is offering us a "Christian" way, he is offering a climate more suitable for us, on balance, compared to the Labor approach to many things. I'd prefer to see the libs use some of the GST excess for a public dental program as labor had years back and my family benefited from it.

When Jesus was quizzed on political matters "Should we pay the temple Tax to Caesar" ? he took a coin and asked who's image etc.. 'To Caesar that which is his, to God that which is his'.. that was a comment on the sociopolitical times of the day, and a principle of do what you are expected to do. I don't find "keep politics separate from religion" in that. I find "do your duty and obligations"

We can only legitimately reflect on the revealed Jesus, not the one who may be a projection of our own desires. The real one is the one we read about.

Y'know Boaz many christians believe in evolution over creationism - I find it strange that you don't. Also I don't understand how you can put so much faith into the written word of the bible -given how and by whom it has been written. Many christians I know prefer the underlying philosophy rather than the literal word.

Howard, I think, appeals to the literal minded - he appeals to those who don't wish to look below the surface. He is, most definitely, a career politician and I agree, so too is Kim. Wouldn't vote for either of them.

Given my profession and knowledge of environmental issues as well as believing in equal rights for all (read gays, single parents, refugees, aboriginals - anyone who doesn't fit the big white hetero male image) - y'know the usual looney fringe, I guess I am part of them too. So call me a bleeding heart if it makes you feel better. Rather be a bleeding heart, than heartless.

'God under Howard' really is a bit of a misnomer - Bush is playing the 'god' card a lot more heavily. Howard is just surfing on the wave of the neo christian movement. He'd better watch out for the under tow.

;-)

BOAZ_David,

interesting that you had a go at Lindesay Tanner - presumeably you would also think the same of Bill Heffernan when he raised the lies about Justice Kirby.

I seem to remember that Howard appeared to back Heffernan by reading in parliament, a letter from Heffernan which made allegations against Justice Kirby.

only when heffernan was proved to be wrong (even through the NSW police had considered Heffernan's documents and said that there was no case) did Howard sack him and tell him to make an apology. A decent person would have made heffernan investigate and should have had the documents checked out - which appears not to be too difficult as Labour was able to dis-credit them as well as Heffernan very quickly).

In my opinion, i think Howard's action in this and other matters shows that he is sadly lacking in principle and integrity even as a politician

With regard to David's earlier comments about "what goes on in the Labor side", he's obviously never been to Western Australia. The Noel Crichton-Browne (an admitted adulterer, no less) faction madness that has plagued WA Liberal politics for the last 20 years or so has claimed the careers of several sitting Liberal Federal and State politicians (including friends of Howard's) for short-term factional gain, and, along with the Shave faction and others, ripped apart the State Opposition to a point where it can no longer effectively function. Faction madness is alive and well in both parties, and most probably destroyed the Democrats as an active force in politics. It's hardly a basis on which to launch an attack on the Labor party specifically.

Order and PGJ I think I've given you guys the wrong impression.

The points you raised about WA and Heffernan, I fully take on board, as evidence of the dirty nature of carnal politics. [Post edited here for legal reasons] Perhaps you have been understanding my apparent defense of the Coalition/Howard as meaning I view them as the squeaky clean pure example of all things political and acceptable for this country.
... I don't. What I do feel is that the coalition will give a better chance to our democratic interests than labor. There is a huge difference. At the same time, I find extreme difficulty with some aspects of coalition policy, such as the privatization of key government responsibilities, such as corrections and detention centre management. The idea that these facilities can be run 'for profit' is repugnant in the extreme to me. But when all is said and done, I find the labor side having less to offer. I'm tending toward Families First at the moment, as a means of expressing this feeling, and perhaps obtaining a better deal on those key issues by means of balance of power possibilities.

My position is as always, 'renewed people will make just about any system work' and only Christ can renew at the deepest level.

Boaz: "Teresa, if your Christian, I'd like to see more about Christ in your posts. Lets face it, HE is the only remedy for all the ills you have described"

Why should Teresa bang on about christ in her posts? Why do you always have to? Referring to christ all the time in an attempt to win an argument falls on deaf ears for those who either do not share your brand of faith or are less evangelical. It is possible to conduct a debate without the references to jesus - you give the impression that this is the only way you can make a point.

I take your point that you don't necessarily approve of Howard - but as Labor are just as capable of economic management (just ask the Reserve Bank) I believe your reasons for rejecting Labor is your fear of a softening on gay rights, detention of refugees and other 'bleeding heart' liberal ideologies.

Therefore, god does indeed appear to be working for howard, because despite the lies, broken promises and obfuscation you are less concerned about him than you are about a Labor fed gov.

Check out the truth about John Howard here http://johnhoward.blogspot.com/

Cheers dears

David You are the type of Christian who gives Christianity a bad name. You use your religion as a weapon against people in the service of your own prejudices and ideology.

Yes Xena, "dear" :) the issues you raised are of concern to me, if Labor was running the country.

I dont mention Jesus to 'win' an argument, I 'point' to Christ.

You seem to be of the view that 'new thinking' or 'new systems' will bring us some kind of social utopia :) -it wont. My point is that only renewed PEOPLE will. This is not an 'argument' it is a spiritual fact. But until you come into that experience, it's just 'my opinion' and I accept that. But given that this is 'on line OPINION' :) I think I'm on steady ground there.

I don't think simply mentioning Christ will do anything, but a relationship with Him will do everything. Xena, one of the sad lots of being a Christian is that we at times encounter those who happen to disagree with us, and, those who support. John the baptist came not eating or drinking and was described "He has a demon" ... Jesus came eating, and drinking, and was described as a 'glutton and a drunkard' so, its a no win situation. People will describe others in terms of their vested interest.

I prefer not to see this forum as a platform for either Labor or Liberal, but for people to explore new territory. Politically I currnetly favor Families First, having read up on some of their policies. I have no time for Greens or Democrats. I do have time for 'some' liberal and 'some' labor policies. I'm currently urging the libs and the FF mobs to 'green up' their own policies more.

So, what am I trying to 'win' here ? I hope its a better Australia.
And for me that does not include a 'gayer' or 'Abortive' or more 'liberal' country. So be it. I have a foundation and I'm sticking to it.

Xena, it appears to me that you are 'issues' centred, rather than 'principle' centred. Your principles such as they are, seem to relfect trendy atheistic philosophical views which can change with the next 'hot shot' popularist Philosopher. (correct me if I'm wrong there)

Thank you Molly, perfection is something I can never lay claim to and your continued rebukes are a reminder of this.

Would u care to show me an example of "my prejudice" which is not consistent with the teaching or example of Christ and the Apostles ?

If u can, I'll do my best to reflect on your words and seek to prayerfully correct my bad example.

blessings

David your atttiude toward the asylum seekers, is not consistent with the idea of Christ that most of us have. You maintain the attitude that this country would be better off without them and this is not a 'fact' at all unless you fear their religion will taint our culture. I am quite sure that it is your prejudice that drives this attitude, not your readings of the Scripture.

It is just as much factual to see them as the most enterprising and intelligent of their culture, who got off their arses and helped themselves (so that God would help them) to a better life and who would benefit our culture is the same way as other refugees with other religions (Itallian Catholics eg) benefited our culture when they came here.

New Zealand has found that their Tampa people are exemplary citizens.

You will not convince me by quoting any passages from the bible because I am convinced that I also understand Christ's message through my readings of other Christian commentators. I am not ignorant about Christianity.

I am also sure that you are prejudiced against homosexuality and it is not convincing for you to quote passages from the Bible that seem to say that homosexuality is an abomination and yet claim that the other abominations are mistranslations. That is just sooooo convenient, surely even you can see how ludicrous and dodgy it is and how much more logical and reasonable it is to see that you like so many men of your age are homophobic.

I could go on but it I think we need to agree to disagree. Okay?

BD: "it appears to me that you are 'issues' centred, rather than 'principle' centred. Your principles such as they are, seem to relfect trendy atheistic philosophical views which can change with the next 'hot shot' popularist Philosopher"

As I have stated in another forum I have direct experience with refugees and immigrants as a result of working as a housing officer for state government. I am not so naive nor 'trend driven' as U like to suggest. My principles are assaulted by your lack of humanity towards others plus the hypocrasy that you claim your view reflects christian values.

And there's nothing wrong with being an atheist - so that hardly constitutes debate, BD.

You support howard because of your fear of anything that isn't white hetero male oriented.

Interesting that "BOAZ-David" is so anti-Green. Given that he's let slip in these forums that he hasn't read their policies, this is clearly a case of "prejudice".

Funnily enough, a prominent Greens member I know was invited to give a talk at a Uniting Church last week, and the congregation there were keen to make links with the Greens because they perceive them as the only party with a clear and consistent ethical and moral position.

But then again, the Uniting Church is not known for its evangelistic zeal, and even welcomes gays and women priests.

David Boaz,

You'd like to see more "christ" in my posts. I think I have. Being "christian" is not about being "nice"...it's about seeking the truth (honesty), seeking justice, and what is right for people and society. Jesus wasn't "nice", he spoke the truth, often confronted leaders, and exposed hypocrisy. He loved deeply, and compassionately, and it's because he loved that he spoke the truth and sought to expose lies and wrong doing. Howard is a liar, is he not? It can be proved. He has lied about alot of things; children overboard, how much his government spent on post compulsory education, he lied about funding the Medicare Safety Net, he's lied about funding promises and the deregulation of the Australian University System, he lied about the GST, he misled the public over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But worst of all, his government collects record levels of taxation revenue and bugdet surpluses year after year, and fails to invest adequately in education and health, creating a national skills shortage, a shortage of doctors and nurses, educational class division (a rising gap between rich and poor) and poor literacy and numercacy of children in public education. Don't be blind David. As a christian teacher and writer, I have a responsibility to speak out, and I also have this right under sections 7 and 24 of the Australian constitution, which gives every Australian the democratic and constitutional right to freedom of speech. Or don't we live in a democracy anymore? Oh, that's right, we don't.

At the moment the militant Christian Right seems to have less direct political influence in Australia than it does in the United States. We can be thankful for that, but it scarcely matters. In fact the American Armageddonists directly influence Australia via the George Bush White House. John Howard does not have to believe in the Rapture, the Antichrist or any of that overheated nonsense -- it's enough for the American govenment to declare a quasi-Christian jihad against "terrorism", as in Iraq, for him to jump into line immediately. He cannot be reached by the argument that such blundering actions as the Iraq invasion increase, not decrease the terrorist threat.

In a total departure from my usual tone, I bring an episode of an old show "The Mavis Bramston Show" a political and social satire in its day.

They had a skit on the Prime Minister. The Aussie PM is on the phone to the US president. As they talk, Aussie PM mentions our foreign policy, then he is interrupted by the US president, and the next thing we here our PM say is "OH.. ok, you will send us a copy"

That should put a smile on the faces of those who always drool at the thought of seeing me defend Mr Howard and company.

Small nations, need alliances. Fact of life.

Young steve,

1/ could it not be said that entering WW2 against Germany 'increased the possibility of terrorism' ? yes, or no ?

2/ Was it the right thing to do at the time ?

Australia shouldn't be a "small nation". It should have a population of around 100 million people. Yes it does need allies, but it doesn't need to assist in starting wars. Neither current Liberal or Labor politicians have any vision; all they want to do is create trade deficit and foreign debt, keep the masses ignorant, and tax and work us to death. And yes, I have many solutions and vision of my own which I have written about and published, so I do offer alternatives rather than just complain. God Bless Australia.

Teresa.. 100 million ?

er.. when did you last check the condition of our water reserves ? and pay a water bill ?
we are ALready on stage 2 permanent water restrictions in Melbourne, Sydney is a water basket case, Perth is talking 'grandiose' schemes of canals, anyone who drinks Adelaide water needs good health insurance and you want to make our population 5 times what it is now ?

Time to turn ones thinking cap on and take all issues into consideration. Apart from our sustainability issue, I tend to agree with you though.

Its worth noting that the main point of Hansons ONE Nation immigration policy was 'population' and sustainability, not race as the left repeatedly howled.

It is heartening that Teresa has the monopoly on wisdom and can classify John Howard's behaviour in a singular sentence.The lie Teresa is in your tunnel vision of a world that is dynamic and changing,which shows no respect for your perfect concept of how reality should behave.
Judge not what politicians say,but look at the economic bounty they have produced,more money for social security than ever before,more prolonged prosperity than Labor has ever achieved in living memory,and still you bite the hand that feeds you;just like my ungreatful children at times.

I'm new to the forum, but I think Arjay makes a good point about experience living under/with the policies of the parties we are voting for. I'm interested Boaz, given your opinions on abortion, divorce and supporting Family First whether you are actually speaking as someone with experience in raising children or whether your opinions are based on a theoretical perspective? I'm not trying to discredit your opinion as I would agree with some of it (but not all!).
As someone with young children, while I believe that the Howard Government has let us down with Medicare, I have found some of his other policies have provided better support for families than what was previously available.
I think you'll also find that Christianity (in its many guises) has influenced all the major parties and Labor has shifted to the right as well. In fact in the last decade I think in many Western countries the majority have shifted to the right, I don't think Howard can lay claim to that conspiracy alone.

Sorry, I know the discussion has moved way past this point, but I forgot to mention that in support of Mollydukes 'fertilised egg' versus Boaz 'murder of life': If we are looking to the Bible as Boaz is want to do, My understanding is that under Old Testament 'eye for an eye' law, if a pregnant woman was murdered it was punishable by death but if the woman survived and only her unborn child was "killed" then it was not punishable by death - suggesting God made the distinction between a living person and an unborn fetus and that if an unborn fetus died it was not considered murder in God's eyes.

Arjay, "tick"

Teresa, we didn't start any war, we shared in the removal of a vicious and sadistic tryant and we are currently trying to quell the remnants of THAT legacy who seem to think they can STILL slaughter people at their whim, (52 shiites) Those people are not fighting for nationalist goals, they are fighting to regain lost privileges which were themselves based on oppression that should have shamed the world.

Ruthie,

your a breath of fresh air, I don't mind people disagreeing with me, I just prefer to not see 'slogan's being thrown at me as some tend to do.
You make some good points, and re Medicare, I concur totally, I feel the Coalition could and SHOULD do WAY more in this dept. Its for that kind of reason that my political interest is towards families first.
I do have children, 3, oldest 24, youngest 17.

We benefited from Labor's dental program, but the fluridation of the water seems to have done more to avoid costly visits to the doc, having only had ONE for the kids in all of their lives. Me, basket case when it comes to teeth.

Interesting point you made about the Old Testament and pregnant woman, I'll give that some thought and some research. By the way, I didn't mean to sound to strident and dogmatic in using the term 'murder' I was actually using it in a legal sense more than anything, just to give the correct legal term to the termination of an unborn baby 'if' one regards it as a human being.

Well observed about Labor also heading in the 'religious' direction.

One of my favorite passages from scripture is in II Chronicles 7.13

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, THEN, will I hear from heaven, and heal their land"

If ever there was a time when we needed to hear and live those words it is now. We need social healing, emotional healing, political healing, u name it, we need it.

blessings

Ruth,

The shame of the world is the state and history of Africa with it's war and famine and starvation, not Iraq or the Middle East. And you don't create freedom by fighting, you create it by loving, sacrificially, deeply and compassionately. This is what Christ did, and the call for us to do so, gives people, the world, hope. And Arjay, I don't bite the hand that feeds me, I'm a teacher, a worker, and tax-payer. You could say Howard bights my hand because he doesn't spend the taxs he collects off us in the best possible way. Labor wouldn't either and that's why I go with One Nation WA. And David you are right, their policies were essentially about "population and sustainability", not race. We don't have any water in Australia because as a nation we firstly, fail to pray (even many christians fail to pray), and secondly, current and previous political leaders have had and have little vision in this area. I support a larger population for Australia with the water sustainability that goes with it. It can be done with a proper plan for water conservation, channelling water from rivers, and decentralisation of the population away from cities with migration towards rural and regional centres. Everyone knows the country is a great place to raise a family. More Australians should do it. Imagine all the people in the world we could bless with a larger population.

Theresa, nice to see more of 'Him' :)

yes, I do agree we actually could sustain more, and in ways that you suggested, by developing some of the traditionally less hospitable areas, and more utilization of our vast interior.
Sadly, the capitalist system we are currently subject to does not allow many opportunities for creative small players as we see more and more small farms being swallowed up and corporatized so that 'scale' can make them more profitable.

I keep putting forward Christ as our source of values, because I'm constantly on about 'make-it-up-as-u-go'ism which invariably has to be the default approach of those outside of Christ. This is illustrated so clearly by the Bali drug bust. Some people are up in arms because our police made known the info to the Indo police who have capital punishment whereas we don't. So, 'who is right' ? "Is" anyone 'right' in this or is it just 'different laws'.. well of course, its the latter, but the 'MIUAUG' mob cannot accept that its just as valid as not having it. Only when we look to God for guidance on matters of law will we have enduring and valid values which don't allow the ruthless exploitation of the world in the name of 'share holder value'.

So, the Liberals could learn a lot from this, as can Labor, the Greens just are not on the scale as far as I'm concerned. It is no coincidence that Labor and the Democrats in the USA are playing more the "God card" because they have woken up to the fact that the Godless socialist utopia that the Lygon Street Lefties refer to does not exist outside Carlton.

No, "BOAZ-David", they are playing the 'god card' because they realise that a disproportionate number of the swinging voters, who can't decide between 'Tweedledum' and 'Tweedledee' at election time, are 'sheep' of the Christian 'flock'.

I note that you're bagging the Greens again with no substance at all to suuport your statements. Will you provide evidence derived from Greens policies to support your derision, or shall we conclude that this is just another example of your belligerent prejudice?

The fact that the major parties are trying to outdo each other in appeasing the lunatic fringe of Christianity is exactly what drives many of us to parties like the Greens, that actually have rational and sustainable policies and an ethical base that is not for sale.

Garra, comments like 'lunatic fringe' are not exactly conducive to you being taken seriously, and are more reflective of the mentality of the Greens which I DO have serious prejudice against, (guilty as charged). They are led be a homosexual, and that alone is enough for me to have no respect for them at all. They may have some policy initiatives which after realistic modification might even be helpful, but I question the foundation on which they exist, which appears to be an atheistice moral relativity, where Bob Brown will go screaming and yelling if you try to restrain the flood of XXX rated porn from ACT going to the rest of the states which have BANNED them. So, not only does the leader live a behavior which is abominable in Gods sight (no apology for that 'quote') he also insists that we be subject to the availability of pornography which is illegal to be sold in our states. (exCEPT via mail order from ACT) but I'm lobbying the Libs and others to put a stop to that quick smart when they have power in the senate.
Sorry Garra, no compromise on this stuff.

"BOAZ-David" may not identify himself as part of the Christian lunatic fringe, but his statements above certainly identify him as part of its homophobic and ignorant underbelly. Rather than lazily repeating erroneous scuttlebutt derived from the tabloid media or radio shock jocks, he could simply go to http://www.greens.org.au/ and acquaint himself with the actual policies of the Greens. However, I've noticed that "BOAZ" is not overly inclined to let facts interfere with his belief system.

With respect to his outrageously homophobic comments about Bob Brown, I suggest that anybody who would reject an entire political party and its policies on the basis of its leader's sexuality is the one with a credibility problem. Just as well there's no gays in the major parties, and no gay Christians, eh?

Garra.. not bad, almost up there with some of Pericles more insightful moments :) and literary flares.

I've looked at greens policies around the time of the last election.

But I'm flat out like a streamrolled lizard drinking now saving the national economy ... I like to think... so I can't go into too much detail.

As for my 'homophobic' blah blah.... its not a credibility problem to those who share my views and there are many !
Our values are enduring and based on Scripture, as Moses asked the people at Sinai "Choose this day who you will follow" Joshua among others said "As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord".

If you looked at the whole of what I said, I also mentioned Bob Browns defending of xxx rated Porn from the ACT. That is just a symptom of the deeper problem as I see it with them.

Anyway, keep up the 'smiting' of my views and me, it gives me good stimulation to think and reflect more, and I do hope that I become more Christlike as a result, heaven knows I need it.

blessings

Yes, i think I'm going to have to stick up for you now David. It is important to continue to put Christ's values forward. That's my point with Liberal and Labor. Actually, I quite like the values of Menzies, his freedoms, to speak, to worship, to be enterprising, etc. But I don't think Howard is like that. He stops his own politicians from speaking out, effectively reducing their right to freedom of speech. I don't like that. You know, Labor has many shared 'christian' values in its vision and mission (fairness, equality, compassion), and Labor used to be strongly grounded in catholicism, but unfortunately they've forgotten their 'christian base and foundation', but I sense that's coming back. I like One Nation and Family First, the Nationals are o.k, but Howards leash at the moment. On the Gay issue people, I think too many christians are not 'drawing' these people to Christ by their criticisms. People are drawn by the love and compassion of Christ, and remember Jesus died for the outcasts. So in that sense, it is precisely the people too many christians criticise, that Christ wants us most to love. Until next time, from WA.

Hi Teresa.
yes, your support is welcome. What u say about the shared Christian values in both parties is indeed true, and also about them having lost their way somewhat from those roots.

As with most things of a popular/large nature, there are always interests which seek to exploit and hijack them for their own agenda's and in this lies many of the ills of politics today.

On the gay issues, yes, some of us tend to be rather vociforous in our comments, I try to restrict mine to the fundamental issue and to directing my spleen against the organized politicized aspects of that movement rather than at the indivuduals, though I have little time for the likes of Bob Brown who seems to see it as his personal mission in life to advance homsexual issues in complete disregard for community feeling. I am adamantly against the sneaky revision of our childrens outlook by such examples as the Play school "My 2 mums" example. Its brainwashing or conditioning whichever way one looks at it, either 'ours' or 'theirs'..and I'd prefer ours :)

Have a nice day.

One thing that has got lost in these posts is the point that Maddox (and later Mooney) makes about the influence of the right wing think tanks such as the Centre for Independent Studies. In this context Kevin Andrew's piece in Onlineopinion 27.4.05 is revealing in that he draws heavily on the Hughes and Warin paper from the CIS mentioned in this review but does not cite that as a reference. Why not one wonders? Who is funding the right wing think tanks who are driving government policy? Is it not time we the public had access to this information?

Some sections of the gay community definitely overplay their hand, but I don't judge all gays by the behaviour of an extremely visible few. Most gay people are like most straight people, and as some alluded earlier, there is a fair number of gay Christians as well. I've come to know a few since getting to uni, and they are amazing people who have been real friends to me at times when I've needed them.

I was an enthusiastic Christian in my childhood and youth, attending a church which is now a strong supporter of the Family First movement. I grew up in a bubble basically. However, I ended up disgusted by the hypocrisy of its followers. For example, pastors who use scriptures about "robbing God" to guilt people into giving money so they can buy their Ferraris and fund legal cases against anyone who suggests anyone in their church is a sexual abuser of children. They say gay people are abominable, yet they tolerate child abuse as "an honest mistake" (I've actually heard those words used more than once). I as a 15-year-old was told that I was to blame for some 40+ psycho who nearly destroyed my family - one who was introduced to us by the church, no less - because if I'd "had more faith" this person would never have come after me. We were thought of as sinful and cut off from the church for this.

In reading the Bible years after I left, I learned that the way I'd been taught the Bible was very disjointed, designed to promote the church's beliefs rather than to promote the word of God. While I have BIG problems with the notion of this book, decided on by a council of men allegedly guided by God, being the "Word of God", I have found a lot of wisdom in it, particularly in the words and actions of Jesus, and believe that his true message was one of generosity of spirit, tolerance and of helping your fellow man - one which I have tried to follow myself.

Order
very honest and open. Good on you !
Yours is not an isolated experience, (and fortunately it is not the typical christian experience)

and it is one reason why I myself went straight to the Bible when God began grabbing hold of my life in my early/mid 20s. I saw all the same things as you, my former sunday school teacher would go home and indulge in some domestic violence against his poor wife !

But the one thing I found in all of this, was JESUS has no connection with wierd behavior by so called Christians. I've seen crazy things happen, and if I shared some of them with you I'm sure ur ears would tingle. But I knew deep inside all along, that being Christian is about my relationship with Christ and that Christ is trustworthy and unfailing and wonderful, as God in the flesh no less. If you look, you WILL find those with whom you can have confident and fulfilling fellowship.

I was trying to put a handle on your former tradition (denomination) and it sounded either like Jehovah's witnesses or Charistmatics.
In the Charo's I've seen some of what you described, but I've also found nuggets of spiritual gold.

I want to encourage you to re-think your current position, perhaps read some background to the various councils which seem to trouble you confidence in scripture, and most of all, seek Jesus.

Order-In Chaos

I like your piece of writing. There's nothing wrong with the book (bible), only the people who interpret it, and read it. No one's perfect, except Jesus, and some of the issues you raised, especially regarding sexual abuse, and gays, are really valid comments. Jesus abhorred people who sexually abuse others, especially children; he related the seriousness of it to being better for that person if a rock is slung around their neck and thrown into a river. "Sinning" against children is very evil, a very serious crime in the "eyes of Christ". A christian is primarily called to two things; loving God, and loving neighbour. In regards to gay people, alot of christians hate rather than love. This is what I call, "conditional love." Their premise appears to be, "if you change, then I'll love you." This is not how Jesus works. He says, my child I love you, I love you, I love you, and I will never leave you. Blessings.
Teresa