OPinionated

I tend to agree, about Jesus. What would he do ? Lets explore this...

For one thing. "Give to Caesar that which is Caesars" when asked about Jews (The invaded) paying Taxes to Caesar (the Invader)

I think Jesus wished to avoid being dragged into specific human political squabbles, and with good reason.

Nothing would have been solved.

He came to renew hearts.. by forgiving sin, and giving His Spirit to dwell with us after he ascended to heaven.

Clearly his approach to human affairs had merit for within a short while Paul could say in one of his letters "Those of Caesars household greet you"

Here we see the beautiful transformation of a whole society, as individuals come to know God through Christ. Ultimately the kingdom of God will be fulfilled only with the return of Jesus, and what a day that will be !

"I am crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" said Paul. (Gal 2:20)

I sympathize with the Indigenous on the 'date' of Australia day.
Perhaps we can have 2 celebrations ? Its a difficult one. I don't have any problem with changing it myself, but then, there are those who realize that 'this' Australia as a nation is only as it is due to the coming of the 'invaders', not that they would see it like that. (but I do)

Why not explore more of Christs teaching, and see what you come up with on this subject. How about "The meek shall inherit the earth" :)

Peace be unto you David (John 20:19-29 & Luke 24:33-48) ... well it looks like I will inheret the Earth...Ha!

On Caeser .... he told them to pay their taxes... I can't recall him ever saying and let them take everything you own.

Plus somewhere in the book (OK Exodus 20:13) it says "Thou shalt not commit murder" Were murders committed when the Brits took Australia?

Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal" Can you steal land?

Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house ......... or anything that is your neighbor's." Once the first fleet landed weren't the aborigines then neighboours so the land was theirs. All us whiteys did was covet!

Of course Exodus 22:1-4 also provides a solution. OOps a few Christian Aussies just fainted.

Then of course there is the false British law of "terra nullius" - the first thing Captain Cook did when he landed at Botany Bay was to order one of his men to shoot an aborigine. So the Brits already knew that terra nullius was a load of bunkem. It was an illegal law. Can an illegal law be used to dispossess people? Yep!

But back to the topic at hand...

I'm against celebrating Australia Day on two days... As a white Aussie I am prepared to give up January 26 for my aboriginal brothers as a gesture of reconcilliation and to help me to assimilate with them. See again we expect people to assimilate with us Aussies but did we assimilate when we came here? No we just took the lot. So as a Christian Nation under Mabo shouldn't Matthew 5:40 apply.

This Jesus was a troublesome character... he wanted people to be just, fair, honest and forgiving! Perhaps most Christians are really the seed mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 13:20-22 but just don't realise it.

I will also continue to defend the burning of the Aussie flag as a peaceful form of protest and I will happily accept the dropping of the Union Jack from the flag at some future date.

Amen

oninionated, I get very defensive when I hear poor old Aussies continually made a scape goat for other's misdeeds. I react with all talons showing but it wasn't the Aussies who took possession of this land. It was Britain, the same Britain that 200 years ago would have been treating my Irish anscestors very roughly indeed.
The part white children were taken from Aboriginal mothers with good intentions for that time, partly because half caste babies were not safe in tribal families and to give them some sort of education and training. The good intentions were sometimes wrong and sometimes right. But the whole thing has been worked over into an industry where the right bit has been air brushed out and only the wrong bit emphasised.
I hope that now ALL aboriginal children will be given education,health and attitudes that will see them take their proper place as Australians. It will take an enormous effort but it is what they deserve. And I hope I see it before I die.

Yes, but you and other Aussies benefited intergenerationally from British possession and the distribution of the wealth that it created.

Land tenure and economic development did not fall off a tree yesterday.

Acknowledge you have unearned privilege and that this privilege was rationalised on the basis of white race privilege. Mystifying the origins of this privilege by reference to feelings of contemporary egalitarianism and a desire for equality (without actually doing anything about it) doesn't make it all disappear.

Before I note something about the flag, I'd like to take a swipe at the accusation of "unearned privilege". Surely the generations of Australians whose blood, sweat and tears have worked the land and made it productive have earned some of their current privilege?

There are three basic things to note about one flag.

1. The heritage of our state's structure and institutions is represented by the Union Jack, which is in itself a symbol for the moderated government, a balance between democracy and unelected (but still appointed) meritocracy, the basics of social structure and our reliance on the traditions of parliament, the common law, and a Christian, European culture. Note that even Aboriginal activists trying to obtain title through the courts rely on the existance of this tradition in order to obtain any at all. Most other systems would have no mecahanisms through which the issue could be addressed. Most importantly, it represents the Queen, who represents all of the above.

2. The six-point star (which became the seven point star) represents our federation of the six states (with the seventh point representing the territories). This explains our federal structure, our commitment to pragmatism of the ideologies (such as "one man one vote"), opting for a tradition of moderation and collaboration between the various members of our land.

(Continued below...)

3. The Southern Cross in the 'fly' indicates the sentiment of the Australian nation... looking above to a bright, new light in the southern sky. These stars are unseen from England, rendering our perspective on the world both independant and nuanced, as well as our character and our exploits as inherantly different from the British. This southern cross represents not "whiteness" but rather the idea that whosoever of the many groups that are in the land of the southern cross lives here becomes part of this tradition.

The question is this. Such a balanced understanding of tradition, authority and the novelty of a new nation: why should it be wiped away? Above are the sentiments of 1901, and they are as applicable now as they were then. Aboriginal people living in Australia are Australians, they live in a nation with the British tradition (a tradition which grants them some native title via the common law), in a federation of states and territories, and are part of a unique view of themselves and the world inspired by living in the land of the southern cross. Surely, the destruction of this symbol is not what Aborigines need. To be able to come to grips with this current situation as expressed by the Australian flag will bear the fruits of the improvement of the lot of Aboriginal Australia. To deny it will hinder, not help, any progress.