If there really was a god, surely he, she or it would not inflict a wet, mouthy sonk like Rudd on us.

Chasing after the Christian vote is a massive mistake. Christianity like Islam is based on exclusionism, prejudice, dishonesty, superstition and a strong ‘power over others’ ‘imperative. Invasion of private lives such as who can or can not get married or what constitutes a real family, or banning stem cell research are motivated out of blind hatred and prejudice.

It appears Kevin Rudd recognises the extreme and dire peril that John Howard’s pandering to religious groups has put Australia in. Rudd appears to seek to de-radicalise Christianity which is increasingly becoming a cult which has put itself on the same trajectory as Islamic fundamentalists. It simply won’t work.

The religious mind is intensely internalised and self traumatising in a paranoid focus on salvation, the death event. The superstition of God means there are no such things as accidents, only punishments. To worship God is to be Gods chosen; Gods chosen are god’s agents. God does not act or speak or think for himself, it is his agents that are delegated that power. God guides them through signs from anything from a simple feeling to not being on the other side of the world during an earthquake, or a dead bird on the lawn.

The Liberal party are aware of this and have worked on becoming Gods chosen. This made obvious by the trawling of sectarian cults by both Howard and Costello and Abbott’s blundering attempt to set up a theocracy by stealth.

Rudd won’t be able to convince Christians to come on side. God hates Labour. Many Church goers see Howard as a quasi Messiah and won’t hear criticism of their new king.

Fortunately for Australia Christianity is still in decline and god being a figment of the imagination is fickle. Fundamentalism responds well to medication.

Rudd should focus on the growing sectors of Australians – the working poor. Rudd should also become stronger on climate change which now our farmers are the first victims of. Well Being of Australians is Howard’s glaring weak point. Australians have not had someone to bat for them for such a long time.

Onya leigh :)

TOPIC
“Christianity, must always take the side of the marginalised, the vulnerable and the oppressed”

YES with the notable exception of....

-Marginalized due to immoral or sinful life choices.
-Vulnerable because of the above
-Oppressed because they wish to violently overthrow the state.

Todays 'marginalized' can often be tomorrows tyrants.

But the GENuinely marginalized such as

-disposessed Aboriginals
-Economically exploited poor
-Legal migrants who are used infairly.
-Cronulla residents who are told 'its our beach' by Middle Eastern so called Australians.

Aah.. yes.. compassion with huge muscles for them.

Todays "all encompassing" bleeding heart is tomorows dispossessed, downtrodden dhimmi.

Human Compassion SHOULD be selective. It is not compassion to help those who would (and seek to )disposses, oppress, or culturally alienate you in your own home, it is stupidity.

Those who are of this ilk can be recognized by their actions.

"Christian"....compassion ? Red Cross ... treating the unrepentant wounded Nazi the same as the oppressed Jew ? Do we fix a bloke up so he can continue to commit mass murder ? Maybe we need to re-think that one. I sure struggle with it.

The rise of Family first is largely because LAbour and Liberal are both weak on moral issues. The one thing I agree with West on is that chasing after the Christian vote is a mistake. To stand up as a Christian and identify with Christ is a different matter. This is extremely difficult when belonging to parties whose policies undermine your basic beliefs. The Christians I know are becoming more aware of what is happening in politics. To say you are for human rights and then condone abortion is straight out hyprocrisy. Standing up as a Christian is more likely to lose you votes than gain them. Just look at Fred Nile who has had urine thrown at him, been spat upon and constantly mocked by the strong vocal homosexual lobby.

Whenever I have heard Mr Rudd speak about his faith it is always in the context of our social responsibiltiy as if somehow those who are of the right have no compassion, do no good works and are all full of greed. The truth is that being opposed to abortion and wanting to promote healthy families does not exclude you from giving to the poor and serving others. Mother Theresa was a strong opponent to abortion and yet only the blind would deny the good works she did.

Mr Rudd will need to do a lot more than try and persuade me that his view of Christianity leads to a more just society. I am amazed that when being interviewed that most journalist are not prepared to dig deep enough with those claiming to be Christians as to what makes them Christian.

I believe many people are not overly impressed by the Liberal party either. They do however have men like John Anderson is is unashamed to identify with Christ and the bible as God's Word. Some others in the Liberal party are quite evasive about their beliefs. After 10 years of Liberal Government TV is no more family friendly, abortion rates are still astronomical and divorce rates have not improved. May God have mercy on our nation.

Ya know,

West i think you may have it all wrong. The anti-christ critique you gave is majorly esoteric, and would be better suited to the bayous of Americas old and deep south. Just where in Australia could you apply practical anti-christianism?

You cant. And that dont indicate or validate your remarks, i reckon. It simply indicates that God and Australia are comfortable with each-other. To suggest otherwise is leaning toward un-aussiism of the individual. And you would never be able to apply that anywhere accept in the CBD's and their environs.

But i agree that Howard might have let down Mr & Mrs average, but that was done in order to pay off Labors political debt to the world. So, you are correct, God hates Labor (ha).

Now Ruddd on the other hand is different. He is caught between his religious beleif and the good life, and the anti-christs of the Autocratic Council of Totalitarian Underdogs. The poor things are so enraged, its all they can do is christian bash and pick on other minoritys and loose individuals.

Just hope that when Labor lands the job of commander in cheif, Rudd will speak for the little people.

runner

John Anderson is a National Party member, not a Liberal Party member. You could call him a conservative but not a liberal.

Anyone who can get to where Kevin Rudd is now must have some brains. Son of a farmer (and Member of the Country Party) his dad died when he was 11. He went to Nambour High School (hardly a hotbed of socialism).

He is a skilled politican and will lead the Labor Party one day remember he is only 48 years old and has decades to press his claims. At least he isn't a recycled union hack.

I guess the article and postings all go to illustrate the wisdom of separating Church and State. In my view politicans are there to deliver decisions for the "common good" not to impose their personal morality. Christian politicans need to be clear on their role. Society regulates many activities that Christians find morally repugnant - legal drugs, the sex industry, pornography, gambling, pregnancy termination, etc.

While not necessarily accepting or endorsing a particular behaviour Christians politicans particularly since the 60's have realised they are regulating to contain the excesses of society. Lately political leaders on both sides seem to want to change the equation because of the perception that Australian society is becoming more conservative - certainly they are becoming narrower in their concerns - mortgage, family, kids education, safety, health.

In spite of the growing antagonism towards anyone who has a firm belief in anything; somewhere, sometime there must be some standards set by someone. Christians say that standard is set externally. If there is not some standard, who can proclaim that murder is wrong or pedeophilia or rape or fraud or genocide? On the other hand is there anyone or any society that accepts these crimes? Without a system of rules and deterants only Might would be right. Without some standard why shouldn't I be free to choose. If same-sex marriage was accepted why shouldn't I be able to marry my sister - what's makes the situation different? Why should there be laws against insider trading? etc

We are moral beings whether or not they are Christian morals or some personal construct that is the product of family, education, experience, philosophy and sometimes we fail to keep it or we have to change it to excuse or justify our behaviour.

Most of us agree on the basics for society. Its a question of finding the 'common good' and the establishing the balance that gives the individual the moral freedom of choice without them being labeled a criminal or society becoming libertine. With freedom must come responsibility.

Religion and politics don't mix and shouldn't be mixed.

Politics relies on compromise to work and religion does not allow for this.

Take GWB's personal dilemma during his early months of office.
There was a man charged with blowing up an abortion clinic and killing a couple of people.
He fled to Ireland and the USA had to request his extradition back home to face charges.
Because the murder was carried out in a State that enforces the death penalty, Bush had to decide whether to sign the extradition papers to bring the accused back home to face almost certain death, or appease his fundamentalist supporters and allow him to go free.

A problem like this would not generally occur in a non-secular State.

Further (as illustrated by some of the posts above), religion enforces a "them and us" mentality and is, by definition, exclusive and intolerant of the needs of unbelievers, despite any intentions or lip-service to the contrary.

The more devout and self-righteous, the less tolerant and compassionate people become.

Don't worry though Kevin, Jesus would be more likely to vote Labor than Liberal and probably wouldn't buy T3 shares either.

Rudd is weak on homosexuality. If he is a Christian he should be CONDEMNING IT. The Bible is very clear on men who have sexual relations with other men (Leviticus 87:78). It declares the act a crime punishable by death. It's all very well to talk about the poor and oppressed but Jesus said their will always be poor people. He didn't say anything about homosexuality because he lied in a time before the depraved decided to speak out about their 'opression'. Rudd is not a christian. He is a socialist who is trying to get christians to vote for him by guilt-tripping them about homeless people and infidel refugees. It's time to smell the roast ham everyone. The end is near.

What does Leviticus say about roast ham, Andrew?

Pigster

Get it right it was Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13. Better not be wearing poly cotton jocks either.

Sorry Boazy I know this is your area of expertise, just couldn't help myself.

Kevin Rudd has been "booted" from Question time, maybe God is listening to Mr Piggy.

Just can't work out the point of the article. So Kevin Rudd isn't ideal? Imagine the conservative uproar if he said Labour would formalise samesex marriages

I say give Rudd the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Howard neutralised One Nation by adopting their policies. Rudd is trying a similar trick on Family First. He’s attempting to annex the compassionate-christian space for Labor.

It is possible that he’s trying to do so without raising all the red-flag issues at once, that he’s looking for support on the safer issues before taking a clear position on the ones that get the christian right into a lather.

Compassion is a great card for Rudd to play. It doesn’t place him in conflict with Beazley, but it does go to the Coalition’s weak point, as we saw when Howard got rolled on refugee rights.

There will be plenty of time for Rudd to reveal the depth of his compassion. For the time being, I think the comment that, “there is no evidence of Jesus of Nazareth expressly preaching against homosexuality” can be taken as an indication that with respect to queer Australians, he is more benign than malignant.

I'll gladly put up with Rudd any day. In fact I'd rather listen to him than to open up every article discussion to discover Leigh has already snuck in and left us one of his malodorous defecations.

Kevin Rudd. Is very astute in his essay, he has sussed out the religous rights political strategy. Accordingly Kevin Rudd has moved in, to make his own mark of the religous rights political manipulation by stealth!

eg: The Exclusive Brethren, don't vote, don't socialise outside their sect, have their own schools for their own ,have charitable status without a charity policy, Yet have access to the Prime minister of Australia.

Putting aside the new religous political party. The fair go Aussie comment, sounds quite hollow.

I think putting up with Rudd is not preferable. One lesson we must learn from both the Howard regime and the Bush regime is Christians make terrible politicians. The hallmark Christian values of lies, deceit, persecution, marginalisation, vilification, manipulation, coercion, and exclusion seep into the political arena. If Rudd is so superstitious as to believe in god he is not fit for the job as a representative of the people. We need people that work for the nation not pray to childish idols in the hope to evoke a magical being to make things better.

If I voted for people and not policy there are a few I'd vote for in the ALP.

Unfortunately the hypocritical, disingenuous Mr Rudd isn't one of them.

BD,

Im truly astounded about your comments of compassion being selective, for someone like yourself who takes your faith so seriously, that comment just dosn't compute.

Wasn't Christ's last prayer for his killers?

You don't have to be compassionate, plenty of people on this forum will admit they are not, I'm not, I hate people sometimes. But you can't preach the word of Christ all day and then say that compassion is selective.

Isn't the very idea of compassion is that it applies to EVERYONE?

I'm no theologian, but isn't that the basic overall message of the bible?

Hey,
Don't want to agree or disagree with anyone in this forum, but wanted to put in my 2 cents worth about the Old Testament.
Heard a great sermon on Sunday about The New Testament interpreting the Old Testament for Christians. I.e. the principles of the OT still stand but you should read them through NT.

So in the Torah it talks a lot about animal sacrifice. Can't remember the last time I saw animal sacrifice at a church service. That's because Jesus is expressly stated in the Gospels and elsewhere in the Bible as the "Lamb of God" (who takes away the sins of the world). So the idea of the sacrifical lamb remains, its just not a literal animal anymore.

People talk about the Sabbath- which is expressly stated as a Commandment. But Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath. Also, in Romans, Paul talks about some people considering one day especially holy, and others considering every day holy. What is important is that every man has his own conscience about it, and respects each other's decision. (I.e. if you want to be a SDA and keep Saturday as the Sabbath, cool, if not, cool too. Just respect each other.)

In regards to sexuality, Jesus was talking to 1st Century Jewish people who had the Old Testament as their guide on what constituted sexual morality (no fornication, adultery, beastiality, homosexuality, rape or incest). When he spoke about sexual sins (and when other writers in the NT spoke about sexual sins) there was no abrogation of any of the above. They all still stand as sin in God's eyes.

Some will then say, should adulterers/homosexuals/etc. be under the death penalty? In response to that, one Christian friend of mine said "actually we're all under the [eternal] death penalty... that's why we needed Jesus to save us." But I think a clear NT interpretation would be found in the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus said to the people who wanted to stone her "you who are without sin, be the first to cast a stone". The elderly left first (perhaps more in tune with their sinfulness?) but eventually everyone left but Jesus. "Where are you condemners?" He asked. "They have gone" she said. "Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."

The point I'm arguing is that the Christian view of immoral sexual behaviour should be to define it as the OT did, as was supported through the NT, however to "punish" it in the same way Jesus did- to forgive the person and exhort them to "leave their life of sin."

Now if you're a non-Christian you probably couldn't care less about Christians telling you to "leave your life of sin". However, you must understand that this principle, when coming from a spirit of gentleness and love as Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery, is not in itself homophobia. I would of course however argue, that those Aussies who hate and would violently attack homosexuals on the basis of their homosexuality are homophobic.

I hope that's helped to clarify some aspects of the conservative Christian voice on this issue.

PS from Carol. Have retrospectively discovered that Rodney Croome made some very similar points to those in my article in his blog, see http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2271_0_1_0_C

If Rudd is the future of Labor, heaven help us!

The Greens look better and better all the time...

I happen to agree, to an extent, with the conclusion reached at the end of this post. The culture wars are not the media smoke screen that many say we would do well to ignore in our pursuit of more important matters.

In an age of almost inevitable economic prosperity, where natural resources and a borrowing against equity rather than any real economic development leverage the economy, the culture wars are the predominant field of battle.

Interest rates and inflation have only recently been resurrected from the issue graveyard. Howard and the coalition have consistently been winning skirmishes by identifying and playing on who we think we are and who we suspect could be against us.

Federal politics has, in the last decade, been the meeting point for global trends and events and oppositional weakness. State politics has seen an almost identical situation – non-existent or ineffectual oppositions unable to capitalise on gross mismanagement.

Kevin Rudd could be one of the few labour politicians able to compete with his coalition counterparts. His choice of subjects could be an affirmation that he has not disregarded the culture wars altogether as an important arena of intellectual contest, but his other comments that the culture wars are a “clever wedge”, if not currently accurate, could soon hit the mark.

The economic and geopolitical game is quickly approaching a precipice that won’t be flashes in the pan like detention centres or Tampa or even AWB – to exclude the outsider and to forgive agriculture in this country almost anything because it is somehow Australian has a long history.

I suspect we will soon see a global maelstrom that is not new or unique or cataclysmic, but it will definitely remind us that our memories become a little too short during periods of economic prosperity.

Of course it’s homophobia, YNLI.

All kinds of things which were not acceptable in the old testament are now OK for christians, such as eating shellfish, and sex during menstruation. All kinds of difference are accommodated in the christian religions – left-handedness, red hair and racial differences are a few examples. However the christian religions have decided arbitrarily to retain intolerance of just one difference – sexuality.

Young people growing up in a church who find they are attracted to the same sex, discover at the same time the christian value of loving one’s neighbour doesn’t extend to them. Typically they are forced out of their community of faith, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4664 Often they are required to make a choice between their (god-given) sexuality and their religion, their social networks and sometimes their livelihoods.

Yes, bashing and abusing same-sex-attracted people is homophobia. However the reason this happens is because you and others think that one rule for straight people and another rule for gays is OK. This is the foundation of homophobia, the justification that simple-minded bigots with baseball bats use for going after gays.

All of us are damaged by the existence of homophobia among us, and just because you’re not wielding a bat yourself doesn’t relieve you of complicity in the crime.

Dear Carl
I guess I should have specifically stated regarding 'compassion should be selective' that I mean this on a government/policy level, rather than personal. Thanx for pointing that out.

Government policy causes all kinds of anguish... not just in the area of assylum seekers, but in industrial relations, economic policy, trade policy etc.
I myself am a victim of discriminatory and to my mind GREED based trade policy. I heard on TV last night some whining farmers who heard the suggestion that they should leave the land saying :"But what will we DO...this is all we know"... haha.. words which I have almost SHOUTED at Mark Veil (actually I have..but only in capital letters in an email) when I accused him of 'selective' benefits to the agricultural/mining interests at the expense of manufacturing regarding Tarrifs on Chinese manufactured goods.

As to whether the ultimate 'national interest' is better served by digging stuff out of the ground, (which won't ever be replaced) or by encouraging manufacturing remains to be seen, but of one thing you can be sure.."its selective" :)

This also relates to the practical expression of Christian principles in government. i.e. the topic.

Jesus drove the 'opportunistic traders' from the Temple.. "whip whip...get OUT of here you..." and I wonder if there is not a dangling whip from the sky over our Trade Ministers office :)

"W" has one good point... I think Labor/Rudd IS seeking to undermine FF by stealing their policies. But on same sex marraige.. never never never as far as I'm concerned. W, you can call my homophobic on steroids+Turbo.. it won't change that position.

Rudd is demonstrating how 'Church and State' SHOULD be related. Politicians are sensing the community mood..and acting on it.
That dear brethren and sisters is Democracy :)

STEVE... thanx, piggy needed that poke on accuracy. Now.. I refer YOU to John 3 :) the whole chapter..
cheers all

YngNLuvnIt

Im not sure what sector of society your comments might represent, and i am a little confused about your thesis.

However, i would like to say this; i know that the Left wing of Aus culture are attempting to feralise sexuality.There are several advantages to such a pogrom.

For example, in time if socialism became the dominant paradigm, dudes who are strong would have a greater selection of female aquaintances. Thus a greater sex pool can be grabbed. I harken my mind back to Mad Max 1 + 2.

But that is a mass digression from the days of Jesus, to which you were refering. I am certain that sin and sex go together, or it woudn be much fun. I am also certain that the sin of sex is not the deep and despised scenario which you are attempting to put across.

Sin -as in the Bible- is often symbolic. As we all know we have genital bits, so logic details that they are there for purposes. So i woudn't be shy of using it/them. Symbolic sin of the sexual kind would probably really matter as a comparitive only on the judges day, leaving us free to live a sinless life in the meantime.

The choice is yours, and I hope that gives an alternative point.

Carol

How does the ages-old notion of marriage "discriminate" against gays? Marriage is far from a mere contract or legal idea. It is the most important civil institution in our society whose purpose is to provide a stable environment for the raising of our entire society while we are young. There is nothing to be gained by diluting the institution to merely "people who might have a crush on each other at the moment."

By all means let the gays have their committment ceremonies, etc. but gay marriage is a contradiction in terms which would all do well to continue to reject.

Glad to see someone knows their Bible a bit. Sure it's not Leviticus chapter 88. I don't think there is a Leviticus chapter 88. Are we prohibited from smelling Roast Pork or just eating it? Who cares? Is God listening to me? I really don't think so.

I posted an obviously moronic diatribe and you dignified it with a response. Amazing.

Take a look at the Hubble telescope pix of a myriad of smudges; distant galaxies all of them. Each one containing vast quantities of stars and planets. Do you think a 'being' who created all that can be understood by us? Or that such an entity gives a toss what we monkeys do to get happy? I really don't think so.

What's the Bible's favourite metaphor: a flock of sheep? We ain't sheep but an awful lot of us want to be. Kevvy Rudd's just taking advantage to get elected. And the over-happy Jesus-loves-me twit who pollutes Sunday mornings; just his way of getting rich. Just the usual bunch of weaklings who can't face life's essential and brutal truths, (ie all of us). I use drugs myself.

Rudd wants to be PM. The ALP's the place for people who seek power and don't fit into the Libs. Some of them have a conscience but it doesn't amount to much by way of results. Kevvie's one of that new ALP breed of technocrats, (God I wish I knew where they were breeding them). They've all got the same suit and haircut; well studied in the arts of numbers-getting. He'll strongly support the considered argument implied by opinion poll trends. But he won't change the world.

Interesting statements are being made by artists world wide on the recent rise of the new right in Europe. One this is the music video Example: Laibach - Across The Universe. Eastern Europe knows that storm clouds are coming from the right. In this spooky music video, we see arian brown shirted kids sing and dance in the famous John Lennon Song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTGwIwwguo

This could have been inspired by the famous US film: "Pleasantville" using the same song. The connotation of puritanical misunderstanding leading to violence, as shown in the film "Pleasanville". Puritism starts in innocence but ends in ugly violence. Across the Universe was sung by Fiona Apple in this version. We wonder in the vastness of the universe, how infantile humans behave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gLWTtlMwo4

The arts community internationally know exactly what is going on. The rest of you are either in denial, slow to catch on, or are seduced by puritanical ways.

This is really getting ominous and creepy. Watch these music videos I have linked for you.

Someone is trying to say something very important.

Incisive as usual Leigh - what economy of words - and BD, your qualified compassion knows no bounds. - I shall read Rudds article - once informed I shall comment further. In the mean time I shall exit this discusison

W,

Doesn't homophobia mean fear of homosexuals? If you think someone is scared why aren't you more gentle? Aren't you worried about making them even more scared?

"Young people ... christian value of loving one’s neighbour doesn’t extend to them."

Are you sure that you aren't overgeneralizing?

I think you would agree that there is a view in many churches that homosexual behaviour is sinning and I think that is the type of church you are referring to. I acknowledge that you apparently strongly believe that to be theologically incorrect.

Nevertheless does that mean that people with that view won't follow the general principles of loving one's neighbour when dealing with someone attracted to the opposite sex? Do you think that they would hunt them down and beat them up? Do you think that they would deny them food when they are hungry because of their homosexual feelings? Do you think that they would deny them shelter because of their feelings? You may not agree with their theological view but the mainstream Christian view is that they should be extended love in that situation.

"Typically they are forced out of their community of faith,"

Do they go quietly? The visible ones seem to drop those feelings and develop an attraction for the opposite sex. I am not suggesting that the ones I have been aware of are the only examples or even typical. I am just saying that your ones don't seem very visible. Perhaps they should let others know of their problems. Perhaps their fears about the reactions of their peers might be unrealistic.

"Yes, bashing and abusing same-sex-attracted people is homophobia."

Fear of homosexuals?

"However the reason this happens is because you and others think that one rule for straight people and another rule for gays is OK."

Do you think that any discrimination relating to a group of people results in them being beaten up? For example if children are not allowed to drive a car people will hate them and beat them up? Do you think that the Christian belief that someone should not commit adultery makes people hate married people or even married people who feel an attraction to someone other than their spouse?

"This is the foundation of homophobia, the justification that simple-minded bigots with baseball bats use for going after gays."

That is plainly incorrect if referring specifically to Christians. That is totally out of whack with Christian beliefs. You seem to be trying to lay an unrealistic guilt trip on people because you disagree with their theology.

Even for negativity toward homosexual behaviour generally your argument is no less a leap of logic than the thugs use in justifying their cruelty.

"... just because you’re not wielding a bat yourself doesn’t relieve you of complicity in the crime."

Hate is not a logical extension of the belief that homosexuality is wrong. If anyone used that as an excuse it would be no more than an excuse.

That said the benefit to the homosexual of the Christian discrimination with regard to homosexuals is that Christianity can never be used as an excuse to beat up homosexuals. If people are going to consider homosexuality wrong homosexuals would be far better having them all convert to Christianity so that the belief can't be used as an excuse.

The occult idol of Jesus represents exclusion and bigotry. The bottom line is what do Christians believe happens to non-believers? Yes Christians have always claimed they hold moral values, even while they were throwing little children onto pyres accusing them of witchcraft. The only values universal amongst Christians is bigotry and exclusionism. Again what do Christians believe happens to non-believers?

It is no coincidence that in Australia the more morally corrupt and policy incompetent and more dictatorial the politician the more overtly Christian they are. Mainstream parties aside, fringe cult based parties such as Family First have done far more damage in division and accusation to Australia in short time spans than 200 years of homosexuality.

Christianity and Jesus is morally repugnant but I as a person holding no superstitious beliefs do not call for Christianity to be banned and that is the difference. Perhaps if Christians gave up the lie that they hold good morals and tried to heal their hatred of others. The hatred is obviously out of frustration that god does not exist and Christians are not immortal. Stop peering into gay and defacto windows like a bunch of perverted brown shirts and keep the worship of their beloved idols to themselves. Gays and defacto’s ect don’t advertise on TV so who cares what they do? Christians get over it. Look at your selves, the worship of Jesus is homoerotic is it not? If not- how not?

The correct term in reference to "brown-shirts" and Christian bigots with their psychological problem towards to homosexuals ,mjipb, is not "homophobes" but "heterosexists". They are not afraid of homosexuals in this case. They have no reason to fear the prey when they are in predatory mode. The correct word is "heterosexist". That is, heterosexuals assuming that the other is inferior to the point of no longer deserving basic human rights.

Imagine if gay people had the audacity to turn the situation upside-down and inside-out. Imagine homosexual questioning the validly of the need for heterosexuals in society.

Writer and celebrity Harvey Fierstein plays with this notion in the following monolog:

Harvey Fierstein on Heterosexuals ("In The Life") on You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAv_DxP7lJM&mode=related&search=

This one is quite fun. It is a ridiculous idea, even Fierstein ironically sums this up in the end.

So is the studid sentiment from the other direction. There are various ways of looking at the world, and Christians do not have the monopoly over human intelligence just yet.

Perhaps "homophobia" in this context is actually a secret fear of possessing latent homosexuality oneself.

Like all phobias it's also an irrational hatred and a display of social intolerance.

It seems to coexist in people who make a lot of noise about how people should live their lives and how they should embrace identical values and beliefs.

Pretty much the same approach as used in all religions.

I am intrigued by this Christian bashing.

From my perspective, it is a mostly an underground type of thing. And if not there, then only out on the streets. A question for saintflethcer and west.

I think i have challenged both before. And so again, if i may.

West, this notion of homoertic Jesus worshiping is a bit unique. Im going to take a stab in the dark and suggest you are a city person. That then sets the scence for the next bit. I am not, and have noticed that the notion if things gay is but new. Take Broke Back Mountin. It is a new genre, generated in the city, or in this case holywood. Because city centric and ignorant of the facts critique prevails in certain social sets, does that make the critique correct? And, also as i have suggested before, some slag you write is mere gossip, and in no way fits into Australian social life.

So i dont get what you are trying to alledge.

And for saintstretcher, if crime is arising allong with the embrace of all things gay (not happy) and leftist, how do you justify your claims. Are you suggesting that hordes of christians are about the streets in suits and ties beating up grannys, drag racing cars on skateboards, wearing lick on tattoos so they can frighten the law, and hooning about in mercs, benzes and alfa's. Leaping out to grab chicks for sex, selling their elite girlfreinds for sex in the back, and strolling into cafes everywhere with suitcases full of weed?

Man if what you both are saying is right, we really do live in a sick world. Tell me where you are at man, so i can come and have a look-see.

What really bothers me about this article is how the author acknowledges Rudd is going for the social justice side of Christianity, then blasts him for not going far enough.

Small steps. He's a politician. I'm quite happy with what he's come out and said. It's an outline of his stance, and he's said that yeah, he's a christian, but there are more important issues facing christianity than gay people and abortions.
Those issues win votes in the religious right, but quite frankly, the rest of the nation wonders why they spend so much time on these issues, when compared to things like the crisis in Darfur - things we can all agree need a fix.

I think Kevin Rudd is a total opportunist.

Rudd is simply playing in the sandpit devised by John Howard. The intersection of politics and religion continues apace in our society, and it seems that more and more, politicians have to "stand" for certain "values" if they are to ever advance their career. The days of rogues and free thinkers are gone. Now while i don't think "values" masquerading as/dressed up as a sudden religious commitment is a bad thing, I DO think that kevin-come-latelies how find their religion, and sing it from the rooftops, while in politics is a bad thing, and it devalues the ideal of an ethical contribution to public life. There is a good essay floating around on this topic here: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=1828

A former member of the ALP - I don't think one could find someone more mystified with its choice of candidates for preselection. Kevin, is just one example. I am a leftie admittedly, and Rudd is well and truly in the Old Guard (Right) faction - he is still a little mystifying to me as being one the favourites even amongst the Young Beaz Knees.

YEp, Greens DO look more wonderful all the time. At least Rudd is not a pro lifer. Though without a reproductive rights stance in the ALP there are those good ol'labor christians who are: Burke, Hayes, Murphy...Its time Labor got rid of a lot of familiar faces. Beazley, Swann, Rudd, Burke....we could all go on and on.

Kevin Rudd has grown in my estimation, his latest contribution makes me suspect he may have genuine leadership ability.

He displays a clear appreciation of the dangers posed by conservative forces, who have unscruplessly hijacked religious sentiment for short term political ends. More importantly, Rudd identifies the antidote to these forces; He sees the conservative fixation with personal morality at the expense of social responsibility. The christian right has no interest in social reponsibility, they're to busy obsessing over our sleeping arrangements.

I don't believe the greater secular christian majority will suddenly become active in politics. I don't believe Rudd expects that to be necessary. Rudd is simply arming us with the necessary counter spell to break the conservative wand.

Thanks

Gadget, I have to challenge your city/country dichotomy, as an Australian who like 90 % of us mostly lives in a city (although I work in the country and spend a fair amount of my free time there too).

E. Annie Proulx’s story (as she has made clear in numerous interviews) was based on her observations and insights as a country person in the American west when she was living there. It was not some kind of urban fantasy. Whatever weaknesses there are in “Brokeback Mountain” as a piece of art or as an analysis of masculinity or sexual politics, the city/country thing is a bit naff.

In my experience country people can sometimes be a bit shocked initially by the unfamiliar, but once they get to know you they’re more ready, if anything, to look beyond the superficial identifiers of race, religion, ethnicity and sexual preference than city people. Maybe I’m overgeneralising here, but then that’s what people do, isn’t it?

As for the homoerotic Jesus, I’m inclined to roll my eyes a bit here too: but people have always created their gods in their own image. The Jesus that comes down to us through the Christian religion is a complex mix of myth, legend, history and pseudohistory, as well as philosophy, moral teaching and ideals for living. As a secular humanist I find a great deal to respect in the teachings attributed to Jesus. But as to his sexuality or even his beliefs about sexuality I reckon there’s a little bit of projection going on here.

The Jesus I'm familiar with through the gospels was mostly concerned with social justice, and in a pretty radical way. I don't find that at odds at all with Rudd's version of Christianity, particularly when you contrast it with other versions of Christianity that seem to be prevalent currently.

I've never felt it unexceptional to have seen through all this religious poop at about eight years of age although perhaps i may have come endowed with reasonably sensitive crap detectors. When one looks around today it just seems so absurd to have let the world fall sucker to these religious deadheads with their weird psycho brain problems, ........ that get themselves into politics.

e.g.
We see the twisted smirk dancing with dillsong, the stooopid wabbit who sets up a fund for honesty in politics and promptly lies to everyone about it, and then this large bunch of dangerous loonies on the religious redneck right wing who say choice when they know it means no choice and fair when it means not fair. Add to that the hoodwinking going on with Family Fist Fielding in the Senate or the appointment of Ian Harper to head the Fair Pay Commission who says he will enlist God to set the minimum payrate, and we see more lazy minds living in ratbaggery. It's not surprising that Kevin Rudd now has come out and nominated himself as an official goofball too.

It's depressing however ......
Yesterday it was a breath of fresh air hearing a down to earth Tony Windsor in question time, questioning the mining industry that doesn't give a hoot about drilling into ancient aquafers on prime farming land in his electorate. Today it was Dr David Susuki at the national press club address with governments and the media for the economic meme, saying to hell with the environmental consequences and the good of society into the distant future.

Surely this religion of the cruel on our own world has to come to a bitter end soon.

Let's get one thing (ahem) straight: no-one here is claiming that there are packs of christians running around bashing gay people.

However the fact is that gay people are being beaten up. A NSW Attorney General’s Department study in 2003 found that 56% of respondents had been victims of homophobic attacks or harassment in the previous twelve months, and only 15% said that they had never been victimised (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/cpd/ll_cpd.nsf/pages/CPD_glbt_publications).

If christians or red-headed people or left-handers were copping this level of abuse, governments would be toppling. However declared christians in this forum argue “the benefit to the homosexual of the Christian discrimination with regard to homosexuals,” and deny that homophobic abuse takes place because (a) it’s illogical to hate homosexuals, and (b) such abuse is against christian teachings. Somewhat naïve?

The churches continue to fight every tiny advance towards equality for same-sex attracted people, and their insistence on the right to arbitrarily discriminate against homosexuals creates the environment in which anti-gay violence can and does thrive.

Regardless of who’s doing the bashing, christians are looking away while it happens.

This is the point of Carol Johnson’s article: if Kevin Rudd were as christian as he claims to be, then he would feel morally obliged to defend those 56% of homosexuals who get abused in a year. “Muscular christianity” doesn’t defend injustice, it goes forth against it.

Personally, I’m prepared to give him some more time to show us the depth of his conviction that christians are required to stand up against injustice. But eventually he must, because his faith doesn’t afford him the chance to cherry-pick injustices for political gain.

On balance, I think that in a position of power Kevin Rudd will do more good than bad for gay Australians. However he will need to do something, and fast, if he wants to maintain his compassionate-christian credentials.

Homophobia, by the way, is “prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality.”
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webw

I get the sense i should rebut 'Gadget's' post but i have not the slightest idea what that amorphous, incoherent post says - honestly none. What was 'Gadget' trying to communicate?

Kevin Rudd correctly says the religion of Christianity identifies with the poor, the marginalised and the downtrodden.

He'd gladly and enthusiastically adopt and foster programs designed to assist those groups among us in Australia. Admirable.

But hang on a minute Kevin Rudd is the Opposition spokesperson on Foreign Affairs. He currently doesn't show the same inclination to adopt this compassionate idealogy when it comes to other countries.

Where was he when Lebanon needed his support?
Whenever has he expressed this Christian compassion towards the Palestinisns?

Wow is this just another politician displaying double standards?

I did not say Jesus was gay. Jesus is a character in an occult fiction. I said the worship of Jesus is homoerotic. Occult rituals practiced by members of Christian cults such as consuming the body of Christ is a psuedo-cannibalistic homosexualised ritual, for males and a pseudo-cannibalistic sexualised ritual for females. To be obsessed with a man is not a heterosexual male trait. How is not an obsession of Jesus to the point where a person actually believes Jesus exists is not latent homosexuality? Worship too- seeks to mimic the delights of sex, seeking euphoria and orgasm. Even occult discourse uses sexual language such as rapture and passion. I suggest if Christians are to be balanced in their prejudice against homosexuals they should first persecute male Christians,

As far as banning same sex marriage. Let Christianity lead by example by using the influence they have on cult members in parliament to ban Christian marriage first. If Christians sacrificed their own marriage and showed Australia that there is something positive for the nation in banning marriage and not just a waste of tax payers money then we could consider banning homosexuals from marriage also.

If that proves beneficial then we could ban the rest of us from marriage and then ban defacto relationships, followed by banning dating and then crushes. Then we could all live out doors as born again virgins waiting for a god to lift us into a magical kingdom beyond the real universe.

I read Rudds Article - I thought it was well reasoned and accesible -
I fail to see the need to critique it on matters pretty well un mentioned - he didnt talk about whaling, nuclear weaponary or stem cell research either - he was as specific as you could be onrelion and politics in a few thousand words - I dont see how he was obliged to talk about the culture wars or homosexals - god bless 'em.

The church's - and the views of christians - towards homosexuals are seldom in harmony -

And yes Westy our Jesus does have a six pack - in all the imagery he his scantily clad, we are teased by that pesky loin cloth and he's hanging on the cross in a kind of BDSM way - but check out those abs! - it is clear you have - cant say I can agree with your logic though.

My take is that Jesus walked the earth - coz the bible tells me so

West,

Of course you don’t want Christianity banned. You enjoy vilifying Christians far too much don’t you?

Saintfletcher,

“There are various ways of looking at the world, and Christians do not have the monopoly over human intelligence just yet.”

I agree. Whilst I don’t think Christians lack I don’t think that homosexuals are lacking either. Indeed gay males are probably overrepresented in the academic end of the male spectrum. You certainly don’t sound like a lowbrow – or a Saint. : )

Wobbles,

Are you saying that adopting religious beliefs creates that fear?

Gadget,

I agree. The less empowered Christians are in a time period the more there seems to be dramatic problems. I also share the view that it isn’t Christians who do those things.

TRTL,

I don’t know Rudd’s thoughts but agree that steps are necessary and don’t indicate fault.

W,

I didn’t mean to question whether or not homosexuals get abuse. The extent you cited is surprisingly shocking assuming it isn't an artifact of a methodological flaw of the survey. I was only questioning that Christians are responsible and noted that, if the abusers could be converted to Christianity, the abuse wouldn’t occur. Christians believing mainstream theology don’t create an environment for baseball bat thugs any more than baseball supporters.

”The churches continue to fight …”

Are you sure it is arbitrary? Would you consider the possibility that it is non-arbitrary and might be based on a view that homosexual behaviour is a sin and this might coexist with a genuine compassion for homosexuals? If yes then would you consider the possibility that Churches might act consistently with this non-arbitrary approach and in fact support legitimate measures to stop violence against homosexuals but fight homosexual marriages?

”Regardless of who’s doing the bashing, christians are looking away while it happens. “

I don’t think they see it. I presume the bashing doesn’t happen at the workplace or the shopping mall.

” would feel morally obliged to defend those 56% of homosexuals …”

Are you absolutely sure he knows that 56% of homosexuals get bashed each year?

Mjpb what planet are you on? Are you seriously saying that criticism of groups like Fascists , Christians , Communist , Muslims , Skin heads , the Klu Kux Klan who are all motivated by prejudice, exclusion, dominion and persecution of others vilification of those groups? If anything Christianity vilifies not only everybody who is non-Christian (what do Christians believe happen to non –Christians?) but also nature itself (what do Christians believe happen to plants and animals and who has dominion over them?).

Yes of course to escape persecution and vilification victims have a choice to accept the superstition of Christ - as everybody who speaks and thinks for god (because no god can speak or think for itself) tells us, with all the credibility of their intercourse with god.

If Christianity was not anything other than a cult of bigotry Kevin Rudd wouldn’t be attempting to apologise for it.

Boaz Family First is an excellent example on a party completely devoid of morality. It’s a cult based party drawing support from the prosperity cult of Pentecostalism. The Pentecostal god is a glorified omnipresent poker machine who on earth has an infinite coin slot which happens to be its churches. Pentecostal members from experience of them are made up of habitual losers who are easily manipulated and exploited.

Gadget and snout I live in the country, we country folk are not the simple hay seeds you accuse us of. You watch too much TV and listen to too much talk radio. We are not the National party voting, John Laws swooning zombies that you like to think of us. I own a pitch fork but its not for chasing strangers to the municipal border.

Gadget, as for my words being that of underground discourse, why would they need to be? Are you suggesting Australia is occupied by a Christian Taliban? Do I risk my life speaking freely?

@Gadget
"if crime is arising allong with the embrace of all things gay (not happy) and leftist, how do you justify your claims."
Spelling and grammar does not help us understand your nonsense. Are you talking about violent crime, or what you believe to be crime?
"Are you suggesting that hordes of christians are about the streets in suits and ties beating up grannys, drag racing cars on skateboards, wearing lick on tattoos so they can frighten the law, and hooning about in mercs, benzes and alfa's. Leaping out to grab chicks for sex, selling their elite girlfreinds for sex in the back, and strolling into cafes everywhere with suitcases full of weed?"
The answer is: no.
Read the post again. You have a graphic imagination. You are the only one to describe these dramatic senarios in such Tarrentino creativity.

@mjpb "I agree. Indeed gay males are probably overrepresented in the academic end of the male spectrum. You certainly don’t sound like a lowbrow – or a Saint. : )" I never claimed to be gay nor did I claim to be a saint mjpb. I don't claim to be "high brow" either. The saint thing was an ironic joke to do with a street name. To assume that all humanitarians are gay really shows your lack of comphrension. Many in OLO know about my wife and kids. Many know that I'm not exactly what you label as "left wing".

The old "reds under the bed" is an old chestnut when all other weapons of fear run out.

I leave from award winning Edward R Murrow, news reader from CBS in the 1950s in response to Macarthy's inquisiton.

BTW Some of you are more hysterical Macarthyists. Get your facts right before you point your accusing fingers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsJXBMkafA0&mode=related&search=

Good Night, and Good Luck.

mjpb,

Quote:
Almost half of the respondents, 48%, resided in inner suburbs of Sydney, including the Local Government Areas of South Sydney, City of Sydney, Leichhardt, Marrickville, Botany, Woollahra, Waverley and Randwick. Another 14% lived in elsewhere in Sydney, while 35% lived in other parts of NSW. Among regional areas of the State, the Illawarra (7%), Hunter/Central Coast (7%), Southern NSW (6%), Northern Rivers/Mid North Coast (8%) and Blue Mountains (5%) regions each had a relatively even share of respondents. Only eight respondents (1%) resided in Western NSW. Three per cent did not identify their place of residence.

Gay men substantially outnumbered lesbians among the Sydney respondents (56% gay men, 35% lesbians). The proportion of gay male respondents was particularly high in inner Sydney, at 62%. Among respondents living outside Sydney, however, lesbians were in the majority (52% lesbians and only 39% gay men).
End quote

The rest of the paper is here http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/cpd/ll_cpd.nsf/pages/CPD_glbt_publications for you to read, and you’re welcome to draw your own conclusions about the methodology.

Your response questioning the methodology makes me wonder what level of homophobic harassment and violence you would find acceptable.

I can’t give you any examples of people singing “Onward Christian Soldiers” as they hurl excrement at their gay neighbours’ front doors. However there’s a man in my street whose homophobic attacks on the lesbian couple next door to him forced them into the courts for an AVO. I do know that that man recently got married in a christian church.

I mention this to show that christianity and homophobic violence are not mutually exclusive, and to underscore my view that it is a bit naïve of you to expect that homophobes will miraculously turn into compassionate lambs when exposed to a bit of god.

Of course the discrimination against homosexuals is arbitrary. Most churches no longer reject straight couples who haven’t married – just the gay ones. George Pell doesn’t refuse communion to heterosexual sinners, just the homosexual ones.

Many human behaviours are no longer regarded as sinful. When will the christian churches realise that homosexuality isn’t a sin either?

Oh

Humble humble me.

I submit to all comments (but no time to respond in full, sorry).

In response at least to the last three, perhaps we could have another wonderful thread about New Socialist World, and the Sydney riots. We could explore why Carr resigned early, why the cops watched it all on CTV, etc.

Gay males are over represented as academics? Obviously it pales in comparison to the clergy for whom child sex abusers, embezzlers and conmen are extremely over represented. So much so that the five largest churches are synonymous with a particular specialisation of crime.
It is so bad that if Rudd truley would like to 'fix' Christianity he should propose to create a special Clergy Unit at the AFP. If not to protect the public then to save non-criminal clergy from public innuendo.

West,

“Mjpb what planet are you on?...”

If you substitute "African-American" for Christian that is not far from Ku Klux Klan comments. I genuinely believe that hatred is hatred, vilification is vilification, and people are people who should be treated kindly.

SF
You are wrong to assume I assumed you humanitarian or that all are gay (eg. Mother Teresa, I absolutely cannot imagine being gay).

Your strong reaction indicated by your insult, your correction, your advices about political affiliation, and your feeling the subject of a “reds under the bed” accusation is noted. I apologize. You aren’t gay. I didn't realize anyone was offended by that these days.

W,

“Your response questioning the methodology makes me wonder what level of homophobic harassment and violence you would find acceptable. “

I always question methodology until I consider it. It is probably fine. RE: level: Is that because I described it as “shocking”? To be honest in modern Australia I didn’t think there was any. None would be an acceptable level. The survey indicates it is prolific.

”… there’s a man in my street whose homophobic attacks on the lesbian couple next door to him forced them into the courts for an AVO. I do know that that man recently got married in a christian church.”

Many people get married in Christian Churches who aren’t Christian. Careful with the assumption. Look at the trouble I got in with SF for a similar assumption.

”… it is a bit naïve of you ...”

That would be naïve. It is just that Christian beliefs are inconsistent with gay bashing.

”Of course the discrimination against homosexuals is arbitrary. Most churches no longer reject straight couples who haven’t married – just the gay ones. George Pell doesn’t refuse communion to heterosexual sinners, just the homosexual ones.”

No it isn’t. I’m sure the homosexuals you refer to even wear rainbow sashes or something. The heterosexual sinners adopt a solemn pious look rather than wearing sashes and he would be none the wiser.

Associate Professor Johnson is ‘troubled’ that a Christian politician 'pointedly' did not use speech on Bonhoeffer to boost the genital-centred world-view. The parochial monomania of identity politics knows no bounds. The dismal, po-faced language of 'concern' just makes it all the more ridiculous. She writes about conservatism as if it were the new deviation. Now only conservatives are the perverts.

And all this nonsense about "diverse ways in which Howard manipulates' all sorts of things. Gawd! Howard must be an evil genius to do so much effective manipulation despite all the clever people in universities and the yarts constantly unmasking and exposing him.

Thank you, mjpb. Now I understand.

It's OK to discriminate against honest sinners, but not OK to discriminate against those who successfully fake piety.

Glad we cleared that up.

W,

I don’t think you do. But I can empathise with the reaction.

The practical effect is totally unfair for the homosexuals involved who are more in tune with Church teaching than the fakes. Anyone who supports the rainbow sashers and is obtuse to the obvious implications of virtually carrying a sign saying “I sin and think it is good. You will be breaking the rules if you give me communion” would understandably feel outraged.

However to put that on Pell is unfair to him. He can’t read the mind of the fakes. He can either assume goodwill or refuse communion to everyone. Naturally he chooses the former.

Wow, mjpb has a real thing about rainbow sashes

If there are any psychologists reading, could you tell me whether or not fear of certain coloured garments is classed as an irrational phobia?

I think you'll find, mjpb, that the rainbow sash people are not saying "I sin and that's OK." They're saying that they are homosexual, or friends of homosexuals.

Pell denies them communion not on the basis of their sin (about which he knows nothing), but on the basis of their membership of a group. Homosexuals are the only group he singles out in this way. This is arbitrary discrimination, and for non-religious organisations this is illegal.

“The practical effect is totally unfair for the homosexuals involved who are more in tune with Church teaching than the fakes.” I’m afraid your defence of this situation discredits your statement that zero is a tolerable level for homophobic harassment.

Pell’s response to the rainbow sash people is emblematic for the church’s response to homosexuals generally, in denying them employment, refusing them services and excluding them from membership of their community of belief. As long as christians defend unfairness to other humans because they are homosexual, they align themselves with the bashers and the abusers.

Christians cannot claim to despise the sin and love the sinner when they exacerbate the suffering of people whose behaviour is impeccable, just because they hang out with an undesirable group.

Ultimately, this discussion is about applying christian principles consistently. Kevin Rudd wants to bring a bit of christian compassion into public life. That's great, and it would be even greater if he and all christians applied those principles equally, to everyone.

Mjpb I understand w has responded appropriately to you on the same manner but I will continue anyway, you are saying it is ok and pious for Christians to attack others but not ok for Christianity to be criticised. Christianity has been bullying and victimising and undermining people for centuries. Wether there are non-white Christians or not the philosophy and ideology and motivations and justifications of Christianity are in the same league with the Klu Klux Klan. The Klu Klux Klan represents Christian values in action. I understand Christianity is superstition based and therefore extreme and irrational paranoia is necessary in order for a person to believe in a god. That is why the KKK fear non-whites , Catholics, Baptists and Pentecostals fear Harry Potter, thats why those who believe in god are obsessed with death , holding faith in an immortality that comes to them through magic charms of a god evoked through the magic spells of prayer and ritualistic conjuring.

Yes each Christian sect has its specialised hatred of others , Gays, bi-sexuals, women, scientists, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindu’s, Buddhists, Satanists, wiccans, pagans, Academia , University students, public school students, single parents, gypsies, Non-whites, Chinese, Serbians , Croatians, Darwin , NASA, unemployed , the poor, other Christian sects, Northerners, southerners, city folk, Divorcees , abortees, Left wing governments, long hair, nature and anything clergy, shock jocks, TV evangelists and neo cons find useful to exploit.

From the Dutch Reformists and Calvinists to the Catholics to the Baptists and Pentecostals there would be hardly a person who Christians do not believe should, and must be punished by god because the Christian despises them and therefore God does too. The inherent Christian bigotry and prejudice and vilification of ‘others’ is inevitable because God is a paranoid product of both superstition and imagination.

Mjpb perhaps you could explain the Christian obsession with homosexuality. Is it reaction to innuendo Genesis creates? God created an unclad Adam in his image obviously to have as a lover and then condemned women to painful childbirth as a tantrum for Adams apparent heterosexuality

Ireally think the ant-religious or anti-Christian posting here (on this topic) should go away. I also think those religious zealots posting here should do like wise.

Unless of course you can stick to the topic.

It's obvious to me that many comments are made from a point of ignorance and just exacerbates the biases being displayed.

I'm a Christian, I believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God, to the best of my ability I follow his teachings. I'm not homosexual, but don't condemn those that are. That's their choice. God allows us to choose.

As for Pell he is a Catholic they practice various rituals, these are not part of being Christian they are part of being Catholic. His decision who may partake of the rituals relate dot his church. personally having written to Pell about various political prognostications of his, i've found him to be ignorant and arrogant. As the saying goes, Christians aren't perfect... just forgiven.

Now do you think we could get back to the topic and discuss Rudd and his various foibles.

I think it is ironic that you totally miss the point and at the same time confirm all that I have said T800.

It is not enough to just ‘bag’ Rudd just because you are Christian and therefore Rudd’s views are foibles according to you. We so called ‘anti-religious and religious zealots’ have contextualised exactly what Rudd is all about. Rudd is concerned with the failure of the superstition he prescribes to. The failure of Christianity has been on going and deepening since the 4th century and as it is a dying cult its baggage of occult based prejudices is hastening its demise, it is literally a Dark Age superstition out of context in the 21st Century. Rudd knows it’s the end for Christianity, he knows why and he has sought to save it. What I have offered is reasons why Rudd is failing and will fail.

Further irony is the bigotry inherent in Christianity that you possess, that your opinion is the only relevant opinion and that we should concentrate on attacking Kevin Rudd personally and not critique the views he has aired.

To confirm the religiously inherent bigotry we should be censored if you are displeased with our views.

To top it all off you don’t offer this debate anything other than the fact you don’t personally like Kevin Rudd and you wish to censor critics of your superstition or those of your faith of whom you consider an embarrassment.

I don’t intend to ‘go away’ and I sincerely hope w, Boaz, Gadget and mjpb and others including you don’t either, there is something to be learned from everybody.

If you are sincerely interested in Kevin Rudd’s views I suggest you learn to focus and re-read the thread and save your censorship for church where people go to be told what to think.

Here we go :roll:

I've taken an interest in australian politics for quite a while West. probably lomger than you've been born. I happen to know quite well what Rudd espouses politically. I also happen to recognise a lying hypocrite when I hear one, one driven by an ambition that has no moral bounds.

Turning this political topic into a topic solely related to religion and belief in God, and going off on tangents re homosexuality etc, etc, etc is hardly.

As for name-calling... I'm no BIGOT... a fact that your particular biases seems to blind you to.

In these days of Islamic infiltration into our political landscape, it is the role of Christian politicians like K. Rudd to discern their hidden agendas and counter-balance our democratic system.

The anti-religious secular humanist lobby will have very little to offer let alone understand the intricacies of the Islamic rampant disintegration of our free society. This is a deep seeded spiritual battle they cannot take part in.

Love your homos and lesbians, abort your babies if you must, but wake up to this eminent threat that will close your pubs, clubs, and beaches… in the very short future.

Bye bye Christian secularism – hello fundamental Islamism.

Well, T800, your long years may have piled on the pomposity, but they haven’t taught you that making controversial statements is no way to end a discussion on any topic, let alone religion and homosexuality.

First, you are repeating the commonly-held misconception that homosexuality is a choice. For a few it may be, but for the majority of homosexuals it most definitely is not.

Second, despite all the claims about loving the sinner, the churches practise discrimination against homosexuals based on their sexuality, not their actions. This would be illegal for any other institution, but the churches claim the right to hold themselves above the law.

I agree with you that this discussion has been straying, but your years should also have brought you to the realisation that it is in the nature of human discourse to cover a wide range of areas in a single conversation, and OLO is no exception.

West, your heart’s probably in the right place, but essentially there is zero possibility of you changing mjpb’s views by associating her with some of the more evil organisations in human history. When someone’s trying to understand your position, as I believe mjpb is, you’ll get further by showing you understand where she’s coming from than by insulting her by association. For more on this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#47953

T800. You nearly bordered on the arrogant! "Anti religous, anti christian go away". Oh! forgot "I also think those religous zealots should do likewise".

T800. You appear to have some delusion of grandeur, as regards message boards.

Lesson1: Message boards are for exchanging opinions on subject matters that are posted.

Lesson2: We may not agree, we may never agree, but we have the opportunity to read other peoples opinions. Some of us may learn from the postings, some may not. The importance is that we have communication.

T800. I am gay, so christianity is not big on my calendar.

Coach - you are an alarmist. I may be pissed at the moment but - the idea of Islamic infiltration is weird. And your reference to "love your homos and lesbians etc - really suggests that you are a christian of very selective compassion and understanding - Jesus would be some what embarrassed by followers like you. - Australaians dont need you

Dr. Johnson revisits the old situational versus identity politics discourse, an explanation of the break-up of the Left involving tensions between class obligation and introspectivity.
Once intellectuals, feminists, gays, environmentalists and workers found common cause against repressive and puritanical industrial capitalism, as typified through Don Dunstan's reforming of 'sixties Adelaide.
In (post) modern times, the material survival issues of previous generations have slipped into the past; out of sight, out of mind. "Middle class" issues involving individual expression and taste, once relegated to the "later" basket in the interests of obtaining government to enact socio-economic reform, emerged to be dealt with. Politicians like Howard then appealed to atavistic fear, ignorance and prejudice in a "politics of envy" involving "special interest groups". Johnson herself has written extensively on this.
Meanwhile, Western societies DO live off the sweat and misery of third world (and increasingly, local) proletariats. Large sections of the world STILL have a reform agenda rooted in material reality, so "rent" is overdue. Besides, "identity" social reforms themselves are in jeopardy through further Howardism, anyway.
One doubts Johnson thinks social democracy and the fight against pernicious globalisation should be abandoned, for the mere pecadilloes of comfortably-off middle class people, and poverty amelioration ought not to be inimicable to gay reform: the two are separate issues.
Yet, in a hypothetical situation where a choice needed to made, which would come first? Ironically, Howard played on fears arising concerning the above, cunningly switching traditional roles as to what "reforming" the "elites" meant, and blackened identity politics' reputation.
Johnson alludes to the old problem of Labor, against the above. That is, expediency against principles in a real world. Has adversity cured or worsened this?
Politicians react to the prejudices of the manipulated redneck masses and mortgage-belt. Can one set of legitimate reforms be sidelined for the obtaining of the rest? It's true certain issues, like refugees and gay rights, are loathed by masses of voters. If we remain silent now, can we be sure these things will be attended to later?
Besides, as West reminds us, it's all metanarratival, as to priorities, anyway.

funguy said:

"Politicians react to the prejudices of the manipulated redneck masses and mortgage-belt"

But in essense he said "Lets make life easier for homosexuals"... albeit he couched it in very academic sounding terminology.

I disagree funguy. I suggest that if people wish to persue an active lifestyle of deviate sexual orientation (note the key word 'active'), they can fit that into the law as it stands. People choosing Homosexual behavior should be helped, assisted ...not to be better homosexuals, but better citizens who are able to contain their sexual proclivities.

NO ONE PREACHES WITH MORE CHRISTIAN "MUSCLE" THAN A DEAD MAN........

"Christianity is exploding in China" (headline)
A news report today (SKY news) claimed there are now more Christians in China than members of the Communist Party.
They showed a pastor of a house church addressing a small cramped congregation in a slum.
They all know that the police could swoop any moment, arresting, beating, persecuting. So a man who will still preach in the light of this is truly dead.....to self. "If any man will follow me.... he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow" said Jesus.
"I am crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" said Paul

And now..in China. Having gone from the early days of our own mission 'China Inland Mission' where they slogged for decades, burying more of their own chidren than seeing converts, we are seeing that same glorious progression of the Gospel without sword.. without army, without bloodshed except of the believers themselves as Christ gloriously shows why the Roman Empire surcumbed to the unstoppable power of the holiness of the Gospel of Life.

The lesson in all this, regarding the topic, is that the most 'muscular' Chrisianity is that which honours Christ, proclaims the Gospel of grace, and sets the captive free.

Well, well, well…

w

There’s nothing pompous about me.
Nor did I make any controversial statements.

“I agree with you that this discussion has been straying, “

Good, then since that was my main point why not try to keep things on topic?

As for; ”First, you are repeating the commonly-held misconception that homosexuality is a choice. For a few it may be, but for the majority of homosexuals it most definitely is not.”

All actions are a choice w. I haven’t made any comment on the nature of homosexuality. If you want me to, start a topic. BTE there has never been a scientific study done that proves that homosexuality is genetic, that’s a fact and you hold the misconception..

BTW, personally sex and sexuality, is a topic I have rarely heard discussed in church.. I’ve never heard an individuals sexuality discussed in church at all..econd,

Kipp

“T800. You nearly bordered on the arrogant! "Anti religous, anti christian go away". Oh! forgot "I also think those religous zealots should do likewise".”

Would you have felt better if I’d have written it the other way around? No arrogance involved.

“T800. You appear to have some delusion of grandeur, as regards message boards.”

No delusions involved either.

“The importance is that we have communication.”

Yes and that we don’t have minority opinions hijack topics and run off on tangents getting further and further away from the topic.

“T800. I am gay, so christianity is not big on my calendar.”

I don’t care if you are gay or not, that’s your choice. Both are not mutually exclusive.

Meanwhile back on topic... the author gets this right.

"Kevin Rudd’s essay “Faith in Politics”, published in the October 2006 issue of The Monthly, is an important statement of his world view, no doubt intended to position himself as a future leader of the ALP."

Rudd is ambitious above all else.

There you go again Boaz, if Homosexuality is deviant how then is Christianity itself not deviance? To believe in magic idols like Jesus is a major deviation from reality.

There are more Christians in China than Europe and America and they are still a minority and the majority are Nestorists which as I understand it Protestants and Catholics exclusionism equate with heresy. The problem of Christianity in China is China’s problem, what concerns us is Australia where our way of life is under the twin attack of Christianity and Islam. We have been thrown to the lions of superstition and all Rudd is attempting to do is calm those lions.

Christians are a decreasing minority in Australia. Yet Christians pushing anti Australian values and their opposition to the Australian way of life and anti Australian culture have carried an unbalanced weight. Christians are vastly over represented in Government, the media, public opinion and in all sections of life where they seek to control others and destroy the Australian way of life.

John Howard is in no way a sign that Christianity is winning their war against Australians. Howard’s success has been completely reliant on buying votes; Howard’s primary focus has been to win elections. The Howard Government is unique in that it has not once delivered positive policy for the benefit of Australians. Howard’s voters are not thinkers; Howard persecutes objects of Christian hatred because it buys votes. He pandered to fringe lunatic business groups with his IR laws to buy party sponsorship. Lucky for the nation he did, otherwise voters would be as cheap next time as they were last time. Otherwise the Christian vote is leading us toward becoming another Iran.

Coach there is absolutely no difference between the values of Islam and Christianity, no difference between the politics of any church and the Taliban.

And Boaz, every dead person is an atheist as is every object in the universe. The belief in God is only is myth based; there is no God or Wizard or Oz to magically convert corpses in to eternally living zombies

T800, you said:

“BTE there has never been a scientific study done that proves that homosexuality is genetic, that’s a fact and you hold the misconception..”

One of the most common scientific ways of sorting out the nature/nurture dichotomy in questions of human variation is the twin study. You might not have been aware that a few such studies have, in fact, been conducted, and the results (which seem to be consistent from study to study) seem to show that genetics plays a significant, but not total, role in sexual orientation.

My guess is we’re unlikely to find any single “gay gene”: homosexuality is probably an outcome of many different genes acting in concert, in a particular individual in a particular environment. This seems to be the pattern with many of the different personality characteristics of humans.

See: http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html, or try googling “homosexuality and genetics” or “homosexuality and twin studies”.

Sad to see which way this has gone since posting last night. West sums it up, to me. Gay behaviour appears not to be a matter of capricious choice.
It is not "deviant", David Boaz. A gay person loves a person of the same sex, as a heterosexuals automatically "turn on" to the opposite sex. It's in the 'wiring".
And in cases where there is choice and "lifestyle" involved- well, that's ok, too, to start with. Who knows what's in the heart of another. I understand why some feel such behaviour "indicative". Just keep your eyes open if you instictively "react" against someone and preserve your own territorial integrity, so to speak. Like your Chinese persecuted minority, such people would probably just as likely just like to be left in peace and besides, the Gospels demonstrate that NO one probably fails to fall short in some way somewhere along the line. "Bad karma", as they say!
A less judgemental term than the loaded term "deviant" would be "unorthodox", therefore. "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
You are entitled to your opinion, David. But it's in the the nature of an opinion or beleif that it remains ultimately unproven and perhaps unproveable. Only time will tell, especially as regards things metaphysical. None of us likely will know "the truth" this side of the grave, so you may be as unwise to claim God exists beyond doubt, as West is to claim (s)He, beyond any/all doubt; does not!
In the mean time what's good for you or me may not be necessarily good for others, although as people of good will we hope it is. "Do unto others", or you might find people knocking on your door late one night intent on imposing on you, like others do do to your Christian friends in China.
I am as prone to bigotry as the next person, by the way. Whatever else I do "do wrong", I always hope I will (finally) avoid the inevitable "contempt prior to investigation".

Snout you are right but only up to a point. Research using monozygotic twins does suggest that homosexuality may be genetic but is inconclusive. Further more other character traits such as anxiety, aggression, easy going nature are all genetic traits which are eroded by environment as a person ages. A person who is born with a genetic predisposition to be happy go lucky can end up a grumpy old cynic through environment.
Sexuality although genetically influenced also depends on hard wiring of the brain. When a heterosexual male sees a female with curvy hips, full bottom and large breasts his brain receives those attributes as signs to a potential healthy child bearing attributes and that translates to sexual arousal and it is the sexual arousal which the mind focuses on.
I have to say from all the homosexuals I have known, their brain is not wired the same as mine. I have no idea what homosexual males see in other men and I would probably be wrong if I guessed at what lesbian women see in other women. Additionally there are many people who are of both genders and many of them don’t know it and for others brains are pushing out all sorts and different levels of hormones.

But all this is not the point wether a person is born gay or chooses to be gay. The point is Boaz is not going to jump into bed with a man, so what business is it of his who is gay? At the other extreme of the spectrum people are not born Christian they are either brainwashed into it by other Christians or chose to be Christian out of some incompetent life management skills. What gay leader has ever tried to force the world to be gay? But we see Christian leaders (and Muslim) do it all the time. Boaz the lessons to be learned from the time of Babylon to October 22 2006 are that religion is nothing other than prejudice and bigotry justified by paranoid superstition. The only relevant point is what do Christians believe happen to non-Christians?

"There is much in Rudd’s essay that is admirable, particularly its arguments against poverty and economic inequality. However, the essay also reveals a troubling social conservatism at the heart of Rudd’s world-view."

But here we have the authors unsubstantiated bias... so what is wrong with conservatism.

Conservatisnm is after all just a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

"Rudd clearly wants to encourage social justice style Christianity and then win that vote for Labor. After all, Howard has benefitted electorally not only from the evangelical Right but also the conservative Catholic vote."

Yet Howard hasn't been out chasing that vote at all. In fact many churches could be assumed to have a LW agenda as they have quite vocally oppoosed many things the coalition have done so far.

"Gay and lesbian rights advocates, concerned about the political implications of Rudd’s Christianity, will no doubt breathe a sigh of relief."

All ?? % of them?

"Yet, Rudd pointedly doesn’t go on to make the obvious argument that gays and lesbians are currently an oppressed and reviled “other” in Australian society."

Truly?

"So while he may not be a member of the extreme Religious Right, Rudd is conservative enough to side-step an obvious opportunity to use his Christianity to support same-sex rights."

Yet the extreme religious "right?" is surely just another minority.

"The essay contains an important call for checking rampant individual self-interest in the name of equity (and sustainability)."

yeh..

When you consider Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church in the US, and their behaviour, you can see why Kevin Rudd's call for moderation is valid.

The Phelps sisters actually said that the 4 Amish girls in the US deserved to be murdered. They said that were going to hell anyway.

Old Pappi Fred Phelps Jr described those that died in 9/11 as deserving hell anyway because the Jews in the stock market were "smearing the faeces of faggots and dykes on the bible, and they deserved to burn". They said Amish were too friendly to fags so it was kinder to let them die as children rather die in a "full grown stint in rebellion, causing them to go to hell".

They also said the Catholic church is a whorehouse. The US is the enemy of God as it tolerates faggots...and so on.

Even the Fox network on You Tube was perplexed by such dreadful bigotry on the rise in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m_bIsXhE8Y&mode=related&search=

Then a documentary called "Jesus Camp" shows a very disturbing movement brainwashing impressionable minds of children into fundamentalism and hate. Their doctrine deliberately copies tactics used by the Taliban to raise fundamentalists. See the evidence for yourself on "Jesus Camp" on You Tube. The behaviour is disturbing.

This is interview on "Jesus Camp" is from Bill Maher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhUjNRY2L8k

Trailer to "Jesus Camp" says: "There is a new Church like this every 2 days in America".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE

"I want the children to be as fundamentalist as Islam"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWhT2PtaD0w

This kind of behaviour is a time bomb.

Do we want to be terrorised by Christians that say "Australia is the enemy of God because it tolerates fags?".

Take a good look at this stuff. This is hard to believe. How so you want to raise your children?

I feel so sorry for the families of the 4 Amish Children that were shot, and their funeral was crashed by Christian fundamentalists making a tragedy into a circus.

Now, who is behaving badly here? Can we reconsider Kevin Rudd's point considering these examples?

Light relief from Chaser thanks to ABC Australia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE

W,

Thank you for your reply and your response to T800 and West – even if the latter was a tactical thing it has a Christian effect.

Your theology aside and my ignorance of the intricacies of the sash aside, protestors are going into a place of worship and rebelling against the house rules beliefs of the people who run it. Pell would obviously feel compelled to deny them Eucharist. You must be aware of Pell indicating publically that he subscribes to mainstream theology on the topic. Obviously the protestors don’t think it is a sin but they know Pell does – hence my comment. If I went into a nightclub and consider it essential to have my feet on the table and refuse to put them down I would get thrown out but couldn't claim discrimination.

He doesn’t single them out. What other group comes in wearing sashes? They are just as much protestors as people holding up signs. I’m sure you would consider it in the public interest if Pell donned a sash himself but until he changes theology you should try to understand that he does what he thinks he has to.

” I’m afraid your defence of this situation discredits your statement that zero is a tolerable level for homophobic harassment.”

Only if you string an extremely long bow with your aligning with abusers claim.

” …denying them employment ….”

That reminds me of an accusation of Jesus whipping the battlers. I can’t become a priest yet a homosexual man who embraces Catholic beliefs and is willing to be celibate can. An equally creative approach could argue positive discrimination. If protestors accepted the beliefs there wouldn’t be a rainbow sash protest.

“… just because they hang out with an undesirable group.”

Again isn’t there just a little bit more to it than that? Do you honestly think that if someone tells a priest that they have a homosexual friend that they will be refused communion?

In fairness to Rudd I think he has a different perspective on social problems and probably is unaware of the abuse.

Saintfletcher (Do we want to be terrorised by Christians that say "Australia is the enemy of God because it tolerates fags?".) Too late Christianity has already declared their jihad on the Australian people just as Christians have declared Jihad against American People.
In the 2004 Family First launched themselves vowing to burn lesbians with the witches. Although Pentecostals were already ripping families apart and running dubious youth camps long before this. Family First’s cry for Jihad is still a mile stone because its marks the date when what you call American style religion spilled its hatred onto the streets in Australia.

I personally recall long before September 11 I commented to a Pentecostal associate that the UN should intervene in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban persecution of women. My associate retorted that the Taliban had achieved a political system that is blessed by god and if women step out of place they deserve the punishment the Taliban provide. Several of her friends had commented over time until we (the U.S and allies) went to the rescue of Afghanistan that they would like to see a Christian party like the Taliban rule Australia.

The liberal party has long been known to have been branch stacked by the extremist fundamentalist Catholic group Opus Dei and we have witnessed its crusade against progress, science and medicine , the Australian way of life and ethics seeping into policy. How long has it been since the word ethic coming out of Canberra was not an oxymoron? It has been most certainly more than a decade. It is the brand of Jesus to push immorality and call it morality. Yes to all the apologists with your bumper stickers “people kill, Jesus doesn’t”. Just remember Jesus is a superstitious fantasy who never penned a word. He/she who speaks for Christ speaks for themselves. No god is so powerful that it is capable of speaking for itself- let alone think for itself. Take a good look at Islam today Christians, it is the mirror image of you

Saint Fletcher,

Scary stuff! Looks like people who consider themselves Christians aren't just at the receiving end of hatred. The last link is pretty funny though. Don't Americans know when someone is taking the piss out of them?

West,

"In the 2004 Family First launched themselves vowing to burn lesbians with the witches."

I thought they were supposed to be Christian? Is that in a press release? Do you have a link?

"I personally recall long before September 11 I commented to a Pentecostal associate that the UN should intervene in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban persecution of women..."

Don't worry not all Pentecostals are pro-Muslim. A google search should locate some who got in trouble in Victoria due to making negative comments about Islam.

Opus Die are a Catholic organisation not a fundamentalist one. They sure have had bad publicity recently. First the Da Vinci code now this.

"Just remember Jesus is a superstitious fantasy who never penned a word."

Oh! I don't even recall forgetting that.

Gee! I thought Leigh was embittered but young West takes the cake here - pre occupied with the homoerotic aspects of Jesus he has taken to Christians like an inquisitor to a Jewish Convert - I can almost see that little bead of spittle forming in the corner of his mouth -

But he is fair - he hates all religions with almost a religious fervor - the first question that sprung to mind mind when I read his ealrier posts was - had this lad been molested by a priest or christian brother perhaps?

Having said that his is a view and he is entitled to it - but to hold something so passionatly and in the fore front of ones mind that it spews out almost every time he opens his mouth is a matter of concern -

I think he is incorrect in what he says about religion - it would seem theists in West' view have a mortgage on bad behaviour - it seems to come with the territory - in Westworldian terms

there is a strange pathology here - the sneekmeister will need to give this some thought

Honestly sneekpeepete and mjpb can you really not see how destructive and ethically devoid Christianity is and the damage it has already done to the Australian Community, half caste indigenous children, homosexuals and divorcees are not Australian? Or is it that you are not blind but just in denial?

There is a lot to be said about many other religions, Fascism, Communism, motorcycle gangs, organised crime, and other groups seeking dominance but Rudd is not trying to paint them as having a glimmer of hope of being respectable. Rudd is saying it is possible for Christianity to some how raise itself from a prejudiced motivated superstition and a fringe lunatic cult to becoming a cult which contributes to society that could be integrated with Australian society. I say it’s impossible as all the Christians on this thread have demonstrated loud and clear.

Christianity is a primitive superstition, this is the 21st century if Moses or Jesus ever existed they are long dead, although I admit through primitive cults the ignorance and bigotry of Moses and Jesus lives on. Still pneumonic plague lives on where there is ignorance of hygiene.

For all your huffing and puffing you still have not come out and admitted what Christians believe happen to non-Christians. I have heard the answer 1000 times in churches. You wont answer because you know for all your belittling of me I have asked the question which pins down the entire ideology of Christianity. The total worth of Christianity is balanced on wether Christians believe non-Christians go to their heaven or not.

It is very important because not one post here was written by God or Jesus , you have spoken for , thought for , decided who to accept , who to hate , who to destroy , who to persecute all on God and Jesus’ behalf without a whisper from them. If a dead blackbird is a sign from god it is because you have decided it such. Wake up sneekpeepete and mjpb you have been telling us, you are God.

I'll attempt to comprehend the evidence I gave on my previous post assuming the point of view from moderate Christian interests.

Why is this terrifying for them too?

I'll copy the links here again for the lazy:

Fox Network interview on the Phelps' sisters

Admittedly this is not recognised by the official Baptist Church, and there are not many in this group. It does, however, represent a new disease of bigotry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m_bIsXhE8Y&mode=related&search=

Now the Amish are the least offensive minority group I can think of in the US. As Quakers, they believe in peace and never tolerate violence. They are good people, and Americans treasure them as their conscience.

Then there is the interview with Bill Mayer on the new film "Jesus Camp" where Christians are copying training methods used by the Taliban, to train young Christians for war. The rational is that Christians must copy Islamic tactics as they believe that the Islamics are winning by extreme fundamentalism. With this, it is symbiont to include bigotry and violent warfare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhUjNRY2L8k
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWhT2PtaD0w

I noticed Christians on OLO are quiet on this, I guess they're horrified that such a thing has manifested. I suspect they're just as offended as the minority groups targeted. So what do we learn?

Things have not got this bad, yet, in Australia but we tend to follow trends in the US.

In reconsidering Kevin Rudds idea, this may not be a burden to the church, but rather we could avoid going down that insane path that the US that is gone, which is insane and out of line with basic Christian peace, the stability of good tidings, good will to Australians as family. We are the family: Australia. Our own our path, and ours can only be better than what you have seen.

PS MJPB, I should add to joke "Sainfletcher", I am a Myer Santa Claus. There is such a thing as Santa politics, but that is another story.

Good Night, and Good Luck

I am sorry West - I have no idea what will happen to any one when they die - nor do I care that much - I assume you are asking - almost begging in fact - that someone who proports to be a Christian states that they think you will go to hell when you and other non christians die - just to prove one of your points.

Christianity for me represents a template of conduct and a set of principles - a great deal of the other trappings are of little consequence to me -

- what really intrigues me is yout deep seated antipathy to religion - after all they are not much mre than a codified set of laws based on a belief - a bit like the rule of law -

whether or not you or any one goes to a place called hell, if one exists, is irrelevant - it seems you are already in one of your own making

TEAM... one of the most interesting things reported here is the Phelps church.. does anyone realize that it consists pretty much of his own extended family ? And this small family, is being quoted here on OLO almost as if they were some kind of socio/nuclear threat.
Ignorrrrre the guy for crying out loud.

One more point.. if West, W and Funguy actually READ my posts, you will notice I specifically use the term "Homosexual BEHAVIOR" as in..actions.. Regarding the 'wiring' all I can offer is that I don't have a problem with men loving men or women loving women.. even I love a few men..but I DON'T HAVE SEX with them. And thats the key point. It is abundatly clear that men have penises and women have vagina's as in designed for each other. There is no reproduction without male sperm and female egg, and the way they meet up is through heterosexual intercourse. So, clearly a man using the anus of another man for an act which is primarily reproductive is devient.

Enough on that.. related to the topic.... I don't see a muscular Christianity as being sympathetic in the slightest to homosexual acts.
I see the opposite.

The increasingly bold practice of celebrating homosexual behavior is a true abomination. We don't have 'hetero' days... If this was ancient Israel I would be drawing a DIRECT connection between this trend and the drought.

We need to be equally suspicious if any politician speaks in ways which seem to support 'our' religious tradition. It's always about votes.

Westy..I see sneeky is also suspicious that you might have had a regrettable and embittering experience at the hands of some church person....Don't blame God for the actions of those who are supposed to represent Him.

BD

I know there is not a lot of point in trying to talk sense into you. But I hope you can sleep well with this knowledge, by the time that I am your age, homosexual marriages WILL be legal, people of my generation will make sure of it, and it will be a great day for liberty and human dignity.

Sigh.

BD, a moment’s reflection, and you would see the contradiction in complaining about others basing their generalisations about christians on Fred Phelps, while you use a tiny, discredited and universally rejected group as the basis of your generalisations about homosexuals.

It’s possible to love left-handed people while despising left-handed behaviour. Indeed, left-handers have at various times been persecuted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness#Cultural_stigmatisation, but only after they had chosen to indulge in aberrant left-handed behaviour.

mjpb, we’ll just have to disagree on the rainbow sash thing. However you’ve misunderstood my point about the discrimination practised by the catholic church. I wasn’t talking specifically about homosexuals being excluded from the priesthood – I was referring to homosexuals being excluded from employment in any capacity in religious schools and institutions. A statement in advertisements and job descriptions about requiring staff to support the church’s values and model christian behaviour is code for “no poofters!” And it’s not just religious teachers or practitioners. Here’s the code in an ad for an English teacher: http://www.riverview.nsw.edu.au/staff_employ.php?id=5 Here it is again in an ad for a PA to a school principal: http://mycareer.com.au/jobs/sydney/education/administration-operations/4507775+principal+s+personal+assistant+enrolment+secretary.aspx

The task of clearing out unwanted homosexuals has been made significantly easier by the recent Workchoices [sic] legislation.

You also need to understand that in my previous post I wasn’t being tactical. My point came from a deeply held principle of respect for others, and I’ve made similar points in these forums several times before. Apparently this will come as a surprise to you, but it’s possible to hold humane, ethical principles independently of religious belief.

Boaz,

“If this was ancient Israel I would be drawing a DIRECT connection between this trend and the drought.”

Possibly without realizing it you have managed to nail the origins of organized religion.

All the great temple states of the ancient world were controlled by priests who managed to convince the plebs that they alone were in communion with the gods who produced the life giving rains (or river floods) on which those civilizations relied.

The special knowledge was not direct communication with the gods: it was the ability to measure time accurately (using astronomy) to predict natural cycles. If you live in an area where there monsoon arrives pretty much the same date each year, and you have the astronomical and mathematical ability to be able to pick that date, then your credibility amongst the hungry farmers tends to be high, and easily exploited.

Most of us are relative newcomers to a continent that’s had pretty unpredictable rainfall patterns for most of the last few millennia. Now the scientists are telling us that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere from the past couple of centuries’ fossil fuel burning is actually going to destabilize that pattern further.

Are you seriously telling us that if we cancel this year’s Mardi Gras, then we’ll get more rain? In previous years Fred Nile used to actually pray for rain during the parade. Could God be getting a bit confused about the rain/homosexuality thing?

I for one would be delighted to attend a “hetero day” celebration if it means the dams will fill.

P.S.: Delighted to see your comments on Phelps. It seems your nutcase-detector is working! ;>)

Hi Snout....

No..I didn't nail the origins of all religions :) I pointed out one aspect of the covenant relationship that was outlined in Deuteronomy.
If you have an hour or 3...have a read.

Having worked as a missionary among animistic societies, and been able to reflect on the issue you raised, I feel I'm fairly qualified to dispute your assessment of the history of Gods activities with Ancient Israel.

The one thing you don't see, is how the Levites were constantly fighting the pressure of paganism and animism and immoral fertility cults, which were present in the nations dispossessed by and surrounding Israel. The whole concept of Israel's structure was in terms of its relationship with God, so that 'All the world will be blessed' (Gen 12:3)

If all religions began as you say, then Israel would have simply slid into the mould of the Canaanite fertility gods. Then your comments would apply.

There were famines of a general nature in the region of course (Israel/Egypt) but there were specific famines promised by God as discipline for spiritual waywardness, and Elijah/Elisha are 2 characters where we see this.

It is always dangerous to claim 'God is punishing us' with an earthquake or rain or the lack thereof, but as I look at the moral declension in our community, it would not suprise me if we did get a kick in the pants from on High. My wifes people embraced Christ, and soon after there was a smallpox epidemic almost wiping out some villages, there were voices of 'the spirits are punishing us' but others suggesting 'God is testing our faith'... to me it was simply a case of nasty germs in the wrong place and the wrong time. It is a great temptation to spiritualize things like weather and sickness.

Given Fred Phelps world wide notoriety...I wonder how I'd go marching down main street Weribee denouncing and calling for the stoning of those youths who did the DVD of their abuse of the intellectually challenged girl.....*thinks*

If you are referring to the Reverend Fred Phelps , or Family First or Al-Qaeda, Vatican, Opus Dei ect and claim the spiritual beliefs of such anti human groups are not acting on the basic premise of their entire religion it is just another bumper sticker exercise in “people kill , god does not”.

It goes like this Boaz, where is your Justification? Is it that you are god or do you speak directly to god using a pin number enabled Ouija board?

If not then everything that is said that is relevant to god is pure fantasy based on your personal prejudices. Your justification is based on your interpretation of fiction. The Bible and Quran construct those cults’ gods as violent monsters of low intelligence and zero awareness. God is limited by the intellect and imagination of the believer. Many find the rituals, teachings of Christianity and Islam and others extremely offensive but do not branch stack, lobby or seek out Christians and Muslims to attack. Nobody is trying to ban Christian marriage or stop life long Christian partners from accessing inheritance from the other. There is no ‘youth groups’ of 10 year olds chanting god will punish the Christians before breaking into bland rock music.

Again, god is silent on the matter; it is perfectly natural for a non existent mythological creature to be silent. The silence does not support you or Phelps or Al-Qaeda or the pope or Jim Jones or anybody else who thinks and speaks on (a) god(s) behalf. That said, anybody who speaks on gods behalf is followed. Those who believe in god have no god so the next best thing is to follow somebody who claims they know whatever god.

Let us test my theory. My interpretation is that Genesis states God is gay. If God is not Gay then God will deny it on this thread. We will all know it is Gods own post by gods own hand. There is infinitely more chance for excuses from humans than a god capable of responding. A non-existent god cannot respond.

w,

"It’s possible to love left-handed people while despising left-handed behaviour. Indeed, left-handers have ... been persecuted ... but only after they had chosen to indulge in aberrant left-handed behaviour."

I suspect that homosexual behaviour is less likely to be genetic. The American Psychiatric Association were convinced that it was a lifestyle choice thus precluding it from being the psychiatric illness it had long been considered and it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychiatrists and psychologists practising in abnormal psychology. While "lifestyle choice" probably could be construed in a way that oversimplifies and unfairly understates the experience I suspect that it is not genetic.

Having said that - funny you should use that example. I started off left handed and my parents changed me over when I was young. I have no regrets particularly when I read about left handers cutting themselves with scissors because they are designed for right handers.

"we’ll just have to disagree on the rainbow sash thing."

That is easiest. I have wondered why we weren't reaching a meeting of minds and wondered whether your definition of the issues is broader than mine. But I'm happy to leave it.

"I was referring to homosexuals being excluded from employment in any capacity in religious schools and institutions."

That surprises me given the lack of church values held by teachers who I have met who work at Catholic schools. Why assume it is a code? Instead of reading things in a homosexual should just apply. They will probably get the job.

"The task of clearing out unwanted homosexuals has been made significantly easier by the recent Workchoices [sic] legislation."

I'm sure you would be correct with that.

"...Apparently this will come as a surprise to you, but it’s possible to hold humane, ethical principles independently of religious belief."

It is certainly rare in this forum! I know that religious values can be maintained longer than the religion but it usually dies out over time and generations as there is nothing solid to pin those values on. Please accept my apology for underestimating you.

“religious values can be maintained longer than the religion but it usually dies out over time and generations as there is nothing solid to pin those values on” That statement is baseless in reality and is nothing more than an articulation of sheer Christian bigotry. The irony is that statement demonstrates that Christianity is certainly devoid of good values.

mjpb shouldn’t you wait to see if your god is gay or not .He has yet to respond and if he exists and does not respond it is an admission on his part that he is gay. Of course he might not exist either, if he doesn’t, your words are wasted.

mjpb,

I think you’re confusing a few issues about genetics and the concept of psychological disorders.

The APA delisted homosexuality from DSM in 1973 because of growing evidence it failed to meet a key criterion of a “disorder”, in that it doesn’t in itself cause distress and dysfunction to the individual. This is how you distinguish disorders from normal variation within human populations. Left handedness, or having red hair are not typical human characteristics, but they’re not disorders, either. Nor are they lifestyle choices. They’re just normal variations on the theme of humanness. Starting off left handed and being trained into right handedness is very unusual, too, but I wouldn’t call such a phenomenon a disease.

As for the genetics issue, the question is, to what extent can human variation be explained by variation in the genome, and how much is learned, or the result of biological influences after conception or birth?

In reality, very little human variation can be accounted for by a direct relationship to an identified single gene or group of genes (eg red hair genes give you red hair, unless you dye it). On the other hand, genetic variation can have a significant influence on a whole range of human characteristics, such as height, intelligence and temperament, even though other factors also come into play in the expression of that characteristic. On the available evidence genetics plays a significant role in the development of “intrinsic orientation” (although it’s probably not the only factor). How that intrinsic orientation is then played out in a person’s life, though, is obviously heavily influenced by other factors, such as other elements of the person’s personality, and, of course, the social environment. So yes, you’d be right in saying there’s probably no such thing as a single “gay gene”, but you’d be wrong to say that variation in human sexual orientation isn’t influenced by variation in genetics.

Boaz, I’ll get back to you once I’ve finished rereading Deuteronomy

westy,

(with apologies to D. Adams)

"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies Faith and without Faith I am Nothing". "Ahh", says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away. It proves you exist and so therefore you Don't - Q.ED". "Bugger", says God, "I hadn't thought of that." and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Or, alternatively, consider the Humble Amoeba.

Amoeba 'westy' claims that Amoeba 'BOAZ's' God (the 'Lab Technician!') is a bunch of pond weed and if he doesn't come and deny this on the gel plate's web site then he obviously cannot be all powerful and interested in amoeba affairs or be capable of influencing them in any way that really matters to amoeba such as themselves - he effectively does not exist. Amoeba westy goes to his grave convinced his argument proves him to be right as the Almighty and poweful 'Lab Technician' God did not post any denial of his pond-weedyness on the website. Two weeks and a few Amoba generations later though, the same Lab Technician finishes his amoeba research and Irradiates the gel plate with microwaves that the amoeba had not yet been clever enough to invent, let alone devise a defence against, and thus completely eliminated the amoeba community from existance.

See any relation here?? : )

I love theological discussions : )

btw... i posit the belief that since God is ALL He/She is also in part gay, and part Satan and is even part westy! How could an all powerful, all pervasive God create something that He/She themselves is not in part?

It’s nice to speculate about the causes or origins of homosexuality, but ultimately I don’t think that this provides much guidance for how individual homosexuals should be treated.

In fact, I find the view that if it’s a choice, then it’s OK to discriminate against homosexuals quite disturbing. More precisely, I can’t see any justification for singling out homosexuality, when lots of other choices are protected.

Religion is a choice, and in our society it is protected from discrimination. So are marital status and political affiliation. Consequences of choices are also protected from discrimination. For example, obesity, often a result of dietary choices, is a protected condition - you’re not allowed to refuse someone a job because of their weight. Being addicted to nicotine, the result of a choice to commence smoking, doesn’t get you refused entry to churches.

Still, it’s often argued that homosexuality is either weakly or not at all genetic, therefore it’s a choice. And because they’ve chosen their condition, it’s OK to discriminate against homosexuals. (The people who can’t get their heads out of their pants claim they are discriminating against homosexual behaviour, but essentially it’s the same thing.) Elderly same-sex couples find it impossible to find aged-care accommodation, and this is OK, because their partnership status is “a choice.”

There’s something absurd about the argument that while you can’t refuse aged-care accommodation to a couple because they’re members of the Liberal Party (a choice), the churches’ right to discriminate against same-sex couples in aged care should be protected, because their sexuality is a choice.

If homosexuality is (directly or indirectly) genetically determined, then refusing services and excluding homosexuals from organisations and employment is unjustifiably cruel and arbitrary, given that we don’t do this for any other genetically determined characteristics.

However if homosexuality is a choice (not a view I subscribe to), then discriminating against homosexuals is still unjustifiably cruel and arbitrary, given that we do not discriminate against other lawful choices. Plainly and simply, the exclusion of homosexuals from organisations and services is visceral, irrational discrimination. Choice or not, this discrimination can’t be justified.

“I think you’re confusing a few issues ...””

The key thing I wanted to put forward prior to your correction regarding the rationale was their presumedly informed determination that it is a lifestyle choice of some sort.

Perhaps I thought that because, after their decision, the term “gay lifestyle” was used. There was a call for people not to discriminate against what was argued to be a legitimate lifestyle choice.

A friend recently told me that a formerly gay member of his church confided to him words to the effect that homosexuals always say they have no choice for political reasons but from his experience as a homosexual it honestly is a choice. That is just one person’s experience and I assume that others might be more set in their ways but it reminded me of the historical “gay lifestyle” thing.

W,

“...ultimately I don’t think that this (cause) provides much guidance for how individual homosexuals should be treated.”

“If homosexuality is ... genetically determined, then refusing services and excluding homosexuals from organisations and employment is unjustifiably cruel and arbitrary, given that we don’t do this for any other genetically determined characteristics.”

Sorry I couldn’t resist.

”In fact, I find the view that if it’s a choice, then it’s OK to discriminate against homosexuals quite disturbing.”

Discrimination is a very broad term so I am sure that we would be largely in agreement that homosexuals shouldn’t be discriminated against. For example we would both agree that it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals by swinging a base ball bat at them.

“More precisely, I can’t see any justification for singling out homosexuality, when lots of other choices are protected. “

Again I would generally agree - where that is the case.

”...claim they are discriminating against homosexual behaviour, but essentially it’s the same thing.”

That seems to oversimplify. You can distinguish between a person, a tendency, and a behaviour. Many people feel strong heterosexual attractions that they choose not to pursue. Some people choose total celibacy. Without condoning inappropriate discrimination I still don’t think you should lump everything together.

BrainDrain if amoeboids created life, the universe and everything then posting wether they are gay or not would be no problem. Of course amoeba are asexual and their procreation supports Darwinism. The lab assistant did not create them , he merely fed them. As for God if he is what the Bible or Quran claims he is he is, he is well able to respond , which he hasnt which means if he exists he is definetely gay. Lets see what God himself personally has to say about that?

“You can distinguish between a person, a tendency, and a behaviour. Many people feel strong heterosexual attractions that they choose not to pursue. Some people choose total celibacy.”

Indeed.

In the christian view a heterosexual may pursue one sexual attraction, or none. A homosexual person may pursue none. In the christian view, this is not unjustified discrimination.

Just to relate this back to the original article, Johnson argued that a christian beliefs should mandate against this kind of unjust discrimination. (In fact in many honourable cases they do.) That Kevin Rudd chooses to ignore it reveals his social conservatism.

Westy,

Forgive my failing - it is very dificult for me to tell if you intend for people to take your arguments, and what you pass off as logic, seriously or if you just jest.

Perhaps also i was being a little too subtle?

Allow me to redress that fault.

Man is so inferior to anything capable of bringing into existance the Universe and everything in it (and surely something did, be it a Big Bang or the entity that may have 'ignited' it in the first place) that direct communication between it (lets use the euphemism man has created and call 'him' God) and humans is effectively impossible - indeed there has never been a single provable example of such unambiguous communication as you require as 'proof'. Numerous people have claimed and even written of their 'one on one' communication with God or an intermediary such as an Angel or talking flaming bush or column of smoke but these examples generally take the form of God 'touching' their hearts and/or minds in a unique way followed by the 'recipient' translating the 'message' into normal human communication formats.

It is as impossible as a lab technician communicating with an amoeba in a language that the amoeba could understand and 'reflect' upon its meaning to amoebakind, despite the vastly superior intellect and amoeba-universe altering abilities of the technician.

Denying that such an entity as God exists because he doesn't answer your challenge in the way you demand makes as much sense as saying the lab technician is a figment of an amoeba's imagination.

Assuming any semi-evolved ape is capable of proving or disproving the existance of God using his limited consciousness alone is equally as futile.

Are you able to detect and possibly even accept the logic posed here? (just the Logic - not a 'proof' of God's existance?)

Neither can God's 'refusal' to respond to humankind personally be taken under any law of logic to prove that he is Gay (which 'he' is, for reasons stated previously)

God has spoken! (through me, his humble messenger in Oz) ; )

Boaz,

Having just ploughed through Deuteronomy, I feel I can now reengage.

“It is a great temptation to spiritualize things like weather and sickness.”

No, it isn’t a temptation, it’s just plain ignorant.

The problem I have with our discussions is I’m never quite sure if that is what you’re doing or not. You seem to toy with the idea that plagues, famines, wars and other misfortunes are the punishment from a supernatural being for being naughty or being “spiritually wayward” (more specifically for breaking a “covenant”), and then you pull back. You’re a tease.

Deuteronomy sets out a worldview in which a particular tribe sets up an agreement with their imaginary deity: we’ll behave in particular way, and you won’t smite us. In doing so, they rationalize their genocide of the people they’ve just invaded (or are just about to invade). They also codify a set of social norms – some adaptive and sensible, some that can only make sense in their particular time and place and some that are just plain weird, at least from a 21st century humanist’s point of view. Yes, it’s true, people sometimes thought that way, and even today some still do. People are puzzling, huh?

I wasn’t thinking of the Israelites as my primordial religion (where a priestly class cracks the calendar code and thus manages to predict the rains and the floods) but I don’t they’re all that many stages further on. The principle that fortune and misfortune are a function of the relationship between a people and supernatural beings or other forces belongs, I think, in anthropology and history, not current social policy.

I don’t have anything against religion, as such. On another thread, FellowHuman suggested instead of praying for rain we should pray for a water policy. Like most Muslims, quite a lot of Christians and Hindus, and nearly all Buddhists he seems to realize that prayer (or meditation) work by focusing human attention, not by appeasing or manipulating imaginary supernatural beings. As an atheist humanist I can see the value in this.

Just not sure if that’s your take.

West,

The other issue is whether a lab assistance who knew an abusive amoeba was insulting him and demanding that he do something would comply in any event.

“Sexuality although genetically influenced also depends on hard wiring of the brain. When a heterosexual male sees a female with curvy hips, full bottom and large breasts his brain receives those attributes as signs to a potential healthy child bearing attributes and that translates to sexual arousal and it is the sexual arousal which the mind focuses on.”

I have known males who like skinny women with small breasts and some who like women with fake breasts. When Titanic was showing many women found a very non masculine De Caprio appealing. Mick Jagger had a big female following in the seventies and some fans even considered him good looking. Now The Rock and Arnie seems to be causing most female drooling although they are exaggeratedly masculine. In a laboratory setting males have been trained to be sexually aroused by a tube of toothpaste squeezed by high heels. What that says about the experimenters who thought up the experiment I’ll leave people to make up their own mind about. However the point is that we are complicated creatures. Men aren’t just hell bent on voluptuous women with big boobs and women are destined to get weak legged at the sight of a hunk. Environment is clearly a big factor.

W,

Kevin who? Why are you bringing that into this forum? ( ;

He didn’t ignore it. He just didn’t emphasize it in the way you would want him to. Is it possible that you might be a little too close to the issue?

“Rudd rightly criticises the Religious Right for promoting a view of Christian morality that emphasises, “questions of sexuality and sexual behaviour”.”

BD,
“God has spoken! (through me, his humble messenger in Oz) ; )”

LOL

mjpb for all your posturing it is what you say based on your imagination and the prejudices inherent in your formalised and institutionalised superstition. God has never spoken. It is you that is expressing a hatred of homosexuals, not god. Nobody has ever come into contact with God no matter what antique fiction such as the Bible or the Quran claims.
Both those fairytales were written by and for people interested only in power. Everybody who speaks for God is claiming they are God. If you accept the fairytale of the Bible as something more than fantasy, the Bible defines God in genesis which literally describes God as a Homosexual. Christians have to face the fact they are either worshipping homosexuality or worshipping false idols. As nobody has ever come into contact with God(s), every God is a false idol; every claim of God is a false claim. Kevin Rudd is speaking about Church politics, not nature.

West,

Stop being so paranoid I don't hate homosexuals - although I'm willing to make exceptions... I have a very good friend who is a homosexual. To be honest he hasn't said much about religion and I haven't said much about homosexuals but I'm pretty sure he is gay and he would be pretty sure I am a Christian. What is really different is that he never angrily says that Christians are obsessed with homosexuals. Why that would be the case cf. Christian bashers in here or people who wear rainbow sashes in Church is anyone's guess.

"the Bible defines God in genesis which literally describes God as a Homosexual."

Bugger! Now you tell me. I missed that bit. I'll have to go re-read the Bible.

"I made someone here laugh! ( out loud )"

"My Work here is done!"

GodYahwehZeusAllahBrahmanZarathustraetc...

“…he never angrily says that Christians are obsessed with homosexuals.”

Probably because most christians aren’t. Indeed, catholics and anglicans align with the general population in this respect. Approximately two-thirds of them don’t think that homosexuality is immoral http://www.tai.org.au/publications_files/Papers&Sub_Files/Homophobia%20webpaper%20Final.pdf

The problem is that the one-third, and the other less tolerant christian denominations actively campaign against homosexuals, and in doing so, create the environment in which hate and homophobia can thrive.

Earlier this week the WA Christian Democratic Party put out a newsletter urging “that a massive campaign be launched by all Christians to fight on these three [gay rights] battle fields,” and Gordon Moyes issued a press release entitled “Gay Rights or Religious Rights?” Earlier this year Peter Jensen described the anglican church’s inner conflict over same-sex clergy as a life and death struggle.

It is quite typical for the christian religious right to portray their activism against gay rights as fight to the death, a zero-sum game where the possibility of living alongside each other peacefully is excluded.

This is (albeit relatively low-key) incitement to hatred, and it is extremely unhelpful to people whose lives are affected by homophobic attacks and discrimination.

The term “christian bashers” is a rather extreme term to describe those who are critical of this kind of rhetoric. When I use the term “basher”, I’m actually referring to people who commit violent acts on others whom they think are homosexual. Anyone who thinks that what’s happening in this forum is christian bashing is still yet to grasp the daily reality of poofter bashing.

You really are a one trick pony arent you West?

this horse is dead West, some what like your logic and understanding of the Bible, - put down the flogger pal and go back to your psychology text books.

Im sure if you are right God will say so sneekeepete. But since God has given us a resounding sign he is either gay or doesnt exist at all I dont like your chances. With recent events in Nicaragua where the Roman Catholic Church has influenced the Sandinista government to persecute women, Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly's attack on women , Tony Abbots attacks on women in his attempt to gain theocratical control over womens bodies using abortion as a lever, along with the anti woman anti ordination movement with women becoming more and more marginalised by god believers , Kevin Rudd has his work cut out for him. Does god agree with you sneekeepete? Lets here what god has to say? Next post from God?

WEst

U seem to spend loads of time arguing against a God you don't believe in. Do you see this as your mission in life or is it just that you are angry with your Creator? Why would you waste your time attacking someone who you believe does not exist?

Runner I believe in this thread we are discussing Christian attitudes toward non-Christians. This is the problem Kevin Rudd has taken upon himself. As we have witnessed in this thread is that the basis of Christianity is bigotry and prejudice and Kevin Rudds task is hopeless. God is gay is to demonstrate that when a Christian speaks for Gods preference he/she is only articulating his/her own prejudices because everything that is said about god comes from the imagination from the believer. For those subjugated by the fraternity of conmen or clergy as otherwise known the fictional work of the Bible is the guide. In the case of Homosexuality genesis defines God as homosexual. Christians worship a homosexual idol but also seek to persecute homosexuals.

"You are all right (in your own tiny little minds)"

"You are all wrong (taken from a larger all-encompassing viewpoint such as my own)"

"Now can we move along to the next thread? I think we are about done here"

Signed,

You know who ; )

Hi Snout.. wow.. you ploughed through Deuteronomy ? :) well done !

I just point out that the covenant and its included 'blessings and curses' was indeed for Israel.
For us ? well.. that will always be conjectural. I find myself attracted to the idea that there will be an occasional divine reminder of spiritual waywardness on a city or state level though.

I'm rejoicing about one thing especially in your post.. that you recognize the 'time and place' aspect of the document. "You are close to the kingdom".....

At the risk of totally annoying you :) why not read Genesis from Chapter 10 to the end of the book? The Table of nations (the part about where all the races came from in chapter 11) has astounded anthropologists and archeologists due to its 'lack' of emphasis on the specialness of Israel, this is most stark when compared with similiar tables of nations listed for say Egyptians or Assyrians etc.. who without exception use such things to underscore their national pre-eminence and the superiority of their gods.

See 10:4 and 5 its brilliant. No possible explaination other than simply informing of truth. Do a search on "Nimrod". Real person ? :)
Note the reference to a PROVERB "A mighty hunter like Nimrod" .. this blows my anthropologically trained mind ! turn on that thinking cap now...
I should recap here..that this all is so meaningful to me because of my time with the Indigenous people of Borneo who have similiar traditions for their own history.

Honest reflection on the Genesis record, will show that God/Yahweh was the prime mover...and there is no hint of 'invention of the people' because the people were always trying to run to Baal etc who was more morally convenient. There is no logical or humanly explainable reason for the emergence of Israel other than God being at work in Salvation history.
cheers and sorry to tease :)

“…he never angrily says that Christians are obsessed with homosexuals.”

"Probably because most christians aren’t."

Absolutely!

"The problem is that the one-third, and the other less tolerant christian denominations actively campaign against homosexuals..."

No. Not every Christian who considers homosexuality a sin "actively campaigns". Most Christians haven't developed the activist mentality of homosexuals. The society was Christian and there was no reason to do anything. Now they are vilified by homosexuals.

"Earlier this week the WA Christian Democratic Party put out a newsletter urging “that a massive campaign be launched by all Christians to fight on these three [gay rights] battle fields,” and Gordon Moyes issued a press release entitled “Gay Rights or Religious Rights?”

If those people accounted for one third of Christians Christian Democrats would have more seats.

I don't know the context but Peter Jensen is probably correct - for the Anglican church. Irrespective of ideological viewpoint it has been fading into secular society for some time. It seems close to death and more fading would be the death knell.

"It is quite typical for the christian religious right to portray their activism against gay rights as fight to the death, a zero-sum game where the possibility of living alongside each other peacefully is excluded."

Christians have been living alongside homosexuals for many centuries. I know for a group claiming minority status homosexuals are very well resourced and powerful. Apart from having above average earnings they enjoy representatives in Federal Parliament and the High Court bench. This would not have been possible in most non-Christian societies. Yet homosexuals still consider it necessary to crusade against the scourge of Christianity - even rainbow sashing in Churches. Are you sure the religious right aren't reacting defensively? When I see the hatred directed toward Christians in here I start to wonder.

"The term “christian bashers” is a rather extreme term to describe those who are critical of this kind of rhetoric..."

Although you already know I can make obvious responses I'll concede that I asked for that by using that term.

Lets face it - a good few of the posters here - and indeed else where when it come to anything religious - are a couple of phenothiazines short of a good conversation - lets end this one now shall we?

mjpb Christians have been persecuting many different types of people for centuries. Christians when in power only live along side somebody else if they are unaware of their existence. Many groups learned to hide themselves over the centuries because if they were discovered the Christians would have tortured and murdered them. Christians cannot break from their past, you cannot choose to be a Christian unless you fully agree with its crimes. The philosophy is far too integrated with its actions. This is why Kevin Rudd is falling on deaf ears. Christainity has always and is currently cruising to persecute somebody.

Clearly you dont listen West: I said lets end it now. The last twenty posts have really been a waste of time and space

The last twenty posts may have been a waste for you sneekeepete but they have not been a waste of time for me. They have served to confirm my perspective.

I'm clearly not as 'au fait' with these issues as you are, mjpb.

Could you please point me towards the data behind your assertion that homosexuals have above average earnings.

You could also put me in touch with the homosexual party ("they enjoy representatives in Federal Parliament") because I'd like to take them to task for their underachievements.

While you're at it, you might also tell me who represents homosexuals on the High Court, because first, we require our judges to be impartial, and second, the only homosexual judge on the High Court always absents himself from cases on which he has previously expressed an opinion.

w,

Your serious question was:

“I'm clearly not as 'au fait' with these issues as you are, mjpb.

Could you please point me towards the data behind your assertion that homosexuals have above average earnings.”

I originally got the information from a Christian source so I have hunted down one you will accept.

http://www.gaytoz.com/bHomo_Economics.asp

UK:
Average income was £22,130 compared to £19,400 for the general population.
There were higher levels of employment, and ownership of pensions and shares, than the national average
27% of respondents had degrees or equivalents compared to 9% average

USA:
91% are college or University graduates.

What I originally read was a comparison of homosexuals with African Americans who also claim minority status. African Americans displayed severe financial disadvantage even when 'perks' of marriage that homosexuals seek sympathy for missing out on aren't considered.

mjpb so you are saying homosexuals are smarter than the general population. Figures are useful things to quote. Christianity breeds poverty please check out any figures concerning Rawanda if you dont think so. All you are demonstrating is smart people allow homosexuals to be themselves so in educated groups homosexuals dont hide the fact that they are gay. Obviously in low skilled groups , ignorance and a lack of education would make some people more hostile to homosexuals and so not allow them to be of their own nature. Be careful with numbers because Christians are extremely over represented in child abuse cases even compared with the entire non-christian population. Focus on clergy you may be suprised what motivates a man to turn his back on nature and remain asthetically celibate. Often I have heard so called 'Epiphanies' and thought that man is obviously Gay and afraid of his mother.

Thanks, mjpb. It’s interesting how the income statistics for gays and lesbians always seem to have been gathered by marketing organisations trying to talk up the buying power of their target market. The sampling in the source you mention is questionable (Londoners have a higher income than most Brits anyway), but there’s a consistent pattern of marketing companies in many countries claiming that the pink market has higher incomes and (more importantly for marketers) higher disposable incomes.

Does anyone know of a well-designed study comparing the incomes of, say, childless same-sex couples with comparable childless straight couples?

Naturally having a higher income would be a valid reason to discriminate against homosexuals, in the same way we currently discriminate against company directors, lawyers, heiresses and residents of Toorak and Point Piper ;-)

Not quite sure what point you’re trying to make with the comparison of African Americans and gays. Are you arguing that because one group fares badly it’s OK to discriminate against another?

Claims by same-sex couples for equal rights are about just that – equal rights. I guess it’s easy to focus on the money, because this is a very transparent measure of discrimination. When equal rights are indeed granted to same-sex couples (yes when, not if), there will be financial winners and losers.

However everyone (even you mjpb) will gain from having a more equitable and inclusive society.

My other questions were also serious, if rhetorical. Since you’re ignoring them, let me spell it out for you.

There are no parliamentarians who represent homosexual interests, in the same way that the CDP and Family First represent christian interests. All the homosexual MPs I am aware of represent their constituents and their parties. While apparently it’s OK for Tony Abbott, among others, to say he’s a catholic first and a Member of Parliament second, there are no gay MPs who put their sexuality before their parliamentary duties.

Nor is there a High Court judge who puts his sexuality before his judicial duties.

On the point about homosexuals enjoying representation in parliament and in the High Court, you stand corrected.

Adding to w's comments. m Are you suggesting that heterosexual High Court Judges should not hear cases where the defendant is an attractive member of the opposite sex?

West,

I believe homosexuals are smarter. In any event they are in a different ballpark to other groups claiming minority status. This is enormously advantageous for achieving change. However I don’t draw the conclusions you do from the rest of that post.

The point I was making is that homosexuals have a lot of power and I believed that the despised Christianity has afforded the opportunity. There are homosexuals in Federal Parliament and one of the High Court demigods is openly gay. I acknowledge your contrary view regarding Christian society.

W,

That brings up a related issue. It appears that: When lifestyle choice is a useful image it is the buzzwords. When notions of equality would be better promoted by having no choice homosexuals become born that way. When homosexuals want marriage they make themselves sound financially disadvantaged. When they want to be valued as tourists they cite surveys by marketing companies that might not be accurate (although I suspect it is) that make them look wealthy. Perhaps this (apparent) tactfulness is associated with cleverness…

“Naturally having a higher income would be a valid reason to discriminate …”

The ATO would agree with the words I quoted. Discrimination can cover a broad range.

”Are you arguing that because one group fares badly it’s OK to discriminate against another?”

No just pointing out that things don’t always seem to be portrayed as just being about equal rights and gays in poverty is probably an inaccurate depiction. From comments I read somewhere recently you would think that homosexuals would be in poverty if they don’t get marriage legalized. Whether this was a positive assertion or just an omission of any reference to ‘just equal rights’ I don't recall.

”On the point about homosexuals enjoying representation in parliament and in the High Court, you stand corrected.”

Absolutely and there is nothing to suggest that the ideals you expect them to aspire to are not complied with so any suggestion they do not live up to the ideal would be nothing more than speculation. Representation was a poor choice of word.

mjpb Tony Abbott is openly Christian , more so he represents only the agenda of his darkage and ignorant superstition. There is no other person in the entire history of Australian politics who is as symbolic of anti-democracy as Tony stands for. Because of the superstitious and ignorant idiocy of the darkage cult of Catholicism he has literally murdered hundreds of thousands perhaps millions and created suffering of millions more by denying the potential benifits of stem cell research. All because of what ignorant and self obsessed witchdoctors in the catholic cult say two cells equates to - a 'person'?! Ironically the fetus goes through the stages of Darwinian evolution re-enacting the steps. Which means by Christian logic that eating fish is cannibalism. Well at least to eat a fish is to deny its potential to evolve into a human. Will Catholics starve to prove they are right? No , they know they are wrong! Now tell us what Gay leader has demanded we all be Gay?

Westy,

'Now tell us what Gay leader has demanded we all be Gay?'

Ok - how about Jesus Christ (JC to some).

"I am The Way" (meaning we should all do exactly as he did)
and he directed us all to Love our Fellow Man! : 0

Sorry - that was just too opportune to resist!

West:

“Ironically the fetus goes through the stages of Darwinian evolution re-enacting the steps.”

Recapitulation theory has been largely abandoned, although there are some elements of the original theory that have been retained in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

There are lots of fascinating debates and areas of study in evolutionary biology: can I recommend, if you haven’t already read it, “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. I reckon you might enjoy it. It seems a pity to me that so much energy has to be spent defending science against the fundies, when there are much more interesting and real questions and arguments to look at.

I agree with you, though about the absurd suggestion that gays are trying to “convert” other people to homosexuality. If it were true it would be a depressingly futile exercise for such evangelists. It seems strange that such an assertion is most likely to come from evangelizing Christians. A case of protesteth too much?