The Forum > Article Comments > Kevin Rudd’s ‘muscular Christianity’ > Comments
Kevin Rudd’s ‘muscular Christianity’ : Comments
By Carol Johnson, published 17/10/2006The Labor Good Samaritan - Kevin Rudd - is weak on homosexuality and the Culture Wars.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- ...
- 19
- 20
- 21
-
- All
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 19 October 2006 1:29:20 PM
| |
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? Posted by West, Thursday, 19 October 2006 2:45:03 PM
| |
@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. Posted by saintfletcher, Thursday, 19 October 2006 5:58:18 PM
| |
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 naďve 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? Posted by w, Thursday, 19 October 2006 8:20:23 PM
| |
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. Posted by Gadget, Friday, 20 October 2006 10:33:51 AM
| |
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. Posted by West, Friday, 20 October 2006 10:58:26 AM
|
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?