ACL's positioning of themselves as centrist belies the fact that there are many lay and religious Christians in our society whose faith is more encompassing and inclusive than that espoused by ACL. Failure to articulate their communities' concerns about climate change and the potentially dangerous and irreversible, impact it may have on the whole of God's creation, suggests that their business and their faith lie to the right of the spectrum. Questions vetted by ACL to ensure balance? I don't think so - especially when they chose to exclude some Christians who hold different views to them from the forum. This is the essence of polarity and exclusivity - hardly the centrism they claim. Alarmingly different views on how to be a good Christian and leader? Thank God for that.

Like any group in our society the christian lobby has a right to advocate on behalf of their particular cause. The danger (if that's not too strong a word) of this participation in the political process is that this advocacy comes at the expense of the rights of others to live their lives free from interference by people who wish to impose their narrow world view on the rest of us. A modern pluralist society is characterised by its ability to accept and value diversity of opinion, not narrowly defined notions of "morality". As Don Dunstan put it: we should be wary of people who try to "institutionalise their own inhibitions".

I quite like this link between "righteous" Christians and a certain chap who mis-ruled Germany in the 30's and 40's of last century.

1. http://nobeliefs.com/nazies.htm

The said person also made patriotic speeches about both internal and external "threats" to the German body politic,its "glorious" (even at times Christian) his-story, and the necessity to resist and even eliminate such "toxins" from the body politic.
We all know where that lead---dont we.

The 'centrist' Christian political influence seems fairly weak in the federal Liberal party - but the far-right anti-choice, anti-gay movement is well represented by Kevin Andrews.
He has been responsible for overturning the rights of terminally ill patients to end their suffering peacefully, blocking the rights of women to choose safe and simple means of ending pregancies at a earliest possible (zygote) stage (via RU-486), voting to block any possibility that stem-cell research may help us develop cures to life-threatening and dehabilitating illnesses (including cancer), and last of all refusing to consider that same-sex couples should at least have the same basic entitlements (wrt medicare, super, pensions etc.) as other de-facto couples.
That this man can hold his seat by 10% while representing the views of no more than a tiny fraction of Australians is a indication of something wrong with the state of politics in Australia.

Yes the last gasp of the religous will be painful for all of us. I always laugh when I hear talk of the christian lobby it almost always get's follwed by christian ethics. As any observer of US will see we don't want their type of christain lobby. It does seem to me though that is the only type you can have these things always turn into hatefests. Christaity is as relevant today as dream time stories.

Rev. Benson: "What is, I think, beyond question is that Christian views, and Christian voters, are being taken seriously by politicians, political parties and the media in Australia."

I think Benson's quite correct here, except I don't see this decline in public rationality as any cause for celebration. As I've said previously in this forum, it's not Islam that is a problem for Australian society. Rather, it's the advent of a well-connected, cashed-up and professional fundamentalist Christian political lobby that seeks to try and impose its very narrow worldview on the rest of us.

It's no coincidence that politically active Christians tend to be xenophobic, Islamophobic, conservative, paternalistic, misogynist, homophobic, wowserish and warlike. For evidence, just read their comments, with which this forum is littered, for numerous examples of every kind of prejudice expressed by self-professed Christians.

Imagine a society where such views are taken seriously. Scary stuff indeed.

Like many, I have been watching the Christian Fundamentalists in the USA with growing horror and trepidation. The long-established separation of Church and State is crumbling over there, with predicable consequences. But luckily, we don't have the long history of Christian fundamentalism here that they do, and we are on average better educated and informed. Still, there are worrying signs.

I see the intentional running-down of public schools, and the corresponding increased support for 'private' schools as an attempt to 're-Christianise' our country. How many secular private schools are there? One of the major reasons parents send their kids to private schools is for a better education. I went through the public system after Whitlam worked his magic, and they were all excellent with wonderful teachers. The current state of our public schools is government policy, and designed to funnel our little blighters into good Christians, future grist for the mill.

I live near the Paradise Church in Adelaide (a Pentecostal, Assemblies of God church like Hillsong). Even all those years ago when I was in high school, they had a large following of young people. Their 'church' is more like a concert stadium, with a state-of-the-art media centre and film studio. There is not a cross in sight, no statues or priestly robes, nor any altars or Holies. They present a very friendly, secular front end, with speaking in tongues and adult submersion baptism out back. The Family First political party was born in this crucible, and with a very similar ethic. That is present a very normal, secular front end, hiding a fundamentalist Christian agenda out back. It is this more subtle approach that worries me, rather than bible thumping and 'faith healing'

We don't need another Christian political party anyway, we have the Liberals.

CJ... that was a very articulate example of 'vilification' .. it was very skillful.. why ?

aah..because you included 'truth' along side 'lie' and that is where propoganda (to the unthinking) becomes effective.

You claimed organized Christians are, WARLIKE..... yet in the same post you claim 'Islam is not a threat' to Australia....

Yet.. ALL the evidence points in the opposite direction...
Lets analyze

'Christians' on trial for alleged terrorism right now "0"
'Muslims on trial for alleged terrorism right now ....13 Melb 11 Syd
'Reported death threats from Christians toward politicians. "0"
'Reported death threats from Muslims toward Politicians/Spokespeople' "2" (that I know of Nile and Zrieka)

If that alone does not show the stupidity and denial, not to mention gross and indeed malicious misrepresentation of Christians very little ever would.. specially to the closed minded.

So..how you come up with this WAR-like accusation... must be totally fanciful.. if only...no...it has to be malicious because you are obviusly a bright bloke.

BARNEY25 Hi.. and welcome. Mate.. the real problem is ...on what grounds do we define 'narrow' morality. Sure.. if we oppose people marrying dogs and cats... to those people we are 'narrow'... each person defines 'narrow' as 1 inch inside their own preferred moral comfort zone. We will continue to promote values precious to us.. SOMEone will always be annoyed by that....unnavoidable.

If only world religious leaders like the Pope and the Dalai Lama would stop their messages of intolerance, bigotry and hate, just think what a peaceful world we could have. If only there were more good atheist leaders again like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh and Milosovic - peace, democracy, good will and reason would surely reign.

Boaz,
I think you had better clarify that you are speaking of "free-range" terrorism, not the State-sponsored kind that we all seem to ignore.

I think that too, there are still a significant amount of terror attacks still happening against US interests in South America by the way, but somehow they don't get the same news coverage in our media.

The problem I have with the political Christian right is that they think they can legislate righteousness. Jesus taught that the best policy was example, tolerance, love, and authenticity. He taught to shun the accumulation of money and wealth, to focus our attention on the poor and needy, and to be the servant of all. He taught to avoid judgement of others, to pray for our enemies, and to spread the good news of the gospel. You don't legislate these things. You just do them.

Christian views are being taken seriously for political not principled reasons. I'm grown up enough to understand that much.

Christians will always try to throw their weight around in a yearning for the good old days when the kings and bishops called all the shots.

With few exception most religions are absolutists in their approach to life - given their druthers most would be fundmentalist in their approach - and they have no place in politics

- having said that it is a free country - they are free to dabble in the political process - but it must always be remembered that our freedom is rooted in a secular not a religious struggle

- the last thing I need to be is enslaved again by adherents to the philosophy of the Hillsong brigade promulgated by cashed up bogans or indeed the pronouncements of the Panzer Kardinal from Rome .

Roy writes
'The problem I have with the political Christian right is that they think they can legislate righteousness. Jesus taught that the best policy was example, tolerance, love, and authenticity. He taught to shun the accumulation of money and wealth, to focus our attention on the poor and needy, and to be the servant of all.'

I have sympathy with this stand Roy however it can be used as a cop out when we know the secular humanist are not happy to teach their own the lies of evolution and the denial of a baby being a baby but want the whole of society to participate in their own bigotry. It is true that their is no righteousness outside of Christ but it is also true that if Christians don't make a stand for the most vulnerable in society (elderly, unborn and children) then no one will.

AS was seen in Victoria that the secular humanist want free speech for everyone except Christians. I personally would prefer to go to jail then deny my Saviour and His teachings. I would like to think that my children will still have freedom to call wrong wrong and right right long after I go. The way things are heading and the way humanist want it is for good to be called bad and bad good. We see this in everything from perversion (homosexuality to killing the unborn).

Roy,

I could not agree more. The gap between what Christ said and did, and the preachings of most Churches and Christians is the cognitive dissonance that scares most of us away. The idea of a right-wing Christian is beyond an oxymoron (which country would Christ bomb?), and the Crusades, Inquisitions, Indulgences, Conquistadors and Pogroms have nothing to do with creating the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. If a camel passes through the eye of a needle before a rich person sees God, and Christ kicks over the tables of the moneylenders in the Temple, where the hell did Protestant Prosperity Theory come from? The Romans knew this, and the Egyptians before them, Religion is Power. And we humans are not equipped to handle absolute power, it inflames our base nature.

Didn't Christ say 'Don't judge, lest ye be judged'? I am sure that Christ would have accepted a gay person into his flock, he took in lepers, prostitutes and Samaritans after all. And I am sure that Christ would have sided with the emotionally and socially crippled person who self-medicates with drugs. Capital 'C' Christians should wake up to themselves and stop trying to force the world to change to calm their own demons. As Roy said, the only power we truly have is our example. If the Christian life was better, was producing happier, more balanced people, there would be no decline active religiosity. Instead people see hypocrisy, power games and money making.

Wherever Religion enters the Australian body politic, I will be there. Not on my watch.

Sounds like a definite 'egg before the chicken' to me. 'Act as if' it is important and eventually people will believe it is important. Coercion and social engineering underpin event gestures such as this and should be nipped in the bud and decried very loudly by all those who believe reason (and don't forget, reasons can change depending on context and circumstances) and not 'faith' should be the dominating factor in political discussion.

Just like everywhere in the West, people are being 'softly, softly, catchey monkey', coralled back to the dark ages. Personally, I wouldn't vote for anyone who trumpets their religious convictions louder than their reasoned arguments concerning social policies.

At the end of the day, around 8% of Australians bother to go to
churches, so the Christian lobby is little more then a small but
very noisy minority group.

We saw in America what happened, with a so called "born again
Christian" as US prez. I would not wish another George Bush
on my worst enemy!

Here most politicians seem smarter then that. They realise that
every vote counts, so placating the little old lady down the
street who is god fearing and goes to church, can make a difference.
But best to just soothe and placate, not actually do a hell of
a lot, or the other 92% of voters will get upset. Once the silent
majority gets upset, there is no chance of winning an election.

We have a few religious extremists with an agenda in parliament,
luckily not many. Best that they are exposed and hopefully
booted out at the next elections. We want freedom of religion,
but also freedom from religion. Today Australia is very much
a secular country and politicians would be wise to remember that.

And amen to all of that, Yabby ;)

Couldn'a put it better meself.

Roy,

"Didn't Christ say 'Don't judge, lest ye be judged'? I am sure that Christ would have accepted a gay person into his flock, he took in lepers, prostitutes and Samaritans after all."

couldn't agree more - the only people Jesus seems to have a problem with in the Gospels are "money lenders" (bankers), "scribes" (lawyers), "pharasees" (clerics) and those who advocate violence as a means of persuasion (refused the sword).

It always amazes me when I see/hear Christians like, runner:

"The way things are heading and the way humanist want it is for good to be called bad and bad good. We see this in everything from perversion (homosexuality to killing the unborn)."

who jump on the homosexuality and abortion bandwagon - and have never a word to say about the war-mongers amongst their own sect. People who genuinely follow Christ have only one thing in mind - bringing disparate groups of people together, in PEACE. You don't need to be a "Christian" to do that either.

I have a few questions for right wing conservative christians.

Is it a sin in their religion to take our country to war based on falsified evidence where

- 10's perhaps 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's are killed (What would Jesus say on this?)
- nearly 4000 innocent USA troups have been killed (What would Jesus say on this?)
- where the Weapons of Mass destruction never were there What would Jesus say on this?)

Then the second question is... and at what stage do they change their vote when this is proven to be true? (What would Jesus say on this?)

If a christian voted for a leader who had done this to their country and which led to what has happened in Iraq would that be Christian?

Good luck your maker is watching you

Runner,

You mentioned, "I have sympathy with this stand Roy however it can be used as a cop out...."

The stand I advocate is not a cop out according to my understanding of Christ's teachings. Every time we focus on telling someone what they're doing wrong, we become hypocrites. Jesus' sermons on not judging, on removing the "beam" from our own eyes before we remove the "mote" from someone else's, are very clear.

Roy

Without wanting to sound smart because it sounds like you are very genuine in your attempts to follow Christ but are you not judging by saying we should not speak about issues such as abortion?
Kevin writes
'People who genuinely follow Christ have only one thing in mind - bringing disparate groups of people together, in PEACE. You don't need to be a "Christian" to do that either.' Many of Jesus disciples who could of saved their own lives by denying the risen Christ would disagree with you. It is true that we do our best to live at peace with all men. Unfortunately due to sin in the world this is not always possible

YABBY and CJ.

By stating that only 8% of Australians goto Church, and then whining about the impact of the ACL......(now think...see if it comes 2 u).... do you get it yet?

Come on...dig around in those brains... dig.... aaah..YOU GET IT NOW?

Goooooood..... if 8% can have a significant impact on the political process.... why the heck do you not see this as being applicable to OTHER groups especially militant ones..such as those I've been covering in a 'particular' thread? Hmmmmmm?

Methinks there is a tinnnny bit of 'selective deafness' out there.

The whole point about raising awareness about small groups having a big effect is that they CAN.... and DO.....

Yet....if Boazy 'outs' some mob, he is a Mosely, if Yabby outs the loony Christians he is a hero and a patriot..

ROY... about Christs teaching. Bear in mind though mate... Jesus also recognized threats to true faith, and he not only named them, he 'condemned' them... the main culprits were
-Saduceees
-Pharisees
-Lawyers
-Scribes.
We must always temper our criticism of others by awareness of our own 'sins'...and I'll guarantee you that that little sentence will be hurled back on me personally by a crowd of snarling, torch waving village predators :) very soon.

But unfortunately, as it was the the Lord Jesus, so it is for us. If you condemn or criticise, or expose... SOMEone will get their nose out of joint, and its usually the mob with some kind of vested interest in the target of the criticism being left alone. This goes without saying. I think the point of Jesus teaching, was that we should not judge others from the sense of personal righteousness.

Criticising movements, ideas, even particular individuals is not unbiblical.. see Pauls mention of "Alexander the Coppersmith, he did us great harm, watch out for him". Paul also appealed to the Emporer, exercising fully his Roman Citizenship when local flunkies were doing him badly.

Well BD, with you I see it a bit like the pot calling the kettle
black.

The Christian Taliban or Taliban are much the same, ie religious
extremists who take a very narrow worldview, focussed nearly
entirely on their religions. I once saw a programme discussing
the same problem in Israel. Its always religious extremists
of any kind, that seem to be the problem.

Somewhere I once read the stats of what % of people in various
countries either attend a church or mosque. You will find that
in muslim countries its much the same as with us. A small
% are religious fanatics, a larger % attend for social
reasons, the rest can't be bothered.

Us more secular people all seem to get on fine, as tolerance
and not being so judgemental and pontificating, is the basis
of it all.

So perhaps we should throw all you religious extremists together
into one country and let you argue it out about your gods,
whilst us more normal people could live together quite happily without you :)

What impresses me about this essay is how it summarises the very different Christian approaches of the two political leaders.

The summary of Howard’s presentation reveals a leader much more interested in the kind of Christianity that is moralistic, polarising, opportunistic, repressive and punishing.

By contrast, Rudd presents a very different Christianity – one that is compassionate, inclusive, intuitive and bottom-up in its social concerns.

I’m an atheist, but if I ever went back to Christianity, it’s the Rudd version that would get my donation when they hand around the plate.

The first people for patting themselves on the back for being moral and good are Christians. They are great aren't they? They say they are good so they must be. This is the logic of faith , the believer says god exists so god must exist , I say god makes my rules so you must abide by my rules. Certainly Howard and Rudd are slaves to the narrow Christian point of view. By the authority of saying something therefore it is so, no questions please.

Unfortunetely religion with authority is tyranny wether politically (there has never been a benevolent leader who had strong religious beliefs) or socially (the low position of women in the bible as an example and the poor excuses to try and interpret clear words into something post modernist to make the bible appear as pro female).
From the tyranny and violence of God to the exclusionism of Christ the bible in no way contains any good moral or ethical value. Pentecostal greed to Calvanist dictatorship witch burning and war mongering are products of the Bibles contents.
Faith cant be trusted because it has no foundation in truth indeed faith is a manifestation of bias and wants and so it is dangerous to mix with politics.

Surely in the 21st century we should have moved on from superstitions created to justify the power of fuedal kings. I will vote for Howard or Rudd if they prove their god exists, if not then I will write them off as just another one off with the fairies.

Time to be the Devil's Advocate, I see,

While I am a fervent critic of the capital 'C' Church, and Christians, I have nothing but admiration for many of the auxiliary christian NGO's like St. Vinnies and Caritas, among many others. While the Churches are interested in power, and Christians fighting their own demons in others, there is a lot of good work going on almost in spite of the capital 'C's. Some christians actually try to follow the Gospels, some try to live in Christ's image, and some spend their lives trying to carry on Christ's work in helping the disadvantaged.

Whether he was real, or a symbol created by people, I am moved by the philosophy of Christ. Of course he wasn't the son of God, but he may have been the son of Humanity. I see him as a revolutionary leader, the ultimate philosopher-king. What a beautiful image is the Prince of Peace, the opposite of the global Fuehrer (the Anti-Christ). His paradigm was born at the very time Rome was at its greatest after Caesar's heirs stole the Republic, when the difference between the Haves and the Havenots was at its peak. He led a Luther-King/Gandhian style revolt, mixed in with a communal lifestyle as the antidote to poverty; the world's first socialist? The Church made him the son of God, so they, as God's representatives, could subvert and squash his movement. This is probably their greatest crime, and that is saying something.

So while the Church, and Christians, still do their best to quell real christianity, the cat is out of the bag. The Gospels speak to all people of a better way, regardless of religious belief. Join together, share what we have, love peace, justice and deny the Powers any control over us. Turn the other cheek is not passive, but defiant. Stay together, resist the oppressors and the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth may just be possible.

"christian ethics". the arrogance and sanctimoniousness of these people is beyond belief. if you can't defend your moral values on general human principles then why should i give a damn? why should any rational or humane person be impressed by the basing of morality on the teachings of a mythical being?

if "christian morality" is becoming a stronger political force, it is simply the sign of pandering to arrogant superstitious nonsense. a nauseating article written by a nauseaing man, in support of a nauseating organisation, all dripping with that nauseating, self-satisfied christian smugness.

BUSHY.. man.. you do have some venom there don't you :)

Let me act as a mirror.....

"Those filthy unbelievers.. they all going to HELLLL and they absolutely deserve it.. disgusting lot.. immoral, cheap, promiscuous, yes indeedy.. the scummy evil non Christians will get everything they deserve.. hell and an eternal fire to roast them..over and over....and as soon as we get 'power' we will be stoning them for the slightest reason"

Now...THAT is nauseating.... and totally 'un'Biblical in its tone and mood.. but that is also the tone and mood of your post regarding Christians.. not a good look is it ?

The harshest I'll say about unbelievers is that they are outside of Christ-lost, have no moral or spiritual anchor, and are in need of Divine Grace.... Why not see how Jesus describes those outside of Christ ?

"Sheep without a Shepherd"... what is to characterize believers ? "As the Father sent me, so I send you" (with the same love)

"For God so LOVED the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life"

The only people who perish, are those who WANT to....

It's all about choice. But your problem seems to be that you would deny Christians their democratic rights.. yet allow humanists and secularists theirs. That my friend is discrimination. We Christians take GREAT exception to many ideas and laws which humanists would make.. but we have to live with them in a democratic society.. so too, if those who follow Christ have enough votes... non Christians also must live with the outcome.... if they don't like it, they can do what we do.. EVANGELISE.. proclaim.. refute.. rebutt, debate, share... and try to build up their political base and CHANGE it.....

Freedom means we are ALL free to do just that.

oh, knock it off. i'm not denying anyone their democratic rights. i'm not suggesting christian groups cannot or should not lobby for what they believe. but that doesn't make these groups any less ridiculous or nauseating, or the pandering to them less ridiculous or nauseating

Boazy: "...if they don't like it, they can do what we do.. EVANGELISE.. proclaim.. refute.. rebutt, debate, share... and try to build up their political base and CHANGE it.....

Freedom means we are ALL free to do just that."

Does this mean we can look forward to Boazy ceasing his endless bleating about e.g. Muslims and their supposed political aspirations?

Somehow, I doubt it.

It's sad that the Christian lobby has a conservative agenda rather than that of a God who identifies with the poor which is what Christianity is really about, not a preoccupation with sex and Prosperity Theology. Jesus talked about public morality, not private morality. It was poor old Paul who was crippled with guilt over being gay and ended up hating himself, women and gays, whatever other good things he might have said about love (agape).

John Howard refers to Wilberforce but he spent over 20 years fighting the corporate interests which Howard represents today who put profit above everything else - the Golden Calf that Moses ran into to in the desert. He should look at the speeches made against Wilberforce by the members for Liverpool and Bristol, and see how the planters lobbied against him.

Fortunately Peter Costello's brother raises those real issues and the Quakers are still lobbying as they did in the days of Wilberforce before they could vote so had to go through the Anglicans and the Clapham Sect as they were later called.

CJ.... good try and oh so predictable :)

If I worried about things I say coming back in your hand to bite me in the bum I'd say nothing.

There is a difference between "Fundamental Christianity" and "Radical Islam" the Obsession thread should have shown that to you, but as Jesus said "They have eyes..but do not see, hear but do not perceive."

KatieO sorted you blokes out..but still you don't "perceive"... fair enough. Some people are born blind...others willfully so. (and I'm sure you can find a way of whacking me with that little tidbit also :)

But it boils down to simple things...kinda like 1+1=2 "We will rule the world" "Islam will dominate, you will be destroyed" uttered by that nutter in London.... when was the last time you heard me say "Christianity will DOMINATE -you(atheists) will all be DESTROYED" and the meaning of the Muslim nutter was 'in this world' .. if Christians speak of judgement or destruction they always mean it in the NEXT world, even Fred Phelps probably. Fred just dangles people over the fires of Hell in words to try to threaten them into heaven. I don't think he actually assaults people..?
Even HERE
http://www.godhatesfags.com/writings/20060704_letter-to-earthdwellers.pdf
he is saying "God" will punish.....

If you can find him calling for 'killing' please let me know. He says "Proud gays are worthy of death" but I can't see him saying "Kill them"..

From his 'parting words'

"there is nothing to look forward to but a certain fearful watching for God’s judgment"

Contrast that with "We will RULE UK, we will RULE the White House" etc

Runner
"It is true that we do our best to live at peace with all men. Unfortunately due to sin in the world this is not always possible"

We are only responsible for our own actions - if we live peacefully, we die peacefully. It is possible to be a peaceful person. why did Jesus refuse the sword - refuse to join ANY coalitions of the killing? Jesus gave his life, without retaliation, turning the other cheek, to the very end - " Iam the LIfe (example), The Truth and The Way." The reason he says this is because he knows people will distort his words - but they can't distort his actions.

The most remarkable thing about the early Christians is that they transcended race/tribalism - all people were equal.

Today we have prominant "Christians" who persecute people for no reason and wage aggressive wars - resulting in the deaths of more than 1,000,000 people, 4,000,000 more displaced and a further 8,000,000 suffering from malnutrition - the majority of whom are children. People like Howard for example, are much more like the Herod we hear about in the Gospels than they are the Christ. By their deeds know them - not heir names. anybody can be a lapel pin wearing only "Christian" - much more difficult to really LIVE like one - and you don't get further away from living like one than by taking part in the destrucion of other people's lives.

My suggestion runner: improve your comprehension skills - the story of Christ is not that difficult to understand - as a whole story - not just a passage or two taken out of context.

The world would learn a great deal about the nature and REAL causes of conflict between people (WHO really stirs up trouble in communities) from studying the society of the Gospels as a microcosom. Let me give you a hint, the 'priests' of that society don't come out of it too well. Not one little bit!

Now if Christianity had a politic that would be an issue worthy of debate. However not all Christians share the same politic.
Judging from the 'god haters' if Christianity was a Marxist doctrine they'd be all over it like flies on a roo turd and everyone would have to be Christian.
Kant took morals to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason. Later thinkers took the imperative to originate in conscience, as the divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of conscience are simply right and often resist further justification. Looked at another way, the experience of conscience is the basic experience of encountering the right. For good Christians it's the light. Same same.
Governments should be doing the 'right thing'. If governments where motivated to do the 'right thing' political lobbies would be non starters. That governments can be manipulated is the reason lobbies exist. The Christian lobby is one of many. Not THE lobby. Or the worse by half. Though they do make a lovely target for the continual abuse by the 'God haters' and their fears of having any moral considerations for ewe and me.

"and their fears of having any moral considerations for ewe and me."

Aqva, I have no moral considerations for you and your ewe . Whatever
gets you through the night I say :)

Well, maybe not you personally, Boaz.

>>when was the last time you heard me say "Christianity will DOMINATE -you(atheists) will all be DESTROYED"

How about this gem from columnist Anne Coulter"

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war"

http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml

Not much doubt about her views, eh Boaz?

But of course, I forgot. She cannot be a Christian, because Christians - by definition - do not say such things. Or if they do, they cannot possibly mean them. But is they do mean them, well... they can't be Christians, so there.

When will the clue stick finally hit, Boaz?

You are irredeemably one-eyed. As far as you are concerned, only Muslims offer violence in defence of their religious beliefs, despite the absolutely overwhelming evidence that criminal acts have been perpetrated in the name of Christianity since it first appeared.

And not only historically. Separating children from their parents in the name of Christianity has been a practice until, I should remind you, quite recently. So, for all the sympathy we have for katieO's asylum seeker, please stop holding her up as if this answers all the questions.

And please aqvarivs, spare us the hypotheticals.

>>if Christianity was a Marxist doctrine they'd be all over it like flies on a roo turd<<

As my old grannie used to say, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. I'm not at all sure what she meant, but I think it had something to do with careless use of the conditional "if".

If Christianity were a Marxist doctrine, aqvarivs, then either Jesus or Karl completely screwed up somewhere along the line.

Pericles: "If Christianity were a Marxist doctrine, aqvarivs, then either Jesus or Karl completely screwed up somewhere along the line."

Too funny. My partner just asked me if I'm alright as I was choking on my beer (and she's in the next room...)

aqvarivs: "...moral considerations for ewe and me."

That's what started it :D

Pericles, your socialism has long proved defunct. It was so pathetic of a system that it managed through bitter human depredation, degradation and out right murder to hold out for 70 years. Time you kissed it goodbye and got on with living in the world of merit. The idea of a lobby is counter to merit and is the purchasing of special consideration and is by that extent corruption of good government. And is corruption of democratic government by the guile and manner practiced by the communist. A peoples system of caste.

What your grannie was trying to tell you was to get off your ass and do for yourself because sit'n an' wish'n don't get the hoe'n done. Nor does leaving it hoping for somebody else to carry your weight.

And spare us your extreme ultra right hyperbole. What Anne Coulter has to say is designed to push your leftist buttons.

If Christianity was Marxist God would be dead. And old Karl would have been a Nazi, and not living in a German Jewish ghetto. And not angry at his religion and people for not having the power and position of controlling German political society. And not having been fundamentally responsible for the 20 odd millions of Russians who were forced by the few to swallow such tripe and paid for that experience with their lives during the 'revolution'.

I have to hand it to you aqvarivs, you do have a way with words.

But if I were you, I'd stub that roach before you start trying to use them. On this occasion they don't seem to have come out in any particular order.

But please, don't bother to explain what you meant. I may not have understood any of it, but I still got the message.

I have to disagree with the myth that Jesus was some how moral. Clearly the new testament states Christ as exclusionary , Only his guru followers are promised immortality for the ritualistic killing of their guru. Of course its Pauls influence on the second century Harry Potter placed the basic value of exclusion and the chosen (those who become immortal by worshipping Christ) forms the whole foundation of Christian views. Even the Samaritans were destined for damnation and they were better people than Christs devotees.

If Jesus were as good as Christians claim it would still be irrelevant because faith is the extreme form of meglamania. Aside from the ambition to be immortal like god , all interpretations of the fiction and theologies are self serving. George Bush for example was once a drunk and drug abuser with a reputation of callousness and apathy to the plight of others. He found Jesus so he gave up the booze , so what? it was his own fault. As a Christian morally he is no better a man. Even with Jesus claiming it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven is claimed by prosperity christian cults for the eye to mean city gates although in the claimed Arabic and "ancient Persian" it is not true. Theologically then it reads it is easier for a camel to enter a gate than a rich man to enter a gate. Why bother?
Of course the black magic Christian cults offer gimmicks such as speaking in tongues and healing and other nefarious semi hypnotic experiences of enjoying the inner self.

Prayer is an intraspective occult ritual.While praying often the eyes are closed, no real external empathy for the world outside the skin. Christian music is all "me,me,me". The Christian rule is preach but dont listen to others.The ridiculous intelligent design pseudotheory is a result of this. Such level of meglamania will assist the ambitious politician , bad enough also the corruption of bias benifiting Christian groups.

"I have to disagree with the myth that Jesus was some how moral. Clearly the new testament states Christ as exclusionary , Only his guru followers are promised immortality for the ritualistic killing of their guru."

I think I'd like to see you explain this - so we can at least discuss. You use the word 'clearly' by mistake surely?

Don't forget - Christ wasn't a christian - his teachings speak for themselves and are pretty distinguishable from both old testament teachers and those alive today who pass off old testament teachings as his.

aqvarivs, i have absolutely no fear of moral considerations for you, or for your ewe, or for me. and i certainly have no fear of moral considerations based upon the words of christ, which i find insightful and often beautiful.

what i fear, and am disgusted by, are moral values that others declare as god-given, and which are thus undebatable. and what i fear, and am disgusted by, are people who claim no morality is possible without genuflection to their god. in this regard, i am equally disgusted by the moral arrogance of all theistic religions.

i'm as moral as benson or you or boaz or runner, and i am appalled that anyone can suggest otherwise, simply because i don't believe in magic.

bushbasher, when it comes to lobbyist your morality is as much suspect as any other socialist, atheist, humanist, secularist or ultra right religionists. And so it should be. There is a criminal hiding behind every philosophy and to suggest yours is pure is as stupid as a religion extremist purporting that their rule will be benign. Each issue that comes before the government ought to be weighed solely on it's merits and ability to transcend political partisanship and relate equally to all without prejudice or exploitation. Our society is already crippled by laws and regulations that are not applied equally nor favour all inclusively. Further fragmentation of what should be a cohesive society will not be helpful.
On a personal note. You can not attack the religious for their beliefs and hold an expectation that the same will not be inflicted upon yours. If your so superior it is not enough to say they started it.

aqvarivs, where did i express my morality was pure? where did i express any moral view whatsoever, except an appreciate for the words of christ?

how you can so predictably miss the point of others' posts, how you can so infallibly introduce straw men to attack, this simply escapes me. you're clearly not dumb, but your posts are excrutiatingly obtuse.

my post was short and clear and pointed. if you wish to ignore what others write, and to simply enjoy the sound of your own voice, then good for you. personally, i find you distracting and a bore.

bushbasher, I didn't miss anything. It's right there for all to see as plain as your liars nose. You smirched others system of belief by calling it magic. You CHOSE to put one system of belief down to raise yours up. While desperate, it implies a position of assumed superiority. Your intent was quite clear. Also my original post did not have your name on it. Unless you are 'THE' God hater. You choose to write your victims outrage on a post that was explicitly arguing, by use of Kant and others, that the moral imperative was one of REASON. As in "Not following the moral law is seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason." NOT RELIGION.
Learn to read and especially comprehend before allowing your emotions to dictate your reasoning and you'll probably find your not being victimised but, rather supported EQUALLY.
There should be no preference and should be no sense of entitlement. Oh ya, AND VICTIMS SHOULDN'T GET A VOTE. It's that mentality that has at it's principle our government and society encumbered and unable to achieve positive direction no matter which political party is in office.
If my posts are to you obtuse than it is only because you find value in not recognising my belief in equality of representation and want to hang onto some vestige of entitlement. I speak to those who understand that our democracy has been corrupted by the lobby for 'special interest' crowd and that that aspect of our governing requires definite change.
The only straw man here is you as victim.

aqvarivs, I don't wish to lamb-ast you goatuitously, but can ewe please stop baaastardising our language in your decreasingly coherent bleatings?

Maaaa-aaany thaaa-aanks :)

Kevin Jesus was not Christian as you say , nor was Jesus a Jew. Jesus was not a human and Jesus was not a man. Jesus is a character of fiction. For the purposes of the story the character was Jewish and the story set in and around Jerusalem. Most of the story including the so called morality of Christ's teachings is taken directly from the hero cult of Mithras. Jesus is just another deified hero of myth and offered nothing new to the readers except that it signalled a milestone in the ongoing Grecofication of the Hebrew cultures which had been building for over 200 years.Heaven , Hell , afterlife, judgement were all transplanted Greek concepts.
The discourse Christ offers is not of personal morality but a threat of communism to the dictatorship of Herod. Christ teaches that the masses can justify the authority of kingdoms through the superstitious idol of god. Safe reading too because when Jesus was invented Herod was long dead and Rome was deeply contained through tyranny. The irony was Jesus was the tool of tyranny from Constantine until this very day. It took until Martin Luther until the words of Christ were taken seriously again and Christian groups founded communist communities which are the founders of modern communism. Secularism is a threat to modern Christians because freedom threatens the communist structure. The brothers must tow the line or the community will fail. As far as morality is concerned Christians and Christianity have never justified their claims that they are moral. Certainly their god does not back them up, all their claims are made up, constructs to suit their agenda to gain power over other peoples lives.

BushBasher I ask you to demonstrate to me the moral foundation in Christs teachings as demonstrated through aqvarivs's discussion with you as he/she is a representation of the outcome of believing in Jesus.

west, i don't think aqvarivs represents anything except aqvarivs.

as for the messages of christ, i think you can ignore the superstitious mumbo jumbo, and extract the lessons for human society. of course, these lessons cannot be justified as the word of god, but that doesn't mean the lessons cannot be justified at all.

i think any moral rules have to be justified in terms of pragmatic human notions, ideas of human dignity and reciprocity and the like. in this way, i think it is easy to value christ's teachings, independent of whether you regard christ as mythical, or a pagan rerun, or whatever.

Amen West,

I have felt this for a long time. I am heartened to hear about the Liberation Theology growing in South America, though the dark forces are gathering. The current Pope was head of the department in the Vatican that used to be called The Inquisition, and he is gunning for those pesky radicals over there. The connection between socialism and real christianity has been made in South America, where the vast majority live in poverty. They have the motivation to join together, and give life to this ancient prophesy; the meek will inherit the earth. I feel South America is going to free us all.

Our problem is our wealth. We believe we can go it alone, and that those who are poor are somehow deficient. This has led to the breakdown of family and community, as they are no longer in our self-interest to maintain. The Social Contract has been broken, though our self-sufficiency is an illusion. The convergence of Peak Oil and the limits of growth/consumption should hit about the same time, and we are going to relearn very quickly that everything we have relies on the labour of others. Once this ride is over, small 'c' communism will be the only answer, or as I like to call it these days, Grassroots Democracy. As power becomes diffused and filters down, the influence of Churches, Governments and Corporations will wane.

What we will have left is what Christ and Marx said; each other.

Every person and every group should have the right to express their views however, this Christian Lobby Group is a fundamental organisation that spreads hate just like their Islamic counterparts. When the Beattie Government was going to reform religious education in the state schools, not once did they jump on the religious hate this group spread about pagans.

Hateful messages including, telling people that Witches will be going into schools teaching kids how to hex and curse each other. This group demonises any group that disagrees with and see our marshmellow politicians cowering to a bunch of hate filled war mongereres is extremely disappointing.

I certainly would not allow the Christian Lobby Group in my office due to the extreme religious hatred that this group spreads.

Hi Pericles...

yes..Anne Coulter is indeed colorful in her language :)

I'm not sure on what authority she says to "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".. but it surely is not the Bible.

At least people notice what she says...... and can take a position on it.

I rather doubt that many people would adopt her rather forceful view, and if they did, they would probably just become collateral damage as the various gun toting factions sorted themselves out.

One thing I might say though.. when a 'WASP' starts talking like a radical Muslim... you actually take notice don't you....

Well.. now chanel that caution and revulsion into supporting my posts on radical Islam :)

You see..the difference is..Anne Coulter cannot support her position from Scripture.. Radical Muslims CAN.

MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY BOOK SHOP.

RACIAL and RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

*WARNING*

In regard to the selling of this book, Melbourne University Books shop is hereby warned that an investigation is now being carried out, to determine if this book or the sale of this book contravenes the abovementioned act.

Examining the section of the Act which relates to 'exlusions' reveals it may not provide protection for the sale of the book, if the book is deemed to be calling religious beliefs into contempt or ridiculing them. Dawkins is on record as 'hating' religion, and thus, his words must be interpreted in the light of this 'emotional' rather than academic statement.

Please be reminded that in a recent VCAT case involving 'Catch the Fire' ministries vs Islamic Council of Victoria' the costs associated with this trial exceeded a million dollars.

All it will require Unity Australia to do to make a successful prosicution of the UMBS on this issue, is to show that the intent of the book is to 'mock/ridicule/incite serious contempt for' as opposed to 'making a reasoned evaluation and scholarly enquiry' of the issue at hand.

Please note, people have already been offended by this publication, and are aggrieved. The compensation sought for this will be substantial, and punitive and may include the requirement of paid public advertizing of apologies to the aggrieved parties.

Boaz David

LAWS... CAN BE AWFUL THINGS.... WHEN "BOTH" SIDES OF THE COMMUNITY DECIDE TO USE THEM :)

SOLUTION.. remove the stuuuupid law.

Don't forget, Boaz, by their deeds shall ye know them.

>>Yes..Anne Coulter is indeed colorful in her language :) I'm not sure on what authority she says to "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".. but it surely is not the Bible.<<

I hate having to quote the scriptures at you, but sometimes it is the only way to get through to you.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matt 7:16

[According to a respected biblical source, the word "fruit" used here is "Strong's Number 2590, which means 'work, act, deed'"]

So whenever we come across a Christian who vomits such hatred into the world, let's remember this, shall we? That it doesn't matter a hoot whether or not they follow the "Boaz Guide to Evangelism" (or even "Christianity for Dummies", come to that), they a) are self-professed Christians and b) should be understood as such.

The alternative to this, my friend, is to treat each side of the discussion with stringent impartiality. That means that when you come across a Christian or a Muslim that spouts vitriol in the name of their religion, bear in mind that they represent only themselves, and not the religion at large.

And please, do not wriggle out of this by saying "ah, but the Qur'an says this and the Bible says that", because we are by now totally accustomed to your ability to select only the passages in the Qur'an that support your argument, and to deny that any passage of a similar nature in the Bible actually means what it says.

As for your Melbourne University Book Shop item, if this is a true record (and let's face it, your history on such matters is not entirely, shall we say, spotless) then it says far more about the University than it says about the law. Sadly.

Wow, with the "telling it as it is" outing of the real reason for the Iraq war was the OIL, by Alan Greenspan, it has placed many of the fundamentalist conservative voting Christians and right wing thinkers on this page in a moral dilemma.

If it wasn't for the WMD's that didn't exist then have we all been lied to? Now of course the free thinkers here know the answer to that already... But what will the Christian thinkers do now?

Which part of Christian teaching allows politicians to lie? Which part of Christian teachings allow the killing of 100's of innocent Iraqi's and soldiers of our forces in an illegal war? Which part of Christian thinking allows lies to be told in a parliament as justification for a war? Does Christ say anything on these matters??

Right wing Christians who have continually justified this war have now been placed in a horrible position... they can either follow Christ and Christ's teachings OR they can follow the Bush, Blair, Howard consortium.

It's fine Christians wanting to ask our politicians questions but will they ask the right ones - or will there political biases get in the way of honesty?

I'm sorry right wingers.. the jig is up... Christ is watching... be sure that your name hasn't been added to the alleged book along with those you decry here. Your day of judgment is now at hand... Good luck with that...Ha!

The road is narrow... I hope you make the right choice!...Ha!

Dear Pericles

You pointed out:

"The alternative to this, my friend, is to treat each side of the discussion with stringent impartiality. That means that when you come across a Christian or a Muslim that spouts vitriol in the name of their religion, bear in mind that they represent only themselves, and not the religion at large."

Fair enough, but the point which should not be overlooked is... the degree of coincidenc between the ideals/doctrines/fundamentals of the faith in question and the words being uttered in its name. If they match...then .. it should be clear. 'Tree--> Fruit'.... if they don't match.. such as Coulters rant.. the case is also clear.

OPINIONATED.... aaagh.. I think you need about 6 months of solid intellectual detoxification :)

Mate.. Greenspan said "was partly about oil" .. but you JUMMMPED from that to make it the whole reason for the invasion. You did not seek to understand 'how' it might have been related to 'oil' as a resource and or.. oil as a WEAPON to use against the USA.. by withholding it.
Did you by any chance have a look at the strategic location of Sadaams troop concentrations after he invaded Kuwait? err.. swarming on the border with Saudi Arabia! No prizes for guessing what he might have had in mind.

While ur in re-hab.. tell them you have been infected with an almost terminal dose of 'leftoiditus' :) and that you only see things in a very narrow manner. (no Pericles.. or CJ..wipe off that drool :)

Does your Religious zeal extend to good manners David? Was your leader a bad mannered person? Did your Christ use sarcasm? Back to the books big fella!

Well a Republican saying "partly" is a bigger statement than you care to envisage.

America has made enemies all over the world... it financed Bin Laden and Hussein... when it suited them ... An alleged Christian country can't have it both ways David.

Instead of justifying illegal wars you should perhaps understand motive and how power corrupts. Whilst the majority of Americans are wonderful decent people their Government has caused them havoc by doing deals with the devil.

The truth will set you FREE David but first you have to be able to recognise it... Good luck with that!

See David if you don't ask the right questions in the end your politics will always clash with your faith. Please tell me where in Christianity it allows a country to kill 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's? Please tell me in your book where it allows politicians to lie? Please tell me in your book where it gives you the right to justify illegal acts?

Maybe you are a perfect example why Christians get it wrong so often... they choose the history they wish to quote selectively ... and why wouldn't they? - they also do that with their Bible.

Dear Opinionated...

you asked me a specific question so I'll try to respond.

"Please tell me where in Christianity it allows a country to kill 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's?"

That statement/question is quite loaded.

"Innocent" means you have decided the answer before answering.
My take would be this.
1/ Sadaam, was not innocent (of inhumanity to others) and neither were those who supported his regime.
2/ The Americans invaded.. took Sadaam out, and have since then been seeking to install a friendly (elected) government.
3/ Now..those who have a vested interest in the Americans NOT being there are as follows:

a) Former Baathists who have lost power and privilege.
b) Al Qaeda operatives who want power in any case.
c) Iranian operatives who don't want a Sunni return of power.
d) Sunni Muslims generally who know how the Shia they previously oppressed are likely to treat them if the Shia hold power now.
e) Shia Muslims who remember how the Sunni's treated them, and don't want that ever again.

So... bottom line, pretty much all of the above are killing Americans and fellow Muslims, but the Americans are only killing those who attack them.
Thus far I don't see the Americans as the bad guys... apart from any motive they might have to actually 'take power' themselves.. which I don't see..

Even mohammad restored some existing rulers to their thrones after they embraced Islam.. so its a common thing to do, the Muslims did it throughout history, the Americans have done it.. The Brits have and to be honest every other country has done it.. Its life. We don't want to have 'enemies' controlling our access to important resources and trade opportunities. Our lives depend on these things.

The BIBLE.. only speaks about 'Authority being appointed by God' in the end..and that in principle..peace, stability are the goals of government. See Romans 13:1-5

Illegal/legal war ? I'm pretty cynical about the UN and "International law" -I see little or no value in them.

Dear David... nice try but you answers are a little naive...

Innocent doesn't mean I have decided the answer before answering - it means innocent. Parable - A family of Iraqis are having dinner ... a USA bomb falls the house - all die? Are they innocent?

Suddam was a despot... but David you conveniently forget that the war was based on WMD's and falsifications represented as truth presented to the UN by Collin Powell and subsequently repeated by our PM in our Parliament. Is that lying and where does your Christianity sit with lies and falsified evidence? Regime change was never a reasonable reason for invasion - Ask Howard!

The Coalition of the willing invaded .... and did exactly what Howard said was unreasonable ... Regime change with none of the evidence for the war found! In Christianity is such an invasion immoral? Have 4 permanent USA bases been built in Iraq? A hidden agenda perhaps?

The USA invasion was based on securing another (thought of as easily achieved) supply of oil other than from the Saudi's. The USA know how hated the Saudi Royals are. From this supply, easily destabilized, USA imports oil. It's foreign policy and starting a war for such purposes is not only illegal but unChristian.

Whilst I agree that those you listed have a vested interest in the USA not being there... they actually play into the American hands with their actions. The USA can't leave so guess what they CAN stay... Oil is their goal! The weakness in their plan is that too many innocent USA soldiers have been killed bringing political pressure back home. God bless these poor young Americans who have been used as such a tool.

The Yanks don't want FREE oil they want to buy Iraqi oil and keep oil prices down... again whilst understandable not really a moral reason to invade for a Christian country.

Though shalt not murder (Is killing innocents murder? Yes!) Thou shalt not bear false witness (Is fibbing to the UN bearing false witness?) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house (or oil)

You are so adept at side-stepping, Boaz, that I just know that I'd recognize you if I met you coming out of Southern Cross station - you'd be the one crossing Spencer Street sideways.

You, as usual, missed out the important part of my argument, and only quoted the conclusion, standing out there like a shag on a rock.

Here's what I said:

>>"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matt 7:16

...So whenever we come across a Christian who vomits such hatred into the world, let's remember this, shall we? That it doesn't matter a hoot whether or not they follow the "Boaz Guide to Evangelism" (or even "Christianity for Dummies", come to that), they a) are self-professed Christians and b) should be understood as such.

The alternative to this, my friend, is to treat each side of the discussion with stringent impartiality. That means that when you come across a Christian or a Muslim that spouts vitriol in the name of their religion, bear in mind that they represent only themselves, and not the religion at large.<<

In the light of my first two paragraphs above, your protestation that:

>>...the point which should not be overlooked is... the degree of coincidenc between the ideals/doctrines/fundamentals of the faith in question and the words being uttered in its name<<

...sounds a little expedient. That is exactly the point that should be considered, in that they present their religion as the underlying justification for whatever bile they happen to be spitting.

On the subject of bile, can you explain this little snippet for me?

"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Sounds a touch extreme. What can it possibly mean?

Yes certainly Boaz accusing people of being born in sin is definetely preaching hatred and villifying all people. All else that follows out of such a hateful philosophy can not be good by any standard.

We tolerate such rubbish because some our ancestors went through a period during an age of ignorance and moral decline who believed in such superstitious nonesense. Hollywood and the media has painted the cult of Christ as something soft and cuddly but in reality it is far from the truth. Much of this is to do with sentimentality which is part of American culture , part is due to corruption within the media , part of it is due to ignorance of the media. Part of it is due to the ignorance of Christians of their own history and their own political groups.

Choose between a muslim and a Christian world , there is no difference it is like chosing between star trek and Next generation, for the non fans the idea is ridiculous at best.

To be ruled by a Christian government will result as it has always done Christian , Muslim or any religion , it always results in persecution and violence.

Those who know nothing of god are the ones that believe in him.

Typically, those who have come to slag religion, especially Christianity, are unable to see how similar the language of their posts are to the religionists. Change the names and nobody would know the difference.

In my view there is no place for a Christian lobby at the government trough but, then again, I don't believe any lobbyist should be receiving government largess. Any generosity of government should be returned to "the people" in services, not to any "friends of government".

Your sex, your religion, your ethnicity, your culture, your business, or your personal agenda should not afford you any more than "the people" in general. Government should be blind to sex, religion, ethnicity, culture, business or personal agendas, and should never use any of those elements as grounds for making policy or public expenditure.

Hi there Opinionated,... ok..this is what I would call progress...

At least we are getting to some challengable specifics.

CLAIM "Iraq is developing WMD's which could threaten the West"

MY COMMENT: I both agree and disagree with this. I highly doubt that Sadaam would have tried to undermine or attack the West using such weapons.. but that is purely my opinion. The important thing I wish to point out here.. is that contrary to the leftist 7fold amen of 'They did not exist' I offer to you this report, for your consideration.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200602%5CSPE20060202a.html
Now.. you can make of that what you will, but I feel it is just as valid, probably more so, than the reports that they did not exist. In fact this report EXPLAINS why none were found....which is much different from 'They did not exist'.

COMMENT..I think the whole issue was used as a justification for other strategically crucial issues which would not get far in the public arena of a democracy.

WEST... I have not called for a Christian government, and its nice that you and I finally agree on something :)

PERICLES.. sidestep eh ? hmmm... no.. just speak-a-da-truth... I simply emphasise that a person claiming to be Christian does not make them one.. and you used one incorrect word on your post.
"Thus the ARE Christian", nope.. the truth is "Thus they will be REGARDED as Christian"

The fruit.. is what you know a true and a false christian by.
Good fruit... probably Christian
Bad fruit.... cannot be.
Speaking of course in the most general and broad sense. Individual Christians can be quite passionately and vigorously 'right' in their own minds when it comes to church politiking..and the row between Paul and Barnabus is a classic example. (over whether to take John Mark with them... JM Happened to be Barnabas' nephew :)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&version=31
Acts 15 v 36-39

I agree with you aqvarvis but you must appreciate that as a non Christian I would possibly be amongst the first to be executed by a Christian Party in power for not agreeing with the moral assertions of the group. Far fetched? In Morrocco and Afghanistan Muslims are and were executed for converting to other religions or becoming atheists. Not so long ago Jews were forced into Catholicism and then had their faith questioned and faced the death penalty. Not so much longer than that many people were executed as witches for a whole range of religious reasons. In their party launch Family First asserted lesbians should be burnt as witches. In the U.S religious based racist groups are still pushing 17th century theories on race.

As lobby groups go the threat to human life and social peace that Christian lobby groups pose should be taken into account.As a Non Christian I cannot see any difference between the what Al Quieda demands and What many other religious groups demand , they all demand that non-believers follow their vrules.
As Christianity is wrong in all its assertions of morality and its own righteousness and its own history and its readiness to deny real facts including history , I cannot suggest it is a group that should be trusted to provide political input.

I say again people should be free in what they believe as long as they leave all others out of it.

Well that makes a change, Boaz.

Me: "when you come across a Christian or a Muslim that spouts vitriol in the name of their religion, bear in mind that they represent only themselves, and not the religion at large."

Boaz: "The fruit.. is what you know a true and a false christian by. Good fruit... probably Christian. Bad fruit.... cannot be. Speaking of course in the most general and broad sense."

I think that means we agree. Unusual, what?

Would it be too much to ask for you to apply the same rules to Muslims? Good fruit... good Muslim. Bad fruit... possible terrorist?

Too much? Thought so.

And you ought to know by now that taking notice of right-wing apologist organizations such as CNSNews is equally brain-numbing as giving credence to their rabid leftist counterparts - you have to take each with a liberal dose of salt.

Interestingly, your WMD article dates from more than eighteen months ago, and has never been corroborated or expanded upon. Given that it espouses a view that President Bush would simply love to have confirmed, don't you think that it is a little odd that nothing more was heard...?

No? Didn't think so.

Perilous...where the heck have you been for the past 3 yrs.. that has ALWAYS been my position on Muslims.

I have never condemned ALL Muslims.. I have condemned "Islam".. in the full knowledge that not all Muslims have the same understanding... of their own faith...and I have specifically singled out 'RADICAL' Muslims for 'special treatment'.....

I think I have the runs on the board here..

later..

You cannot get food poisoning from untainted fruit. If there are bad Christians therefore Christianity itself is the source of that , if there are bad muslims then Islam itself is the source of it. There had always been Nazis during the war who chose not to kill Jews, we still judge facism because of the deeds that facism allowed. Religion is no different than facism, only which belief inspires will manifest from it. If persecution is the outcome of some Christians all Christians must accept that their beliefs, idols , faiths are at fault. This is where Islam is failing at the moment , the failure to accept that the core philosophy of Islam is wrong. Christians also have failed to accept the core of their philosophy is just plain wrong and so the outcome in deeds of worshippers will be Chaos.

To put it simply head on collisions are rare and drivers are taken off the road for driving on the wrong side (rejected by law) because at the core of road laws is that we all keep left.

David.... Why is it always Paul that Christians refer to when debating and not the words of their Christ? Do Christians place Paul number 1 with Jesus Number 2 when arguing. Christ in Matthew 5 & 6 set out how Christians should react and behave. These along with the 10 commandments are absolutely fundamental to Christians and their obedience to their Christ. Christs teachings = Christian.

The article you provided really just hasn't been proven. It may suit people to believe that but surely proof is what is needed when war is declared? It is so old and if it were provable the USA would have rushed this info into the media ad nauseum - so I guess a reasonable mind might think that the ex-Iraqi General might be just trying to sell books.

Plus you didn't address the question of the falsified evidence put before the UN. Come on now... You can't just drop a few of the ten commandments when it suits your thinking... No-one calling themselves Christian can do that... surely?

Of course once you get into the Bible there are all manor of nasty little pieces hidden within it's volumes.Exodus 21 on slavery is a beauty for any Christian to ponder. What? Aussies can have a New Zealand slave(s? It approves selling daughters into slavery? - Hmmm what was God thinking? Jesus in Luke 12:47 says you can whip servants (slaves)... Wow what was Jesus thinking?

Christians forming alliances to ask politicians questions is a dangerous step - especially when the Christians haven't even questioned their own belief system. As I have said earlier ... If you don't ask the right questions you will never get the answers.

So Is it unchristian for a politician to falsify evidence, start a war, and cause 100's of thousands of people to die needlessly? Is it unChristian to torture people and turn a blind eye knowing that torture has taken place? Is it unChristian to send young people to war to risk their lives based on falsifications? It seems it is Christian to own slaves and whip them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

Very good and interesting points Opinionated.

I will re-address the article. Its nearly midnight for the election , the New Dark Age that Christian lobby groups are pushing for is not a meaningful political issue. I look at the news papers before me Australians are talking about the drought , water crisis , the drying Murray - Darling , aid for farmers , the working poor , the working exploited , AWA's ,housing affordability, falling living standards and the New Gold (and uranium ) rush of the three western states. Economic dependence on China and rising interest rates. Federal abandonment of education and health. A decrepid prime minister and a widely hated treasurer with ambitions to be PM himself. The closest Jesus comes to this election is Howards personal hope that Family First holds the balance of power in the senate. Family First have a tiny fringe following and have demonstrated to be the least morally guided party of them all and that is a bold statement considering the damage the Howard Government has inflicted by avoiding doing its job with climate change for the entire past decade alone. Not suprisingly the WMD, children overboard , AWA, AWB Prime Minister prefers a country at the mercy of Family first than somebody who would act ethically. But even then Howard was only throwing a toddler type temper tantrum as he is politically doomed. In a calm moment even he would have more sense than to prefer this country destroyed by what is essentially a fringe cult led political group.

whatever , aside from Mr Howards clutching at straws Australians are not interested adopting the New Dark Age and if they have any sense Family First wont still exist by the next time the Liberals return to power under Prime Minister Turnbull.

As the Australian Christian lobby comes of age -- and good luck to them -- the Secular Party of Australia is now emerging as a force for rationality, to temper the effects of the religious lobby and to assure that everyone gets a fair say at the end of the day.