Hear, hear Ray Cleary. I imagine that the vast majority of Christians are just as appalled as we secular types are, at the tawdry and vicious tactics used by the purportedly Christian anti-abortion lobby during the recent Victorian debates.

Like several of the most vocal "Christians" who utilise this forum as a soapbox for the promulgation of hateful and bizarre ideas, these idiots give all Christians a bad name.

If Ray Cleary is right, and a “healthy and vibrant democracy requires”…”active participation by the people…”, then there is not a healthy democracy in the world. Most people, irrespective of nationality, don’t give a toss until something affects them directly. This is why we are slowly – but steadily, so the lame brains don’t notice it – losing our democracy and right to free speech and some actions.

That elected politicians can prevent peoples’ desire to terminate their own lives, or for a woman to decide whether or not she has a foetus aborted, represent here-and-now proof that we do not have democracy, by any definition of the word, in those very personal areas.

The people who campaign against the two above issues are no more ‘Christian’ than terrorists are ‘Muslim’. The politicians who uphold their so-called pro-life demands are dictators: the best example being Federal Government interference in Northern Territorians' democratically expressed wish for legalised euthanasia

The author makes no mention of what tactics the 'Christians' he refers to uses. If showing pictures of murdered babies sickens people then they should do something about the thousands that are murdered each year. No one has a problem when the earth worshipers see fit to strip off for any reason in an effort to promote their propaganda. Pictures of the faces of 20 month old children with their limbs pulled apart might not be pleasant but how a churchman could object is unbelievable. No wonder 'Christians' are deserting the Anglican church in droves. When you throw out the truth you cover it with false morality. The author should be sticking up for the unborn not writing about those with the fortitude to stand against such crimes. The church does not need appeasers of evil but men and woman with the guts to say and do what is right. Killing the unborn is WRONG according to anyone with a conscience. Their are enough outside the church with warped and seared consciences (see first two posts). We don't need them inside.

In other words, Mr Right, if the democratic vote goes against your opinion, it's not democratic?

Now where have I heard that line of argument before?

"There is a Christian voice, often ignored by the media, which speaks quietly and informed. Why can we not hear this voice?"

Thanks for reminding us that some Christians remember that Jesus was a defender of the down-trodden and marginalised. He preached love and tolerance, not hatred.

I suspect the reason no one hear's this voice anymore is that the vocal 'moral minority' are shouting so loudly to convince us that THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO ARE RIGHT AND WE ARE ALL WRONG that they are deaf to the idea that their God is supposed to be the ONE and if he exists it is he who should judge the 'wicked' abortionists and the 'murderous mothers', not the government of Victoria or the enrage pro-life lynch mobs. Don't they have enough blood on their hands already? Let them spend their time usefully. If they are so concerned about vulnerable babies, they could start by expunging from their churches priests who violate children.

Their irrational focus on the small number of late term terminations illustrated by the multitude of innaccurate and ignorant comments from people like runner: 'Pictures of the faces of 20 month old children with their limbs pulled apart might not be pleasant but how a churchman could object is unbelievable.' certainly don't help their cause.

I don’t think that there can be a “Christian voice” - there are many allegedly Christian groups with widely differing stances on many issues. I’d hope that any professed Christian would seek a base of truth, wisdom, love and compassion when contributing to public policy; but I’d hope for the same from others, these qualities are non-sectarian.

Having twice been pulled back from the brink of suicide in my twenties (1965 and 1971), I’d argue that it is never the best option. The Buddha taught (and you can check this within yourself) that we consist of mental and physical aggregates that arise and pass away with great rapidity; there is nothing permanent, nothing to attach to. He also taught (but this is outside my experience) that at the time of death – when the physical aggregate can no longer maintain itself – the mental aggregates connect with a new physical life with a similar vibration; that is, the last mind-moment of this life is the first mind-moment of the next. A mind at peace, fully accepting the reality of the present moment, will find a compatible new life. By definition, a suicide is rejecting the reality of the present moment, is not at peace, does not understand that all conditioned life is unsatisfactory; such an ignorant mind will find a related new home; the suffering will continue.

(In Christian terms, you might say that whether you go to Heaven or Hell depends on the mental state at death, which of course depends on how you have lived your life. The Buddha, however, does not say that any entity continues, just the process of arising and passing away of mental phenomena.)

Re abortion, I think that life is too precious to be destroyed; I try to avoid killing ants and mosquitoes, never mind tiny human beings. Of course, people will make the choice based on their circumstances and understanding; I would hope that the decision-making process includes arguments for the life to continue, and knowledge that not having the child does not guarantee a better life for the prospective mother.

Yes Xena...and who could be more 'downtrodden' than a young child being formed in it's mother womb? One who is given no voice... but without any choice or voice it is often 'killed' for any one of a variety of 'convenient' reasons...including "Oh but I'm not ready to have a child right now" aah..simple solution..KILL IT, then, go through a mental re-wiring process to convince ones-self that 'life does not begin until.... (fill in the number of months)....'

We hear plenty about 'womens choice' but little about unborn child's choice... because the pregnant mother has the 'power'.... over the unborn infant.

I have no problem with 'shock tactics' if they simply confront people with their own actions.. who can argue with that? I think the whiners simply don't like the truth about their own position maybe?

I've stood at RMIT with some pictures of a PLO massacre of Christians which predated the high profile Sabra and Shatilla camp attacks which the Palestinians love to trot out each time Israel is mentioned.
Sometimes the truth IS..."shocking".

The assumption in the article seems to be that most Christians hold secular values.. well they/we don't. Their might be a lot of nominal 'Christians' who's faith is just enough to fill in a box on a census form...but the true believer is characterized by boldness and confidence and an awareness of his position..no matter how unpalatable it might be.

They are not "Christian" in the sense of the "ethics of the Judea-Christian values" that contribute to democracy. The religious right care little for human beings, tolerance, equality or secular values. They exploit trust in mainstream faith.

There is not one "noble" religious deed that cannot simply be done for its own sake. No reader here can supply one without reference to superstition. Thus "good" is human, not godly.

The modern world is a crisis of faith to the weak minded who are unable to rationalise disparate convictions, enter into compromise or even admit error. Democracy, ethics and science vs fundamentalism, superstition and erosion of science.

Over 7 years since 9/11, it is also Christian fundamentalists who seek democratic demise. The Christian merging of free thought, choice and knowledge, with crime, deviance and immorality is disgusting. That it comes with a rejection of science, evolution, history and simple reality is a mill stone around the neck of all Western nations.

New age Christian serial pests/moral thugs are revealed as intellectually impoverished in that the "right to life" ensures the arguments that minorities have no rights, persist. Ultimately human beings matter less than the hideously cruel world Christian fundamentalism desires. It is bizarre to cry foul over abortion, yet falsely cast those who "sin" as social predators then set about enshrining their lack of rights in law. As a bonus, they'll keep you alive in agony, unable to communicate and on display as grotesque proof of their "compassion". This blinkered, stumped view of the fundamentalist is ubiquitous.

Consider one method of false influence:
"[Family First] is deliberately not called a Christian party. We called it Family First so non-Christians who believe in family values will vote for us. But to be a member of the party you have to sign to say you oppose abortion, euthanasia, prostitution and so on so most of our members are Christians": Andrew Evans 2003.
http://unbelief.org/groups/ffp.html

How simple. Sign here and you're "a Christian" who abuses the rights of others.

In the 21st century, soul saving is an abuse of our democratic rights.

Other:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

http://www.abortion.org.au/waragainstsex.htm

Spikey,

Even your past record is blown away by your absurd comment to me.

Would you please point out where my post justifies your claim: “In other words, Mr Right, if the democratic vote goes against your opinion, it's not democratic?”

After you have done that, please tell me how I and all other Australians but you, apparently, missed the chance to democratically vote for or against the issues under discussion. I’m 65 years old, and I cannot remember having the chance to express an opinion at the ballot box. When did the democratic vote go against me?

You have proved that you are brave enough to risk making a fool of yourself to say what you think, but your two liner in this instance has me stumped because I cannot see how I could be guilty as criticised.

Disagree with me by all means, but have a good reason for doing so!

Religious folk crack me up.
The "real Christian voice" does not exist because "Christianity" allows you to do just about anything.
Look at the priesthood and children...
Look at the "Christian" behaviour of Jonny Howard and GW Bush.
Look at the witch burnings, black slayings, etc.
Also, Jesus said to be good to your slaves. *Not* not to keep them, but to treat them physically well when you do get a few. I would argue that as the son of God...he was misinformed on that one. Any christians want to argue his case to re-introduce slavery? (with husbandry standards of course!)
From the loony fringes (Hi Runner!) to the common christian, the tag leads us no-where and protects us from nothing.
The more religion, the more argument.
Society went secular for a very good reason! Alas, most religious folk forget/ignore that.

Ray is of course correct in stating that HOW debate is conducted is almost as important as the issue being debated. There is no room for personal abuse and hate mail. However, how can a debate around the abortion issue be complete without real consideration of what actually happens during an abortion and what the real effects are on the mother in the long term?

No-one WANTS to see pictures of an aborted child, but to pretend that abortion is "just another medical procedure" is to limit debate to platitudes and ignores reality.

I thank Anglicare and other church based agencies that offer so much support and care for women with unplanned pregnancies, but issue a challenge to our society - are we really comfortable with 1 in 4 pregnancies ending this way? Are we ready to offer real help or do we simply want to have an argument?

<< "No-one WANTS to see pictures of an aborted child, but to pretend that abortion is "just another medical procedure" is to limit debate to platitudes and ignores reality. >>

By that reasoning, all surgical patients should be shown the most gruesome aspects of their operation. We can make knee replacement candidates watch a surgeon grinding a bone surface down, and the patient's pain and wounds afterward, before they decide to go ahead. Eye patients, especially, should be made to watch an ocular slice-and-dice before they go ahead with plans to save their vision.

I see your point, but you have to understand that the majority of Australians truly and genuinely do not consider a foetus a human being, so for us it really is "just another medical procedure", and doesn't warrant pre-traumatising the patient.

Sancho, thanks for yor comments. I am not so sure however that most people do not see a foetus as a person. Plus of course that the "trauma" is mostly happening to the baby! As to surgery being gruesome, yes, I agree but of course the person who suffers the pain of surgery (BTW I just had my thumb done - it hurts like hell!) is the one who benefits from the same surgery. how does a baby benefit from an abortion?

Ozandy

You crack me up that you have the audacity to judge the Son of God. I did not think anyone would be so arrogant or naive. The sad part is you sound like you actually believe what you say.

Polycarp nee Boaz David.
"But the true believer is characterised by boldness and confidence and an awareness of his position. no matter unpalatable it may be"

You go on about Islam and terrorists, and you have the audacity to make such a statement, that could belong to the Fourth Reich!

Runner.
The majority of bloggers accept that you are member of the extreme religous right, but until you can produce true and real facts to your belief, you appear to be the naive one.

Mr Right,

You ask: "Would you please point out where my post justifies your claim: “In other words, Mr Right, if the democratic vote goes against your opinion, it's not democratic?"

”Your 'argument' is age-old. The stupid majority don't know what they're doing and don't deserve the vote.

"Most people, irrespective of nationality, don’t give a toss until something affects them directly. This is why we are slowly – but steadily, so the lame brains don’t notice it – losing our democracy and right to free speech and some actions."

And we're slowly but steadily "losing our democracy and right to free speech and some actions."

But wait! It's not gradual, it's worse.

The recent votes with which you disagreed "represent here-and-now proof that we do not have democracy, by any definition of the word, in those very personal areas."

But wait, it's much worse!

"The politicians who uphold their so-called pro-life demands are dictators".

That's what you get, Mr Right, when you let citizens vote. They vote in dictators who refuse to vote the way you want them to. It's the people's fault because "irrespective of nationality, [they] don’t give a toss until something affects them directly."

You say: "Disagree with me by all means, but have a good reason for doing so!" How about your confused and elitist position on the democratic rights of people to vote for representatives who are then responsible for voting on their behalf?

That probably takes care of your next request too. "...please tell me how I and all other Australians but you, apparently, missed the chance to democratically vote for or against the issues under discussion. I’m 65 years old, and I cannot remember having the chance to express an opinion at the ballot box. When did the democratic vote go against me?"

You're 65 but you haven't caught up with the parliamentary system yet? If you want a referendum on every issue, you'd better start lobbying political parties now - along with your fellow voters too.

But you'd better be patient - remember what you said about "most people".

The very tactics that misrepresent the Christian voice, are the ones of gross generalization. Ray's pointing out that excess coverage is given to those who claim one is either Pro Life or guilty of the murder of innocents. Worse, these callous people reach that point by dismissing abortion as routine and take pleasure in denying the unborn any rights. Indeed, they are godless, forsaken and bound for eternal hellfire.

By using graphic images, accusing and abusing already distressed people without understanding personal histories, they ignore more traditional values in favour of zealotry. Such as tolerance, introspection, compassion, forgiveness and accepting that unease and confusion over human behaviour are not insurmountable obstacles to the Christian faith. These are the very challenges that give Christianity its authority on living harmoniously in a secular society and it is this insight that offers so much more to those who experience a crisis of faith. More so, there are those who never consider these imperatives until forced to when making a choice over abortion.

Surely it is their right to consider issues of faith - or not - in a non threatening environment. As a non theist the secular values I'd advance include respecting the rights and beliefs of the individual, as they choose. Certainly, the perils of abandoning critical thought for divine guesswork, is intellectual suicide and the resultant mob behaviour is splendid testament. Also it is because the rights of the unborn must be considered that those who use God in politics must be afforded only ridicule.

Their ideal does not include human rights; just their own chance at the big shot. They brutally use such convenient imagery and exploit the unborn to suit their political aims. Religious fundamentalism has abused the minds and bodies of our children throughout history. Of course they are authorities on the "right to life". They claim to know its purpose and judge others according to how well they conform, not perform.

The biggest favour the secular community and mainstream Christianity can do for Australia is to quite simply, destroy utterly the religious right in politics.

Unfortunately as pressure groups dwindle in size they tend to become increasingly radical. Reasonable people who were active Christians have lost interest in Christianity, and those who remain are the hard-core believers. With 150 Australians withdrawing from religion every day this trend will only continue. We can already see the results in the intolerant homophobia of the Jensens in Sydney and the above-the-law arrogance of Cardinal Pell in Melbourne. A vicious circle results whereby more moderate Christians are increasingly repelled by their co-religionists, who get increasingly violent as they get more desperate. And so things will go on getting worse until Christianity becomes so insignificant in the West that it dwindles to the status of an eccentric hobby.

Assuming President Palin doesn't press the button to induce the Rapture first.

Mr Right says it well, by assumption, when he says there is no vibrant etc democracy in the world. There isn't.

You see democracy requires more than a small group to govern and we don't have that. We are governed by small groups of people in either of the major parties and we, the public, do not know who they are. This is actually an oligarchy, not a democracy.

So we don't have democracy at all. Voting does not imply democracy when your voting choices are limited to people you don't know picked by people you never hear of and then have those elected simply put their hand up when told by the power group.

If anyone calls that democracy then I'd suggest the dictionary be rewritten.

As to religion playing any role in politics, it should be banned totally. Why? Simple again. Religion is a fraud, the world's biggest joke on human beings, imposed by, again, small groups of men who use religion as a political tool. And have done so since religion was first invented.

Look at the US where the bible bashers often decide elections. On what basis? Usually fear of the black community or, even worse, fear of an intelligent leader and government.

Religion relies on unquestioning ignorance and any of you can see that with the protection of paedophiles by many different strains of religion. A real religion would never allow such in the first place, let alone hide and protect the offenders. Anyone who actually believed their religion could never commit such crimes.

Beleiving in a God is like believing John Howard is flexible.

Spikey,

Even though you spent a lot more time on justifying yourself than you did on the actual two- line, incorrect assumption, you have said absolutely nothing convincing.

It is obvious that you think it’s OK for any government to do anything it wants to after it has been voted in by 51% of the electorate. This happens. But it is not democratic.

When people vote, they vote in their own immediate interests. Their votes are ‘bought’ by self-serving politicians who always promise improvements which they know will appeal to people’s wants. The right to abortion and euthanasia are just two of the many important issues which you will never hear politicians talking about in their pre-election frenzy. This makes your argument that there has been a democratic vote on the issues, and that your ‘side’ won and mine lost, a complete nonsense. You won’t accept this of course, as you clearly believe that a government can do anything it wishes, and not do what it does not wish to do, once elected. Like the people I referred to, you appear to be a drone who likes his thinking done for him, and you believe democracy is merely the casting of a vote every three or four years.

As longs as we are stuck with only two parties who are little different in any real sense, we need citizen initiated referenda to have real democracy. But the politicians will not allow us to have CIR’s, whose introduction could settle issues such as abortion and euthanasia – and many others which cannot be dealt with democratically now. Contacting local MP’s only attracts the party line.

I, incidentally, have no personal interest in abortion and I hope to die peacefully in bed without the help of Dr. N. But I believe that it is outrageous that people’s rights when it comes to their own lives and bodies are denied them by the likes of John Howard and Kevin Rudd, and people like you

The true Christian voice of Love Your Neighbour was lost when Constantine took over Christianity, to be lost even more when the fake Donation of Constantine became the license not only for British colonialism, but also the freedom that George W Bush is trying to press on Iraq, with the US Green Zone possibly not designated part of the freedom.

Cheers, BB, WA.

I suspect the reason no one hear's this voice anymore is that the vocal 'moral minority' are shouting so loudly to convince us that THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO ARE RIGHT AND WE ARE ALL WRONG.

I think it's more too do with the neo-con-media connection.

Mr Right,

"...you have said absolutely nothing convincing." I didn't imagine I would move you from your pre-disposed position because you've got me pegged. A 'drone'. I'm one of those people who - despite their shortcomings and failures - believe in parliamentary democracies.

But "It is obvious that you think it’s OK for any government to do anything it wants to after it has been voted in by 51% of the electorate."

No I don't, as it happens. I believe in the concept of political platforms and policy mandates and I reasonably expect the government of the day to honour them. If they don't, I object and lobby and vote against them next time.

I don't know why you need to advocate citizen initiated referenda. After all, you know what I think now. "... you clearly believe that a government can do anything it wishes..." and "...it is outrageous that people’s rights when it comes to their own lives and bodies are denied them by the likes of John Howard and Kevin Rudd, and people like you."

So who needs my opinion? You know it already (but in fact Mr Right, on the issues you cite as having my support, you're quite the Mr Wrong).

MrRight is absolutely correct. Government regularly, consistently, imposes it's beliefs through force of law, onto the Australian people, rather than representing them in an honest manner. It's a destructive situation for the Australian people and it certainly is less democratic than it could be. Our leaders right now are too comfortable as they are career politicians who sought power and want to keep it from others.

CJM>"I imagine that the vast majority of Christians are just as appalled as we secular types are, at the tawdry and vicious tactics used by the purportedly Christian anti-abortion lobby during the recent Victorian debates.

CJM>Like several of the most vocal "Christians" who utilise this forum as a soapbox for the promulgation of hateful and bizarre ideas, these idiots give all Christians a bad name."

You're making a large misjudgement that has happened for long enough, CJM. I've spoken before on OLO about the threat of moderates (their irrelevance but private and secret loyalty is used to prop up the extremists). The important point is, in the end they are Christians and always side with the extremists (privately, publicly they may speak out but that is meaningless).

You can "imagine" all you want about the moderates, but that's all it is... Your imagining of a reality which is not actually true. All these moderates have no say within their religion...they actually ends up being just a concealment for the extremists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM

Spikey,

Wow! The deeper you get, the more incoherent you are.

I must apologise for responding to your uncalled- for, and totally inaccurate comment in the first place.

I will say no more. I don’t want to be responsible for any damage my opinions might do to your delicate condition. I guarantee not to upset you and make you look silly again.

Mr Right,

Your concern for your fellow citizens does you great credit!

I guarantee that your posts make me and my fellow posters look classy. And you haven't really had to try hard at all.